Rayshard Brooks: A justified use of deadly force, explained

[TemplarKormac]

A taser is not a gun.

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

 

[Coyote]

A taser is not a gun.

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

It is not a gun.

 

[Sunsettommy]

A taser is not a gun.

The State of Georgia says it is a firearm:

Stun Gun Laws in Georgia
Legally, stun guns are divided into two types:

• One type requires you to make direct contact with your target before the gun discharges.
• The other type, used by police, fires a projectile (typically a wire) into the target so it can be used at a distance.

The “contact” type of stun gun is not considered a firearm in Georgia and can generally be carried without a permit. The “projectile” type stun gun is considered a firearm and is regulated by the same laws that govern the use of other types of weapons.

and,

A firearm permit is not needed for a person to carry a stun gun in Georgia. A firearms permit is required, however, to carry a projectile stun gun. Permits will not be issued to minors under the age of 21, or to people convicted of felonies and certain other crimes.

LINK

boldings mine

======

Brooks broke the law in using it, since only law enforcement can use them legally.

 

[Coyote]

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?

 

[Sunsettommy]

A taser is not a gun.

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

It is not a gun.

He is correct it is classified as a firearm when it has a projectile feature.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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 an 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.

Here is the pertinent point to me (and I can’t speak to training...neither of us can)...the person was fleeing. I had in hand his I’d, wallet, car keys. I knew where he lived. I knew his criminal record (not particularly violent, no weapons charges). I could pick him up later. I had that choice.

None of those things were mitigating factors when he chose to become violent with the police officers. What they were doing wasn't some desk job where they could carefully plan out their reactons.

Moreover, you would be grossly negligent in your duties if you had a prime opportunity to capture a violent assailant and chose to pass it up.

Also, consider what Brooks may have done with the taser had he been allowed to flee.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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 actions could they have taken?

None other than the ones they took. They tried to subdue him peacefully and failed. They were left with no other choices.

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

 

[Sunsettommy]

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?

Coyote slow and try thinking it out, Brooks as a DRUNK man, broke numerous laws, starting with his resisting and assaulting the police, evading arrest, shooting a projectile taser gun he stole from the police, at one of the police men.

He made it clear he was now a threat to the public for various modes of violence he produced, stop trying to rationalize his idiotic violent behavior.

 

[Coyote]

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 an 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.

Here is the pertinent point to me (and I can’t speak to training...neither of us can)...the person was fleeing. I had in hand his I’d, wallet, car keys. I knew where he lived. I knew his criminal record (not particularly violent, no weapons charges). I could pick him up later. I had that choice.

None of those things were mitigating factors whe he chose to become violent with the pokice officers. What they were doing wasn't some desk job where they could carefully plan out their reactons.

Moreover, you would be grossly negligent in your duties if you had a prime opportunity to capture a violent assailant and chose to pass it up.

Also, consider what Brooks may have done with the taser had he been allowed to flee.

1. Yes, they are. Are yo7 suggesting officers should not THINK?
2. A man who resists arrest is transformed into a violent assailant who could endanger society based on that one act alone?

Really?

 

[Coyote]

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.

 

[CowboyTed]

Furthermore, the DA announced on TV yesterday that the taser was fired twice, and the officer HAD to know that, and hence he was disarmed.

I just saw that video, the taser was fired into the air, out of view of both officers who were both on the ground after tussling with Brooks.

Meaning neither of them saw the first shot go off. In other words, they did not know the taser was spent after the second shot.

Regardless of the status of the taser, Brooks presented himself as a threat to the officers and to the community at large. He was willing to do anything to impede his own arrest. You don't let an established threat loose into the community. Sorry.

Upon further inspection of that video, it appears that was Rolfe's taser. Meaning the taser that Brooks had was Brosnan's. My original contention was correct. There was still one cartridge left in the taser.

Sorry kids, you lose.

Rolfe said he tried to Tase Brooks twice with his own, to no apparent effect. And yeah, Brooks took Brosnan's.

And yes, that does mean that the Tasers issued to Atlanta cops have two shots.

And the one Brooks had was fired twice...

