I'm not saying they shouldn't be hung out to dry, either. If this killing is deemed lawful, then the legal framework needs to change. Shooting a citizen in the back while they are fleeing should be allowed only in very rare and specific circumstances.
This is what makes this killing unjustifiable in my mind. What circumstances could warrant such a manner of shooting ? - armed with lethal weapon ? -history of violence/previous similar convictions ? -professed agenda of violent intent ( e.g terrorist ) ? None of the above apply to the victim. Question remains why the officer chose to use his firearm rather than taser and why he shot him in back like an execution rather than say, in the leg or arm to incapacitate him.
Just to chip in on a general point, if you're going the route of him being armed with a taser representing a lethal threat to the police/public, doesn't that raise a lot of questions about the police's own use of them as less lethal options, and particularly how...lets say frivolously, we've seen American officers using them? And then if we tie those two together, does it raise questions about what a civilians justified response to an unjustified use of the taser by an officer could/should be?
A couple reasons to the latter, but all picked up by reading and with no personal experience of shooting whatsoever so happy to be corrected: - Officers are trained to shoot centre mass. If he's shooting under adrenaline and instinct then it makes sense he'd resort to it - Even without training, I imagine most people would naturally shoot at the biggest target - Arm and leg shots are kind of a movie thing. They're hard to achieve under stress and against a moving target - Given their difficulty, they pose a fairly unacceptable risk of ricochets/hitting innocents etc should you miss. Sure in this case there might not be a bystander risk, but as a general rule its a concern, as it should be. - They have no guarantee of incapacitating even if you do hit them, so its taking a risky shot for no guaranteed results.
I think even those criteria are not enough. A suspect might be fleeing after a scuffle with police and legally carrying a firearm, so unless they show intent to use it I don't think just having one on one's person is enough to warrant shooting them in the back. History of violence again is dodgy if that is a spent conviction. The same laws of self-defence should apply to police as they do to civilians. As Southpaw said, using a firearm as a non-lethal option doesn't seem realistic or practical.
That's not how shooting people under duress works AFAIK. It's all or nothing. You either shoot at them and know you could kill them as a result or you don't shoot at them at all. There is no "pick a target" like there is on a shooting range. An exception might be a sniper with a very accurate weapon,a mostly static target and time to make the shot. Not for someone making split second life or death decisions with a hand gun and a moving target in a chaotic situation.
I would consider the use of a taser to be similar to the use of a choke or punch to KO someone. Not lethal in and of itself per se but should it work you are essentially incapacitated and at their mercy (provided they don't decide to run away instead).
I think we essentially agree on the fundamental point here. I agree the killing is tragic and would rather it have been avoided. (If it's come across like I'm saying "Brooks got what he deserved and good riddance," that was not my intent at all.) But given the preceding events from the officers' attempts to restrain him up to the point where the fatal shots were fired (especially the period from when Brooks took the Taser up to when he discharged it while trying to escape), I can understand why Rolfe opted for lethal force and I believe it was a justified use of force. Something to bear in mind is that the States have a fleeing felon rule. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 states that, "Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force." A guy willing to smash a cop in the face and even use a Taser on them sure sounds like someone not opposed to inflicting serious physical harm on others. This point is compounded when you consider Brooks's criminal past (false imprisonment, battery, cruelty to children, obstruction of a law enforcement officer, to name a few). I think his compliance up to the point of arrest is irrelevant. People don't have a right to resist arrest and flee, no matter how much they don't want to be arrested. Given Brooks's aggression toward the officers - and the fact he had already demonstrated a willingness to discharge a police officer's own weapon against them - I think there is enough evidence to reasonably believe he would have been willing to do it. Again, due to Rolfe had no way of knowing if he had been hit with the taser and likely fired instinctively. It wasn't a chance he could have taken. Adrenaline distorts perception, especially in a dynamic situation like a foot chase. The only person who knows what Brooks looked like when he held up the Taser was Rolfe. For all we know, Rolfe only saw a suspect holding up what looked like a weapon. I think most officers would have responded like he did in that moment. It doesn't matter if he didn't want to be arrested. He had no right to resist. And given the urgency with which he fought off the officers, it was clear he was desperate to escape. No one know to what lengths he may have gone to evade capture. So, what? Just let a man run off with a Taser? I agree. But in context of the current state of police procedures and training, I think it was a justified use of force.
I can't see "no-one knows" as a good reason to kill a citizen. Yep. Attempt to pursue to keep eyes on him until backup arrives. If he gets away then you have all his details to issue an arrest warrant. It's a taser. You could do more damage to someone with a brick. Give the cops a reprimand for losing government property and add theft to Brooks' charge. We'll see if it was legally justified, but in my eyes it wasn't morally justified.
