Police Officer Who Shot Rayshard Brooks Charged With Felony Murder

1. 76

   Ken Burgessposted 3 years ago

   Felony Murder - the murder of someone while in the process of committing a felony.
   
   Mr. Brooks was intoxicated, driving a vehicle, out on parole, resisted arrest, assaulted the arresting officer, took his taser gun, and fired it at the officer while trying to flee.
   
   Felony Murder charges, and a whole slew more, for Officer Rolfe.
   
   POLICE OFFICERS.... my advice to you, if you are in a Democratic led state or city... resign... put your families first... before the Politicians and Prosecutors crucify you on the Cross of Social Justice.
   
   Thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, Ken, I could easily see a greater justification for the officer's use of force in this case and it is clear that this situation differed from what was the case regarding George Floyd.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         On this we would agree, particularly if the cops knew who he was and what his record was.  Still have a hard time accepting shooting him in the back, though.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            In this particular case, I don't want it to appear that I am hamstringing the police unfairly, a taser can be used as a weapon.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               A reasonable sounding analysis of the action:
               
               https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin … ustifiable

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I liked the description, "Lawful but awful"
                  
                  I agree that, at this point, the shooting seems lawful, but I don't think that equates to it being justified, or the right choice.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     I, too, suspect that "Lawful but awful" is a pretty good description.  It will be really interesting (except I don't imagine we'll ever hear) to see the results of his trial for murder.

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        There's just no way that felony murder charge holds up.

                        replyreport
                        1. 96

                           wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           I fully expect it to hold up.  As I said, this is no longer about murder and the law; it is about politics.

                           replyreport
                           1. 88

                              GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              I would agree that the charges will hold up—until time to go to court.
                              
                              Then the stuff will hit the fan and the DA will be shown for the panderer that he is. Hopefully, that happens before whatever election he is running for reelection in happens.
                              
                              I think this D.A.'s actions are borderline criminal.
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
                              1. 96

                                 wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 We'll see.  Maybe, anyway.  I hope you're right, but I really do expect to see that cop "sacrificed" to political necessity.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 88

                                    GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                    I agree with you that he will be sacrificed with some charge, for political reasons. But I don't think it will be for the Felony Murder charge.
                                    
                                    GA

                                    replyreport
            2. 76

               Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Nor should it be, since the very Prosecutor who is seeking the life imprisonment or death of Officer Rolfe stated that it is a lethal weapon just weeks prior.
               
               The officer's actions we reactionary, there was no time for premeditation, no time for careful consideration... this entire incident was action, reaction, with Mr. Brooks being the instigator of resisting arrest, assaulting the officers, and then firing the taser at the officer.

               replyreport
         2. 76

            Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Watch the film, he turned and fired the taser directly at the officer and a split second later the officer shot him.  Not five minutes later, not two minutes later, a split second later... well within what falls into the action-reaction, fight or flight timeframe where the act was not pre-meditated, merely reactionary.
            
            The charges brought against Officer Rolfe are an outrage, an injustice just as horribly wrong as allowing the murdering officer of Mr. Floyd go free without charges.
            
            The Fulton County district attorney so outrageously misrepresented the actions of what occurred, embellishing and insinuating the why's of the actions... and then leaving out pertinent information such as the officer trying to keep Mr. Brooks alive.
            
            The murder of Mr. Floyd was a very difficult thing to watch... and this gross misrepresentation of the truth regarding Officer Rolfe by the Prosecutor was nearly as difficult.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Unfortunately the actions against the officer are more about politics than justice or the law.  Sad, but true; mob rule is once more raising it's ugly head.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I fear you're right. Again, I doubt the charge will stick. It's just a temporary thing to help quell anger.

                  replyreport
      2. 76

         Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         True, but that was never an issue in my mind.
         
         The officers that murdered Mr. Floyd deserved to face murder charges, and they did not, and the outrage over that injustice (initial outrage... not the weeks long anarchy that has followed) is understandable.
         
