Excessive Force

The Guilt or Innocence of the Cop Who Killed Rayshard Brooks Has Nothing to Do With George Floyd's Death

The felony murder charge against Garrett Rolfe hinges on whether he reasonably believed Brooks posed a threat.

|

The day after the June 12 shooting of Rayshard Brooks during an arrest for driving under the influence at a Wendy's restaurant in Atlanta, Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said she did not think Officer Garrett Rolfe's use of deadly force was justified. Rolfe was fired immediately, and yesterday—five days after the incident—Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced that the former officer had been charged with felony murder, which is punishable by life in prison or the death penalty, along with 10 counts of assault, aggravated assault, property damage, and violations of his oath.

The swift action against Rolfe was welcomed by Brooks' family and many critics of police abuse. But the timing and context of the dismissal and the charges, along with details of the deadly encounter that Howard glossed over during a press conference yesterday, create the appearance that he and Bottoms rushed to judgment about the shooting. The incident provoked vigorous local protests (including an arson fire at the Wendy's where Brooks was killed) on the heels of nationwide demonstrations in response to the suffocation of George Floyd by Minneapolis police on Memorial Day.

"As protests were touched off across the country by the death of Mr. Floyd, amid a pandemic that has disproportionately affected African-Americans, the demonstrations in Atlanta were especially heated," The New York Times notes. But notwithstanding the justified outrage at Floyd's death, it is important to recognize that some excessive-force cases are more complicated than others. The question of whether Rolfe committed murder hinges on the facts of this particular case, which should not be overlooked to make a statement about holding police accountable, as important as that goal is.

"While there may be debate as to whether this was an appropriate use of deadly force," Bottoms said on Saturday, "I firmly believe that there is a distinction between what you can do and what you should do." Yet "whether this was an appropriate use of deadly force" is the crux of this case, and the mayor had already concluded that it was not, less than 24 hours after it happened.

"Mr. Brooks never presented himself as a threat," Howard told reporters yesterday. The district attorney was referring to what happened after a Wendy's employee called police at 10:33 p.m. last Friday to report that a driver had fallen asleep in the restaurant's drive-through lane. Officer Devin Brosnan arrived nine minutes later, woke Brooks up, and asked him to move his car to a nearby parking space. Seven minutes after that, Brosnan called for another officer to assist him, and Rolfe arrived at 10:56 p.m.

As Howard emphasized, Brooks was polite, cooperative, and even cordial during the first 41 minutes of his interaction with the officers, which included a consensual pat-down, a field sobriety test, and a breath test that put his blood alcohol concentration at 0.1 percent, slightly above the legal limit of 0.08 percent. But things changed dramatically when Rolfe announced that Brooks "had too much drink to be driving," grabbed him from behind, and tried to handcuff him. Howard said Rolfe violated department policy at that point by failing to explicitly inform Brooks that he was being arrested for driving under the influence, an omission that is the basis for one of the charges against Rolfe.

Brooks responded to the sudden transformation of what had until then been a surprisingly friendly encounter by pulling away from Rolfe. He ended up wrestling with the officers on the pavement of the parking lot. They asked him to "stop fighting" and warned him that he would be tased if he did not. When Brosnan drew his Taser and tried to subdue Brooks with it, Brooks grabbed the weapon. After some more wrestling, Brooks stood up, punched Rolfe, and ran away, still holding the Taser. Rolfe ran after Brooks, firing his Taser in an unsuccessful effort to stop him. After Brooks fired Brosnan's Taser at Rolfe, his aim too high to hit the officer, Rolfe drew his handgun and fired three shots, two of which struck Brooks in the back.

Under the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1985 case Tennessee v. Garner, the crucial question about Rolfe's use of deadly force is whether he had "probable cause" to believe that Brooks posed "a significant threat of death or serious physical injury" to Rolfe or others. After reviewing eyewitness reports, physical evidence, and video from dashcams, body cameras, the restaurant's surveillance system, and bystanders' cellphones, Howard concluded that such a belief was not justified by the circumstances.

That conclusion is debatable. As The New York Times noted earlier this week, "officers are trained that they have the right to escalate their use of force if they believe someone is threatening to incapacitate them." Brooks had already taken Brosnan's Taser. If he had managed to use it effectively against Rolfe, the officer might have been thinking, Brooks also could have grabbed Rolfe's gun.

Furthermore, although Tasers are promoted as "less than lethal" weapons, they can be deadly. Howard's own office described the Taser as "a deadly weapon" in a recent case involving an assault by Atlanta police officers on nonviolent protesters.

Howard disputed that potential defense. At the point when Rolfe shot Brooks, the district attorney said, the Taser had already been fired twice, which meant it was no longer effective at a distance and therefore "presented no danger to him or to any other persons." Although Howard assumes Rolfe knew that, it is possible that he did not realize the Taser had been fired twice or that the fact did not register in the heat of the moment.

Howard also said Rolfe violated his oath by firing his Taser at a fleeing suspect, which department policy forbids, and recklessly endangered other people in the parking lot when he fired his handgun, which is the basis for several assault charges against Rolfe. Howard noted that one round hit a Chevrolet Trailblazer, which is the basis for another charge: criminal damage to property.

Lance LoRusso, Rolfe's attorney, vigorously disputed Howard's characterization of the incident. "Mr. Brooks violently attacked two officers and disarmed one of them," he said in a press release. "When Mr. Brooks turned and pointed an object at Officer Rolfe, any officer would have reasonably believed that he intended to disarm, disable, or seriously injure him." That description suggests Rolfe did not necessarily realize Brooks was firing a Taser. According to Howard, the pat-down had discovered a "bulge" in Brooks' pants pocket, but the officers accepted his assurance that it was a wad of bills.

Brosnan is charged with violating department policy and assaulting Brooks by standing on his shoulder as he lay on the ground after the shooting. Brosnan, who recalled standing on Brooks' arm rather than his shoulder, said he did that because he was not sure whether Brooks had a weapon. Rolfe is charged with assaulting Brooks by kicking him after the shooting, which he presumably will argue was justified by a fear of further violence.

"This was not a rush to judgment," said Don Samuel, Brosnan's lawyer. "This was a rush to misjudgment." Samuel said Brooks initially shot Brosnan with the Taser he grabbed from him, causing Brosnan to fall backward and suffer a concussion as his head hit the pavement.

