The DA should know enough by now that the cop was well withing his rights to cuff Brooks before he told him he was under arrest. In fact, people are cuffed many times without being arrested. To say somehow the cop violated "police policy" is absurd imo. He may very well was about to do that in his next breath but Brooks acted out.
The DA talks about Brooks before he started fighting, claiming he was calm, and joking. I agree, but that makes no difference. He still started fighting, so whatever happened before that is irrelevant. The DA claims Brooks was never a threat, cleverly referencing before the time when he started fighting, but never talked about after he started fighting.
That's like saying that because someone took his mother out to dinner before he murdered his girlfriend makes a difference.
When the DA cited Tn. v. Garner, he conveniently forgot to mention that cops can also shoot someone running away if he/she feels that person may cause death or severe personal harm to the public, not just the officer.
The "excited utterance" the cop used when he said "I got him" could have very well been said to ward off the other cop from shooting at Brooks, and therefore possibly harming an innocent bystander.
The DA entered that into the equation? Weak imo.
The DA claims a cop can't fire a tazer according to SOP While running. Law supersedes policy, but I looked at Atlanta's SOP, and I can't find that. If Tn.v. Garner claims a cop can shoot a fleeing suspect, then I believe if the suspect is fleeing, he may be running.
https://www.atlantapd.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=3273
True, the mayor concluded excessive force was used. She concluded that before the evidence was even presented.
The DA was clever when he said the "police department" also concluded the same. Who in the PD? He never mentioned the chief. I wonder why?
I'll continue with more. I don't want to make the post too long. It's too long is it is.