Police shooting in Atlanta aka "Sir, this is a Wendy's drive-through"

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...how can he be certain the guy didn't have a gun?

Right, police are so used to imagining black guys have guns that even when one steals a taser right in front of him, he still thinks it's a gun and shoots him in the back while he's running away. That makes sense.

 

[southernhybrid]

I totally agree. I actually read about the man who was killed because I always wonder about the people who the victim left behind. This particular man had a wife and three little girls. He was also helping raise his step son, had a full time job at a Mexican restaurant, where his coworkers loved him. They said that he was always the first person to arrive at the start of the day and that he was a hard worker. His family and friends are devastated by what happened. Afaik, he didn't have a criminal background. He appears to be a gentle person who did try to get along with the police when he was initially questioned.

Look upthread. This is a guy who got 7 years over a domestic violence incident involving at least one child. His family is probably better off without him.

I looked at Derec's link but there were several things that made me suspicious. First of all the link had this:"His Sentence Begin Date is April 1, 2001 His Sentence End Date is March 31, 2003. His Max Possible Release Date will be December 31, 2002, giving him credit for time served in jail from the date of his arrest to the date of his sentencing".

He would have been 8 years old in 2001. Are we talking about the same person?

Then, it said he was given a 7 year sentence in 2013, and yet there were several other charges in 2014 and 2016. How was that possible if he was given a 7 year sentence in 2013? That doesn't make sense. So, I'm skeptical of the information especially when I couldn't find anything about him mentioned in any of the numerous articles written about him in news sources.

But, even if he did have a criminal history, that didn't give the cop the right to kill him by shooting him in the back.

If he did something in 2013, he was only 20. Do you not think that people often change once they reach actual adulthood? Our brains aren't even totally developed until around age 25.

I don't think we really know the history of this man since what was on the link seemed to contradict itself. But, I'll say it again. Having a criminal history doesn't give the police the right to shoot you in the back because you're running away out of fear.

I know a white man who was charged with child abuse in my small city, about an hour from Atlanta. He was given counseling. The charges, assuming they were accurate didn't mention the nature of the child abuse. It's still, unfortunately, very common in the south for parents to beat their children. Sometimes it takes educating them about the proper way to treat children, as they are often just doing what their own parents did during the decades when it was perfectly legal to beat the shit out of your kids with a belt or switch.

All I know is that his family loved him as did his friends. If he was guilty of child abuse at age 20, I have no doubt that he could have learned his lesson by age 27, so I find your comment to be very biased since we really don't know the facts.

 

[Treedbear]

The cop was in no imminent danger from a suspect who was now running away after having pointed a non lethal weapon at him. You're almost making it sound as if the cop were out for retaliation - and thereby making a perfectly good case that her should be charged for manslaughter and never be working in the police force again.

a so-called "nonleathal" weapon is only nonleathal in the hands of a trained professional. nonleathal does not mean "not at all dangerous to the safety of others".

In the video one can see that the suspect turned towards the cop and fired the taser. The shot appears to have gone high, over the cops head. However, the movements of the officer appear to me to imply the taser wires fell on him after the darts passed over him, delivering a partial charge to the cops head. Firing a taser into a cops face should result in a bullet to your head, in my opinion. a ten thousand volt burst to your head is not nonleathal. That is why they are used by professionally trained individuals that deliver the charge to center of mass so that the body can absorb the shock and stop the leg and arm muscles from moving momentarily. Not explode a person's eyeballs by shocking their brain directly.
That said, the "I feared for my life" defense that cops use as a blanket excuse for otherwise unlawful shootings needs to be amended... once used, it may should keep a cop out of jail, but then also disqualify you to continue being a police officer, on the account of being too much a fucking pussy to do the job safely. So cops can trade their careers (and be permanently banned from owning handguns) for that one time defense... or take the "justified shooting" stance and risk their freedom on a jury's call.

When was the last time that happened? Besides that little detail, the officer isn't authorized to be the judge, jury and executioner. Authorization to use force needs to be based on prevention of imminent harm in proportion to the likelihood and severity of that possibility. This was a failure to reasonably take that into account. And the reason whites are joining the protests now is that the problem is obviously systemic in that the cops are being trained to rely on the use of force as retribution. That hasn't worked since 1776.