Howard charged Rolfe and Brosnan with failing to promptly treat Brooks' wounds. Samuel denied that, saying Rolfe ran to his car to get a first aid kit "less than a minute" after the shooting and "Devin did what he could to save Mr. Brooks." According to a video-based reconstruction of the incident by The New York Times, Rolfe ran to his SUV a minute after the shooting and called for an ambulance. The Times says the two officers began to "provide medical assistance" at 11:25 p.m., two minutes after the shooting, when Rolfe can be seen bandaging Brooks' torso.

Howard described Brosnan as a "cooperating witness" who was ready to testify against Rolfe, a characterization that Samuel immediately disputed. "We've never agreed to testify," Samuel told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "We've never agreed to cooperate. We've never agreed to plead guilty."

The newspaper notes that the charges against Brosnan, who has been an Atlanta police officer for less than two years, "were a surprise to many," since he "interacted politely" with Brooks and "didn't reach for his gun" even after "Brooks took off with his Taser." It adds that "the contradiction" between what Samuel said and Howard's description of what Brosnan had agreed to do, along with "other unusual aspects" of the press conference, raised "questions about the speed with which Howard completed his investigation."

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI), which "investigates nearly all police shootings in the state," typically "takes between 60 and 90 days to complete probes," the Journal-Constitution says. The GBI has not yet announced its findings regarding Rolfe's shooting of Brooks, which happened less than a week ago. The agency said it was "not aware of today's press conference before it was conducted" and was "not consulted on the charges filed by the District Attorney." The Journal-Constitution notes that "the GBI is currently investigating Howard, who faces a tough runoff election against his former chief deputy prosecutor Fani Willis in August, and his use of a nonprofit to funnel at least $140,000 in city of Atlanta funds to supplement his salary."

Philip Holloway, a former prosecutor and local criminal defense attorney, told the paper Howard is "clearly not interested in what the GBI has to say," adding, "It will be very interesting if GBI doesn't come up with the same conclusions that he did. If not, they will become star witnesses for defense."

Under Georgia's felony murder statute, prosecutors have to show that Rolfe caused Brooks' death while committing a felony—in this case, aggravated assault, which he allegedly committed by firing his gun at Brooks. In other words, the same conduct that killed Brooks is also the predicate felony for the murder charge, which means prosecutors do not have to prove that Rolfe intended to kill Brooks. Yet the penalty—death or life imprisonment—is the same as the penalty for intentional, premeditated murder.

If Rolfe's use of deadly force was justified, he did not commit aggravated assault when he fired his weapon and he therefore cannot be guilty of felony murder. Jurors historically have been extremely reluctant to second-guess police officers' judgment in cases like this, although that may change because of the impact that George Floyd's death and other recent travesties have had on public opinion. Leaving aside the double standard that police tend to benefit from when it comes to the use of deadly force, the question is whether prosecutors can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rolfe did not have probable cause to believe, given the circumstances, that Brooks posed "a significant threat of death or serious physical injury."

Howard argues that Rolfe's demeanor at the time of the shooting suggests he was not really afraid of Brooks. "At the time that the shot was fired, the utterance made by Officer Rolfe was, 'I got him,'" he said at the press conference. "The demeanor of the officers immediately after the shooting did not reflect any fear or danger of Mr. Brooks, but their actions really reflected other kinds of emotions."

Notwithstanding Howard's purported insight into the officers' hearts and minds, their lawyers will argue that they dealt professionally and appropriately with a violent suspect who had repeatedly assaulted them, who had fired a Taser at both of them, and who may have continued to pose a threat even after he was shot because they were not sure whether the Taser was the only weapon they had to worry about. Whether or not that story is true, a jury might very well find it plausible enough for reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case.

Brooks' death during what should have been a routine DUI arrest is obviously horrifying. No one deserves to be killed by the police because he drove a car after he had a little too much to drink—a low-level misdemeanor that typically is handled with sanctions such as fines, probation, community service, and license suspension. Rolfe and Brosnan arguably had several opportunities to avoid that deadly outcome.

Brooks would still be alive if Brosnan had followed his initial inclination to let him pull out of the drive-through lane and take a nap in a parking space. "He was not an experienced DUI investigator, so that's why he called Officer Rolfe in," Howard said. "He indicated to us that he was somewhat surprised that it accelerated into an actual arrest, because he thought that the situation might have been resolved before then."

Brooks repeatedly volunteered to lock his car and walk to his sister's house, which was nearby. He would still be alive if the officers had let him do that. At the same time, one can imagine the outcry against such lenience if Brooks had later returned to his car and gotten into an accident. And despite Howard's suggestion that the incident could have been resolved without an arrest, department policy leaves no such discretion in DUI cases. It says "an officer will write a citation and make a physical arrest when a driver is cited for…driving under the influence of intoxicating alcoholic beverages where the level of intoxication is .08% or more."

The charge that Rolfe violated department policy by failing to explicitly tell Brooks that he was being arrested for DUI may seem picayune. But Brooks might not have resisted his arrest if Rolfe had not sprung it on him so suddenly. One second, he was chatting amiably with the officers, and the next he was being grabbed and handcuffed.

Finally, Rolfe could have let Brooks go when he ran away and tracked him down later based on his driver's license and car registration. When Rolfe decided to chase Brooks, it seems, he was simply trying to detain him and complete the arrest. There was no reason to think that Brooks at that point posed any danger to the general public. But Rolfe was not obligated to let Brooks go, and what happened next, by Rolfe's account, was determined by what Brooks did: He fired the Taser at Rolfe, who according to his lawyer did not know whether it was a stun gun or perhaps a firearm that the pat-down had missed.

What was Rolfe's state of mind at that moment, and was it justified by the circumstances? Those are the questions a jury will have to confront. They have nothing to do with George Floyd's death or the general problem of police brutality. But it sure looks like those issues have colored the public and official reaction to the shooting.

Advertisement

NEXT: Understanding Chief Justice Roberts's DACA Decision

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He indicated to us that he was somewhat surprised that it accelerated into an actual arrest

    lolwut?

    1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new. VDs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do… Click here

  2. I am very supportive of efforts to hold police criminal liable for crimes they commit while on duty. However, I do not believe that in this case criminal charges are correct. The cop defiantly did wrong, and used excessive force, but there is not enough to rise beyond reasonable doubt.

    1. So, the fact that he brutally kicked the guy he just shot through the spine who was motionless on the ground in no way indicates that he didn’t give a shit about the threat and it was all about failure to obey?

