GA - Rayshard Brooks, 27, fatally shot in Wendy’s car park, Atlanta, 12 Jun 2020 *officer charged*

[Tippy Lynn]

the
I think we have to look at the totality of the circumstances. The officer had backup, that is his partner was there and in active pursuit of the suspect. You must understand that anytime you carry a weapon on your person it can be taken away from you, but you must also know that officers have their guns in “retention holsters” that are somewhat proprietary to its user, that is it takes some effort and knowledge to disengage the gun from the holster. A gun in the hand though can much more easily be taken away. There was nothing I have seen to suggest that Mr, Brooks’ goal was anything but to escape.
If Mr.Brooks was running at the officer then yes, I can see the use of deadly force, since the officer had drawn his weapon And Brooks had resisted arrest even in a defensive way. I think the officer should not have drawn his weapon let alone fired it unless he thought Brooks had a firearm. We have not heard the officers side yet, so bear this in mind.
The very fact that Brooks was running away and acting in a defensive manner during almost all of the confrontation and had a taser not a firearm means lethal force was not justified. if only for the fact the officer had not drawn his gun there was no way Brooks could taze him get his gun out of its retention holster and use it before The officers partner could take action, which would be deadly force, and justified.

I have a permit to carry. I completely understand how it all works.
At this point, I think it’s probably best to leave it that we have different opinions on this case.

 

[katydid23]

Excellent question! I think a reasonable person would say that the officer knew it was a tazer. The tazer was identical to the one the officer was carrying and is bright yellow with a most distinctive shape. In fact in all probability he noticed it being taken away from his partner. Lets not forget about him.
But, the real question is when did the officer know the suspect had the tazer in his hand? If the officer saw the suspect running away with said tazer did he draw weapon after the tazer was pointed at him or before?

So if you throw or point anything whatsoever at an officer prepare to be met with deadly force. Is that right? I think you are going to have to explain that one a bit better.

The two cops had been very respectful and fair towards him for the first 10 minutes. No problems, no disrespect.

Then quite suddenly, the suspect became combative, when told he failed the sobriety test. He threw punches at the cops, scuffled with them, wrestled around, then grabbed the taser.

THAT^^^ right there is what amped up and escalated the incident. Right then the cops began fearing for their own lives because that is exactly how things go down when they end up shot by the suspects.

So yes, they already ran his license, and saw his long criminal history, which included violence. So there's that and it would make them more concerned.

Then, even though they were being considerate and respectful, he suddenly;y snapped and began fighting the cops, got a hold of the taser, then got away and began to flee.

So with all of that in context, YES, if you point a taser at the cop that you just punched, wrestled and fought with, in your attempt to run out into the public, where you are a violent threat to others--yes, 'prepare to be met with deadly force.'

The cops were making a legal and warranted arrest. If you are being arrested, you cannot punch a cop in the face and grab his taser and point it at him. NO, you cannot do that.

And I do now want to live in a society that says that is fine. 'let someone do that if they want'' Make the cop stand down and let suspects doing that'...NO, that is not the world I want to live in.

BLM is distorting this narrative about police and how they conduct themselves, IMO

 

[katydid23]

You cannot use deadly force on someone based on what you think they might do later. Mr.Brooks was a large athletic man, he would not need a taser if he really wanted to hurt someone.

Yes, you can. it's held up in court hundreds of times.
What do you mean he didnt need the taser? Why did he fight so hard to get it if he didn't need it?

Sure, he is a big man but he was drunk and stupid. That makes him even more dangerous.

 

[katydid23]

My first question would be is a tazer a lethal weapon? Secondly, I would ask if the officer thought he was going to be tazed would he reasonably believe that he would be rendered helpless and thus at the mercy of Mr. Brooks ? Keeping in mind that up until that point Mr. Brooks’ sole intention appears to be escaping. Dont forget about the other officer, he is important too.

The suspect was drunk and volatile. So obviously both cops were at a disadvantage.

You don't think the cops were super cautious and highly aware of the power keg situation, in dealing with a drunk black man in a physical fight?

They did not want to shoot their weapons. It's the last thing they wanted to do. All cops know their lives are severely impacted, if not ruined, if they do so, even when justified.

But in spite of their calm respectful attitude, this suspect suddenly became combative. Cops are people. That is a frightening situation, even if there were two of them. MANY cops have died while they had back ups with them at the time.