And this is the same Police Dept.... These are now all subject to attempted murder... Careful where you go here...

Furthermore, the taser appears to have been fired once, not twice, meaning he was an ACTIVE threat.

I love how you just tried to spin the argument around on me. Are you that desperate?

Am I misunderstanding this? God knows, I haven't had time to sit and watch every video available of this incident frame-by-frame, Zapruder-style, the way some people claim to have done.

I'm not sure where some of these people are getting "It had already been fired, the cop knew he couldn't fire again" from. As I'm understanding it, Brooks and the two cops, Rolfe and Brosnan, were struggling on the ground. Rolfe tried to Tase Brooks and said later it seemed to have no effect. Brooks grabbed Brosnan's Taser, and ran. Rolfe chased him, Brooks twisted around to fire Brosnan's Taser at Rolfe, at which point Rolfe drew his gun and shot him, apparently within a second or two of Brooks firing the Taser.

Am I missing something, or is that essentially correct? And if it's correct, what are these people in here babbling about?

"Rolfe chased him, Brooks twisted around to fire Brosnan's Taser at Rolfe, at which point Rolfe drew his gun and shot him, apparently within a second or two of Brooks firing the Taser."

This is the disputed bit...
Brooks fired the tazer while running away and then turned and just ran.
Straight after firing Rolfe dropped his tazer.
Rolfe then drew his gun and shot Brooks in the back twice.

Now the question is:

• Was Rolfes life in danger?
• Was any body's else life in danger?

If I was Rolfe's I would be going for it all happened very quickly and I felt in danger but on reflection I wasn't... That is a perfectly good defence as the law states how Rolfe felt at the time... It means he still did wrong (so did Brooks) but bulk of any serious charges would be dropped.
Georgia Police would have a pay out for an ill trained cop.

 

[Coyote]

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?

Coyote slow and try thinking it out, Brooks as a DRUNK man, broke numerous laws, starting with his resisting and assaulting the police, evading arrest, shooting a projectile taser gun he stole from the police, at one of the police men.

He made it clear he was now a threat to the public for various modes of violence he produced, stop trying to rationalize his idiotic violent behavior.

Actions of one event...directed solely at evading arrest, directed at the police...make him a threat to the public?

Well shoot...using that logic, Clive Bundy and his gang should have been shot down, not heroized.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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?

Coyote slow and try thinking it out, Brooks as a DRUNK man, broke numerous laws, starting with his resisting and assaulting the police, evading arrest, shooting a projectile taser gun he stole from the police, at one of the police men.

He made it clear he was now a threat to the public for various modes of violence he produced, stop trying to rationalize his idiotic violent behavior.

Actions of one event...directed solely at evading arrest, directed at the police...make him a threat to the public?

Well shoot...using that logic, Clive Bundy and his gang should have been shot down, not heroized.

Now you are just embarrassing yourself, you keep ignoring his physical assault on two men, steals a firearm which he uses with intent to cause serious injury,, evading a legal, proper arrest, while he is drunk, all while he is trying to run away, the man was clearly a danger in the area.

Violence, violence and yet more violence, you can't explain them away for his trying to evade a legal arrest.

I think he did it because he realize he was violating his probation, which means a good chance he goes to prison, that makes him dangerous.

 

[Care4all]

No, he didn't. The cops KNEW the taser was empty, out of juice, because it had already been discharged twice. He was not a deadly threat to the officers...And they both knew this....

Sorry, the willingness to use deadly or injurious force against the police made him a threat, not only to the police, but to the surrounding population. If he had not been shot, he would have continued to flee, using whatever means were at his disposal to resist his arrest. You cannot presume he would not have used more violence to do so had he survived.

Willingness to use any violence in the process of resisting your arrest makes you a threat. Your argument is invalid.

Sorry.... the whole purpose of the taser introduction to the police force was because the taser WAS NOT deadly...

That's what we all in the public were told. That is our mindset on tasers.

Even I, who is not a gun lover, would fire a taser....

So why you keep saying he used deadly force against the officers, is a fabrication of yours... it's simply not true....?

