Rayshard Brooks: A justified use of deadly force, explained

[Sunsettommy]

A taser is not a gun.

A taser is classified as a firearm under Georgia law. See OP.

It is not a gun.

It doesn't have to be.

He is playing word games, he says GUN, the state says it classified as a FIREARM.

 

[Coyote]

A taser is not a gun.

A taser is classified as a firearm under Georgia law. See OP.

It is not a gun.

It doesn't have to be.

He is playing word games, he says GUN, the state says it classified as a FIREARM.

So why do officers need a gun then? You imply they are equivalent.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Rayshard Brooks: A justified use of deadly force, explained

What Brooks did by punching an officer in the face was an aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by a $5,000 fine and up to 1 year in jail (see Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-4.).

GA CODE § 16-5-23 (e)

(e) Any person who commits the offense of simple battery against a police officer, correction officer, or detention officer engaged in carrying out official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

Brooks, by resisting arrest, punching the officer in the face and later firing a taser at the police officer was guilty of a felony under Georgia Law, punishable by a maximum of five years in jail:

GA CODE § 16-10-24 (b)

(b) Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any law enforcement officer, prison guard, correctional officer, probation supervisor, parole supervisor, or conservation ranger in the lawful discharge of his official duties by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person is guilty of a felony and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.


GA CODE § 16-11-123

As soon as Brooks gained possession of the taser, he was facing five years in jail for illegally possessing a firearm. As the law states:

"A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of firearms or weapons when he or she knowingly has in his or her possession any sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun, dangerous weapon, or silencer, and, upon conviction thereof, he or she shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of five years."

GA CODE § 16-11-106 (a)

Tasers are considered firearms under Georgia Law:

(a) For the purposes of this Code section, the term "firearm" shall include stun guns and tasers. A stun gun or taser is any device that is powered by electrical charging units such as batteries and emits an electrical charge in excess of 20,000 volts or is otherwise capable of incapacitating a person by an electrical charge.

GA CODE § 16-5-21 (c)(1)(A)

What Brooks did with the taser he stole would have warranted 10 to 20 years in jail under Georgia law had he survived the encounter. As stated above (in § 16-11-106), tasers are classified as firearms:

(c)

(1) A person who knowingly commits the offense of aggravated assault upon a public safety officer while he or she is engaged in, or on account of the performance of, his or her official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished as follows:

(A) When such assault occurs by the discharge of a firearm by a person who is at least 17 years of age, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years.

GA CODE § 16-3-21 (a)

First conclusion: Officer Rolfe was justified in using deadly force to prevent the commission of a "forcible felony" (as defined in GA CODE § 16-11-131), given that the one or more of the above offenses committed by Brooks would have resulted in imprisonment of more than one year in jail:

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23-, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

GA CODE § 17-4-20 (b)

Second conclusion: Rolfe was permitted to use deadly force to apprehend the felon or misdemeanant:

(b) Sheriffs and peace officers who are appointed or employed in conformity with Chapter 8 of Title 35 may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Nothing in this Code section shall be construed so as to restrict such sheriffs or peace officers from the use of such reasonable nondeadly force as may be necessary to apprehend and arrest a suspected felon or misdemeanant.


I won't dive into the federal offenses he committed before he died. I am making the case that the police followed Georgia law to the letter. A grand jury will likely not convict Rolfe and Bronson based on these facts.

I challenge you, the reader, to prove me otherwise.

Well you failed with your first assertion BECAUSE the penalty for not a single one of the offenses you painstakingly laid out is summary execution. DEATH for an offense is only allowable as punishment for a crime after the defendant is afforded due process and is convicted and sentenced to death.

A police officer at the scene is not authorized to be judge, jury and executioner. What's even more important though which is at issue in this and in many other of these killings is that deadly force is allowed by law only when faced when an imminent (meaning happening RIGHT NOW) threat of grievous (serious as in life threatening) bodily harm or death. This is the legal standard for everyone, police and civilian alike and a person running away/trying to escape from you is no longer considered a threat.

That is an overtly emotional argument. When you turn around and fire a weapon at a police officer while allegedly trying to flee, you are not trying to escape, you're presenting yourself as the aggressor. End of story, end of discussion.

What Rolfe did was one of those "right now" moments.

Why is it that you accuse the female posters here of making emotional arguments? If you doubt the veracity of my statements, then show some integrity and disprove them instead of merely dismissing them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, they are. Are you suggesting officers should not THINK?