         Sadly that outrage only came about because it was non-black officers that killed Mr. Floyd, it was the racial factor that was focused on, not the police brutality.
         
         Nor was the Tony Timpa case the same (he too died) tragic as it was, it was not as malicious as what happened to Mr. Floyd, but not nearly in the classification of "warranted" as what occurred to Mr. Brooks.
         
         Still, my recommendation to police officers stands, police need to recognize that almost any situation they get called to deal with in these regions MAY consider them an enemy, or MAY fight out of fear... worse however, they MUST recognize that in these times, the politicians, DA, AG, and prosecutors WILL TREAT THEM AS A CRIMINAL if anything should go wrong.
         
         They are now VILLIANIZED by the likes of CNN, and movements like Antifa and BLM. This is not what any police officer signed up for, and while communities like the one I live in trust our Sheriffs Office and those who work in it and we support them, considering them our allies, not our enemies... in many places in America today, this is not the case.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            "Sadly that outrage only came about because it was non-black officers that killed Mr. Floyd, it was the racial factor that was focused on, not the police brutality."
            --------
            No, the outrage was a result of BOTH. This issue regarding police brutality has gone viral in a global way, so it not just about Black folks, solely.
            
            "Still, my recommendation to police officers stands, police need to recognize that almost any situation they get called to deal with in these regions MAY consider them an enemy, or MAY fight out of fear... worse however is they MUST recognize that this time, the politicians, DA, AG, and prosecutors WILL TREAT THEM AS A CRIMINAL if anything should go wrong."
            -------
            If the police officer does his job and avoids sadism, there is no reason to be believed that they are to be unfairly vilified.
            
            BLM issues surrounds unjustified use of force, shooting 13 year old boys with toy guns, it goes back to the mind set of Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case, or, perhaps, shooting unarmed men without any justifiable provocation. It is things like that BLM protests, as well as differing standard of policing and application of the criminal justice system regarding Blacks, to name a few. So, in short, I am not satisfied with the status quo. If you look at my comment to Crank, you can see that my proposed remedy is quite reasonable.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               
               
               This flies in the face of the charges brought against Officer Rolfe.
               
               The exact opposite in fact of what you claim.

               replyreport
            2. 96

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               "No, the outrage was a result of BOTH."
               
               When was the last time we saw protesting and riots against a white man being killed by police?  If it weren't about race we would certainly see that, for there are far more whites killed by police than blacks; double the opportunity and more to protest and burn things down.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  It is not just about "being killed", it is about the manner and circumstances surrounding the shooting, was the use of force appropriate? Are we shooting 13 year old boys with toy guns?
                  
                  Whites are invited to show instances of police brutality that has been applied to them, as they do have cell phone cameras available.

                  replyreport
               2. 86

                  crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  As a percentage of their population, black are killed and incarcerated far more often.
                  
                  The systematic racism in policing needs to be addressed. It's really as simple as that.
                  
                  White people, myself included, are raised to believe that the police are there to protect them. We have an innate respect for them.
                  
                  Black people are raised to fear the police. They have the experience that, despite doing nothing wrong, they will be harassed and arrested and stopped and followed.
                  
                  These two experiences are going to determine how a great many of us react when we are stopped by police.
                  
                  There has to be an acknowledgement of these two, different realities.

                  replyreport
   2. 86

      crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      There's so much going on here that it's hard to parse, but one sure thing is that the media isn't doing anyone any favors in how they report these things and people's short fuses and attention spans don't help either.
      
      I don't agree that the police officer here should be charged with felony murder. However, I also don't agree that a solution for police to stop a wanted person is to shoot them in the back. If that's our standard for justice, we're in a lot of trouble. Seems like police are shooting people simply for being a pain. You have to wonder if they could maybe aim for another part of the body in these cases.
      
      Let's face it, anyone who chooses to fight with police risks being killed. If I'm a police officer and a guy starts fighting with me, I'd be worried for my life. I can understand reacting in a violent way to a violent person.
      