      1. Is there any confirmation of that, or are we just taking DA Howard’s word?

        1. It’s a weird accusation. I’ve never shot someone, but I imagine if I did a kick would be pretty low on the list of things I could do with that amount of anger and adrenaline.

        2. There’s camera footage of him kicking the guy bleeding on the ground instead of trying to render aid to staunch some of the bleeding.

          1. Is there?
            I’ve seen a blurry still image that could be him about to kick, but nothing solid

            1. I agree, I cannot make out if it is a kick or toeing the individual to see if he still presents a danger. People can lie motionless until an opportunity to attack presents itself. I doubt the cop knew where the man was hit or the extent of his injuries at the time. Experts will analyze the video as evidence and present it at the trial. Best to wait and see.

            1. I don’t have a link. I was lying.

          2. Yet all they showed was a still from a video. Not the video.

        3. You aren’t being precise.

          DA “Under Investigation of the GBI due to corruption” Howard.

          Or, we could just call him Nifong Jr.

        4. I agree. I think I remember that the atty for the officer said that Rolfe used his foot to kick away the taser. The DA produced a still shot that could be from anything. And he is not known for candor. He charged this to create a narrative that would sway public opinion to taint a pool of jurors.

    2. So you think cops should shoot unarmed people in the back as they run away just because they haven’t kept up on their P90X? lol That POS wanted to kill someone. Everyone was pretty calm until the wrestling match and then it’s pretty obvious that bald TJ Hooker hulked out and was gonna kill somebody that night. Then they didn’t even try to stop the dude from bleeding out on the ground and kicked him instead. Lol I think all Trumpettes have just lost the ability to actually objectively look at a situation even given camera footage of a murder. It’s so goddamn tiring.

      1. Molly’s one of yours, dumbass

        1. I think you are getting sucked into an argument with Tulpa.

          1. You’re a retard Jeff. You tried flauncing about as “Wise Old Fool” and then AGAIN left it stupidly unrootected.

            1. I’ve never used Wise Old Fool.

            2. But, hey, congrats on stealing yet another handle. Everyone needs a calling in life, and it’s a blessing that you have found yours.

      2. No. I am just saying that there is not enough for criminal charges, especially under current US case law.

      3. If someone broke into my house, shot his gun (or taser) at me, and I shoot him as he tries to evade me, I’m guilty of murder?

        The guy was legally drunk and had a record. If he runs into a family of 5 driving drunk 2 days later, it would be ignored by the media. But 5 people would still be dead.

        We can’t stop illegals who were deported 3,4 times from returning and killing someone. Imagine that level of incompetence inside the border.

        Just dissolve the police and let social workers handle “non violent” situations. It’s not like social workers have no record of ignoring abuses and mistreating minors in disadvantaged homes, right?

    3. There is one important fact that this article ignores.

      There are reports out there that the ME has concluded that Brooks was shot in the back.

      How does it affect your assessment of “there is not enough to rise beyond reasonable doubt” if that story is true and Brooks was shot in the back.

      1. Yet Brooks was perfectly capable of firing the taser at the officer even though he was running away from the officer at the time. Almost as if he didn’t stop, turn around, fire the taser, turn back around, and start running again but instead kept running and slightly turned his torso to fire.

        1. 1. The taser can only be fired twice.
          2. The officer fired the taser at least once.
          3. It’s possible brooks fired the taser once before he started to flee in the first place.
          4. It’s also possible that the officer fully discharged the taser before brooks got a hold of it.

          “but instead kept running and slightly turned his torso to fire.”

          It would be next to impossible to hit anything intentionally that way. It’s hard enough for someone to learn to shoot half-way accurately on the run. Shooting backwards on the run? NO.

          At any rate brooks was fleeing at the point the officer fired. There was no immediate threat at the point lethal force was used.

    4. “The felony murder charge against Garrett Rolfe hinges on whether he reasonably believed Brooks posed a threat.”

      Does it?

      Aren’t cops *supposed* to apprehend violent felons with potentially lethal force if necessary?

      Or is being able to run fast *supposed* to be a get out of an arrest free card?

  3. Thanks for all of the details Jacob. I’m generally of the opinion that “good shoots” are pretty rare in the police business. Maybe a live hostage situation or similar. And of course it always goes back to way too many laws that lead to way to many interactions with cops. .1 BAC is not blind drunk and for a grown man it’s probably not enough to cause injury to anyone on the road. .08 is an arbitrarily low standard because for the children or something.
    Having said all of that, this looks like a corrupt politician caving to the mob and at the very least over prosecuting this cop. Libertarians should oppose government injustice visited on anyone. Even cops.

    1. He was clearly very intoxicated on the tape.

      1. I admit I haven’t seen the tape but .1 isn’t very intoxicated except for individuals with a very low tolerance for alcohol which seems unlikely in this case.

        1. I used “intoxicated” rather than “drunk” for a reason.

        2. He was unconscious in his running car in a Wendy’s parking lot.

          1. It is of course possible that he fell asleep due to a combination of alcohol, fatigue, medications, or other things. A 0.1 BAC is not so drunk to be ‘passed out drunk’.

              1. Hey, Tulpa, chemjeff seems to be intact, not broken. I believed in you, and now it looks like you are just a bit phoney-pants! I’m questioning my faith in you, man.

            1. Yet he was both passed out and legally drunk

              1. Look, “passed out” from alcohol implies that a person consumed so much alcohol that its sedative effects puts that person to sleep. Having a BAC of 0.1 is generally not enough to cause someone to “pass out” from too much alcohol.

                1. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/911-call-prior-rayshard-brooks-fatal-shooting-police-released-n1231160

                  The employee tells the dispatcher in a call released Monday that they asked the man to pull to the side and go to sleep. When the 911 operator asks if the man had any weapons visible, the caller responds, “No, no. I think he’s intoxicated.”

                  lying jeffy caugjt lying again

                  1. Nope. I’m right and you’re a disgusting troll. The police were called because he was blocking the drive-thru lane, regardless of WHY he was blocking the drive-thru lane.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.18.2020 at 8:16 pm
                      The police weren’t called because he was drunk. They were called because his car was blocking the drive-thru lane. End of story

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.18.2020 at 8:39 pm
                      But that is completely consistent with what I wrote. The police were called because he was blocking the drive-thru lane. He was blocking the drive-thru lane because, in part, he was drunk

                      SO MUCH FOR “end of story”

                      AHAHAHAHAH LYING JEFFY CAUGHT LYING AGAIN!!!!