 

[ruby sparks]

However, the movements of the officer appear to me to imply the taser wires fell on him after the darts passed over him, delivering a partial charge to the cops head..

I reviewed the footage again a few times, including in slo-mo, and I don’t think that’s what happened. I think what we see is the cop throw his taser to the ground in order to pull and shoot his gun. Yes, he does seem to fall to the left (onto the trunk of a parked car) after firing (?). I hadn’t noticed that before. Possibly he was trying to avoid the wires falling on or hitting him.

That said, what you think you saw could be claimed in court. It doesn’t seem impossible that the wires hit the cop, albeit after he shot (he seemed to shoot while Brooks was aiming the taser at him but before or simultaneously with Brooks discharging the taser). Myself I don’t think the wires did hit him. Presumably it can be ascertained (marks on his skin).

That also said, having looked closely again and again, Brooks fired back from quite a bit closer than I had thought, and the discharge went closer to the cop’s head than I had realised, so I take your point about the danger of at least very serious injury to the cop, his face and head in particular. And even if the wires didn’t hit him, they could have, and in the face.

Perhaps this shooting was more justifiable than I have been thinking. Still terribly unfortunate and tragic, but it may turn out to be legally justified, by US policing standards at least. And I would now, having looked a bit closer, have more sympathy for the officer, especially since the prior actions and questions/instructions from both officers did not indicate to me that they were treating Brooks badly, and they gave him plenty of warnings. And until Brooks started to turn and aim a taser, the chasing officer was only aiming a taser at him, not a gun, while chasing (although the cop may have started to reach for his gun just before Brooks turned, but pulling a gun is not the same as shooting it).

ETA: looking again, if Rolfe was indeed the officer who shot, it might even have been after Brooks fired the taser first.

 

[ruby sparks]

I totally agree. I actually read about the man who was killed because I always wonder about the people who the victim left behind. This particular man had a wife and three little girls. He was also helping raise his step son, had a full time job at a Mexican restaurant, where his coworkers loved him. They said that he was always the first person to arrive at the start of the day and that he was a hard worker. His family and friends are devastated by what happened. Afaik, he didn't have a criminal background. He appears to be a gentle person who did try to get along with the police when he was initially questioned.

Look upthread. This is a guy who got 7 years over a domestic violence incident involving at least one child. His family is probably better off without him.

I looked at Derec's link but there were several things that made me suspicious. First of all the link had this:"His Sentence Begin Date is April 1, 2001 His Sentence End Date is March 31, 2003. His Max Possible Release Date will be December 31, 2002, giving him credit for time served in jail from the date of his arrest to the date of his sentencing".

He would have been 8 years old in 2001. Are we talking about the same person?

Then, it said he was given a 7 year sentence in 2013, and yet there were several other charges in 2014 and 2016. How was that possible if he was given a 7 year sentence in 2013? That doesn't make sense. So, I'm skeptical of the information especially when I couldn't find anything about him mentioned in any of the numerous articles written about him in news sources.

But, even if he did have a criminal history, that didn't give the cop the right to kill him by shooting him in the back.

If he did something in 2013, he was only 20. Do you not think that people often change once they reach actual adulthood? Our brains aren't even totally developed until around age 25.

I don't think we really know the history of this man since what was on the link seemed to contradict itself. But, I'll say it again. Having a criminal history doesn't give the police the right to shoot you in the back because you're running away out of fear.

I know a white man who was charged with child abuse in my small city, about an hour from Atlanta. He was given counseling. The charges, assuming they were accurate didn't mention the nature of the child abuse. It's still, unfortunately, very common in the south for parents to beat their children. Sometimes it takes educating them about the proper way to treat children, as they are often just doing what their own parents did during the decades when it was perfectly legal to beat the shit out of your kids with a belt or switch.

All I know is that his family loved him as did his friends. If he was guilty of child abuse at age 20, I have no doubt that he could have learned his lesson by age 27, so I find your comment to be very biased since we really don't know the facts.

Whether Brooks had a prior criminal history seems pretty much irrelevant to the incident itself, as it played out, other than to partly explain afterwards, if he was indeed on parole, why he may have resisted and fled when the actual arrest started, and possibly, if any of his previous behaviours had involved physical violence, why he was the sort of person who might in certain circumstances possibly fire a taser at a policeman.

