Atlanta officer who shot Rayshard Brooks charged with felony murder

He was pointing the stun gun at the cop when he got shot. People should watch the videos before forming an opinion. I watched the videos and I don't think shooting him was unreasonable.

Either there is change and the jury will choose to ignore the law or there isn't and status quo will remain which isn't working.

Juries can ignore the law.

What we know is that Rayland had a 40 minute conversation with the officers before these events. He cooperated and appeared to fail a DUi test after falling asleep in a drive through. He was being arrested and decided to make a poor choice.

in America, don't run from police. That's been known by everyone, regardless of race, at least since the 1960s. The time to deal with police problems is not during the stop, but later, with a lawyer. This is especially true for black men and anyone with an accent. if you are driving don't move your hands off the steering wheel when the cop approaches. To a cop, that raises fear since you could be reaching for a gun.

it shouldn't be this way, but that's reality outside small towns. At any stop, think what the cop is thinking and be smart. Don't provoke her.

I saw the video too. Everything was fine, police were civil toward Brooks while giving a field sobriety test, until Brooks violently resisted arrest, grabbed one of the officer's Taser gun, ran, and attempted to fire the gun at the police officer.

Had he not resisted, he wouldn't have been shot.

Of course that's irrelevent to the BLM and anti-police people. All that matters is that Brooks was "brutalized, shot and murdered" by the "racist" WHITE police.

Looks like we've got another fallen hero, role model and martyr who gave his life to the BLM Cause and will be given a nationwide televised hero funeral. And no doubt Biden will be there to show "he cares".

Meanwhile, here we have a BLACK Georgia Sheriff who says shooting of Brooks was justified: https://www.foxnews.com/media/sheriff-alfonzo-williams-rayshard-brooks-shooting-justified

Shot in the back, twice.

... while pointing a stun gun to the cop behind him.

He was pointing the stun gun at the cop when he got shot.

The taser had already been fired twice and was empty, useless. The cop should have known that.

People should watch the videos before forming an opinion. I watched the videos and I don't think shooting him was unreasonable.

I watched the video and saw a man being shot twice in the back. There is nothing reasonable about that.

I also saw two policemen unable to restrain one man who was so intoxicated he couldn't keep his eyes open for two minutes at a time.. Don't they give US cops any kind of hand-to-hand training? Training in how to de-escalate a situation? Only how to aim and fire a weapon?

I don't care what colour skin Brooks had. I don't care what colour skin either of the cops had. It should be irrelevant. Cops are not supposed to shoot people in the back when they are running away. And no one should be kicking a person who is on the ground bleeding and dying.

Invalid CSRF

Interesting details have emerged on why the interaction went so wrong. As others have said, it was professional and cordial, right up to when the decision to arrest him was made. Then, Brooks suddenly changed his demeanor, attacked the police, took one of their weapons, etc.

It turns out that Brooks was on probation for several offenses. If he had been arrested that night, he would have had to serve out his prison sentences for those previous crimes. That is probably why he didn&t want to be taken in by the police. He would have been in trouble for much more than drunk driving.

Once he fought, grabbed a weapon, and used it, the choice was made. The police had literally 2 seconds to decide and react to the sudden change in situation. It&s frankly a close call either way. The police could let him go, but then what would he do? Get back in the car later, drive, and kill someone due to his drunken state? Then the police would be in trouble too, for letting him escape.

And no one should be kicking a person who is on the ground bleeding and dying.

Is this on video? What is the evidence for this claim?

Don't they give US cops any kind of hand-to-hand training?

Perhaps Brooks was stronger and had more hand-to-hand training.

The taser had already been fired twice and was empty, useless. The cop should have known that.

Should he have known that? Everything happened very quickly. And how was the cop supposed to know Brooks didn't have another weapon on him, that was perhaps being pointed at him or his partner?