                      CRY MORE LIAR AHAHAHAHHA!!!$

                2. I believe he was .18

                3. Chemjeff is raising a good point. While he was drunk, he didn’t have an absurd levels of alcohol in his system and certainly not enough to explain passing out behind the wheel. What else had he taken?

                  If he was high on other drugs as well, this actually support the cops.

          2. in the actual drive thru lane, blocking traffic

      2. He couldn’t have been that badly intoxicated if he was able to wrestle with a police officer and steal a taser.

        1. He was so intoxicated that the passed out in his car while waiting to order at Wendy’s.

          That’s pretty intoxicated.

          1. Woke up, didn’t know where he was, couldn’t pass a field sobriety test. Too drunk to be driving for certain.

        2. Yesterday you insisted that it was racism when my Ainu grandfather was sent to internment and my Korean grandmother was not.

          You literally said it was racism, despite them being the same race. You were told explicitly, as they were by the people who marched my grandfather off, that it was his country of origin. You just knew you were right.

          This, after you were forced to backpeddle on your claims that there was virtually no chance of instituting gulags.

          Your observations are utterly worthless Chūnibyō

          1. I don’t really give a shit about your opinions of me, to be honest.

            The right-wing bogeyman scenario of “OMG Bernie Sanders gets elected, he’s going to throw us all into death camps!” is pure nonsense. It is fear mongering along the lines of all of the rest of the fear mongering that Team Red has engaged in for a very long
            time. It is a cynical attempt to portray Team Blue in the worst, most evil possible light as they can in order to drive votes to Team Red. That is all. Team Blue does the same thing of course, but Team Red has the whole performance down to a precise science.

            1. “I don’t really give a shit about your opinions of me”

              Then he proves himself a liar with giantwallofdoescare

              AhahahahahahahahAhahahahahahaahahah

            2. The 20th century says hi

              1. You’re a paranoid nutcase who sees conspiracies everywhere.

                1. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/911-call-prior-rayshard-brooks-fatal-shooting-police-released-n1231160

                  The employee tells the dispatcher in a call released Monday that they asked the man to pull to the side and go to sleep. When the 911 operator asks if the man had any weapons visible, the caller responds, “No, no. I think he’s intoxicated.”

                  lying jeffy caugjt lying again

                  1. This is irrelevant to the present conversation.

                    1. SO ARE YOU!!!!

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.18.2020 at 8:16 pm
                      The police weren’t called because he was drunk. They were called because his car was blocking the drive-thru lane. End of story

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.18.2020 at 8:39 pm
                      But that is completely consistent with what I wrote. The police were called because he was blocking the drive-thru lane. He was blocking the drive-thru lane because, in part, he was drunk

                      SO MUCH FOR “end of story”

                      AHAHAHAHAH LYING JEFFY CAUGHT LYING AGAIN!

    2. good shoots happen all the time. Out here the phoenix pd kill people all the time (it feels like) but when you read the stories, i’m rarely like “wow they crossed the line”

      but that doesn’t mean all shoots are righteous. I tend to look at them through the lens of “would i expect to end up in the clink if i shot someone under the same circumstances”. In this case, the answer is yes

      1. “shoots”? Who the heck talks like that?

    3. Forget the numbers.

      The original reason the cops were called at all is because he passed out in the drive thru.

      The dude was drunk.

  4. After reviewing eyewitness reports, physical evidence, and video from dashcams, body cameras, the restaurant’s surveillance system, and bystanders’ cellphones, Howard concluded that such a belief was not justified by the circumstances.

    Facing a runoff election, an investigation for sexual harassment, and an investigation for extorting money from a charity probably had something to do with it.

    1. ^^This.

      Paul Howard has had some high profile misses on his record. But as someone stated in the AJC, people forget about you losing a case, but not stealing from the treasury.

      But since the Atlanta Police union has endorsed his opponent in the race, it’s not a bad tactic. And the case will be decided long after the runoff.

  5. They cannot in this environment systemically drag investigations out until the public movies on, so they go the exact opposite direction.

    As someone who vigorously disagrees with the shooting, a swift termination of Rolfe’s employment is not out of line. I wish they would do more of that. Criminal charges, on the other hand, certainly here look nothing like a pursuit of justice. They’re treating this former employee worse than they would even one of the not-conntected, unwashed masses, and I didn’t think that was possible.

    1. Also surprised and amazed they are treating him as if he was joe shmoe who shot someone in his yard after a scuffle. I really didnt think it would happen this fast. But I am happy about it.

      That is exactly what I want for these cops, and what they need. Just like if I have a situation turn bad and use a firearm to end someone, I expect that I will be dragged in, cuffed, and charged until I prove I was fighting for my life, every single time they shoot an American citizen those fuckers need to be thinking the same thing.

      Every single time they need to think “this could be the end of my career and livelihood” because if I shoot someone defending myself, there is a high chance it would be the end of mine unless I prove there was a godamn good reason to end someone; should be no different for them.

      These fuckers are paid for by, and work for, us; for too long they have maintained a state of “obey me or face the consequences” when they are just dysfunctional, low-to-medium function members of society that happen to have a badge. Their reckoning is long overdue.

      1. I have reviewed many tapes. There is no way for any of us to make assumptions about what the officers were thinking at the time. They have just been assaulted by Brooks who was intentionally trying to hurt them. He is running with a taser. There is no way to know if in the midst of the fighting and the noise whether Rolfe even knows whether the taser has been fired. I also think that while the DA asserts that Brooks is calm and Jovial, that Rolfe and Brosnan are using best practices to keep the situation calm so that Brooks isn’t fearful. This is a form of de-escalation which Rolfe was specifically trained to do. The point is to make the actual arrest go more smoothly. I also watched a video of an atty with the DA’s office at the Wendy’s say he is there to ensure that “they get justice for Rayshard”. His job is to seek justice, period. In this case it would be an injustice to prosecute and convict this officer of murder, based on the laws that exist. You can’t charge someone for what you think should be the case with regard to law. You base the charges on the law at the time.

    2. Cops aren’t like Mcdonalds employees who can replaced on a whim. If we fired every cop for having possibly acted out of order, we wouldn’t have a police force. Not unless we fill the expanding void with club bouncers and bodybuilders.

      Aren’t we in this mess because we let unqualified people become police?

