Posted on 06/17/2020 1:06:11 PM PDT by buckalfa
The state of Georgia doesn’t classify a Taser or stun gun as a lethal weapon. The DA’s mistake doesn’t overrule that. And the officers in question were charged with aggravated assault and not attempted murder so he apparently saw the error of his ways.
Go back and read my post. I think you have some reading comprehension issues.
Also, after he read the charges, which were aggravated assault, he then stated that tasers are deadly weapons.
Seems like your hearing comprehension is also lacking.
As usual, like the leftist you are, you change the subject. Typical leftist tactic.
Then you accuse me of LIES, petulance, recalcitrance and beating puppies.
Another leftist tactic.
Get lost, neo-Nazi Soros troll.
You aren't worthy of a being a pimple on a real conservatives ass. I'm 100% conservative and proud, I'm just not a racist POS like you. I see the forest for the trees and when you shoot someone that is fleeing from you that poses no harm to you or anyone else, and you kill them, you should be charged with murder.
You revealed yourself with your “black thug” comment; as if no one knew of the guys race. RACIST.
Yeah I’ve seen both body cam videos and the dash cam video as well as surveillance video from Wen dy’s. Are there other videos? From those I listed above, it’s hard to tell which officer is which during the scuffle and the chase.
A friend of ours in Law enforcement just called to say all Atlanta cops are calling in with the blue flu right now. They are trying to hold the ones that are on duty over but they are walking off the job. There will be no cops in Atlanta tonight. GA state patrol will handle accidents only no crime. Its going to be iteresting. We are pulling long guns out of the gun locker.
And the other officer will testify against Rolfe. I am wondering if the prosecutor will bring up everything Rolfe has ever said about minorities.
Rolfe did NOT kick the perp THAT is a lie, he immediately started giving CPR these race baiting attorneys charged this man without the investigation being completed by the GIB, the GIB knew nothing f these charges being brought OR of the press conference this DA is a race baiting PIMP!!!
I don’t know what model of taser the APD was/is using but there are numerous models, since 2009, that are multiple shot tasers. That means that potentially Brooks had at least one for projectile that could be used on the policeman or a civilian that had contact with Brooks He was a felon with a deadly weapon, fleeing from the scene of the crime.
Our founders knew justice had to be balanced by mercy and grace because humans are bent towards sin and no one can keep the law. Brooks was not endangering anyone, and a DUI today is devastating by itself, even without prior knowledge of his criminal past.
“I’m not an expert on Tasers, so bear with me.
1) Aren’t tasers considered non-lethal weapons? It seems to me that this is the rationale for using tasers for “pain compliance” if a suspect refuses to follow a policeman’s order. If they are non-lethal when a policeman uses them, aren’t they also then non-lethal when a perpetrator uses them?”
A. Tasers are considered non-lethal, but, as the Atlanta DA said just a little over a week ago, under GA law tasers are a lethal weapon. Also, there have been over a thousand cases of taser use resulting in death.
“2) Aren’t tasers single shot weapons? After he fired the first charge over his shoulder wouldn’t he have then been carrying an empty weapon? Wouldn’t the policeman know this, since he saw the charge being fired? He just took the weapon, not the holster, so I’m assuming he wouldn’t have reloads. Where are the reloads stored?”
A. As early as 2009 several taser manufacturers have marketed multi-shot tasers. Chances are that APD was using one of these models. If so, then Brooks potentially had at least one more taser projectile to use either on the officer or on a civilian. What if he escaped the police, decided to carjack a car from an elderly man/woman with a heart condition? A taser shot could kill that person.
Also a taser shot to the face, (which is where Brooks was aiming when he discharged the taser), could be fatal, which is why police training is to aim at body mass.
“3) Even assuming, somehow he was able to shoot the policeman with his empty Taser and go back to pick up the service weapon from the then incapacitated officer, wouldn’t the other policemen (the one who lost his Taser in the first place) been free to respond with his service weapon?”
A. If Brooks had acquired the officer’s service weapon he would be a threat not only to the officers but also to the public at large.
Remember, the officers do not know Brooks from Adam. They have no way to know, at that moment, whether he had recently been involved in a violent crime. They had no way to know that he would resist arrest.
