You cannot let someone run away with a taser, when you KNOW they have parole violations. When they in violation of parole, you have to arrest them.
What would they have done to these cops if they did that?
P.O. Brosnan suffered a concussion in the scuffle where his taser was stolen.
P.O. Devin Brosnan got tased from his own taser- during the scuffle before Mr. Brooks ran away with it. So it was not just a threat when he pointed it at P.O. Rolfe. He had already zapped the other cop with it. P.O. Rolfe shot Mr. Brooks AFTER he punched P.O. Brosnan in the head, took his police taser and tased- Officer Brosnan with it.
[Edited on 6/18/2020 by gina]
[Edited on 6/18/2020 by gina]
A jury is going to have a difficult time with this one.
You cannot let someone run away with a taser, when you KNOW they have parole violations. When they in violation of parole, you have to arrest them.
What would they have done to these cops if they did that?
In light of recent history and the current state of relations between African-American men and the police - I am guessing that they likely might've experienced a (very) brief dressing-down (for losing the taser) followed by a pat on the back and an attaboy.
This has become a very complicated issue. Someone mentioned how surprised Rayshard Brooks must've been when the 'cuffs came out. I'm sure the officers were surprised at his sudden resistance. NO! I am not defending the cops! Brooks should've at least been allowed to leave his car and walk home. I think it would've been neighborly and community-serving had the cops gone as far as to offer Brooks a RIDE home. Nobody (including police officers) should get a pass for shooting someone in the back.
An aside: probably due to our ever-increasing population (baby boomers) - it seems like we've had to "accept" a lot of teachers, nurses, doctors and police officers who might've fallen short of requirements and expectations even 10 years ago. Most all of these professions should be (in my own feeble mind) "CALLINGS" rather than jobs or careers.
In the case of police officers - this seems to have become a "roll-over" job for folks coming right out of the military. I suppose the rationale is that if you can keep the citizens of rogue nations at bay - you can control more docile Americans. Most all employ techniques that they could get away with in places like Bagdad or Charikar (sp?) because nobody was looking.
In Ga, it's a DUI if you are "operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle". I guess they use the phrase "under physical control" as you being anywhere you could start and drive the vehicle.
The GA statute includes the word moving.
Well, moving or just behind the wheel in park, Brooks and the car got there somehow. So unless the theory is he drove to Wendy's, parked, and crushed a few beers, it's fair to assume that he drove inebriated at some point. Like I said earlier, cops are enforcers of the law and have less latitude on what to let pass. Had they let Brooks go, who is to say he couldn't have sneaked back to his car later? None of that excuses the excessive force, but I don't think Brooks was going to just walk home.
None of that excuses the excessive force, but I don't think Brooks was going to just walk home.
Actually, he was. According to the video footage, the cop woke Brooks & directed him to drive a short distance & park his car in a spot. He's then asked to get out of the car & remains cooperative. After 38 minutes & before he takes the breathalyzer, he asks if he can leave his car in the spot & walk a short distance to his sister's house. Brooks never gives any indication that he intended to drive that night.
This is the point where cops have discretion. I said this earlier & a University of Pittsburgh law professor asked to analyze the tape said the cops could've chosen not to even bother w/a breathalyzer. He'd been standing, conversing, & polite for 40 minutes. They could've said OK, leave the car there, call someone to pick you up, or call an uber. "Nobody says he has to make an arrest here. The law does not require it.'”
Three law professors agree that a 40-minute detainment of Brooks could've led to nothing, a traffic summons, or a choice to escalate. They chose not only to escalate, but to use deadly force & fire into a line of civilian traffic (for which they are charged).
My only point is that the officers had a choice & they made one that killed a man.
I agree, officers could have escorted him to his sister's house as he suggested. It depends on whether the officers are enforcing the intent of the law or the letter, and in this case they enforced the letter since he had probably already driven. My point is they did have cause to arrest him, even if they didn't have to. And even after he resisted, they still had no cause to use excessive force as he ran away from them.
[Edited on 6/19/2020 by porkchopbob]
I read there were other people in the car with him. If so, one of them could have driven. If not someone could have called him a cab. It did not have to go down like this. He could have parked in the back of the lot, sacked out till morning, then drove home. It just escalated with a tragic ending.
[Edited on 6/23/2020 by gina]
Why have y’all given up on this so quickly? No mention of Natalie White? Was she mentioned being in the vehicle by Brooks during his interview with the officer? Did she have a relation w/ Brooks & the arson of the Wendy’s buildings? Why was she referred to as Brooks “girlfriend” by her attorney? Why did the family attorney avoid knowledge of her existence once she was arrested for torching the Wendy’s bldng? How could this be corroborated by both the NY Post and Atl Urinal &Constipation?