I want to start out by posting the link of the Atlanta law for use of deadly force by police-

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/atlanta-police-use-of-deadly-force-procedures/85-1e326736-eac0-4969-989d-5671c0f23549

A few weeks ago, 2 officers were arrested in Atlanta for tasing 2 college kids. At that time, they considered the taser gun deadly force. Rayshard has the gun and it is suddenly harmless.

It turns out that Brooks was on probation for several offenses. If he had been arrested that night, he would have had to serve out his prison sentences for those previous crimes. That is probably why he didn&t want to be taken in by the police. He would have been in trouble for much more than drunk driving.

Exactly, the offenses he was arrested for in the past were no joke either. Child abuse on both kids and false imprisonment were among them. People on here would be crying for a life sentence if they read about another person doing them. The bar that let him drive home drunk to the Wendy's staff that called the police on him to those that didn't care or help him as he was brought up are all also responsible.

The DA also thought there was enough evidence for murder with George Zimmerman and the six officers in Baltimore. Verdict...not guilty for both.

Shot in the back, twice.

... while pointing a stun gun to the cop behind him.

> impossible because if he was shot in the back he was already running away. He could have been shot in the leg.

I see, you did not watch the video...

Why would a cop aim for the legs if someone is pointing a gun at you? That is so .... unwise.

US death penalty rules.

Selling cigarettes on the street.

using a counterfeit $20 bill.

sleeping in a car after a few drinks.

US get off free, death penalty rules.

kill 500,000 Iraqi citizens.

Kill Syrians for their oil, and give it to al-nusra to sell.

Drone attack muslim worldwide.

turn US citizens into meth heads

zichi

impossible because if he was shot in the back he was already running away. He could have been shot in the leg.

Immediately after shooting at the cop. And how easy is it to shoot at legs... is that even part of police training?

I find it amazing that you are so confident from the safety of your keyboard. Are you sure you would make all these wise, considered decisions in a high-stress situation where a criminal with a gun is in front of you? Apparently, you are confident.

The police could let him go, but then what would he do? Get back in the car later, drive, and kill someone due to his drunken state?

He could not get back in the car if the cops had his keys. From the car registration they could check his identity and go to his home to arrest him.

And no one should be kicking a person who is on the ground bleeding and dying.

Is this on video? What is the evidence for this claim?

 For over two minutes after Mr Brooks was shot, neither officer provided medical attention as police are required to do, prosecutors said.

Instead, Mr Rolfe kicked Mr Brooks while he was on the ground, Mr Howard added. 

Officer Brosnan - who has already been placed on administrative leave - will be charged with assault for allegedly standing on Mr Brooks' shoulder as he lay dying.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53084232

how was the cop supposed to know Brooks didn't have another weapon on him

He'd been patted down, the cop knew he had no weapon on him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhdpG2XzRXQ

Watching that video, I'm amazed that the cops spent so much time messing around apparently trying to find a reason to arrest him for DUI, making him walk an imaginary straight line repeatedly, balance on one foot, asking him whether he felt drunk, etc. The aim seems to be, not to keep the streets safe, but to get a conviction. In the UK I imagine they would have given him a lift home to make sure he didn't drive, and required him to come into the police station next day to get a telling-off and to pick up his car keys.

all these wise, considered decisions in a high-stress situation

It should never have escalated into a high-stress situation.

Invalid CSRF

@zichi

he was sleeping in his car in a car park because he was drunk.

First, there is no training of police to shondt to wound. It ir impossible to do in such a situation. Police are taught to aim at the center of visible mass.

I am amazed at how drunk driving is suddenly such a minor transgression. My assumption is that we all agree that drunks need to be punished so as to keep the innocent safe.

he was sleeping in his car in a car park because he was drunk

He was sleeping in a drive-thru lane of a fast food restaurant. He got drunk at a bar and drove there. All is explained in the bodycam video that is available for all to see.

he was sleeping in his car in a car park because he was drunk.

Actually, he passed out in the drive through lane with the car running. I am not unhappy that he is no longer a threat to society.

I am amazed at how drunk driving is suddenly such a minor transgression. My assumption is that we all agree that drunks need to be punished so as to keep the innocent safe.