      1. Not unless we fill the expanding void with club bouncers and bodybuilders.

        The sentence after this one points to what is likely part of the problem. However, over-criminalization (and local government’s insatiable thirst for fees and fines) has increased the demand for law enforcement past the point our country’s decades-long decline in actual crime should have allowed. So they’re already filling the unnecessary void with the under-trained and ill-suited.

  6. I still do not understand the distinction between “fell asleep in the drive thru, and passed out drunk. It seems the business was open?
    Anyway, this is another fine mess you’ve gotten us into. I can’t wait for the jury selection.

    1. Because of the DA press conference and Mayor Bottoms’ public comments long before any investigation, they will almost certainly have to change venues out of ATL

  7. “Rolfe and Brosnan arguably had several opportunities to avoid that deadly outcome.”

    Interesting.
    Weird that there’s no mention of Brooks having such opportunity…

    1. He’s already faced the consequences of his decision making that day.

      1. True.
        But he had agency, which Sullum doesn’t acknowledge.
        “Libertarians” really aren’t big on personal responsibility these days it seems

        1. Oh, boy. Like the 5000th incidence of a Reason writer didn’t say anything about my hobby horse in a blog post so I’ll devine what the writer’s silence means and then accuse the entire organization of being aligned with evil.

          Yawn.

  8. Ever harsher DUI standards lead to unintended consequences.
    “Back in the day” a .1 level maybe got you a ride home in the squad car to sleep it off. Now, Karen and her MADD buddies, have so lowered the thresholds that cops are going to run you in and fine the crap out of you.

    1. “Back in the day” a .1 level maybe got you a ride home in the squad car to sleep it off.

      Reminds me of a story my aunt once told me about being stopped for DUI “back in the day.” She attended an after work get together with co-workers where she had a bit too much to drink. She tried to drive home and a cop saw her driving erratically. When I say “driving erratically” apparently she went through a railroad crossing while the arms were coming down, as well as failed to maintain her lane on a two lane road.

      After failing a field sobriety test the cop who pulled her over told her to go rent a room at a hotel that was nearby and sleep it off, which she did. Nothing else happened. Now, I suppose it’s entirely possible that nothing else happened because she was, at the time, a late 30-something white female, but it’s also entirely possible that cops have become far more militant about the issue of drunk driving – and collecting the sweet, sweet revenue that comes from the fines for it – than they used to be.

      Thanks “Karen,” you’re really making the world a better place.

      1. “And despite Howard’s suggestion that the incident could have been resolved without an arrest, department policy leaves no such discretion in DUI cases. It says “an officer will write a citation and make a physical arrest when a driver is cited for…driving under the influence of intoxicating alcoholic beverages where the level of intoxication is .08% or more.””

        Arrest is department policy. Probably approved by the Democrats who run Atlanta, including the D.A.

  9. I fail to see what the Cop Training program has to do with the law. A poor training program should not be an excuse, or get out of jail free card, for cops. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for civilians, why is it an excuse for (poorly) “trained professionals”?

    Regarding the murder charge, I support the phrasing used for the charge “reasonably believed”. Too frequently, cops get off because they “unreasonably believed” someone was a threat. Now to see what a jury thinks of his actions.

    1. The DA, who brought these charges, described a taser as a lethal weapon under GA law just two weeks ago.

    2. Did you see the video? I do not see a valid argument that it is unreasonable to believe that the man who just beat up two officers stole a weapon, and two seconds prior had fired a taser at him did not pose a threat. That’s the time span we are talking. TWO SECONDS. The issue I have with this whole thing is that it isn’t reasonable. It’s demanding perfection, where a man violently attacked him, two seconds ago fired a weapon at him, and now is a non-threatening person? Even if we agree with this assessment, this is demanding absolute perfection from fallible human beings.

      Worse are the angry statements about how the “withheld care” for two minutes. Two minutes to ensure that he was no longer a threat, realize and comprehend the situation, and literally pick one of the officers off the ground.

      Also, I have to say the focus on training is completely missing the plot. The evidence is fairly clear. Brooks became violent because he was on parole and going to jail for DUI would put him behind bars for years. No gentle easing that officers could do would avert that response.

  10. “The Guilt or Innocence of the Cop Who Killed Rayshard Brooks Has Nothing to Do With George Floyd’s Death”

    Libertarians already know that. Now convince the angry mob that is ruling at the moment,

    1. Sad fact is the state has already proven they are more than willing to sacrifice livelihood, lives, and the truth.

      Another cop is meaningless.

      The scary part will be the circle of sacrificial lambs expands with increasing reach, and the inevitable backlash is just as brutal and just as unconcerned with facts or justice.

  11. Thanks for the thorough recount of the incident.

    It is not the same as George Floyd’s murder, no, but it does illustrate some of the problems with modern policing and the need for reform.

    First off, the only reason the police were called in the first place was NOT because Brooks was a drunk driver, but because he had fallen asleep in the drive thru lane. He was basically a nuisance, not a threat. Once the police told Brooks to move his car out of the drive-thru lane and into a parking spot, the issue of the nuisance was completely resolved at that point. Why escalate matters any further?

    1. Once the police told Brooks to move his car out of the drive-thru lane and into a parking spot, the issue of the nuisance was completely resolved at that point.

      amazing

      1. Well, it’s true. Brooks was no longer blocking the drive-thru lane, was he?

        Why escalate matters further?

        1. You’re asking why the cops wouldn’t let a guy they found passed out drunk while driving, just stay in the car? I want to be clear on this.

          1. Why did they have to escalate it to a breathalyzer test and an attempted arrest after the problem they were asked to solve – blocking the drive-thru lane – had been resolved?

            1. Are you now alleging that nobody every asked the police to stop drunk people from driving? This is incredible.

              1. That is not why the Wendy’s management called the police. It wasn’t to go get a drunk driver. It was to remove the nuisance of a guy sleeping in the drive-thru lane.

                Did you read the article? The entire sad story started AFTER the problem for which the police had been called had already been resolved.

                1. If you don’t think cops have a mandate to stop drunk drivers from continuing to drive drunk, I don’t know what to tell you.

                  1. They could have called him a cab. They could have driven him home themselves. They did not have to escalate it into an arrest. The very problem here is that the people called to take care of basically a traffic nuisance ALSO have the power to throw you in jail and ruin your life for all sorts of reasons.