      However, this situation should never have been escalated to that point. If the guy is drunk or on drugs, is there really a reason to arrest him? You have his car, you know who he is. Let him go and deal with it later or not at all. Up to that point, he hadn't hurt anyone. You could literally just tow him and his car away somewhere.
      
      It's easy to second guess the police. It's a very hard job. It just might be time to consider a different standard for force and different protocols and different training.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Crank, this is right on target.
         
         We probably need to start with better psychological screening as these people can't just be the guy next door but exemplary in deportment and temperment.
         
         We need to screen out the gunslingers and those with vengeance and retaliation as part of their personality makeup. Exemplary people know how to act with good judgement in gray areas.
         
         I would pay them more and up the standards.
         
         Require body cams in operation while on duty.
         
         Have standards that address how circumstances with suspects and their apprehension should be conducted.
         
         So, your last paragraph is spot on......
         
         General immunity should apply for them, but not if there is fragrant abuse and clear diversion from department policy. There can be no expectation of protection in the case of wrong doing, so the great "blue line" needs to be ripped to tatters.
         
         Police departments should have unions to support them in salary and benefits, but not to protect their members from misconduct on the job.
         
         If I were Mayor, I would be concerned about the image of department and the costs to the city from legal suits when police use lethal force inappropriately.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            Reasonable.
            
            I could not be a police officer, I have worked with them, I have seen what they struggle with day in and day out. I do not have the restraint required to deal with the insufferable idiocy of others day after day that they do.
            
            Everyday officers have to contend with the mentally deranged that our society leaves on the streets to fend for themselves, they deal with drug users many of which become violent raving lunatics, they deal with drunk drivers and domestic violence.
            
            And now in these 'Democrat' cities they are obviously being abandoned by their 'leaders'... they are not safe to do their jobs, and I hope they realize this and act accordingly.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               So what happens in Republican cities?
               
               Challenges to police abuse and excessively behavior are swept under the rug?

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  The law is upheld, not twisted so that one can pander to the mob.
                  
                  And when an officer breaks the law, they are held accountable according to the law.
                  
                  Right now, the 'leaders' in these Democrat cities are surrendering the cities to the mobs, they are defunding or disbanding their police, they are charging them with felony murder when they are upholding the law and protecting their own lives.
                  
                  This does not happen in Republican cities or towns.  The police are not abandoned and the mobs are not allowed to riot and run free to do as they please.

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Police are not held accountable generally speaking. They have qualified immunity.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        You're right - a "qualified immunity".  Which is most reasonable considering the conditions they operate under.

                        replyreport
         2. 96

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            While I like the idea of psych testing before hiring a police officer, it is my understanding that it is already being done.  In any case it isn't going to solve the problem for we cannot (reliably) predict what any person is going to do in the future, and certainly not in the "heat of battle" so to speak.
            
            We aren't good enough to make such testing anywhere near foolproof, and in fact probably just as well as we can already.  At least in larger departments; I don't see small towns having the resources to do much.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               I cannot deny the fear that would come with the job, and the circumstances involving split second life or death decisions. I applied to the LAPD in 1980 and glad that I did not follow thru with it.
               
               I understand the need to have a wide band of discretion, but under the current circumstance that band may need to be drawn in a little bit. I.E. there should be very few instances where police have to use lethal force on an unarmed man. But, a lot of the shootings that have been brought to the forefront involved just that.

               replyreport
      2. 88

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I think there is a good counter-argument to "just letting him go." What if, in his drunken state, he stumbles into an intersection and causes an accident that kills or harms him or folks in the vehicles his actions caused to crash—who would you hold responsible for those deaths or injuries?
         
         GA

         replyreport
      3. 76

         Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         Oh, well isn't that just a brilliant idea.
         
         Let the drunk, who is out on parole, just be.
         