“What the MSM is not telling the American people is that Brooks appears to have had a warrant out for his arrest. Per a search of his criminal record (although not confirmed and therefore may relate to a different Rayshard Brooks) it appears there was a fugitive warrant out for the arrest of Rayshard Brooks in December of 2019.” Not confirmed yet, might help to understand why they had no choice but to arrest him, and why he decided to run. Had he not shot back at the officer and kept running he might still be alive.
^ want to link your source for the info? It's worded as if it's a non mainstream media source? Edit: Found it, some of the other stories are.... Interesting. Haha, this is the authors bio "Joe Hoft is the twin brother of TGP's founder, Jim Hoft. His posts have been retweeted by President Trump and have made the headlines at the Drudge Report. Joe worked as a corporate executive in Hong Kong and traveled the world for his work, which gives him a unique perspective of US and global current events. He has ten degrees or designations and is the author of three books. His new book: 'In God We Trust: Not in Lying Liberal Lunatics' is out now - please take a look and buy a copy." REVEALED: Rayshard Brooks Struggled with Police, Stole Their Taser, Shot It At Police, Likely Because He Didn't Want to Go to Prison Based on Prior Record
Van, I do think Tennessee vs Garner is exactly what the officer (if charged in this case) would use as a defense, and he will probably win. All he needs to show is that the fleeing suspect was a physical danger to others. In Tennessee vs Garner the victim was unarmed. In this case you have a potentially intoxicated man fighting with two officers, stealing a weapon, trying to fire it, etc. The officer is in a decision point, do you let this violent guy run off, maybe hurt someone with it? No winners here as usual, but an important distinction. There's no indication of any racial bias in this particular case as far as I am aware. I think the cop had probable cause, and was only terminated to satiate the angry citizens of Atlanta, just like the resignation of the Chief who wasn't even involved. We will see. Would the situation have been different if the drunk guy who got violent and shot at cops was white? I personally doubt that.
It wouldn’t be front-page news, it would just be another statistic . The same had the officers been black. Ever noticed How encounters with officers are framed. The officers training is to protect his own life, it is also to protect his weapon. Not to allow it to fall into the hands of somebody who could possibly use it on him. Being incapacitated by whatever means tends to allow this to happen. Which is part of the deadly force continuum. It will be interesting to see what chargers they attempt to apply to the officers. So far they have not been charged.
How many in this thread have worked in a job that required them to carry firearms. I have. I think it’s either 21 or 18 feet. If someone enters that space and you do not draw your weapon you will not be able to before they get to you. People may not understand the officers are not only trying to subdue the suspect but they are also protecting their weapons from the suspect.
I hope that wasn't part of your training for the job, because you butchered it. The "21 foot rule" is a misnomer. It relates to the Tueller drill, and is something to be practiced, not a figure to be memorised. It is also not a set distance you need to shoot someone within. It is about reactionary gap - specifically the distance someone armed with an edged weapon can cover while the defender recognises them as a threat, draws their weapon and fires two shots to centre mass, if the defender stays stock still in the same spot. Imagine a world where anyone within 21 feet of police officer can be summarily executed because the officer imagines they might decide to pose a deadly threat to them. "Yes, I shot the unarmed kid in the back as she fled, but there was a rock nearby and I thought she might incapacitate me with it and take my weapon."
Can anyone tell me how many shots there are in one of those standard-issue Atlanta PD tasers? Is it more than one?
a "reactionary gap". Kinda like "if someone enters that space and you do not draw your weapon" It refers to any weapon within a given range that one could reasonable expected to be able react to a threat if needed if ones weapon was holstered.
One of the big takeaways from the different versions of the Teuller drill, AFAIK, is that you shouldn't stand in one spot while someone is running toward you and presume that you can stop them with a pistol in time. It is about drawing your weapon, it is not about shooting people while they are running away from you. Do you know how many shots those tasers have? Is it one?
So much to digest here as I haven't been on for the duration of this thread. My feelings on this subject: The police were not trained sufficiently to be allocated a firearm and/or taser. This isn't any use for the particular scenario, just an ongoing issue I believe should be addressed. In the heat of the moment, I can understand the officer felt under threat of life from what I saw, the suspect likely also felt under threat of life. Being attacked by their own weapon, I feel this is a double catalyst for an adrenaline dump, which makes further judgement difficult in the moment. They were running as they were shot. The last 2 points I feel are the conflicting items.