Not in the heat of a violent confrontation, no.

He had already attempted to cause serious bodily injury to Rolfe by firing a taser at him. By that time, Brooks had begun to flee with a partially loaded (but no less dangerous) taser in his hand. He was brought down to end any threat would have presented to other people in the area.

I'll say it again. He had dropped the taser. A taser in non-lethal. It also has to be recharged once fired - he had no way of doing that because it was out of its holster.
Experience tells me - tells anyone - that he was no danger to any other person. He was drunk and being stupid. Not psychotic. And if a cop can't tell the difference between those behaviours, then maybe they shouldn't be in the police.
Looks like the Atlanta prosecutor and police agree with me. They made the right call.

Unfortunately for you, as opposed to you living clear across the other side of the planet, thousands of miles away, I live in the state in question. Seventy miles away from Atlanta.

It has nothing to do with his emotional state, it had everything to do with his compliance with lawfully given orders.

The taser in question was fully charged and was capable of firing 2 cartridges. It did not need to be charged in between shots. It is just as dangerous when the first or second cartridge is fired.

The man was a drunk driver.

Could a non lethal means of resolving the situation been used?

No. Not when he chose to employ violence to resist arrest. Not when he took a fully loaded taser from an officer and fled with it.. Not whe he fired said taser at the police officer. He already presented himself as a threat. All of his good behavior prior to the altercation was rendered moot.

A lot of people resist arrest. Is that a death sentence?

A lot of people don't try to disarm the arresting officer when resisting arrest, nor do they attempt to us that officer's weapon against him. They simply want to get away. That's it, that's all.

He did not grab his gun.


Again...is that a death sentence?

He grabbed a fully charged taser and attempted to incapacitate or kill a police officer with it.

So, yes.

He was running away as he was trying to fire it, a non lethal weapon of very limited range.

No. It would have been lethal if those prongs had attached to the officer's skull. Those tasers have a 15 foot range, and can discharge up to 50,000 volts directly into the target.

That is enough to stop the human heart from beating.

These arguments that the taser was non lethal are intellectually dishonest.

Again...he was running AWAY. What other could they have taken?

"Running away" is largely irrelevant given the fact he chose to attack the police officer.

No. He struggled with the officer to get free. Not right. But also not a death sentence. Had he grabbed a gun...I would have agreed with you, but he did not.

Coyote, I have made it clear that tasers are lethal weapons. And when such weapons are aimed at certain parts of the human anatomy, the electric force is enough to fry your brain or stop your heart..

Your agreement with me on this point is immaterial.

 

[TemplarKormac]

is it that you accuse the female posters here of making emotional arguments?

It has nothing to do with your gender. Employing such a tactic means your argument is no longer viable.

Liberals of your stripe and of both genders are prone to making overly emotional and non factual arguments.

 

[Sunsettommy]

A taser is not a gun.

A taser is classified as a firearm under Georgia law. See OP.

It is not a gun.

It doesn't have to be.

He is playing word games, he says GUN, the state says it classified as a FIREARM.

So why do officers need a gun then? You imply they are equivalent.

Ha ha ha, your amazing inability to understand the difference between the words Firearm and gun. Guns and rifles expel bullets, not all firearms use bullets, can be air canister, pressure activated and electrical.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Right the cops should not be judge jury and executioner.

They have a right to self-defense. Quit advocating for anarchy, crime and lawlessness. Point a weapon at me and I'll cap your ass just as fast.

Cops do not have the permission to shoot a person that is not a direct threat to them or to another person in the immediate area.

Already pointed out Brooks WAS A direct threat. End of story. Cop will beat the charges. Throw a shovel of dirt on Brooks and be done with it. Scum got what he deserved.

Self defense never comes into play in this scenario.

Yes it does. The moment Brooks chose to violently resist arrest and attack the arresting officers. The moment he aimed that taser at Rolfe's head. He presented himself as a threat and he was treated like one.

If your rounds are fired into his back as he was fleeing, then legally he is no longer considered a threat and legally you are not allowed to shoot at him.

That has always been the law but you're trying to craft this scenario so that because of everything that occured prior to him running off, the officers were within their right to shoot him, which simply is not the case.

