Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rashard Brooks shooting "justifiable"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rashard Brooks shooting "justifiable"

    Quite a write up!
    Very clear and concise.
    Wonder if the Atlanta Mayor Bottoms will reinstate Officer Rolfe?
    Bet not!

    https://townhall.com/columnists/mari...force-n2570674
    Last edited by FirstBubba; 06-15-2020, 07:40 PM.

  • #2
    Unlike the George Floyd killing, this is a clear case of justifiable homicide. The suspect was a fleeing felon, and was pointing a weapon at the officer.https://news.yahoo.com/lawful-awful-atlanta-police-had-044502141.html
    I think the immediate dismissal of the officer was intended to avert the kind of spontaneous rioting that ensued in the aftermath of the Floyd killing.
    Here is another take on the shooting.


    https://news.yahoo.com/lawful-awful-...044502141.html



    Last edited by 99explorer; 06-15-2020, 07:43 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think it is important to remember that although an armed citizen cannot lawfully shoot a fleeing assailant, a police officer can.
      Last edited by 99explorer; 06-15-2020, 08:34 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 99explorer View Post
        Unlike the George Floyd killing, this is a clear case of justifiable homicide. The suspect was a fleeing felon, and was pointing a weapon at the officer.https://news.yahoo.com/lawful-awful-atlanta-police-had-044502141.html
        I think the immediate dismissal of the officer was intended to avert the kind of spontaneous rioting that ensued in the aftermath of the Floyd killing.
        Here is another take on the shooting.


        https://news.yahoo.com/lawful-awful-...044502141.html


        You are right for a change😉

        Comment


        • #5
          Here is an excerpt from Jerry Della Femina's blog this week:


          But here's an idea that I think has some merit.

          Let's recruit as many black police officers as we can.

          We don't need fewer cops -- we need more black cops.

          I think black people are justifiably nervous, given the record of their being pulled over in their cars or stopped in the street by white cops.

          Let's make sure that black cops are there to protect black people.

          Let's make sure every cop's car is manned by one black cop and one white cop.

          How do we do that?

          Let's have the equivalent of the G.I. Bill, which worked so well after World War II, for cops. Let's promise that after 10 years of service there will be some free educational benefits. Let's offer some financial services for all cops.

          Let's offer a monetary bonus to any cop who after 15 years of duty gets a low number of civilian complaints.

          Of course, this plan will be an incentive open to all cops, black and white.

          But the emphasis would be in recruitment of black men and women to be cops.

          I would be happy to write a free television commercial today to recruit black men and women to the police force.

          Will it work?

          All I know is it would be a helluva lot better than what we have now.
          Last edited by 99explorer; 06-16-2020, 09:23 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            I think turning off the bodycam while on assignment should carry an automatic charge of destroying evidence. Bodycams protect the public and they also protect officers from false claims. Sure a bodycam will only give a singular perspective, but it's a singular objective perspective, so the more evidence we gather, the more can be learned and understood.

            I'll play devil's advocate on this one. The opinion piece from townhall contains some language that I find misleading and inflammatory. So instead of taking someone's word for it let's watch thru the point of view of the body cams security cams and others passing by. I hate referencing the nytimes on this but they actually synced the timestamps on several different cameras of the event. So you can go watch and listen to the whole event from multiple angles.

            He'd been drinking(this we know but it's blatantly inflammatory and wrong to assume anything beyond that), and fell asleep drunk at the wheel in a Wendy's parking lot. (If Brosnan can tell that he's too sloppy drunk so as to be a danger to himself or others, why would he ask him to move his car? Why would the writer of the opinion piece lie about what was said?) The audio exists for anyone to listen should they be so inclined.
            Btw, the breathalyzer shows him to be just over the Georgia legal limit. That's objective evidence not subjective conjecture

            After initially being compliant and saying he didn't want to refuse any checks or searches he was checked for weapons found to be unarmed. He continues to be compliant up until things look like he was going to go from a warning to an arrest. After talking and complying for 30min. Things take a turn for the worst.

            While being chased, and in full stride, Brooks looks behind him, points the Taser he is holding in Rolfe’s direction, and fires it.
            Rolfe passes his Taser from his right hand to his left hand, and reaches for his handgun. Rolfe discards the Taser he is carrying, draws his handgun and fires it three times at Brooks as he is running away.

            Here is the National Use of Force continuum. Running / Fleeing cannot be considered an active aggression towards Rolfe. Whether a fleeing suspect with a taser poses a serious risk to use initiate use of lethal force... it seems that experts are divided
            https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/use-force-continuum

            I've read several different expert opinions that range from "legal but justifiable but still awful" to "unwarranted illegal use of force"

            Here will be the question if this were to escalate further: Would a reasonable officer, fearful that the Taser could be used to incapacitate him, decide that deadly force was necessary to stop the threat?


            Atlanta has prided itself on the training of its officers and on its use of de-escalation techniques. For sure this is not as cut and dried as the George Floyd case, but Rolfe was just fired not brought up on charges.
            I don't necessarily agree that the use of deadly force was warranted here. If stunguns are such a threat why do we issue them and insist on their use before going to handguns?
            I'm not trying to Monday Morning Quarterback this, but it seems like if your job is to protect and serve, and you're trying to protect the roads from a drunk, there's better ways to go about it. Again not passing judgement but once the guy was running away, seems like the smart thing would have been to get in the squad car and on the radio.