         If he happens to leave the parking lot five minutes later and kill an innocent family driving down the road... no worries, he didn't mean it.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I see. So you're assuming he was going to commit a crime? That's probably why the cop shot him in the back. Figured he was doing society a favor and preventing some future crime.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               The "cop shot him", because he had a split second to react to being SHOT AT.
               
               I know its convenient for you to sit and ponder these events and render your judgement of them.
               
               Your BA and Masters has afforded you a life where life and death decision making in a split second of time is not required. 
               
               You are not an Officer that has to contend with violent criminals daily.
               
               So I don't take much offense to the ignorant reply (above) because I know you, like most well-to-do Americans, have no idea the hardships involved in police work, you don't have to work in an environment where you have to be aware that you can be assaulted at any moment.
               
               You have nothing in your life to compare to being attacked, having a weapon stolen from you, and then turned on you and used against you.
               
               Yet somehow, you know what should have been done.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  That contradicts most of what I've already said. It's hard being a police officer and I think he has a sound defense for shooting the guy and there's just no way that charge sticks.
                  
                  And just for your reference, every school I went to growing up, except college, was generally considered "inner city". I have a better-than-average idea of what policing is like in tough places.

                  replyreport
      4. 96

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         You're absolutely right it's a very hard job and easy to second guess.  Brooks was out of a 7 year prison term because of COVID, for crimes including family violence, cruelty to children and false imprisonment among others.  He would almost certainly go right back to prison, COVID or not, for a DUI (and yes drunk drivers are a danger to society).
         
         Did cops know this?  Was the choice to shoot based, in some part, on it?  He WAS a threat to society, but did they know that?  I see reports that he was questioned for some 30 minutes prior to the attempted escape, but don't know if it is true or not.
         
         Beyond that the idea that we should just let criminals go rather than hurt them is a part of what has caused our enormous crime rate.  That doesn't mean shoot them in the back, either, so a conundrum that the cop must solve within a half second or so.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I'm sure he didn't want to go back to prison, which explains his behavior.
            
            I think the officer has a pretty good defense, except that he shot the guy in the back. Even considering that, depending on the reaction time, fear can explain that. The guy had already threatened his life and could just have easily turned around.
            
            Again, so much to parse in what happened. Police do not have enough training to deal with the many different types of people they encounter every day.
            
            The protestors who are protesting about George Floyd are doing everyone a disservice by involving this guy in the discussion.

            replyreport
   3. 80

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      To be truthful I feel the DA had a trail in front of the media and laid out every bit of unproven damming evidence for the millions that may have been watching, and then pretty much presented him a guilty verdict, without any form of defense.  I was surprised he did not assign punishment... This policeman's trial can now be nothing but tainted by bias.
      
      All that was presented was bias condemning information. Still photos with damming visual context that well could be out of context. You know the old media shell game... No real context under any nutshell.  What happened to innocent until found guilty. This case is very different from the George Floyd case. This DA should be fired in light of the spectacle he put on at that press conference. He was clearly politicking for his upcoming election.
      
      All I have seen from the media are bits and pieces of videos, nothing in full context. The media has become very dangerous and becoming more so all the time.  Did this policeman hope to murder a black man when he left for work on that day? I will say in the heat of a split moment with adrenalin shouting through one's veins, a mistake could be made, judgment can fail one at such a moment. At any rate, he deserves a fair trial. Not sure this will happen after seeing the DA hold trial at a press conference. He is clearly biased... His words spoke volumes.
      
      So, Ken, I am with you ---
      
      POLICE OFFICERS.... my advice to you, if you are in a Democratic-led state or city... resign... put your families first... before the Politicians and Prosecutors crucify you on the Cross of Social Justice.
      
      I also would like to add, Mr. Brooks was well known to break the law. These officers would have known that just by running his license. They knew he had violated his probation by once again drinking and driving. An automatic arrest due to being drunk, not to mention the violated his probation. This man has a long rap sheet. Once again the media is glorifying a man that clearly a man that cared little for following the law. Just a fact. Had to dig hard to find his history with the law. It's not pretty.
      
