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

[oviedo]

What if the taser disabled the officer and he was able to get the gun and shoot both officers - what conversation would we be having ? The minute he took the weapon he became responsible
IMO

 

[Cryptic]

I agree.
What I got from the Mayor's statement was that he "was able" to shoot, meaning it was justified.
She knows this, She's just playing politics , and I believe that's why the chief quit IMO.
If he was allowed to, then why did she twist it and say it was unjustified?

I give her more credit.

I think the difference between merely justifiable (non criminal) uses of deadly force verse truly justified (ethical) use of deadly force has existed for a while

My guess is that the Mayor was applying this difference: Shooting might be non criminal, but also not ethical by department standards.

 

[Rocky1]

The simplest truth IMO..... Brooks took what could have been a few hours of sleeping it off and escalated it by resisting, and fighting the officers. Brooks then stole the tazer, firing it at the officer while running. Brooks, and Brooks alone decided how this was going to go.
Moo, IMO, and all that jazz.

Resisting arrest for any reason, isn't a smart idea at all .You'll end up being arrested one way or another regardless if 20 other cops are called to the scene, or you end up dead.Once a cop decides to arrest you, nothing you do or say will change his/her mind.
It's always better to not resist, and have your day in court. Resisting does nothing but compound the issue.

 

[squareandrabbet]

Very true.

It should be added that responsible fire arms instructors also stress that threatening situations need to be truly threatening and cannot be based on the broad and fuzzy "If I say I was threatened, then I was" type "reasoning".

One instructor in my area does not even teach "Stand Your Ground" as he fears people will misapply the concept and think that they can start trawling for confrontations. Likewise, he teaches that having a weapons permit does not give anyone arrest authority, nor does it make one a "block warden" of sorts.

Rather, his special tactic is to simply leave when ever possible. Of course, it is not always possible to leave.... .

yes, and it especially ("leave whenever possible") doesn't help us here, because Rayshard Brooks' decision to try to leave the situation to avoid it escalating, wasn't an option because he was literally at that point in time being, at minimum, (1) a public nuisance; and (2), resisting arrest. The police officers also couldn't up and leave, so...?

 

[Cryptic]

yes, and it especially ("leave whenever possible") doesn't help us here. The police officers also couldn't up and leave, so...?

Very true, law enforcement cannot leave.

The instructor in question trains civilians wanting a weapons permit. He does not train police officers. There is a world of difference between being an LEO engaged in law enforcement activities and a civilian armed for self defense.

 

[SugarQueen]

.OT but I’d like to take a second to thank our moderator SillyBilly !

 

[kaen]

Guilty until proven innocent is their new norm. What a world!!

I guess this is what it comes to when there is not a balance in how police shootings are handled. Any number of people who have been wrongly killed by police were basically given the same treatment. Something has to change. Officers have to be safe and able to defend themselves. The people they are hired to protect and serve also have to believe that they will be treated fairly and come out of the encounter alive. We are at an inflection point on these issues. Let's hope it can all become much more focused on justice.

 

[SugarQueen]

I wish none of this ever happened, but it did. Once Brooks stole the tazer and ran, firing it at the officer there weren’t a lot of options . Sadly, he set the course for this mess.

 

[JerseyGirl]

Rayshard Brooks death: Lawyers beg for police to be charged | Daily Mail Online

Erika Shields, the Atlanta Police Chief, resigned after the video surfaced but she has not commented publicly on the incident.

Atlanta Mayor Keisha Bottoms said it was 'heartbreaking' and that she wished the officers had simply let Brooks call a friend to come to pick him up.

'This has been hard and it has really been difficult for me to put aside my own anger and sadness during this time and really be able to articulate what our communities need to hear."

'What can you say? I've watched the bodycam video, I watched it for 30 minutes.

'I watched the interaction with Mr. Brooks and it broke my heart.

'When they talk about his daughter's birthday party that he was planning for... this is not confrontational.

'This was a guy that you were rooting for.

'Even knowing the end, watching, you're going, "just let him go. Let him go. Let him call somebody to pick him up."

'I think that's the challenge we're all facing as leaders right now. When these things continue to happen over and over again, we're asking ourselves, how do we lead at this time?

'We will get to the other side of this but in the meantime we've got to keep pushing,' she said.

 

[Curiosity1234]

The Medical Examiner has determined this case is a homicide so i imagine the officer will be arrested and charged.

It's a sad state of affairs when a police officer is fired and charged (in this particular case) in the death of a criminal when he is doing his job of upholding the law.

 

[SugarQueen]

Well, if so many are saying they should have had him call someone to pick him up, or they should have let him go should LE no longer arrest someone for DWI/DUI?

 

[Simply Southern]

Firing him immediately was a huge mistake. It just added fuel to the fire and helped convince the rioters that he was in the wrong. Apparently they don't do an investigations anymore into incidents. If you shoot someone---you get fired---investigation to follow.

Yup, they clearly didn't follow standard procedures for an officer involved incident.

Hopefully, Officer Rolfe will be represented by the best of the best attorneys. I hope it hurts, to write the check to officer Rolfe for unjust termination.

Yup, the knee jerk reactions of the mayor is gonna cost the tax payers of Atlanta, big time. No amount of money will cover the pain and anguish, officer Rolfe will experience,

MOO...

 

[shotgun09]

Yup, the knee jerk reactions of the mayor is gonna cost the tax payers of Atlanta, big time. No amount of money will cover the pain and anguish, officer Rolfe will experience,

MOO...

Added to this, the pain and anguish ( lawlessness and recklessness) the law abiding citizens of Atlanta will experience.

 

[wendybtn]

Agreed.
I think that maybe Mr.Brooks having failed the sobriety test knew he was going to be fined or possibly some time in lockup --and dam*it , he wasn't having it !