            Also, in his ~7yrs on the force, Rolfe had a 5 vehicular incidents for which disciplinary action was written into his record, another 4 Citizens complaints against him, a formal disciplinary action for his firearm use in 2016/17. This could just have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

            Comment


            • #7
              Question: Do PD's still have / use Drunk tanks? Take guy's keys get them off the street, send 'em on their way after they've slept it off?
              Does that have other legal ramifications in these modern times, or whatever happened to that?

              I think the spontaneous dismissal may have been to avert another round of rioting, but it might also have been used to make an example within the Atlanta PD.

              I don't know, it's a head-scratcher for me. I don't agree with shooting a fleeing man with a taser in the back, but I'm not an LEO on the street either. The handswitch and the discard makes it seem deliberate, but the discipline record (at least to a layman like me) makes it seem like this guy didn't have the temperment needed for being a Police officer.

              Messy.



              Comment


              • #8
                I have to agree with buckshott on this one. It does not appear that shooting was needed. The initial contact with Brooks was not a threatening one, he was not a danger to the public. The police had his car, knew where he lived and could have apprehended later for the arrest, did not need to use deadly force or shooting. I am usually on the side of police in these matters, but this appears to be a wrong decision by Rolfe. But the , I was not the one who had to make that decision !!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thanks BHR.

                  I was glad to see the President address the larger issue.
                  "Reducing crime and raising standards are not opposite goals. They are not mutually exclusive. They work together," Trump said. "They all work together."

                  That's a really excellent sentiment and goals on his part, and I was really impressed with his commitment to try and get to best practices.

                  If Obama had tried to go after best practices instead of trying to micromanage the police or a small number of PD's we might not be in this mess right now. 8yrs goes by fast, but you can make significant changes. This was definitely a very high note in his presidency and I think he deserves full credit for it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Bhr, your last sentence is the key.
                    If you aren't "there", it's hard to judge what was/wasn't appropriate.

                    Look folks, I have no problem with expecting a level of behavior/professionalism from a LEO, whether they be a lowly hicktown reserve or a Fed LEO.
                    I also understand that a criminal has "some" rights.

                    Now, let's get real!
                    Every LEO has a "rule book" they are expected to abide by.
                    The criminals? Where are their rule books?
                    Being a LEO is getting harder and harder every day.
                    Every day, LEO's are restricted by new rules and regulations.
                    Every day, criminals are given another edge to defeat LEO's.

                    We make LEO's leave the station everyday to work against a stacked deck....and it isn't stacked in their favor.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by FirstBubba View Post
                      Bhr, your last sentence is the key.
                      If you aren't "there", it's hard to judge what was/wasn't appropriate.

                      Look folks, I have no problem with expecting a level of behavior/professionalism from a LEO, whether they be a lowly hicktown reserve or a Fed LEO.
                      I also understand that a criminal has "some" rights.

                      Now, let's get real!
                      Every LEO has a "rule book" they are expected to abide by.
                      The criminals? Where are their rule books?
                      Being a LEO is getting harder and harder every day.
                      Every day, LEO's are restricted by new rules and regulations.
                      Every day, criminals are given another edge to defeat LEO's.

                      We make LEO's leave the station everyday to work against a stacked deck....and it isn't stacked in their favor.
                      No argument with you there Bubba. To be truthful with you, I have no idea why anyone would look to law enforcement as a occupation in today’s world. There are many dedicated people trying to protect us, but only 1-2 bad ones can send the wrong picture. Of course the news will jump on those instances, but make no statement of the benefits to us through the efforts of all the others ! If we listen solely to BLM, one would have the impression that a multitude of blacks are killed every day. And they would be correct, if only the news would cover all the shootings of blacks by other blacks ! If the black leadership will not take efforts to quell the actions of their own people in these killings, should I give a hoot about them ? I have not a ounce of caring when it comes to hypocrisy on their part !!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 99explorer View Post
                        I think it is important to remember that although an armed citizen cannot lawfully shoot a fleeing assailant, a police officer can.
                        He won't face charges and will sue the city for firing him unjustly.


                        What they need to do is end no knock warrants.
                        Last edited by Danbo; 06-17-2020, 11:36 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I prefer to wait to figure out what to think on these high profile issues. Often we are getting an incomplete picture, that's why we have courts and grand juries and what not. Advocacy groups often try to flood the media with their version in an effort to raise money or confer legitimacy. Remember the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson? The American legal system may not be perfect but it's pretty good, and a lot better than I would be at judging things via media sources.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rock rat View Post
                            I prefer to wait to figure out what to think on these high profile issues. Often we are getting an incomplete picture, that's why we have courts and grand juries and what not. Advocacy groups often try to flood the media with their version in an effort to raise money or confer legitimacy. Remember the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson? The American legal system may not be perfect but it's pretty good, and a lot better than I would be at judging things via media sources.
                            Rock, you are most correct in your thoughts of waiting to figure things out on high profile issues. Now if we could only get this same thought from the black community, maybe there would be a little less burning and looting. But then they are not looking for ‘facts’ or reasons, it would seem to take the urgency out of striking the match ! I see no change of the present in the future ! This appears to be a cultural issue with the excuse of a racial issue. I guess we all have our own way of enjoying ourselves, some are just a trifle more destructive !!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Cop's been charged with felony murder.

                              Comment

                              Welcome!

                              Collapse

                              Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

                              If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

                              And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

                              Right Rail 1

                              Collapse

                              Top Active Users

                              Collapse

                              There are no top active users.

                              Right Rail 2

                              Collapse

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Right Rail 3

                              Collapse

                              Footer Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X