Posted on 06/17/2020 7:27:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
Americans must resist the push to conflate dissimilar events in order to promote the radical political aims of the Black Lives Matter movement.
In the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, the subject of racism and police brutality lept to the forefront of our political discourse. While both are important matters to explore and discuss, the fact is that such debate is not being held in an honest fashion. Instead, a chosen narrative has become more important than fact. Worse, there is an intentional effort to conflate even the most dissimilar events in order to promote the political aims of the Black Lives Matter movement.
The reaction to the death of Rayshard Brooks is an example of this conflation. On June 12, police officers were called to a Wendy’s restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia. According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Brooks had “fallen asleep in his vehicle, which was parked in the drive-through, causing other customers to drive around him.”
After an initially civil interaction involving an alcohol test, Officers Devin Brosnan and Garrett Rolfe attempted to arrest Brooks. As they tried to place him in handcuffs, Brooks violently resisted arrest and grappled with the officers. He seized a Taser from Brosnan, punched Rolfe, then fled the scene after being hit by a Taser dart fired by Rolfe.
While running, Brook turned and fired the Taser in Rolfe’s direction, with Rolfe returning fire with his handgun. Brooks died later in hospital care.
According to Section 3010 the Atlanta Police Department’s Standard Operating Procedures, the actions the officers took were clearly within departmental guidelines. The relevant portion states that an employee may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when:
He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others…
Regardless of Brooks’s culpability for his own death as the result of his violent actions, the underlying narrative of systematic and racist police brutality apparently remains more powerful than incontrovertible video evidence.
The officer has been fired, and Police Chief Erika Shields has stepped down. Yet Chassidy Evans, Brooks’ niece, stated, “Not only did we lose another black, unarmed male. This time it landed on our front doorstep.”
Brooks was clearly not unarmed, however, but attempted to use a stolen weapon after violently resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. This alone sets Brooks apart from Floyd, whose death occurred while posing no threat to the officers involved.
Allowing two disparate scenarios to be compared by nature of skin color alone harms the worthwhile cause of raising awareness of police brutality by making the implicit claim that the use of force against every black man by police is unjust.
The unfortunate and brutal fact is that some people are killed without adequate justification by the police in appalling and morally abhorrent situations, while others are killed within the context of self-defense. Each case involves individual humans and their individual choices, and so, each case should be judged according to its own facts and merits. To apply subjective assumptions of innocence or guilt based on skin color is both dangerous and fundamentally racist.
What makes matters worse is that there is a growing attempt to justify the act of resisting arrest by making the unsubstantiated claim that black Americans run a heightened risk of being killed in such scenarios. Attorney L. Chris Stewart stated, “People ask, ‘Why would (Brooks) resist if they’re trying to put him in handcuffs?’ Well, they put George Floyd in handcuffs, and he was subsequently killed. So just getting put in handcuffs — if you’re African American — doesn’t mean you’re going to be nicely taken to the back of a police car.”
If we begin to justify violent actions against police officers who follow the law, we are open the door to lawlessness and anarchy.
By conflating contrasting cases as evidence of a narrative with a complete disregard for facts or nuance, we are making it impossible for police officers to do their jobs. Indeed, by justifying violence against officers, we should not be surprised when many decide that placing their lives on the line daily is hardly worth the risk. When that day comes, will the chosen narrative remain as important as reality? Let’s hope we don’t have to find out.
Among the well kept houses and lawns, CNN and MSNBC reported the shootout was “mostly peaceful.”
Of course it is, because we now live in Bizarro World.
You can actually see Brooks shoot the tazer at the cop.
I have an issue with this case, based upon a double standard. Once a taser is fired, it is no longer a “deadly weapon.” As such, once Brooks fired the taser at the officers, he was no longer in possession of a deadly weapon. What the officers did was shoot an unarmed man in the back. I’m fairly certain that even in Texas, if you or I did what the officers did, we would be in jail right now.