What it might be more relevant to is to how Brooks is/was portrayed in the media. I do agree that quite often the media, at least initially, paint a very hagiographic picture of some of the victims in these cases. I imagine the reasons for that are interesting and nuanced. My guess is that they think that in some way it makes for a simpler, better, goodies versus baddies story, with the current narrative having an emphasis on cops as baddies. News always likes a story to have an angle, and will often use a ready-made one that’s easy for viewers with short attention spans to digest.

Also, someone has been shot and killed, so it might seem a bit too soon, in initial reports at least, to be seen to be victim blaming. Whatever the guy was like, and no matter what he might have done before, there are bereaved family members to consider. But such things could easily get at least a mention in subsequent reports.

Good spot on the possible inconsistencies in the report on Brook’s criminal record. Presumably all that will be clarified.

 

[ruby sparks]

This is the news report where I watched the footage in slo-mo, and more in close-up than I had before:

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/video/697206

It’s an interview with a Police Trainer who says the shooting was, unfortunately, justified.

It’s Fox News.

 

[ZiprHead]

The cop was in no imminent danger from a suspect who was now running away after having pointed a non lethal weapon at him. You're almost making it sound as if the cop were out for retaliation - and thereby making a perfectly good case that her should be charged for manslaughter and never be working in the police force again.

a so-called "nonleathal" weapon is only nonleathal in the hands of a trained professional. nonleathal does not mean "not at all dangerous to the safety of others".

In the video one can see that the suspect turned towards the cop and fired the taser. The shot appears to have gone high, over the cops head. However, the movements of the officer appear to me to imply the taser wires fell on him after the darts passed over him, delivering a partial charge to the cops head. Firing a taser into a cops face should result in a bullet to your head, in my opinion. a ten thousand volt burst to your head is not nonleathal. That is why they are used by professionally trained individuals that deliver the charge to center of mass so that the body can absorb the shock and stop the leg and arm muscles from moving momentarily. Not explode a person's eyeballs by shocking their brain directly.
That said, the "I feared for my life" defense that cops use as a blanket excuse for otherwise unlawful shootings needs to be amended... once used, it may should keep a cop out of jail, but then also disqualify you to continue being a police officer, on the account of being too much a fucking pussy to do the job safely. So cops can trade their careers (and be permanently banned from owning handguns) for that one time defense... or take the "justified shooting" stance and risk their freedom on a jury's call.

Taser wires are insulated.

 

[Jayjay]

I totally agree. I actually read about the man who was killed because I always wonder about the people who the victim left behind. This particular man had a wife and three little girls. He was also helping raise his step son, had a full time job at a Mexican restaurant, where his coworkers loved him. They said that he was always the first person to arrive at the start of the day and that he was a hard worker. His family and friends are devastated by what happened. Afaik, he didn't have a criminal background. He appears to be a gentle person who did try to get along with the police when he was initially questioned.

Look upthread. This is a guy who got 7 years over a domestic violence incident involving at least one child. His family is probably better off without him.

I looked at Derec's link but there were several things that made me suspicious. First of all the link had this:"His Sentence Begin Date is April 1, 2001 His Sentence End Date is March 31, 2003. His Max Possible Release Date will be December 31, 2002, giving him credit for time served in jail from the date of his arrest to the date of his sentencing".

He would have been 8 years old in 2001. Are we talking about the same person?

No. That quote was an example text illustrating what the different terms mean.

Then, it said he was given a 7 year sentence in 2013, and yet there were several other charges in 2014 and 2016. How was that possible if he was given a 7 year sentence in 2013? That doesn't make sense. So, I'm skeptical of the information especially when I couldn't find anything about him mentioned in any of the numerous articles written about him in news sources.

If I'm reading the court documents correctly, he made a guilty plea to serve only 1 year, so he was out on probation in 2016.

But, even if he did have a criminal history, that didn't give the cop the right to kill him by shooting him in the back.

True, it's completely inconsequential.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I totally agree. I actually read about the man who was killed because I always wonder about the people who the victim left behind. This particular man had a wife and three little girls. He was also helping raise his step son, had a full time job at a Mexican restaurant, where his coworkers loved him. They said that he was always the first person to arrive at the start of the day and that he was a hard worker. His family and friends are devastated by what happened. Afaik, he didn't have a criminal background. He appears to be a gentle person who did try to get along with the police when he was initially questioned.