      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … d-DUI.html

      replyreport
   4. 54

      sana zahirposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I think the officer should have not shot the victim in the back as it would have severe consequences in this case the victim died. The officer should have aimed somewhere on his arm or leg which would decrease the chance of a fatality

      replyreport
2. 69

   abwilliamsposted 3 years ago

   Ken, I agree! Walk Away!!

   replyreport
3. 69

   abwilliamsposted 3 years ago

   Did I ever tell ya'll about the time I was pulled over by a Police Officer in an unmarked car? No. Well, before it was over I was completely surrounded by multiple Police Officers. They came from every direction, in marked and unmarked cars. It was like a scene out of a movie. (No, I have no secret life, there is no Clyde!) It was a case of mistaken identity {of a vehicle}...but when one yelled, "keep your hands in the air and don't move", they were in the air! I did see the movie, 'Bonnie & Clyde'... I did not move a muscle, even when another yelled, "let's see your I.d.", I thought nope, not happening, I am not going to die today!
   Scariest day of my life!!!

   replyreport
4. 69

   abwilliamsposted 3 years ago

   But, I understood. They didn't know me nor my intentions. I didn't know who they were looking for or why. I just knew it wasn't good and I was the only one that could keep me safe that day.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I think we can all recall dealings that were bad with police, and ones that were good.
      
      The concern here is the egregious misrepresentation by the Fulton County DA as to the actions that occurred and the way he framed Mr. Brooks and Officer Rolfe in his role as prosecutor.
      
      "Mr. brooks was quite co-operative and jovial"  "Mr. brooks was merely sleeping" "Officer Rolfe kicked him while the other Officer stood on his back"
      
      Sounds despicable... but when one has watched the various videos showing what occurred... one knows this is a fabrication, a false narrative from what really occurred.  It is indefensible.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         abwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Oh I agree Ken

         replyreport
5. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   Mr. 27 year old Brooks made a fatal mistake. He resisted arrest. He shouldn't have. Why did he not allow the officer to put on the hand cuffs for being over the legal alcohol level and being passed out in his car all night? He did not think he was in the wrong? He was afraid for his life? He knew there would be consequences he did not want to deal with? More on his record? Why would he grab the taser? Why would he run away?
   
   What is a policeman supposed to do?

   replyreport
   1. 86

      crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      George Floyd complied and did not resist arrest. How did that turn out for him?
      
      Nothing in Mr. Brooks reaction was justified. However, the inability to understand that he and other black people might reasonably fear the police is shocking.
      
      And just to be clear, were I that police officer, I'm pretty sure I would have shot him.

      replyreport
6. 76

   Kathleen Cochranposted 3 years ago

   This is the primary question: Why was he being arrested in the first place?  Everything was fine until they started to put him under arrest. What was the charge?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I had to search long and hard to find he had a long record of driving drunk, he was on probation for drunk driving. He also was arrested for cruelty to children and many other things. One must realize when police ran his license all this would have come up. He broke his parol, he failed two breathalyzer tests, he became violent and grabbed a taser, and ran. 
      
      Perhaps the officer was doing his job, and in a split second made a poor decision. Not sure many in our society jump to defend a man that was committing a crime and was well known to commit crimes. This man did not deserve to die, but perhaps this officer deserves to be heard before we once again glorify a man with such a long list of lawbreaking.  Should make one stop and think?  I have a what if... What if they just let him go, and he drove drunk and killed others? Guess the cop gets the blame there too. When one drives drunk, they are arrested on the spot. This man also violated his probation, once again he would have been arrested for violating his probation by breaking the law driving drunk. The police had no choice but to arrest him.
      
      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … d-DUI.html

      replyreport
   2. 88

      GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      DUI. I understand that every DUI charge results in an arrest.
      
      GA

      replyreport