I don't see a realistic prospect of a conviction here. Not of murder, anyway. I think the DA may even be gambling on being able to claim the lack of a murder conviction on the jury. And it does matter that the DA's decision was politically motivated - this should be about justice, not appeasing folk who are mad because the police were doing their job. The other officer's lawyer has denied agreeing to be a witness.
I go back to my earlier point. Rolfe likely feared being incapacitated and having his pistol taken. The law states that officers can shoot a suspect they genuinely believe poses an immediate threat of serious harm - the possibility of getting tased and shot with your own weapon sure fits that bill. Of course, there are people who would insist Brooks had removed Rolfe's sidearm from its holster and declared he was about to shoot before being eligible to be shot himself. Whole damn thing is a circus.
They're elected, so everything they do is politically motivated, more or less. Justice isn't served in the DA's office, it is served in court.
If it's a single shot item, and it's already been shot, then there is no ongoing threat. That's seems to be where the two sides in this discussion disagree.
"Under Georgia law, a taser is considered a deadly weapon. Bond for each of the officers is set at $10,000, and the officers have until June 5 to turn themselves in, Howard said. Gardner and Streeter were both fired from the Atlanta Police Department on Sunday. Howard said he was unsure how long the officers would serve if convicted, but he guessed that, if sentenced, they would serve between five and eight years." Atlanta DA Issues Warrants for the Arrest of 6 Police Officers | Heavy.com The same DA, now saying the officers reaction wasn't justified. The guy missed when he fired the taser at the officer. "Taser “is classified as a ‘non-lethal’ weapon,” Haas said. He was using a term the company employed to describe its signature product until the mid-2000s, when it transitioned to “less-lethal.” Special Report: As Taser warns of more risks, cities bear a burden in court
The tazer was empty when they shot him. If it's empty, then the threat is no longer there. Do you disagree?
True, but the DA forms part of the criminal justice system and he has a duty to uphold the integrity of that system. There is no integrity in the filing of these charges.
Rolfe fired immediately in response to Brooks firing the Taser. Literally within a second. Rolfe impacted with a parked red car the moment Brooks fired at him so it isn't unreasonable to say he probably felt like he'd been hit. Ultimately, there wasn't enough time for him to assess the situation and realise he hadn't been hit. It was a highly dynamic situation and to say he should have known right there and then that Brooks was no longer a threat is absurd.
That's the line the DA is taking, surely when someone has been involved with a homicide, and it's debatable, it should go to court. I'm not saying he's a murderer, but I am saying it needs to go to court. Unless you think the American justice system is biased?
The idea that policing is not political is ridiculous to me. The police protect the public according to the laws penned by elected representatives. Who would trust an internal police review of this at this time? Presumably an innocent citizen's car being hit would be grounds enough for that, irrespective of how justified the killing of Brooks might be. I think you could argue that murder is an inappropriate charge, but I don't see a valid argument against this being decided in court.
"In announcing the charges Brooks revealed disturbing details about the incident. Howard revealed that Rolfe knew the taser Brooks took from him was not functional, as it had already been fired twice and thus was of no use when he shot Brooks twice in the back as he was running away." "The detailunderscores that Rolfe was apparently aware he was in no physical danger when he fatally shot Brooks. Cameras also captured Rolfe kicking Brooks as he was on the ground struggling for his life." Rayshard Brooks shooting: Atlanta officer charged with felony murder Interesting.
The DA's statement Well that's not true because you see the Taser light up and discharge on the video. Rolfe ducks to avoid it, which is partly why he fell into the parked car. This DA had been inconsistent in many parts of his statements. He claimed Rolfe kicked Brooks after he'd been shot, but all he's shown viewers is a still from a video where Rolfe has one leg planted and the other leg bent. He could have been leaning down to try to give him first aid, or he could have been evaluating whether he needed handcuffs. Reports from the incident show that the officers gave Brooks CPR, monitored his pulse, talked to him to try and keep him breathing and called for medical assistance. The DA also said that Officer Brosnan has agreed to testify against Rolfe, which was something he's never seen before. Two things wrong with this: 1) Brosnan has flat out denied saying that, and 2) Rolfe himself testified on behalf of the DA in a grand jury against another officer. I absolutely do believe cases like these need to be fully investigated by an unbiased third party. That's the job of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, who themselves issued a statement saying they were surprised by the DA's press conference, that they did not consult on the charges, and that they are still investigating (see my earlier post for more details on this). The DA is at the very least premature in filing charges against Rolfe.
And since backgrounds are now fair game: Revealed: officer who killed Rayshard Brooks accused of covering up 2015 shooting The Atlanta police officer who shot and killed Rayshard Brooks was accused of covering up an earlier shooting he and other officers participated in, according to a judge who reviewed the case. Looks like this isn't a back and white case, if you excuse the pun.
We must be watching a different video. I saw someone fighting with two officers who were not trying to harm him in affecting an arrest, steal a Tayser, and then try to use it on the officer pursuing him getting shot in the process.
Those two statements arnt the opposite to each other. What's up for debate is the exact order that happened. Whereas you don't seem to care about the order.
Watching the video(s), we see Officer Brosnan putting the Taser directly to Brooks's leg, so he's using the 'drive stun' mode. No projectiles appear to have been fired by Brosnan. Brooks then takes the Taser and holds onto it until he runs, turns and fires it at Rolfe. We see the end of the Taser light up and there's a ripple through the air, indicating that the bolts and cables were discharged. That means the Taser was still a threat. I'll wait until we from the GBI at the conclusion of their investigation before I change my stance on this point. The statement from the DA doesn't hold much weight at the moment, because he's side-stepped an active and ongoing investigation to announce charges against Rolfe. So him saying the Taser wasn't a threat is, at the moment, about as trustworthy as Trump saying he never lied a day in his life.
In I think interesting news, officers have essentially gone on strike over the charges. Have seen other comments saying officers are refusing to answer calls in the same area as the shooting, but a cursory glance didn't throw up any proper journalism on that score https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/18/atlanta-rayshard-brooks-walkout/
God knows I hate citing the Daily Mail. But this article provides an insight into his motivations for resisting arrest so strongly. Rayshard Brooks was on probation awaiting result of DUI charge | Daily Mail Online