 

[g5000]

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

It's just not punching "someone". It is punching a cop, which is far more serious.

A lot of states have the same laws. When I was in the service, one of our officers got drunk and punched a cop in Florida. He was supposed to go to jail for five years IAW Florida law.

The military pulled some strings to prevent that, but his military career was finished.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No, he didn't. The cops KNEW the taser was empty, out of juice, because it had already been discharged twice. He was not a deadly threat to the officers...And they both knew this....

Sorry, the willingness to use deadly or injurious force against the police made him a threat, not only to the police, but to the surrounding population. If he had not been shot, he would have continued to flee, using whatever means were at his disposal to resist his arrest. You cannot presume he would not have used more violence to do so had he survived.

Willingness to use any violence in the process of resisting your arrest makes you a threat. Your argument is invalid.

Sorry.... the whole purpose of the taser introduction to the police force was because the taser WAS NOT deadly...

That's what we all in the public were told. That is our mindset on tasers.

Even I, who is not a gun lover, would fire a taser....

So why you keep saying he used deadly force against the officers, is a fabrication of yours... it's simply not true....?

Georgia says the projectile taser is a firearm, because it CAN be dangerous when used improperly, which is why only the police can have them, NOT the regular public, and special permits are required for citizens to own one.

 

[g5000]

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."

 

[Coyote]

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?

Coyote slow and try thinking it out, Brooks as a DRUNK man, broke numerous laws, starting with his resisting and assaulting the police, evading arrest, shooting a projectile taser gun he stole from the police, at one of the police men.

He made it clear he was now a threat to the public for various modes of violence he produced, stop trying to rationalize his idiotic violent behavior.

Actions of one event...directed solely at evading arrest, directed at the police...make him a threat to the public?

Well shoot...using that logic, Clive Bundy and his gang should have been shot down, not heroized.

Now you are just embarrassing yourself, you keep ignoring his physical assault on two men, steals a firearm which he uses with intent to cause serious injury,, evading a legal, proper arrest, while he is drunk, all while he is trying to run away, the man was clearly a danger in the area.

Violence, violence and yet more violence, you can't explain them away for his trying to evade a legal arrest.

I think he did it because he realize he was violating his probation, which means a good chance he goes to prison, that makes him dangerous.

He struggled with officers...not generic men

He stole a taser. Not a gun. If you think they are equivalent, then why do police need guns?

 

[Sunsettommy]

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?

Coyote slow and try thinking it out, Brooks as a DRUNK man, broke numerous laws, starting with his resisting and assaulting the police, evading arrest, shooting a projectile taser gun he stole from the police, at one of the police men.

He made it clear he was now a threat to the public for various modes of violence he produced, stop trying to rationalize his idiotic violent behavior.

Actions of one event...directed solely at evading arrest, directed at the police...make him a threat to the public?

Well shoot...using that logic, Clive Bundy and his gang should have been shot down, not heroized.

Now you are just embarrassing yourself, you keep ignoring his physical assault on two men, steals a firearm which he uses with intent to cause serious injury,, evading a legal, proper arrest, while he is drunk, all while he is trying to run away, the man was clearly a danger in the area.

Violence, violence and yet more violence, you can't explain them away for his trying to evade a legal arrest.

I think he did it because he realize he was violating his probation, which means a good chance he goes to prison, that makes him dangerous.

He struggled with officers...not generic men

He stole a taser. Not a gun. If you think they are equivalent, then why do police need guns?

Why do YOU keep ignoring the state of Georgia laws on what is considered a firearm? They state that projectile Tasers as a firearm, I gave you the link about at POST 283

I repeat:

"Stun Gun Laws in Georgia
Legally, stun guns are divided into two types:

• One type requires you to make direct contact with your target before the gun discharges.
• The other type, used by police, fires a projectile (typically a wire) into the target so it can be used at a distance.

The “contact” type of stun gun is not considered a firearm in Georgia and can generally be carried without a permit. The “projectile” type stun gun is considered a firearm and is regulated by the same laws that govern the use of other types of weapons."

bolding mine

You going to keep ignoring this?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.