Mom Was Right

As my mom used to tell me when I received any kind of punishment -- "You brought it on yourself". Same can be said about Rayshard Brooks who got himself shot dead by a police officer.
.
In a defense filing for former Atlanta Police Officer Garrett Rolfe, who has been charged with felony murder in the Rayshard Brooks case, the Atlanta Police Department homicide detective assigned to the case, Al Hogan, sided with Rolfe, noting that he would have brought 10 charges against Brooks had he survived the incident.

 

in a defense filing?

 

There's a good defense strategy - blame the victim.

 

When the victim resists, he is partly to blame.

 

I'm assuming you mean he resisted 'arrest'. Problem with that is the officers didn't place him under arrest. A cop tried to cuff him from behind without him being told he was under arrest. Nit picking, I know - but it is one of the charges against the cop.

 

It is against the law to resist whether he was told he was under arrest or not. You are required to follow the orders of law enforcement officers.

He would be alive today, if he had not resisted.

There should be a lesson there somewhere.

 

He would likely be alive today if different officers had responded to the call. Twist it any which way you want, it was an unlawful shoot and the officers will go down for it. And one man is dead.

 

LOL.. You need to watch LIVE PD more

 

Maybe, maybe not. When you resist, it results in conflict with unknown results. It is not an unlawful shoot until they are convicted. Police are entitled to the same protection under the law as anyone else.

I have little doubt that the defense will be that Brooks resisted and they ended up fighting and when Brooks fired, the policeman was not sure whether he fired or not and he was defending himself. In addition, depending on the taser model, they have one, two or multiple shots available without reloading. I have not heard which version was being used.

In addition, the supreme court ruled that the evidence had to be viewed in the light of what a reasonable policeman would do at the time, not what was determined after reviewing the evidence. This took place in a second or less. Not after hours and days of review.

 

It was a two shot - and the second shot was fired into the air by Brooks.

 

I am not finding any link for that.

But, it still gets back to the supreme court ruling. In the heat of battle, should the policeman have been keeping tract?

 

The problem is that there is a segment of society that has never had to be responsible for anything and have had their every need taken care of by the government. This has become institutional, multi generational and cultural. So it is no great surprise when one of these people are confronted by law enforcement act irresponsibly and engage in behaviors that takes things to the next level. This inevitably ends with an aggressive response by the LEOs and whatever the outcome, that community's default response is that it is police brutality. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that this sort of thing happens but is the exception and not the rule. LEOs make thousands of arrests each year without incident. It is insanity that people. want to ban Law Enforcement. This comes from the lawless irresponsible community I described but there's no shortage of sympathetic lunatics that want and support this. How do they not see that the riots and destruction took place mostly in the absence of law enforcement because they were ordered to stand down. There is pending a large national call out of law enforcement on July 4th particularly in large urban areas, I think this is necessary but it will not end well. I think there needs to be laws enacted regarding resisting arrest that places the responsibility on the arrestee to comply or suffer the consequences with no legal standing when things go wrong. Mom was right.

 

When the "victim" is nothing of the sort and is in fact the cause of the altercation that resulted in his death - then yes he is to blame.

Hes not a "victim" of anything other than his own actions.

 

To blame for being shot in the back while running away?

In addition to becoming more like soldiers than law enforcement officers, some of our police also seem to be scared little sissies in cases like this.

There is no excuse for shooting anyone in the back other than malice or abject fear, neither of which have any place in law enforcement.

 

So, the death penalty applies to resisting arrest? For passing out in a Wendy's drive thru, yeah, I guess he deserved to be arrested, then shot in the back.

 

he turned to shoot the taser.

That is a mischaracterization of what happened and what I said.

 

The issue here is deadly force. Police are not allowed to use deadly force just because someone broke a law.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.
(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/1047.7

When is a man running away from an officer likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Remember he was shot in the back.

 

He was shot in the back while turning to fire a taser back at the officer.

 

It will be very difficult to get a conviction for any crime. The 1st degree murder charge is just political PR.

May be time to use unarmed LEOs to deal with non-violent crime - like the "Bobbies".
Would not be a perfect solution, but it would take a lot of pressure off armed police.

 

he turned while "running away" and aimed a weapon AT THE COPS FACE! So convenient of you to leave that part out of your little post. NICE JOB! The left will be proud of you.

 

If he is convicted of murder, there will likely be a mass exodus of policeman. The chances are too high that a policeman will either get killed or convicted of murder while doing his job.

I would not recommend anyone become a law enforcement officer now.

 

The exodus is ongoing. It will continue until the progressive era law enforcement model is scrapped and replaced. A quick-start solution would be to arm the Americans who live in our high crime areas.

 

I couldn't care less where he was shot or how many times. He was a dangerous thug and the police had to bring him down to protect other officers and the public. The officers were professional with him. Then look at how he deliberately attacked the officers, took possession of their deadly weapon and fired it at one of them. That's all I need to see. That taser could have hit the officer in the eye and scrambled his brain for life. Too bad all three shots the officer fired at him didn't hit him in the back. I would love to serve on the cops jury. Time to restore law and order in this country.

 

This guy was a criminal before he was a victim.

 

You don't have to be under arrest for a cop to place you in cuffs lol.

Some of you need to learn the law a little better.