                    There is very little reason to send two heavily armed licensed-to-kill agents of the state to take care of a minor traffic inconvenience. Send the meter maid or something.

                    This is part of the problem with modern policing. The police are asked to do too much, and they too often take relatively benign situations and escalate it into something much worse.

                    1. So you did know that cops have a mandate to stop drunk drivers from continuing to drive drunk?

                    2. Now you are just being obtuse. They didn’t have to escalate the situation into an arrest. There were plenty of ways they could have resolved the situation that didn’t lead to this escalation of force.

                    3. They could also help shoplifters carry their stuff to the car

                    4. They could relieve pedestrians of their belongings and save muggers the trouble too.

                    5. Once the police told Brooks to move his car out of the drive-thru lane and into a parking spot, the issue of the nuisance was completely resolved at that point.

                      They didn’t have to escalate the situation into an arrest.

                      The goalposts are on the baseball field.

                    6. They could also help shoplifters carry their stuff to the car

                      If the police are called to the scene because a shoplifter was asleep in the Wendy’s drive thru, and not because the person is a shoplifter per se, then to *resolve the situation at hand* does not require arresting the driver for shoplifting, only to move the car out of the way. Do you see the difference now?

                    7. Let me put it another way.
                      Suppose my neighbors are having a party and playing their music really loud and I call the police to tell them to turn down the music.

                      After successfully turning down the music, should the police then start investigating the party to check ID’s, make sure nobody is smoking pot, etc.? That wasn’t the source of the original complaint. Once the music is off, the situation is resolved. If the police choose to escalate the incident further, then that’s on them.

                    8. lolol I love watching you slink in here like a bitch because you get mocked for your stupidty

                      lololol i love the idea that you’ll be up all night worrying like a little bitch about how stupid people think you are

                    9. By the way, I’m not using Tulpa Follower anymore. That’s Tulpa.

                      Every time he steals a handle he does quite a bit of work setting up an email address for account verification, registering a new Reason account, probably tracking it all in a spreadsheet or database.

                      He’s quite dedicated. It’s quite admirable, in its odd way.

                    10. In point of fact they couldn’t call him a cab, because then the drink person either tells the cabbie to stop somewhere else, or gets to the right area but manages to go to sleep in someone else’s domicile. At which point the police get sued.

                    11. “If the police are called to the scene because a shoplifter was asleep in the Wendy’s drive thru, and not because the person is a shoplifter per se, then to *resolve the situation at hand* does not require arresting the driver for shoplifting, only to move the car out of the way. Do you see the difference now?

                      If the police are called to the scene because a serial killer was asleep in the Wendy’s drive thru, and when they see body parts in the back seat of his car, they only need to have asked him to move the car out of the way?

                      Once the first cop managed to get Mr Brooks to wake up (which took some doing, if you watch the video), he says that the smell of alcohol was pretty strong. A very strong probable cause for DUI…passed out in a running car, strong smell of alcohol.

                      Watch the video. For 40+ minutes, there was no animosity, no psycho cop attitude. Perhaps the cops should have stated clearly “I’m placing you under arrest for DUI”, but the arrest should not have been a shock to Brooks, having been through field sobriety checks and breathalyzer.

                      This incident has been portrayed as “cops pulled a dude who was asleep in his car out of his car and shot him in the back just for being black”. I’ve seen “cops went from 0 to cuffs in no time flat”.

                      Maybe the use of force was over the top, but it was not anything like what is being portrayed by people and media who have not watched 40 minutes of body cam video.

                    12. Does what they should have done with regard to the situation matter? Once he attacks police it all changes. A discussion needs to be had on what are best practices for LEO to handle this type of issue, but that changes should potentially be made have nothing to do with what Brooks did initially to attack the police that led to his death.

          2. And he actually wasn’t “passed out drunk”. A 0.1 BAC is not “passed out drunk”.

            1. No.

              He was passed out ‘intoxicated’.

            2. He was intoxicated. He had passed out. In a running car.

        2. but but…. I only drove drunk once today, only assaulted an officer once today, only stole property from an officer once today, only ran from law enforcement like an outlaw once today…

          Geez… What a disgrace to actually not just let it go…. WTF!!! /s

          1. Did you even read the article?
            First the police tell Brooks to move out of the drive thru lane. He does this, without complaint.
            That was why the police was called in the first place. To take care of the nuisance. Not to go arrest a drunk driver.
            If the police had just left it right there, none of the rest of the sad story would have occurred.

            1. And if Brooks would’ve just complied and gone through the legal systems due-process for justice none of it would’ve happened either.

              If you think drunk driving laws are the problem then by all means lobby for legal changes there but Brooks doesn’t get to just break the law because he’s Black.

            2. Your stupid as hasn’t even heard the 911 call. The shift manager clearly says there is a drunk passed out in the drive thru lane, they tried to wake him up and couldnt

            3. And if Brooks had hit someone with his car on the way home, with a BAC of 0.1, the officers would be facing a different set of disciplinary action.

              Did you even read the article? Atlanta PD policy is to arrest anyone driving with a BAC above 0.08.

              1. At the moment that the police arrived, the car wasn’t even moving.

                1. Which has fuckall to do with anything of course

                2. How fucking dumb are you Jeff? The law is not driving, but in control of the car. This means key in the ignition whether in motion or not. That is how the law has been executed for over 30 years.

                  1. As the above threadfucking shows, he is pretty goddamn dumb.

            4. That was why the police was called in the first place. To take care of the nuisance. Not to go arrest a drunk driver.

              Stop lying.

              1. Not lying. The police were called because he was blocking the drive-thru lane, regardless of WHY he was blocking the drive-thru lane.

                1. So you didn’t listen to the 911 call nor actually read comments ts quoting the call.

                  Typical baby jeffrey.

                2. Stop lying.

                3. “Sure, he had mangled body parts in his car…but the cops weren’t called because of that. They were called because he fell asleep. Why do they need to arrest him?”

                  Jeff, you’ve honestly sucked as hard as anybody could possibly suck here.

            5. chemjeff radical individualist

              “First the police tell Brooks to move out of the drive thru lane. He does this, without complaint.”