If his sole intention was escaping, why did he turn around and shoot the taser at the cop?

The officers were making a warranted arrest, the suspect became physically combative, stole a taser and shot it at one officer, while attempting to go out into the neighborhood, drunk and with a dangerous weapon. He had a violent criminal history. The cops couldn't allow him to flee into the public with the weapon. I applaud them and I hope they are offered better jobs where people appreciate their service and sacrifice.

This so called victim was a violent criminal who made some very poor choices that ended his life. IMO

 

[katydid23]

Why did the police chief resign over this?

BLM pressure, IMO

 

[katydid23]

So if you resist arrest for any reason, you are likely to be killed? I think you really need to think about that one.

It's not resisting arrest---it is felony assault on an officer, and a taser is considered a lethal weapon in GA, I believe.

 

[SugarQueen]

Assuming the autopsy actually shows he was shot in the back I’m not surprised. It should be obvious to everyone how that would happen in this case.
Mr Brooks took everything in a direction it didn’t need to go. HE chose to resist arrest. HE chose to fight the cops. HE chose to take the tazer. HE chose to run. HE chose to deploy the tazer at the officer. Mr Brooks caused the entire situation that led up to him getting shot.
We need to STOP sacrificing our law enforcement officers to appease a select group.
Cops should NOT be expected to be targets. They want to go home at night. They DESERVE to go home at night.

 

[katydid23]

I appreciate your opinion. What could come out that we dont know yet? The officer was fired and might be charged, Mr. Brooks is dead. So, l guess it will just be what the officers might say or perhaps more video evidence. I am curious though about how adamant you and so many others are that lethal force was justified. I am pretty sure the police themselves have not finished investigating the case.

It's a split second decision. Someone has been fighting with you, trying to get your weapon, and you are in a life and death struggle at that time. Cops are trained to see this kind of struggle as life or death because it is the type of situation that kills many officers.

So I am adamant that it was justified because the officer was fighting for his life at that point. The suspect had suddenly attacked them, physically and stole a weapon from them, ans then turned and pointed it at one officer. At that point he has a split second to decide what to do next.

He could let the guy run off, but then he has to tell his superior that a drunk felon with a violent criminal history ran into the neighborhood with a stolen taser. That is not a good option. Now he is putting others at risk too.

Once that drunk assailant came at him with the stolen weapon, the officer had the legal right to defend himself. Officers can elevate to a higher level of force.

You and I can't do that. It is illegal. But officers have that right because we give them a badge which gives them the right to use force. The citizen was out of control and made his own poor decisions that night. Silly games bring silly prizes.

 

[Trident]

You cannot use deadly force on someone based on what you think they might do later. Mr.Brooks was a large athletic man, he would not need a taser if he really wanted to hurt someone.

The same, if not more could be said of Mike Brown in Ferguson, yet it was all "unarmed man" and "hands up . . .", the same crap we hear touted today. These are 2 different cases I know, but you cannot have it both ways.

Brooks broke away from 2 officers, ran, then turned and shot the taser at the officer. He did not have love in his heart and if the officer feared for his life I can understand that, I would have, and how many partners or backup officers have watched the other officer die? Lots of them. No lawbreaker on the run with a taser is safe - for anyone. When are we going to stop making excuses for the actions of some people? When are we going to stop hobbling the police from doing their job. Just what were they supposed to do when Brooks fought then ran off, after trying to tase the officer? Were they supposed to yell "stop" and hope for the best? IMO Brooks was very definitely a threat, both to the officer and the public at large. A violent drunk with a taser - just what we need running amok.

MY OPINION ONLY, OF COURSE

 

[katydid23]

Assuming the autopsy actually shows he was shot in the back I’m not surprised. It should be obvious to everyone how that would happen in this case.
Mr Brooks took everything in a direction it didn’t need to go. HE chose to resist arrest. HE chose to fight the cops. HE chose to take the tazer. HE chose to run. HE chose to deploy the tazer at the officer. Mr Brooks caused the entire situation that led up to him getting shot.
We need to STOP sacrificing our law enforcement officers to appease a select group.
Cops should NOT be expected to be targets. They want to go home at night. They DESERVE to go home at night.