Look upthread. This is a guy who got 7 years over a domestic violence incident involving at least one child. His family is probably better off without him.

I looked at Derec's link but there were several things that made me suspicious. First of all the link had this:"His Sentence Begin Date is April 1, 2001 His Sentence End Date is March 31, 2003. His Max Possible Release Date will be December 31, 2002, giving him credit for time served in jail from the date of his arrest to the date of his sentencing".

He would have been 8 years old in 2001. Are we talking about the same person?

Then, it said he was given a 7 year sentence in 2013, and yet there were several other charges in 2014 and 2016. How was that possible if he was given a 7 year sentence in 2013? That doesn't make sense. So, I'm skeptical of the information especially when I couldn't find anything about him mentioned in any of the numerous articles written about him in news sources.

But, even if he did have a criminal history, that didn't give the cop the right to kill him by shooting him in the back.

If he did something in 2013, he was only 20. Do you not think that people often change once they reach actual adulthood? Our brains aren't even totally developed until around age 25.

I don't think we really know the history of this man since what was on the link seemed to contradict itself. But, I'll say it again. Having a criminal history doesn't give the police the right to shoot you in the back because you're running away out of fear.

I know a white man who was charged with child abuse in my small city, about an hour from Atlanta. He was given counseling. The charges, assuming they were accurate didn't mention the nature of the child abuse. It's still, unfortunately, very common in the south for parents to beat their children. Sometimes it takes educating them about the proper way to treat children, as they are often just doing what their own parents did during the decades when it was perfectly legal to beat the shit out of your kids with a belt or switch.

All I know is that his family loved him as did his friends. If he was guilty of child abuse at age 20, I have no doubt that he could have learned his lesson by age 27, so I find your comment to be very biased since we really don't know the facts.

I agree with you. I will add that I tried to find the primary source rather than trusting info from Derec. A Georgia .gov website confirms the info if you look up the ID# given there. The little blurb about 2001 or whatever does not appear in the original source info. But the other stuff is there. If you want a link, I can get you one.

Now assuming these are the same people as they have the same names and the first name is unusual, I think one has to understand how criminal offenses work. It looks like he really had two criminal events, not a myriad of events, and one can see this if they group by dates of offenses.

The older criminal event could have been something like someone gave him a police scanner or walkie talkie or some other non-violent thing. It turned out the police scanner or whatever was stolen from a cop. I say this because if the thing stolen was a weapon he would have been charged with a bunch of other stuff. So he got charged with receiving stolen govt property, impeding an officers abilities, and whatever else from such single event. They really threw the book at him over this and he had to be in jail a long time for it.

So, presumably he got out and was on probation. Being on probation or parole is REALLY TOUGH. You have to follow really strict rules and they can throw you in jail for reasonably thinking you are guilty. So, here's the thing. He's got "simple battery." What does this mean? It's not even classified as assault. He's got false imprisonment and something with a minor. So, something like this could have happened: He got real mad at his kids for doing something wrong. He grabbed one by the arm (battery and battery of a minor) and put them in the closet (false imprisonment). Now that's terrible in a sense....kind of like it's terrible to throw a minor in jail for simple crimes but bad parenting is also learned in the same way we teach disrespecting people by virtue of the justice system and police brutality and everything else. Now, like I wrote parole and probation are REALLY TOUGH. So, parole officer finds out about the domestic family issue and is pissed off. He decides to write it up and charge him and bam, guy gets a year in jail.

So this is just a possible narrative. I am not trying to justify or minimize this guy's behaviors, only explain what the levels of offense are by illustration.

So what does the Reich wing want from this information? You can see by Loren's comment that Rayshard's family is better off without him.

Justifying shooting this guy in the back....

You're right. It's not justification or relevant.

 

[ZiprHead]

It turns out that it was two white women that set the Wendy's on fire.

There seems to be a lot of outside supremacist agitators using BLM and protests for cover causing trouble.

 

[southernhybrid]

Charges are being filed against the officer who killed Rayshard Brooks. The prosecutor explained in great detail why what happened was against the Atlanta Police force rules. I don't have all the info yet, but they did say that it's illegal for an officer to use a taser against a suspect who is running away.

He is being charged with 11 charges.

1. felony murder
2. aggravated assault with a deadly weapon

They haven't said all of the others, so you all can do your own DD, when the news comes out.