The DM of course has to go and say that his daughter's 8th birthday was just a week ago.

(He was a good family man ; never mind that he was sleeping one off at Wendy's and the employees who called LE were not allowing just anyone to crash at their restaurant/parking lot --which is generally reserved for paying customers !)

Policemen and women have children, too.
Just saying.

If Mr. Brooks had died in his car from whatever reason because no one called 911 to check on him, the Wendy's probably would have burned down anyway. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

 

[oviedo]

Isn't the usual protocol to place them on administrative leave while they investigate the shooting? I don't know how GA / Atlanta protocols work.
JMO

 

[Cryptic]

Hopefully, Officer Rolfe will be represented by the nest of the best attorneys. I hope it hurts, to write the check to officer Rolfe for unjust termination.

As the Mayor seems firm about the termination, there will never be a check sent out. The best attorneys will probably not even take the case as it will not be anywhere near efficient cost effectiveness wise.

1-800 Sue Them attorneys lust for quick and easy pay outs. This means that they hardly ever sue governments- except in situations where they think the government might be inclined to settle voluntarily.

Governments have sovereign immunity. This makes forcibly collecting any kind of Court award pretty much de facto impossible.

Governments can decide to voluntarily abide by a court decision or process (any such agreement is subject to retraction at at any time, for any reason). They can also decide to take a Court award as "advisory" and make a counter offer. Or, they can decide to simply ignore the Court.

With perhaps very rare exceptions aside, Governments can not be forced to pay anybody anything for any reason that they don't want to. My guess is that any potential award for the officer is going to fall strongly in the "don't want to" category.

 

[Charlot123]

'are we to shoot all of our alcoholics and addicts?'

Only if they shoot at us first.

He wasn't shot for being drunk.

Look, I am looking at the video, the beginning, when both of these guys look at each other, showing empty hands. It started normally. And I am asking, what the heck?

I am not blaming the officer. I think the decision when a drunk guy has to be put in shackles and brought to jail was probably the "typical" one but not the only one.

They had everything to prove he was drunk. Call home, bring someone in to drive him, and slap him with the fine for drunk sleeping and maybe, the cost of towing the car. Make him go to AA, a year of AA, the Book and 12 steps will be really a bad punishment. Or drive him home, if you are really nice.

Now, with all the losses due to this case, I am trying to find out if there are better ways of conflict resolution.

 

[oviedo]

Look, I am looking at the video, the beginning, when both of these guys look at each other, showing empty hands. It started normally. And I am asking, what the heck?

I am not blaming the officer. I think the decision when a drunk guy has to be put in shackles and brought to jail was probably the "typical" one but not the only one.

They had everything to prove he was drunk. Call home, bring someone in to drive him, and slap him with the fine for drunk sleeping and maybe, the cost of towing the car. Make him go to AA, a year of AA, the Book and 12 steps will be really a bad punishment. Or drive him home, if you are really nice.

Now, with all the losses due to this case, I am trying to find out if there are better ways of conflict resolution.

I"m curious if the alcohol effects were wearing off and that's why he grabbed the taser? He was becoming sober?? Will they release his BAC I wonder?
IMO

 

[Cryptic]

I am not blaming the officer. I think the decision when a drunk guy has to be put in shackles and brought to jail was probably the "typical" one but not the only one.

Call home, bring someone in to drive him, and slap him with the fine for drunk sleeping and maybe, the cost of towing the car. Make him go to AA, a year of AA, the Book and 12 steps will be really a bad punishment. Or drive him home, if you are really nice.

Some of those options are not really options. It probably takes an awful lot of serious convictions like DWIs to force somebody to go to AA meetings.

Likewise, as MADD can attest to, Drunk Driving is serious (yes, being passed out from alcohol behind the wheel of a car is drunk driving). MADD | Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Giving him a ticket for say, Public Intoxication and a nice ride home may sound like a good idea, but is not going to be much a detterence to drunk driving. It may also disrespect some of the victim's families.

In sort, the guy needed to be arrested for drunk driving. He did not need a ticket, a ride home, a social worker appointment, or a hug. He also did not need to get shot in my opinion either. But, that is a separate matter.

 

[Simply Southern]

As the Mayor seems firm about the termination, there will never be a check sent out. The best attorneys will probably not even take the case as it will not be anywhere near efficient cost effectiveness wise.

1-800 Sue Them attorneys lust for quick and easy pay outs. This means that they hardly ever sue governments- except in situations where they think the government might be inclined to settle voluntarily.

Governments have sovereign immunity. This makes forcibly collecting any kind of Court award pretty much de facto impossible.

Governments can decide to voluntarily abide by a court decision or process (any such agreement is subject to retraction at at any time, for any reason). They can also decide to take a Court award as "advisory" and make a counter offer. Or, they can decide to simply ignore the Court.

With perhaps very rare exceptions aside, Governments can not be forced to pay anybody anything for any reason that they don't want to. My guess is that any potential award for the officer is going to fall strongly in the "don't want to" category.

I seen many cities award money under settlements for wrongful death, discrimination and other incidents.

Not going to debate, but my attorney friends are laughing at a city that's already in financial straights.

The officer has a contract. Federal labor standards apply to all city, state or federal. This is clearly racial discrimination, when a mayor makes a decision to fire a white cop without investigation. The courts can rule to reinstate his job with back pay. Hope Ms mayor has good liability insurance.

My city settled a discrimination lawsuit by a white female, HS principle because the new superintendent wanted a black male. Yea, he stated to the local newspaper, even went on two television stations grouting his new mission. Bit him in the butt big time.

The law is the law, no one is exempted.