Except (i) DUI is almost not a felony, and (ii) Brooks was running away with a spent taser and was not a threat to the officer or anyone else at that point. They knew his identity and had his car. Why not just let him escape and pick him up later? This was an unjustified shooting in my view.
He had a bench warrant out for his arrest since February and was on parole. It was justifiable as a felon fleeing from police along with assaulting a police officer.
What you said is what I heard someone on FOX say a couple of days later. I can’t recall who it was unless it was Bernard Kerik?? I believe it was that weekend. But this article seems to point to TWO different Tasers - one shot at the scene of the altercation by one officer and one taken from the other officer that he fled with. But one never knows today whether reports are right or even whether or not “experts” are right.
“”He seized a Taser from Brosnan, punched Rolfe, then fled the scene after being hit by a Taser dart fired by Rolfe.””
We’re not really certain the George Floyd incident was a George Floyd incident.
It would appear from this article that there were TWO tasers.
He took one from Brosnan and Rolfe fired his so the one he ran with (from Brosnan) had not been fired. That’s the way I read it anyway.
“”He seized a Taser from Brosnan, punched Rolfe, then fled the scene after being hit by a Taser dart fired by Rolfe.””
In Tennessee v. Garner the Supreme Court held that a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
I have read in multiple places that the taser was a 2 shot taser. They even gave the model#.
Aside from that, the officer chasing did not know for sure if the suspect had taken the other officer’s sidearm.
He is chasing a suspect who has violently assaulted them. When he turns to fire, the officer had less than 1 second to react. He did not know whether both taser rounds had been fired.
Why are we second guessing cops who were trying to remove a violent felon from the streets?
Bottom line: Rayshard Brooks died because he chose poorly. Period.
Depending on his criminal record, the DUI could be a felony.
The taser was a 2 shot model.
This guy had just assaulted 2 police officers, overpowered one and took his weapon (taser). When he fired it at the policeman, he checked all the boxes for a justified shooting by the police.
They had already ran his name and knew he was a violent felon (assault on a women and children) who had been released from jail.
he was a violent felon (assault on a women and children) who had been released from jail....
Democrat run cities and their DA’s have been releasing these animals for a reason.
Brooks fired a taser at Rolfe just before Rolfe opened fire. So whatever taser Brooks had was spent before the shooting started. Then there is the question whether even Brooks' possession of a live taser would have constituted a sufficient threat of death or serious bodily harm to justify Rolfe's use of deadly force. Rolfe will argue that Brooks could have disabled him with the taser, stolen his gun and used it against him or others, which is a legitimate argument. The whole case will likely hinge on whether Rolfe can successfully argue that he did not know the taser had been fired. That might be a tough argument, though, because the flash from the taser is clearly visible before Rolfe started shooting.
I did not know that.
*ALL* shootings of black people who do not have their own firearm drawn on a cop are going to cause hell from now on, thanks to a few violent idiots on both sides of the ‘law’.
Any cop stupid enough to let their gun or tazer get even touched needs another job.
Not saying I like it, but pretty much if a cop shoots a black person, they’d better have drawn and aimed first, or God help the residents of the area.
Adapt or die.
I have an issue with this case, based upon a double standard. Once a taser is fired, it is no longer a “deadly weapon.” As such, once Brooks fired the taser at the officers, he was no longer in possession of a deadly weapon. What the officers did was shoot an unarmed man in the back. I’m fairly certain that even in Texas, if you or I did what the officers did, we would be in jail right now."
Except forr... some police tasers have two shots. AND almost all police tasers are dual action tasers. After the explosive shots are spent the tasers still have electrodes on them for physical contact tasing. Meaning, if the officer had caught up with the suspect and come into physical contact with the suspect, the suspect could have then still tased the officer by physical contact, immobilizing the officer, whereupon he could grab the officer's firearm and kill the officer with the officer's own gun. Rayshard Brooks continued to stay in possession of the taser all the way till he hit the ground. If Brooks had thrown the taser down to the ground after he fired it at the officer and then the officer still shot him, you would have a point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.