Right. He turned towards the cop when he shot the taser at the cop, then quickly turned his back. The cop decided to shoot when the suspect turned toward him and shot the taser, but by the time the bullet was released, they guy had turned again.

 

[katydid23]

Know I’ve done a bit of rolling around on the ground myself and I do see grappling but its what is termed,”defensive resistance” by Mr. Brooks anyway, he does Not appear to throw any punches, grab hair, bite or cause great harm to the officers, he is resisting arrest in a defensive manner and his sole purpose appears to be to escape.
Shirts can be easily torn if you are grappling with someone, btw.

Do you think cops will give him extra credit points for not biting or pulling hair?

He was actively reaching into the holsters, grabbing for weapons. That is a FELONY.

Resisting arrest in a defensive manner? What does that mean? This was a lawful arrest. He was behind the wheel of his car while being drunk.

Are cops not supposed to arrest drunk drivers if they 'resist defensively' and don't bite or pull hair?

 

[katydid23]

I too wish that we knew more about the reasons given for the officers firing and the chief quitting.

He was trying to get away from the officers, why, i dont know. I’ve done somethings i wished I had not. The officer gets to go home to his family, Mr. Brooks does not.

The officers deserved to go home to their families that night. They were calm and respectful towards this drunk driver. They did not do anything out of line.

He was the one that crossed the line, many lines in fact. He has a history of poor choices, this is not some out of character bad night. He has been convicted of violent actions several times.

So he knew exactly what he was doing when he started throwing haymakers at the cops. It was his own bad choices that kept him from going home that night.


As for the question of why the chief resigned and the officer was immediately fired---I think it is pretty obvious that the city officials are intimidated by BLM and are afraid their beautiful city is going to burn. They are sacrificing the officer, even though he followed his training, for the sake of the city at large. JMO MOO IMO

 

[Simply Southern]

Is it this one?
How Rayshard Brooks Was Fatally Shot by the Atlanta Police

How Rayshard Brooks Was Fatally Shot by the Atlanta Police

Thank you!!! It clearly shows the tazer was fired at the officer.

 

[Simply Southern]

People are found guilty of a crime in a court of law not on a public discussion forum. Besides, it doesn’t matter, what should really concern you is whether or not his constitutional rights were violated. One thing leads to another...

I thought both officers were very respectful. The first officer tried to wake him up and was prepared to leave. When he had to return a second time, to try and awake him again. Moo...from watching both videos a couple of times.

What constitutional right do you feel was violated?

 

[katydid23]

As an aside,

How is that relevant as to whether or not Mr.Brooks’ rights were violated?

Mr Brooks rights violated?

The officers are human beings as well. What about their rights?

You seem to minimise the violence that was inflicted upon them, when this drunk decided he didn't want too be lawfully arrested. The coops were well within their rights and were being respectful and polite.

The suspect was the one violating their rights. They did nothing wrong and he just went ham on them for no reason other than he didn't want another arrest on his record.

Brooks is the one that escalated this into physical combat. Not the officers.

If you start throwing punches at the cops and start grabbing at their weapons, you are entering lethal force territory really quickly.

 

[Keefer]

News just announced that Mr. Brooks was shot twice in the back while running away.

 

[Keefer]

I thought both officers were very respectful. The first officer tried to wake him up and was prepared to leave. When he had to return a second time, to try and awake him again. Moo...from watching both videos a couple of times.

What constitutional right do you feel was violated?

4th amendment to the constitution

 

[Simply Southern]

Politics and current events do rile ones emotions, but I am trying to look at a bigger picture and trying to make justice the ultimate arbitrator of my reasoning. I think things need to change as they clearly cannot continue on this path much longer. Law enforcement can change And I believe without endangering public safety, in fact I think it will be better for it.

How should law enforcement change?

Should LE not protect the innocent? Those driving on the same road as an impaired person could loose their life.

LE are employed to uphold the laws of our land and protect the innocent. Some choose to make the choice to resist arrest and assault an officer, they risk the consequences which could risk their life.

 

[shotgun09]

It seems to me at least, that Mr Brooks sadly never learned a valuable lesson in life.....Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[Keefer]

Right. He turned towards the cop when he shot the taser at the cop, then quickly turned his back. The cop decided to shoot when the suspect turned toward him and shot the taser, but by the time the bullet was released, they guy had turned again.

He was shot twice in the back while running away after attempting to use a non lethal weapon.