If they had shot him while they were on the ground and he was fighting them or when he first took the officers taser, that would have been the time when they could truthfully say he was posing a threat to them and/or that they were in fear for their lives or in fear of grievous bodily harm. But once he got away from them and was abscounding, the threat to them that could be addressed utilizing deadly force had ceased and they were no longer within their rights to shoot him, let alone shoot to kill him.

I'm guessing that because cops have been getting away with shooting people, including shooting people in the back for so long in this country that you all believe that the doing so is legal however it's not nor has it ever been.

 

[Rambunctious]

All this cop has to say....and by the way I'm not going to mention the poor guys name here because the dude is being screwed.....but all he has to say is I thought he had a gun and I saw a flash....case over....Atlanta DA...egg on face.....and Atlanta burns to the ground....

Other countries seem able to conduct competent policing, rarely resorting to lethal force against unarmed people.

Maybe we are doing something wrong.


Isn't that worth considering?

YES. Now we are getting somewhere.

Our citizens are RESISTING ARREST!!!

.

A lot of people resist arrest and do not get killed for it.

They are damn lucky....why aren't you asking why do they resist?...why don't they go peaceably?....who started the whole thing?....who is responsible?....

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Left aint right

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you doubt the veracity of my statements, then show some integrity and disprove them instead of merely dismissing them.

If you would read the first 100 replies of this thread instead of she-splaining things to me, you will discover I already have.

I have spent 21 hours debating in this thread, and it is not my job to assuage your stupidity.

I will not play party to your ignorance of the topic any longer. Gender be damned.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Right the cops should not be judge jury and executioner.

They have a right to self-defense. Quit advocating for anarchy, crime and lawlessness. Point a weapon at me and I'll cap your ass just as fast.

Cops do not have the permission to shoot a person that is not a direct threat to them or to another person in the immediate area.

Already pointed out Brooks WAS A direct threat. End of story. Cop will beat the charges. Throw a shovel of dirt on Brooks and be done with it. Scum got what he deserved.

Self defense never comes into play in this scenario.

Yes it does. The moment Brooks chose to violently resist arrest and attack the arresting officers. The moment he aimed that taser at Rolfe's head. He presented himself as a threat and he was treated like one.

If your rounds are fired into his back as he was fleeing, then legally he is no longer considered a threat and legally you are not allowed to shoot at him.

That has always been the law but you're trying to craft this scenario so that because of everything that occured prior to him running off, the officers were within their right to shoot him, which simply is not the case.

If they had shot him while they were on the ground and he was fighting them or when he first took the officers taser, that would have been the time when they could truthfully say he was posing a threat to them and/or that they were in fear for their lives or in fear of grievous bodily harm. But once he got away from them and was abscounding, the threat to them that could be addressed utilizing deadly force had ceased and they were no longer within their rights to shoot him, let alone shoot to kill him.

I'm guessing that because cops have been getting away with shooting people, including shooting people in the back for so long in this country that you all believe that the doing so is legal however it's not nor has it ever been.

Your asinine attempt to use your gender as a weapon in this debate has discredited you and your argument.

If your argument were so infallible, you wouldn't have needed to stoop to that level.

I will not be replying to you any further in this thread.

 

[MarcATL]

" Atlanta is burning and Trump is on Hannity crying about John Bolton, who Trump hired to be his highest level adviser "

I hope every police officer in Atlanta walk off the force. Let celebrities, BLM, and Social workers handle their problems.

Atlanta is doing better than ever right now.

Stop being such a drama queen.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.

He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.

Still not punishable by death.

I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?

This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.

Isn’t that what you are doing?

If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?

No. I am not. I am stating facts and information, backed with evidence and legal precedent. Most of the arguments I have encountered in this thread thus far have either been emotional or irrelevant to the situation at hand.

It wasn't that he was a drunk driver, it was the moment he chose to become a violent felon while resisting arrest. Had he fully cooperated with those officers, we wouldn't be in this thread lofting well-intended points over each other's heads.

I do not think you are as dispassionate as you claim. You choose to follow one of two branching paths to your conclusion: what could Rashard have done differently to have prevented his death.

What about the other path?

I never claim to be completely dispassionate, Coyote. But I follow where the trail leads, whether that be a destination I like or a destination I don't.

Logic is a factor here as well. What would you have done in the officer's shoes at that moment in time? Lets say you had the legal expertise and training that officer had. What would you have done?

You don't get time to weigh your options with a violent assailant, you either let him flee or you stop him by whatever means are available. If he presents danger to both you and the greater community, the time for exacting mercy on the assailant has passed. Your main considerations are those of the safety of you and your colleagues and of the surrounding populace.