The cop kept asking him how he got to the car park, he said his friend drive him there. The cops did not actually catch him DUI. IF they had stopped him for a driving offence and found he was DUI, punishment would be in order; but they had no concrete evidence, and being drunk in a car park should not be cause for summary execution.

He got drunk at a bar and drove there. All is explained in the bodycam video that is available for all to see.

Nowhere in the video I saw did he admit to driving to the car park.

Why couldn't the cops just drive him home and slap a hefty fine on him, maybe cancel his driving license for a while?

Invalid CSRF

The cop kept asking him how he got to the car park, he said his friend drive him there. The cops did not actually catch him DUI. IF they had stopped him for a driving offence and found he was DUI, punishment would be in order; but they had no concrete evidence, and being drunk in a car park should not be cause for summary execution.

The dude wasn't in a car park, he was in a drive-thru lane with the engine running. If he was in a parking spot in the first place, nobody would have cared. No one can judge how he got there until the street surveillance comes out, without a doubt during the trial. If he complied with the police, no doubt he would have been seeing prison time because a DUI is considered a parole violation.

Why couldn't the cops just drive him home and slap a hefty fine on him, maybe cancel his driving license for a while?

He violated the terms of his release from prison. The cops had run his name and dscovered he was out on parole.

Cops in the US aren't a taxi service. Do they do that in Japan?

The guy fell asleep in a drive thru. The vehicle was preventing others from getting their orders and food. Even if he weren't drunk that is unacceptable when restaurants are only open for drive thru service.

Cops don't shoot at legs. Nobody does. The idea that someone can be wounded is from TV. Not reality. When people are wounder by a gun shot, it means the shooter wasn't a good shot.

The D.A. had little choice but to bring charges. The jury will need to decide and that lets the DA office off the hook.

if we don't want cops shooting people, then they need very different training and acceptable force guidance. Cops behave very differently based on how you behave towards them. if we are calm, then the cops are calm too. Cops don't know who they are dealing with in the beginning of an encounter. Could be a hardened killer or grandma with cookies or the same person doing both.

Cops in the US aren't a taxi service. Do they do that in Japan?

dunno. I know they don’t shoot people in the back, or kneel on their necks until they’re dead.

The vehicle was preventing others from getting their orders and food. 

The long altercation with the cop began after the car had been moved. If they wanted to take him in for breaking parole they should have said so clearly, instead of trying to make him admit he had been drunk-driving. Neither cop had actually witnessed him driving the car (except for when he was told by the cops to park away from the drive-through) so without a confession they had very little to go on - a minor misdemeanor at best.

They certainly didn’t have enough to inflict the death penalty in the Land of the Free.

cleo - The long altercation with the cop began after the car had been moved. If they wanted to take him in for breaking parole they should have said so clearly, instead of trying to make him admit he had been drunk-driving. Neither cop had actually witnessed him driving the car (except for when he was told by the cops to park away from the drive-through) so without a confession they had very little to go on - a minor misdemeanor at best.

They certainly didn’t have enough to inflict the death penalty in the Land of the Free.

According to state law, if you are found passed out behind the wheel of a running car, with bloodshot eyes, smelling of alcohol, that is reason enough to order a roadside breathalyzer test. By law, refusal to take the test will result in a six month suspension of your driving privileges'. By law, failing the test will result in your arrest. Brooks then made the decision to resist arrest. That is also against the law. Brooks then stole a police officers weapon. Another law broken. Brooks ran from police, turned and fired a weapon at the police. Lawbreaking-wise, this guy was on a roll. Firing weapons at police officers is considered endangering their lives, and endangering the lives of others. At this point it probably doesn't matter how many more laws Brooks is willing to violate if it means he can escape justice.

Police are trained to shoot for the torso. Big target, easier to hit. No trick shots. No TV/movie stunt shooting. No shooting the weapon out of their hand, no shooting them in the big toe. Shoot to end the dangerous situation as quickly as possible. Brooks proved that he was willing to fire at police. Bad choice.