I am glad to see this.

There were a lot more details given. For example, Mr. Brooks wasn't even told that he was under arrest when they tried to handcuff him. And, the officer was heard saying, "We got him" after he shot him. That implies that his intention was to shoot with a deadly weapon.

Criminal damage to property is also a charge. I think that's because a bullet was found in a car.

Violate of oath is another charge.

Several of the charges involve aggravated assault. Another one is failure to render first aide in a timely manner. There are more, but I can't type as fast as the prosecutor is speaking so I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[ZiprHead]

First Charge for the cop who shot him is felony murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Another aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for a gunshot that hit a trailblazer with a family in it. Several more charges, coming faster than I can hunt and peck type.

Eleven charges for the shooting cop Three charges for the other cop.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because it isn’t important to this situation.

He got drunk, passed out having driven himself to a Wendy’s. So definitely a DUI. He resisted arrest—something that is not at all uncommon for a drunk person. The police shot him in the back as he ran away. They had other options: he could have been picked up at his home. They had his address and name.

There is zero doubt that he committed multiple crimes but he didn’t deserve to be shot in the back. Twice.

You're ignoring the reason he was shot--taking a shot at a cop.

The cop was in no imminent danger from a suspect who was now running away after having pointed a non lethal weapon at him. You're almost making it sound as if the cop were out for retaliation - and thereby making a perfectly good case that her should be charged for manslaughter and never be working in the police force again.

Such decisions are made based on what the person knew at the time, not with the perfect vision of hindsight.

 

[southernhybrid]

The other officer is also being charged with a couple of things but he has agreed to testify against the officer who killed Mr. Brooks.

it's being recommended that no bond be given to the officer who killed Mr. Brooks, while 55K bond is being recommended for the other officer as he has agreed to testify against the other officers.

It's about time that some of these police are being prosecuted for their crimes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...how can he be certain the guy didn't have a gun?

Right, police are so used to imagining black guys have guns that even when one steals a taser right in front of him, he still thinks it's a gun and shoots him in the back while he's running away. That makes sense.

The guy was taking a shot at them. Why do you find it unreasonable to think he might be using a gun to do so?

 

[ruby sparks]

Because it was clearly a taser in this case!

If I wasn’t on my phone I’d give you the biggest facepalm ever. I think you’re actually getting worse. For a while there I actually thought that you were getting a bit better. The facts don’t matter to you, just whatever speculation or hypothetical you can come up with to minimise things the way you prefer.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/17/prosecutor-atlanta-announce-charging-decision-killing-rayshard-brooks-by-police/

The former Atlanta police officer who fatally shot Rayshard Brooks after a DUI stop was charged with felony murder, aggravated assault and other offenses Wednesday, less than a week after the 27-year-old black man’s killing set off a new wave of protests against racism and police brutality.
Fulton County District Attorney Paul L. Howard announced a total of 11 charges against Garrett Rolfe at an afternoon news conference in downtown Atlanta, calling Brooks’s killing unjustified and finding that Brooks posed no threat to Rolfe’s life during the incident.
Rolfe’s colleague, officer Devin Brosnan, was charged with aggravated assault. Brosnan will become cooperating witness for the state, Howard said, making him one of the first Atlanta police officers to testify in such a case.

More details in the article.

 

[ruby sparks]

[removed]

 

[blastula]

And police tasers can have ranges up to 35 feet. Civilian units are limited to 15 feet.

One small but relevant point regarding the range of tasers; the officer (Rolfe) was holding a taser also, during the chase. But he didn't fire it. I would tend to think that he felt he was too far away from Brooks for it to be effective.

Standard police training is to respond with one level of force above what is being used against them.

Furthermore, given the timing it looks to me like he decided to fire based on "gun being pointed at me"--how can he be certain the guy didn't have a gun?

Rolfe had already frisked him.

 

[atrib]

First Charge for the cop who shot him is felony murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Another aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for a gunshot that hit a trailblazer with a family in it. Several more charges, coming faster than I can hunt and peck type.

Eleven charges for the shooting cop Three charges for the other cop.

(Emphasis mine).
So it was actually the police who were being criminally reckless and endangering the lives of civilians in their zeal to shoot a drunk guy resisting arrest. And so much for the theory that the victim was going to use a spent taser to hijack a car and terrorize the general population.