Prior records are not, strictly speaking, a factor in whether or not lethal force is justified. It is only about what is going on in that moment.
Does a taser aimed and fired at an officer’s head constitute an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm? That seems like an obvious “yes” to me. In hindsight, there probably is some path of decisions that could have been followed that resulted in everyone being safe and Brooks being taken into custody, but the officer didn’t have the benefit of contemplating his course of action and the potential consequences at a leisurely pace.
He had about one second to act.
Of course, things like lethal force law and due process don’t matter one bit. It’s all about the narrative. Just like Michael Brown. Dead black guy? Check. White cop? Check. Fire up the rage machine, time to get after those clicks and views.
There is a link to his criminal record but some are saying it isn’t him.
The media also failed to mention Floyd’s record and that has proven to be true.
I would agree. I only mention his record because some have been saying the cops should have let him get away with a dui as if it’s a low level crime. You can’t complain about crime in your community and then say cops should let criminals get away with nothing more than a warning. The problem is most people in the inner city have at least one criminal in the family. It’s something NJ uses to keep blacks from owning guns legally. I was told this by a cop who thought it was BS.
So that means that a cop can only use a taser if the suspect poses and imminent threat of death or great bodily harm?
If there were two cops on the scene, IDK how the argument can be made that the guy posed an imminent threat of death to the cops. If there was one cop, i can see it because the cops gun could be taken and used if incapacitated. But a taser is marketed, and used as a non-lethal weapon.
I’m not a lawyer so I’m not going to tell you “what that means”. I’ll give you my take on what is known to me, absent any footage beyond the initial moment when arrest was resisted.
Remember, the threshold is not imminent threat of death, but of death or great bodily harm.
Generally-speaking you’ve got a guy who has already established his willingness and ability to put up enough of a fight to disarm a police officer and deploy the weapon against an officer. He did that with two cops present.
What if the next phase of the encounter involves a struggle for the gun?
In case people forgot, just a week ago officers in the same city were charged with aggravated assault for using a taser. Regardless of whether you believe the cops acted appropriately or not in any of these circumstances, the double-standard is GLARING and obviously political.
Personally, i think the better argument is that it’s asking too much of a cop in the heat of the moment to make what is awfully close to a 50/50 call on lethal force needed or not.
Sitting back a few days later i can confidently say that lethal force was not needed as a taser is NOT meant to be a lethal weapon anymore than the cops billy club being taken would be considered lethal… unless there was only one cop on scene.
I fail to see the double standard being applied with regards to the taser. If the guy was alive, he sure as shit would be charged with resisting and assault on an officer. Huh, has a suspect been charged with “assault with a deadly weapon” for using a taser on an officer?
Right, but if a suspect is running away swinging it behind him that would not be considered an attempt at lethal force.
I wonder what the results of a poll of americans would be if you you asked them if police lethal force was appropriate in the following situation: A 5’9" 170lb male running at 2 cops swinging a baseball bat.
This is an incredibly slippery slope and the reason for many of our current issues. WE cannot and should not allow the court of public opinion to determine the legal outcome!!!
If a police officer using a taser unjustified is grounds to be both fired and charged with aggravated assault, is it not at least aggravated assault for a person to steal a cops taser and deploy it on a cop?
Aggravated assault can vary in specifics by jurisdiction, but what doesn’t vary is that you are justified in using lethal force to defend yourself from aggravated assault.
That’s the double-standard. It is as if the city is pretending that this guy was not committing an act of aggravated assault on the police officer, but doing some harmless, flippant gesture of defiance.
He fired the taser at the cop. He was in a range that he could have hit the cop. Your analogy works if he swings the baton from a distance that he won’t reach the cop from. Of course, we can look back and say he probably could have not shot the guy but the suspect put the cop in a situation that gave him a second to think and react. He put his life in that cop’s hands.
What we are seeing is the soft racism of low expectations. We go from telling people to not commit crimes, which doesn’t work apparently, to telling cops to just let black people get away with criminal activity. Somehow, in some people’s minds, that will lead to lifting people from out of the ghetto and poverty.
…about his criminal past. That shouldn’t have bearing on this case. In my opinion, that conversation should be dropped as it only serves to tarnish the memory of the deceased (truth or fiction).
I agree it doesn’t affect any specific criminal case. But nationally this is not about a criminal case.
This is about a narrative of whether cops are doing more harm than good. Did they kill a good father or a child beating, drunk driving parolee? That matters when you ask are the cops doing more harm than good.
What force do you think would be appropriate in that situation? The very best option would possibly be to create distance and seek cover, and to use pepper spray in hopes that the suspect will give up and be ineffective in the meantime. I certainly don’t think shooting the guy would be outrageously inappropriate. Would you feel confident attempting to control someone swinging a bat at you?
From this article, the DA says that Rolfe knew the taser presented no threat to him as it had already been fired twice. Rolfe also managed to fire into a car in the drive through lane with three passengers inside.
Howard said that at the time Rolfe aimed and fired at Brooks’ back from 18 feet, 3 inches away, “Rolfe was aware that the Taser in Brooks’ possession was fired twice and presented no danger to him.”
Video captured three shots from Rolfe’s 9 mm Glock service weapon. Two of the shots hit Brooks in the back, and a third penetrated a car that was in the drive-thru lane and nearly hit three men inside who were visiting the area from West Memphis.
This guy went to law school? He should know that he can’t say what someone knew as though it’s fact. He’s trying the case in the court of public opinion.
This same DA charged officers who used tasers with aggravated assault. Thus, Brooks committed aggravated assault and lethal force can be used to defend against aggravated assault.