Some pundits have said that they should have told him to walk home, but we don’t know how far home was. If not close, would he steal a car to get home? What if he stumbled into traffic while walking drunk and got severely injured or killed? How about police procedures which says that an arrest is warranted based on the BAC, should they have violated dept procedures?
“Not being snarky, I am genuinely interested in the response to these comments.”
A. Not picking on you. The answers above are from years of dealing with law enforcement, (military, not civilian). Until you have dealt with a drunk while attempting to arrest him/her few have any idea how it can go sideways quickly. I had a female sailor fight being placed in the patrol car and I ended up getting bitten on the arm requiring 2 stitches and a tetanus shot.
Another time a drunk male sailor wanted to fight everyone around him and we had to wrestle him to the deck and hog tie him to his rack, (with a 24/7 watch on him to ensure he did not choke on his own vomit), until he sobered up.
“Cops are trained and have tazers used on them. Shooting someone in the back is unjustified, unless they were charging at someone with the intent to maim/kill.”
A. Just because SOME dept training with tasers involve actually being shot with a taser has nothing to do with the officer using it when attempting to subdue a suspect.
As for “Shooting someone in the back is unjustified”, look again at the video/s. You will see that Brooks was not shot until after he attempted to shoot the officer with the taser, (which was pointed at the officer’s face).
You will also notice that it was a split second after Brooks fired the taser that he was shot by the officer. The officer, at the time, had no way to know that Brooks was not going to charge at him or that he would turn around and continue running.
What is not stated yet is if the taser was a multi-shot taser, (which have been available since at least 2009). That would also inform the officer’s decision to use deadly force
Decisions in law enforcement are made in a split second while under extreme stress, (especially when the suspect has just pointed a weapon at you and fired it). In hindsight there are a lot of “he could have, should have” comments but they are not of any value. The USSC has routinely stated that the test is what the officer saw, knew at the time, or believed, (threat of death or serious injury to their self or the public), not what hindsight would tell us.
Again, we don’t know if this was a single shot or a multi-shot taser. Multi-shots have been on the market since 2009.
"I get the fact that he was a POS and fought with cops, that doesn’t mean it’s open season on someone. A taser isn’t a lethal weapon, his partner was right there with him for back up."
To you and about 3 or 4 other completely ignorant in-need-of actual-facts pro black lies matter people on this thread:
Rayshard snatches a taser from one of the officers. Rayshard now has a means to disable either one of those two officers with the taser and TAKE THE OFFICERS WEAPON AND KILL THE OFFICER WITH HIS OWN GUN. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? This constitutes a THREAT OF DEADLY FORCE against both those officers just by Rayshard having a taser in his possession.
Rayshard fights police then runs with taser still in his possession. Rayshard not only HAS a taser in his possession but FIRES the taser, not just points the taser, FIRES the taser in his possession at the officer pursuing him. The officer pursuing him STILL has only his taser in his hand before Rayshard fires the taser at him. When the officer sees Rayshard fire the taser at him, he ONLY THEN drops his own taser and unholsters his firearm. Up until the point that Rayshard fired the taser at him, the officer was STILL trying to subdue Rayshard with non-lethal force. Rayshard had a taser in his possession constituting a threat of deadly force all the way up to and until he hit the ground.
Some model tasers are 2 shot and 3 shot tasers. It's clear in the body cam part of the video that during the fight there were more than two taser shots heard being fired. If those are one shot tasers, like so many of you black lies matter people KEEP repeating, and there are only two officers there, how come you can hear at least three taser shots being fired in the scuffle before Rayshard broke loose and ran?
Practically all police model taser are dual function tasers. They not only fire multiple shots, they also have electrodes for close contact tasing. MEANING, even if Rayshard's taser was out of shots, that taser in his possession was still capable of tasing the officer when the officer came within physical range of him, whereupon, Rayshard could have still disabled that officer, taken his weapon and shot the officer with his own gun. THAT constitutes a threat of deadly force to that officer. Totally justifiable shooting.
Either the close-contact tase didn't affect Brooks or the officer never had the opportunity to trigger the taser before Brooks took off with it.
Can’t see anything higher than negligent homicide, if that....the DA is trying to make a name....like Reno and other crooked folks have been wont to do.
so we should drive while under the influence in your view, and as for not endangering anyone who do you know. He fell asleep behind the wheel waiting to get some food. Good grief
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.