Confirmed by several news sources, including CNN: Van Jones: Atlanta police shooting is about probation, not just police (Opinion) - CNN
Sorry, VZ, I missed this one. I'm not making a value judgement about that, it's just the nature of the beast of elected positions. The other end of the spectrum are unelected positions that tend to protect institutions over public opinion. The people eligible to vote will decide if this DA was out of line.
That just says he was on probation. The daily mail link claimed he was in probation for cruelty to children etc etc. That said being on probation is enough, to give cause to flee, (although not DUI'ing would be the better choice)
What I think is going to happen is the DA "threw the book" at the officer, knowing full well a murder charge will not stick (because the officer can easily show probable cause, according to quite a few legal experts), but the other charges will because they require a lower burden and the evidence especially videos is crystal clear. Officer Rolfe 1) fired into a crowded parking lot and almost hit 3 innocent bystanders (there are bullet holes in their car), 2) stepping on, and 3) kicking a dead man in clear view in anger. So, the facts show you have a bad police officer there, maybe not a racist or murderer, but a clear example of someone who should not be on the force at all. Yes, someone resisted arrest, and wrestled, possibly to avoid probation violation and jail. Yes, he stole a "nonlethal" weapon and ran and turned and fired. Yes, he may have been a danger. But this cop was clearly a danger to everyone in the parking lot that night. Apparently half of Atlanta's police are now walking off the job. It's my sincere hope that they fire every last one of them, because it shows just how blind their allegiance is. "protect and serve" to them means no accountability. Hire some people who know what it actually means, in my opinion.
Why wouldn't it be front page news if this guy was white? I don't understand, I read about cops killing white people all the time. I just watched a cop upstate seriously injure a 75 year old peace activist in Buffalo for no apparent reason, walk over his body and leave him bleeding in the street. They were both white as the driven snow.
Meanwhile in London, a BLM protestor carried an ex-constable to safety after he was pummeled and left in a fetal position by other protesters. Something wonderful is going to come out of all this, but damned if I know how, when, or why. All I know is this picture will endure.
anger? is this the officers state of mind? What was the state of mind of the person who just resisted arrest, fled from the scene, and fired what is considered a lethal weapon, was he intending to kill the officer? Did the officer kick him before administrating CPR or after ?
According to the tape, the officer never even tried administering anything other than bullets. "I got him", the officer cried at the end. To the officer, this was Call of Duty, At Wendy's, in Atlanta.
I think you have that backwards. Man rescued by UK Black Lives Matter protester is ex-police officer | London | The Guardian "counter-protester carried to safety by a Black Lives Matter protester last weekend is a former officer at British Transport Police, the force has confirmed."
Being angry doesn't mean you get to kill someone legally, it's an understandable that he would be angry, but you can't be acting on that, a normal civilian shouldn't be acting on that, nevermind a police officer.
We all struggle with each other every day. It's sad that those with sidearms get to decide how to end other people's days.
Agreed. America either has a lot of structural problems which lead to their high levels of shootings, and murders, or American is perfect the way it is, but the people are uniquely violent themselves. If A isn't true, then B must be. It's either A or B, or just pretend there's not a problem.
You just ruined your entire defence of those officers. If you are stating that a taser is a lethal weapon, that means Brooks was within his rights to kill those officers in self-defence for attempting to unlawfully kill him. Does that make a difference? Ah yes, I forgot... if government employees abuse dead bodies, they get a presidential pardon.
I'm curious about that picture. I read the previous post saying its only one still and it's not confirmed its a kick but, while agreeing it could be out of context, it is really hard to see him doing anything in that picture other than kicking him. Maybe punching him with his right hand. Either way it very much looks like he's striking him and it is hard to see another alternative.
I imagine Rolfe's lawyer will argue it away. If there are multiple witnesses stating they saw him kicking Brooks, then it's a done deal. If it is proven he kicked Brooks while he was down, and didn't administer CPR (which again is being disputed, despite the DA's claims), then I agree with him being charged for those offences. My sole contention with this incident is that firing upon a suspect who turned around and shot a weapon at a cop has developed into a murder charge for the officer defending himself. From what I've seen from all the footage, the Taser discharged its bolts/cables as you can see them travel through the air towards Rolfe. That's the main reason I believe the shooting was justified. Kicking a downed suspect is never right (unless there officer was kicking away Brooks's Taser). Unfortunately, I think whichever way this goes, Atlanta will burn.
Well that's the thing - it isn't unlawful for officers to discharge a Taser at a resisting suspect. It is unlawful for a suspect to take that Taser and use it or attempt to use it on the officers. I think the lethality of the Taser is a moot point here, though. The issue for me is Brooks could have taken Rolfe's sidearm if he successfully incapacitated him. I'm pretty sure that's the line Rolfe's defence will take, and I think the jury will agree with it. I know I would if I was a juror in this situation.
I can see the argument that an incapacitated officer can have his firearm taken. I don't think it is applicable in this case, but that's a difference of opinion. If someone is arguing that a taser is a lethal weapon in itself, as windwalker did above, then they have just accused those two officers of an extrajudicial killing, and Brooks would have been within his legal rights to use deadly force to defend himself. At the time when the taser was first deployed, the altercation had definitely not escalated to justify the use of lethal force, and they knew that Brooks was unarmed. Not to mention the 10s or 100s of thousands of taser deployments that could now be prosecuted as attempted murders.