Actually, when you carry a weapon you are supposed to know what to do and know ahead of time what you will do BEFORE you ever find yourself in that situation instead of trying to figure out what to do in a split second.

I worked for a police detective while in college and I remember being astounded because our officers we called out to deal with a man with a knife. I can't remember all of the details because this was decades ago but the officers knew he was intoxicated and the guy refused to put down the knife when they asked. Instead of escalating the situation, they spent 20 minutes talking to him, saying thing to him like "we know you don't want to hurt anyone, why don't you put the knife down so we can arrest you". Guy didn't comply initally but eventually he did.

I grew up in Los Angeles and just felt that had it been LAPD and if the guy had been black, they would have lit him up the second he didn't comply with the "drop the knife" command and that's what you all are advocating. Killing people for resisting arrest, for trying to get away from the police, for fighting them, etc. People that they now are intoxicated and not thinking clearly.

You can't be a police officer and not expect to encounter people who are drunk, belligerent, wanting to fight, etc. You can't just shoot them, not legally that is.

 

[candycorn]

won't dive into the federal offenses he committed before he died. I am making the case that the police followed Georgia law to the letter. A grand jury will likely not convict Rolfe and Bronson based on these facts

Are you saying the officers will not be indicted?
There are reports Brosnan will testify for the prosecution.

US policeman faces murder charge over Brooks death

"Garrett Rolfe, who has already been fired, faces 11 charges related to Rayshard Brooks' death. If convicted, he could face the death penalty.

"The other officer at the scene, Devin Brosnan, will testify as a prosecution witness in the case, officials said."

That means nothing. His testimony will not change the fact the DA overcharged Rolfe.

Heavens yes.

Felony Murder is the same as second-degree murder in Georgia. That will never be proven.

It doesn't matter what the DA thinks, it only matters what the Officer was thinking at the time the event happened.

The video is hard, hard evidence of what the officer was thinking. He was chasing Brooks with his taser drawn and in
his right hand. When Brooks fired the taser he had stolen from the officers, the Cop immediately put his laser in his left hand
and drew his revolver and fired. He was in fear of his life.

The DA is pandering for votes in the coming election. He statd that he doesn't believe this case will even go to a grand jury before
October. Therefore there will be no trial until after election day. (If there is a trial at all.)

The cop will probably do okay. He probably has a deal with his defense atty that when he is found not guilty they will
sue the Mayor and City for not allowing for Due Process to play out. They split that pot which will probably be extensive.

He should be found not-guilty of murder. As for suing the city....good luck with that. I personally think he should win big myself but fighting city hall is a tall order.

 

[candycorn]

However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.

He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.

Still not punishable by death.

I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?

This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.

Isn’t that what you are doing?

If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?

No. I am not. I am stating facts and information, backed with evidence and legal precedent. Most of the arguments I have encountered in this thread thus far have either been emotional or irrelevant to the situation at hand.

It wasn't that he was a drunk driver, it was the moment he chose to become a violent felon while resisting arrest. Had he fully cooperated with those officers, we wouldn't be in this thread lofting well-intended points over each other's heads.

I do not think you are as dispassionate as you claim. You choose to follow one of two branching paths to your conclusion: what could Rashard have done differently to have prevented his death.

What about the other path?

You can't be a police officer and not expect to encounter people who are drunk, belligerent, wanting to fight, etc. You can't just shoot them, not legally that is.

Right. Except there is a difference between being drunk, belligerent, and wanting to fight and actually fighting and pointing a weapon at a cop in hot pursuit. The cops acted appropriately.

 

[Sunsettommy]

However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.

He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.

Still not punishable by death.

I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?

This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.

Isn’t that what you are doing?

If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?

No. I am not. I am stating facts and information, backed with evidence and legal precedent. Most of the arguments I have encountered in this thread thus far have either been emotional or irrelevant to the situation at hand.

It wasn't that he was a drunk driver, it was the moment he chose to become a violent felon while resisting arrest. Had he fully cooperated with those officers, we wouldn't be in this thread lofting well-intended points over each other's heads.

I do not think you are as dispassionate as you claim. You choose to follow one of two branching paths to your conclusion: what could Rashard have done differently to have prevented his death.

What about the other path?

I never claim to be completely dispassionate, Coyote. But I follow where the trail leads, whether that be a destination I like or a destination I don't.