              That’s not exactly the way it happened….you’ve gotta’ watch the entire cop bodycam video to understand how this got started…

              The first cop repeatedly knocked on Brooks car window and finally had to open the car door and shake sleeping beauty (Brooks) awake. Then, the cop asks Brooks to move his car out of the drive-thru. If Brooks had done that….it would have been the end of this encounter….
              But instead of moving his car….Mr Brooks….fell right back to sleep…!
              So the first cop, who was in the process of driving away….had to go back and wake up Mr Brooks……again. This time the “sleepy” Mr Brooks actually moved his car to a parking spot…..but he also…ran over the curb….
              It was about this time that the first cop might of started thinking…..”Hmmm…..maybe this guy is Fucked Up…????”

              It’s not like the officer was being extra picky….Brooks had his chances to get out of this situation unscathed….

              1. He did so *without complaint*. It’s not like he did it super-competently or anything. But he wasn’t resisting or disobeying the officer’s instructions.

                If Brooks had done that….it would have been the end of this encounter….

                Maybe, maybe not.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist
                  June.18.2020 at 8:16 pm
                  The police weren’t called because he was drunk. They were called because his car was blocking the drive-thru lane. End of story

                  chemjeff radical individualist
                  June.18.2020 at 8:39 pm
                  But that is completely consistent with what I wrote. The police were called because he was blocking the drive-thru lane. He was blocking the drive-thru lane because, in part, he was drunk

                  SO MUCH FOR “end of story”

                  AHAHAHAHAH LYING JEFFY CAUGHT LYING AGAIN!!!!!

                2. chemjeff radical individualist

                  When the first cop was talking to the DUI cop he said…”I thought maybe Brooks was just tired…”

                  So the more the first cop talked and interacted with Brooks, opened the car door…smelt booze…saw that glassy eye stare, ect… the more Mr Officer realizes …”Man..this guy is F’d up…!”

                  Brooks might as well have been shouting….”Hey, look at me..!”

    2. You are incredibly stupid. Amazingly stupid.

      1. I’m actually correct and you have no argument.

        1. except this

          “First off, the only reason the police were called in the first place was NOT because Brooks was a drunk driver”

          is a lie. youre a proven liar.

          1. Nope. I’m right and you’re a disgusting troll. The police were called because he was blocking the drive-thru lane, regardless of WHY he was blocking the drive-thru lane.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist
              June.18.2020 at 8:16 pm
              The police weren’t called because he was drunk. They were called because his car was blocking the drive-thru lane. End of story

              chemjeff radical individualist
              June.18.2020 at 8:39 pm
              But that is completely consistent with what I wrote. The police were called because he was blocking the drive-thru lane. He was blocking the drive-thru lane because, in part, he was drunk

              SO MUCH FOR “end of story”

              AHAHAHAHAH LYING JEFFY CAUGHT LYING AGAIN!

            2. “I tried to wake him up, but he’s parked dead in the middle of the drive-thru, so I don’t know what’s wrong with him,” the caller says. “He woke up, looked at me and I was like, ‘You got to move out of the drive-thru.’ Because people can’t, they’re going around him.”

              The employee tells the dispatcher in a call released Monday that they asked the man to pull to the side and go to sleep. When the 911 operator asks if the man had any weapons visible, the caller responds, “No, no. I think he’s intoxicated.”

    3. First off, the only reason the police were called in the first place was NOT because Brooks was a drunk driver, but because he had fallen asleep in the drive thru lane.

      Stop lying.

      1. Not lying. That is why they were called. To get the guy out of the drive thru lane.

        1. The 911 call says you’re lying liar.

          1. The police was called because the car was blocking the drive-thru lane. Not because the management thought he was going to run down a bunch of kids with his car. That is the difference.

            1. The 911 call says you’re lying liar

              1. The police weren’t called because he was drunk. They were called because his car was blocking the drive-thru lane. End of story.

                  1. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/911-call-prior-rayshard-brooks-fatal-shooting-police-released-n1231160

                    The employee tells the dispatcher in a call released Monday that they asked the man to pull to the side and go to sleep. When the 911 operator asks if the man had any weapons visible, the caller responds, “No, no. I think he’s intoxicated.”

                    lying jeffy caugjt lying again

                    1. But that is completely consistent with what I wrote. The police were called because he was blocking the drive-thru lane. He was blocking the drive-thru lane because, in part, he was drunk. But the police weren’t called because he was drunk per se. If Brooks had been drunk and asleep in his car in a parking lot, it is doubtful that the police would have been called at all.

                      Glad I could clear that up for you Tulpa. Now fuck off.

                    2. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/911-call-prior-rayshard-brooks-fatal-shooting-police-released-n1231160

                      The employee tells the dispatcher in a call released Monday that they asked the man to pull to the side and go to sleep. When the 911 operator asks if the man had any weapons visible, the caller responds, “No, no. I think he’s intoxicated.”

                      lying jeffy caugjt lying again

                    3. chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.18.2020 at 8:16 pm
                      The police weren’t called because he was drunk. They were called because his car was blocking the drive-thru lane. End of story

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.18.2020 at 8:39 pm
                      But that is completely consistent with what I wrote. The police were called because he was blocking the drive-thru lane. He was blocking the drive-thru lane because, in part, he was drunk

                      SO MUCH FOR “end of story”

                      AHAHAHAHAH LYING JEFFY CAUGHT LYING AGAIN!!!!!!

                    4. You’re giving chemjeff too much credit. He’s not making the reasonable, but factually incorrect, argument that the Wendy’s person didn’t say the guy was intoxicated. No, he’s making the totally insane argument that the police should let drunk drivers be unless there’s specific complaint about the drunk driving itself.

                    5. You’re right, but he thrives on proving he can take the dumbest possible positions.

                      Pointing out that he’s just a lame fucking prog liar takes his toys away.

                    6. No, Sidd, that is not my argument.

                      First, of all, how would the Wendy’s management know if Brooks was drunk or not? Did they give him a breathalyzer test? They just guessed he was drunk.

                      Second, the police were called BECAUSE HE WAS BLOCKING A DRIVE-THRU LANE. Regardless of WHY he was blocking the lane. If he was blocking the lane because he was drunk, or because he took too much medication, or because his car stalled, or because he was mentally insane, it doesn’t matter – he’s still blocking the lane.

                      Third, once the police did arrive, and solved the problem that they were asked to solve, why should the police escalate the situation any further? They were not required to arrest him or detain him in any way. They were called to get the guy out of the drive-thru lane. Okay then, mission accomplished. So if they wanted to actually *help* Brooks get home, they could have called him a cab, or an Uber, or driven him home themselves, or called his family members to pick him up, or – sure, possibly – just leave him alone. The police CHOSE to escalate the situation BEYOND what was required of them at the time. They didn’t have to. It was their choice.