Logic is a factor here as well. What would you have done in the officer's shoes at that moment in time? Lets say you had the legal expertise and training that officer had. What would you have done?

You don't get time to weigh your options with a violent assailant, you either let him flee or you stop him by whatever means are available. If he presents danger to both you and the greater community, the time for exacting mercy on the assailant has passed. Your main considerations are those of the safety of you and your colleagues and of the surrounding populace.

Actually, when you carry a weapon you are supposed to know what to do and know ahead of time what you will do BEFORE you ever find yourself in that situation instead of trying to figure out what to do in a split second.

I worked for a police detective while in college and I remember being astounded because our officers we called out to deal with a man with a knife. I can't remember all of the details because this was decades ago but the officers knew he was intoxicated and the guy refused to put down the knife when they asked. Instead of escalating the situation, they spent 20 minutes talking to him, saying thing to him like "we know you don't want to hurt anyone, why don't you put the knife down so we can arrest you". Guy didn't comply initally but eventually he did.

I grew up in Los Angeles and just felt that had it been LAPD and if the guy had been black, they would have lit him up the second he didn't comply with the "drop the knife" command and that's what you all are advocating. Killing people for resisting arrest, for trying to get away from the police, for fighting them, etc. People that they now are intoxicated and not thinking clearly.

You can't be a police officer and not expect to encounter people who are drunk, belligerent, wanting to fight, etc. You can't just shoot them, not legally that is.

Did you watch that video at all?, they talked for around 35 minutes, before the police told him he was under arrest for failing his breathalyzer test, up to that time it was peaceful, the violence came suddenly when Brooks pushed, punched and ran away from the handcuffing action.

It was Brooks who INITIATED the violence, it was Brooks who fought over the Taser unit, it was Brooks who fired first........, stop trying to defend the man who was actively resisted a lawful arrest!

 

[Care4all]

Bump.

I believe the cop who murdered George Floyd should go to prison.

I believe it is a huge mistake to send the Georgia cops to jail. This is a textbook case of "two wrongs don't make a right."

Agree on Floyd case...

On Georgia... the cops were over charged.... the book thrown at them...

Certainly not felony murder.... that's a huge over reach.... but I do believe the one cop in Georgia should be charged with man slaughter, go to trial, let all facts be shown, defense and prosecutors, and let a jury decide.

 

[Bush92]

Rayshard Brooks: A justified use of deadly force, explained

What Brooks did by punching an officer in the face was an aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by a $5,000 fine and up to 1 year in jail (see Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-4.).

GA CODE § 16-5-23 (e)

(e) Any person who commits the offense of simple battery against a police officer, correction officer, or detention officer engaged in carrying out official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

Brooks, by resisting arrest, punching the officer in the face and later firing a taser at the police officer was guilty of a felony under Georgia Law, punishable by a maximum of five years in jail:

GA CODE § 16-10-24 (b)

(b) Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any law enforcement officer, prison guard, correctional officer, probation supervisor, parole supervisor, or conservation ranger in the lawful discharge of his official duties by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person is guilty of a felony and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.


GA CODE § 16-11-123

As soon as Brooks gained possession of the taser, he was facing five years in jail for illegally possessing a firearm. As the law states:

"A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of firearms or weapons when he or she knowingly has in his or her possession any sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun, dangerous weapon, or silencer, and, upon conviction thereof, he or she shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of five years."

GA CODE § 16-11-106 (a)

Tasers are considered firearms under Georgia Law:

(a) For the purposes of this Code section, the term "firearm" shall include stun guns and tasers. A stun gun or taser is any device that is powered by electrical charging units such as batteries and emits an electrical charge in excess of 20,000 volts or is otherwise capable of incapacitating a person by an electrical charge.

GA CODE § 16-5-21 (c)(1)(A)

What Brooks did with the taser he stole would have warranted 10 to 20 years in jail under Georgia law had he survived the encounter. As stated above (in § 16-11-106), tasers are classified as firearms:

(c)

(1) A person who knowingly commits the offense of aggravated assault upon a public safety officer while he or she is engaged in, or on account of the performance of, his or her official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished as follows:

(A) When such assault occurs by the discharge of a firearm by a person who is at least 17 years of age, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years.