                    7. AHAHAAHHA YOU’RE STILL LYING AHAHAHAHH

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.18.2020 at 8:16 pm
                      The police weren’t called because he was drunk. They were called because his car was blocking the drive-thru lane. End of story

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.18.2020 at 8:39 pm
                      But that is completely consistent with what I wrote. The police were called because he was blocking the drive-thru lane. He was blocking the drive-thru lane because, in part, he was drunk

                      SO MUCH FOR “end of story”

                      AHAHAHAHAH LYING JEFFY CAUGHT LYING AGAIN!

                    8. Tulpa, you’re a disgusting troll with no life and no sense of self-worth. You genuinely derive pleasure from causing havoc and disrupting everyone’s conversations and harassing people. You do not deserve to participate in civil society in an unmedicated state. You should go back to your basement and reflect upon the type of person you have devolved into and how you can turn your life around to one that is actually productive and affirming. Until you do that, Tulpa, you should fuck off and go away.

                    9. AHAHAAHAHAH OMFG YOU’RE STILL LYING

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.18.2020 at 8:16 pm
                      The police weren’t called because he was drunk. They were called because his car was blocking the drive-thru lane. End of story

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.18.2020 at 8:39 pm
                      But that is completely consistent with what I wrote. The police were called because he was blocking the drive-thru lane. He was blocking the drive-thru lane because, in part, he was drunk

                      SO MUCH FOR “end of story”

                      AHAHAHAHAH LYING JEFFY CAUGHT LYING AGAIN!

                    10. “No, he’s making the totally insane argument that the police should let drunk drivers be unless there’s specific complaint about the drunk driving itself.”

                    11. Sidd, I am saying that the police should not treat people like threats when they are not threatening anyone.

                    12. So if they wanted to actually *help* Brooks get home,

                      JFC. Rayshawn’s lit ass getting home is not the cops’ job. Keeping unsafe drivers off the road is. He had already driven drunk to the Wendy’s so you can’t trust him to stay put. Maybe there’s other options for dealing with that situation but there’s all kinds of liability involved and the cops can’t just make it up on the fly.

        2. “I tried to wake him up, but he’s parked dead in the middle of the drive-thru, so I don’t know what’s wrong with him,” the caller says. “He woke up, looked at me and I was like, ‘You got to move out of the drive-thru.’ Because people can’t, they’re going around him.”

          The employee tells the dispatcher in a call released Monday that they asked the man to pull to the side and go to sleep. When the 911 operator asks if the man had any weapons visible, the caller responds, “No, no. I think he’s intoxicated.”

    4. Sure. It’s not like drunk drivers kill ten thousand people per year or anything.

  12. “This was not a rush to judgment,” said Don Samuel, Brosnan’s lawyer.

    CASE CLOSED

  13. And last time everyone was upset that the police didn’t use a taser. Well guess what… Thanks to Brooks criminal encounter the police has no other weapon to use.

    1. Oh wait!!! No, No, I know how to prevent criminal shootings.
      Just pass a law that allows Police to return punches and physically restrain them however necessary…

      Ya.. That was an issue previously now wasn’t it and y’all screamed the living tar out of that option until it was illegal too.

      Maybe all your screaming is what is causing lesser lethal compliance options from being utilized. Idiots.

  14. After reading this article, I have decided that one could make an excellent Two Buttons meme by pasting Sullum’s face on the guy and having one button say “Paul Howard is corrupt ” and the other say “All cops are bad”.

  15. There is simply no space to criticize this shooting rationally. People who drive intoxicated deserve to be arrested. It’s one of the legitimate laws cops enforce. And if you think that getting hit with a taser while in possession of a gun isn’t life threatening, then I don’t know what to tell you. If I have to choose between being tasered by a criminal and shooting him, he’s going in the ground.

    1. How about just stop chasing him? Rolfe had a half dozen options other than shooting.

      1. You’re saying that they should’ve let the intoxicated man who just beat up two cops and stole their weapon flee into the community at large?
        And that Rolfe should not have reacted to him firing a weapon at them?

        1. Check out the Michael Brown threads. That guy had some hilarious Pepe Silvia theories.

      2. The DA said, under Georgia law, a taser very much is a deadly weapon.

  16. Drunk driving is one of those crimes where its harmless 99% of the time, but can be deadly in those other cases

    And considering he might not have been drunk in terms of BAC, he was drunk enough to fall asleep while driving.

    At any rate, clearly its politicized. There’s still no news coverage of that unarmed white woman killed in a traffic stop here in Missouri (Sedalia)

  17. The only thing that matters is did Rolfe have a REASONABLE fear of death or great bodily harm. Just from the video I don’t think he did. Did he make a mistake? Yes. Should he still be charged? Yes.

    1. But charged with felony murder? That’s the issue.

    2. Did you see the same video I did? The cop who had his taser stolen definitely has a concussion. Brooks fired the taser 2 seconds prior to being shot himself. What’s not reasonable about that fear?

  18. OK, now why would you not put some of this blame on the media, BLM and the generally false narrative they espouse that the police are hunting down blacks for sport. Can you blame a black person, in this environment, to add attempt to escape to his calculations on what he should do when placed under arrest? Injustice just feeds more injustice.

    1. Pure conjecture on your part what was going through Brooks’ head. None of us were there, and, certainly, none of us are privy to what he was thinking.

  19. The guy shouldn’t have been shot, but let’s not pretend he was some innocent who just needed to sleep it off. He assaulted two cops while resisting a legal arrest.
    These excessive charges are just sacrificing the officer to protect the community from the entry pitchfork crowd.

  20. Ok , they thrown the book at Rolfe. I imagine proving felony murder in court beyond a reasonable doubt in this situation is going to be near impossible. I do not know if the prosecutors are pandering and do not care if there is a conviction or deliberately overcharging to get Rolfe pff.

  21. Funny how cops are individually being scapegoated for a corroded and corrupted system that incorporated excessive practices built by politicians and cop bosses. This is not not how you get reform.

    That prosecutor is just piece of shit and part of the problem.

    As an aside, I watch North Woods law and wonder why warden have to pack heat when investigating if some poor drunk, poor sucker fished one too many fish or have to hand out tickets for man-made ponds ‘without a permit’.

    Fricken infuriating. Permit? Society is waaaaayyy over regulated.

Please to post comments