GA CODE § 16-3-21 (a)

First conclusion: Officer Rolfe was justified in using deadly force to prevent the commission of a "forcible felony" (as defined in GA CODE § 16-11-131), given that the one or more of the above offenses committed by Brooks would have resulted in imprisonment of more than one year in jail:

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23-, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

GA CODE § 17-4-20 (b)

Second conclusion: Rolfe was permitted to use deadly force to apprehend the felon or misdemeanant:

(b) Sheriffs and peace officers who are appointed or employed in conformity with Chapter 8 of Title 35 may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Nothing in this Code section shall be construed so as to restrict such sheriffs or peace officers from the use of such reasonable nondeadly force as may be necessary to apprehend and arrest a suspected felon or misdemeanant.


I won't dive into the federal offenses he committed before he died. I am making the case that the police followed Georgia law to the letter. A grand jury will likely not convict Rolfe and Bronson based on these facts.

I challenge you, the reader, to prove me otherwise.

Never a man more deserving to be legally shot dead for protection of society.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

is it that you accuse the female posters here of making emotional arguments?

It has nothing to do with your gender. Employing such a tactic means your argument is no longer viable.

Liberals of your stripe and of both genders are prone to making overly emotional and non factual arguments.

Right the cops should not be judge jury and executioner.

They have a right to self-defense. Quit advocating for anarchy, crime and lawlessness. Point a weapon at me and I'll cap your ass just as fast.

Cops do not have the permission to shoot a person that is not a direct threat to them or to another person in the immediate area.

Already pointed out Brooks WAS A direct threat. End of story. Cop will beat the charges. Throw a shovel of dirt on Brooks and be done with it. Scum got what he deserved.

Self defense never comes into play in this scenario.

Yes it does. The moment Brooks chose to violently resist arrest and attack the arresting officers. The moment he aimed that taser at Rolfe's head. He presented himself as a threat and he was treated like one.

If your rounds are fired into his back as he was fleeing, then legally he is no longer considered a threat and legally you are not allowed to shoot at him.

That has always been the law but you're trying to craft this scenario so that because of everything that occured prior to him running off, the officers were within their right to shoot him, which simply is not the case.

If they had shot him while they were on the ground and he was fighting them or when he first took the officers taser, that would have been the time when they could truthfully say he was posing a threat to them and/or that they were in fear for their lives or in fear of grievous bodily harm. But once he got away from them and was abscounding, the threat to them that could be addressed utilizing deadly force had ceased and they were no longer within their rights to shoot him, let alone shoot to kill him.

I'm guessing that because cops have been getting away with shooting people, including shooting people in the back for so long in this country that you all believe that the doing so is legal however it's not nor has it ever been.

Your asinine attempt to use your gender as a weapon in this debate has discredited you and your argument.

If your argument were so infallible, you wouldn't have needed to stoop to that level.

I will not be replying to you any further in this thread.

The only stooping I need to do is in order to look you in the eye but I am surprised to discover you're intimidated by the fact that I'm female. I would have never guessed that to be your problem however I made the comment I did about you discounting my inital response to you as emotional, because you accused both DragonLady and Coyote of being emotional as well, while I found their comments were well reasoned and on point.

Not agreeing with someone is one thing. Throwing a pissy hissy fit and declaring you're taking your balls and going home is very pedantic but is certainly your perogative but know this. My comments are based on the training I've received from firearm instructors who are certified by the agency that trains all of the law enforcement officers in the state. I will put their opinions, court testimony, and beliefs above those of an childish and insecure little man any day of the week.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.

He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.

Still not punishable by death.

I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?

This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.

Isn’t that what you are doing?

If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?

No. I am not. I am stating facts and information, backed with evidence and legal precedent. Most of the arguments I have encountered in this thread thus far have either been emotional or irrelevant to the situation at hand.

It wasn't that he was a drunk driver, it was the moment he chose to become a violent felon while resisting arrest. Had he fully cooperated with those officers, we wouldn't be in this thread lofting well-intended points over each other's heads.

I do not think you are as dispassionate as you claim. You choose to follow one of two branching paths to your conclusion: what could Rashard have done differently to have prevented his death.

What about the other path?

You can't be a police officer and not expect to encounter people who are drunk, belligerent, wanting to fight, etc. You can't just shoot them, not legally that is.

Right. Except there is a difference between being drunk, belligerent, and wanting to fight and actually fighting and pointing a weapon at a cop in hot pursuit. The cops acted appropriately.

If it had a been a firearm then I'd say have at him. But it wasn't a firearm.