[Devils Advocate again] Don’t be absurd - he’s got the taser, it’s intended to incapacitate someone. You act like the “Ifs” are unlikely. They’re what is supposed to occur when you’re holding a taser. And the cop can’t be certain the other cop will stop the guy in time.
To be clear - I’m in no way justifying this particular situation - I have no idea what really transpired, how close they were from each other, etc. Just commenting on the taser situation itself.
For what it’s worth, the Fulton County District Attorney appears to agree with you. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/14/us/atlanta-protests-rayshard-brooks-sunday/index.html At the link:
The taser is like tear gas; if the police use it against someone else, then it’s just ‘crowd control’ or a ‘compliance device’, but if a non-cop handles it or throws an empty tear gas canister at the police, then it becomes a deadly weapon and justifies felony charges and/or lethal force. Here’s an example where cops had no problem tear gassing people, and faced no charges for doing so, but charged a guy for assault with a deadly weapon for throwing a canister back at them.
The video is all over the place – Brooks is running away from the police, turns in stride to fire the taser while continuing to run away. I don’t know how he ever planned on hitting the cop that way – to me, it looks like, in movies, when people running from the cops throw garbage cans, etc., to slow the cops down.
These incompetent cops couldn’t control a guy who was so wasted that he passed out at a drive-thru.
ETA: Doesn’t using the taser that way make it a one-shot? If so, what was the danger to the cop after Brooks missed?
There are multiple cartridge tasers. TASER International released one in 2009. https://www.policemag.com/344849/taser-unveils-advanced-multi-shot-stun-gun
Moreover, the officer who fired at Brooks may not have known whether only a taser was taken or, in addition, whether Brooks had also taken the sidearm of the other officer. It was dark, and they’d been rolling around for a few minutes with a suspect who was, frankly, kicking their asses. Not that it helped that the officers couldn’t apply a hold like the lateral vascular neck restraint, or use a stick, or a sap, or other means of compliance now restricted.
Further, the shooting officer may not have been aware of the status of the other officer. Whether the other officer was dazed, unconscious, or otherwise unable to resist, if Brooks returned to them after hypothetically tasing the shooting officer.
Police officers are trained that, if a taser is being used against them, that is a sufficient threat of imminent serious bodily harm to warrant the use of deadly force to stop that threat. Not just in Atlanta PD training, but everywhere. See, e.g., this police forum post from 2008, but ask any of the LE officers here or elsewhere, current and former, and see what they tell you.
It’s a politically motivated prosecution, if indeed charges end up being filed at all.
Maybe he was some kind of super being! Maybe he got the shotgun from their trunk when they weren’t looking! That’s why they shot him twice in the back. I’m sorry, I mean they used a high velocity lead-based stopping device.
I love your use of the term lateral vascular neck restraint. Choke hold just sounds so murder-y.
Brave Sir Robin!
When I first heard of the LVNR, I thought that it was a euphemism that George Carlin, rest his soul, would have been proud of. People who teach the technique claim it’s different than other nerve or blood strangles like a rear naked choke, but I am not practiced enough in things like Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu to see the differences. Shrug.
Brooks was enough of a ‘super-being’ to beat on two officers making an arrest, get possession of one of their tasers, and run. From the point of view of one of the officer’s rolling around in the dark with Brooks for a few minutes, I can easily see the officer thinking Brooks got the other guy’s gun too. Cops get killed with their own guns. Things like weapon retention control systems—e.g., Safariland’s ALS—help, but it still happens.
Even if Brooks hadn’t, trying use a cop’s own taser against him is cause for having an officer use deadly force to stop that threat. You might not like that—and much of that doctrine, I suspect, is predicated on there only being one officer involved in the fight—but it is how every department in the U.S. trains its officers.
Rayshard Brooks is the guy responsible for him getting shot. He’s the guy who decided to turn a DWI/DUI charge into an aggravated assault on two cops. He decided to fight getting taken into custody, take a cop’s taser, run, and try to use it against one of the officers. If he didn’t do any of those things, he doesn’t get shot.
Oh, he probably would have been shot anyway. American cops have astoundingly poor judgement.
You need to adjust the brightness on your monitor.
CMC fnord!
Well, one wonders if a town of 38,000 needs its own SWAT team. It sounds like the existence of the team led to the overuse of the team, similar to what happens in a lot of places.
How the US trains its officers is the underlying reason for protests and riots.
A dude sleeping in his car is not an immediately dangerous situation. It inherently does not require a violence based response. They had the man’s car, his ID, all the information required to enter this offence into the system for processing. He didn’t need to be tackled, choked out, beaten with a baton, tased or shot.
He committed a crime, but he was NOT an emergent danger to anyone, so violence should be way down on the list of choices. But it isn’t, because officers are trained to fight first and talk later.
Has there ever been an explanation of what magical process makes a taser a threat of ‘imminent serious bodily harm’ to a cop but not to an ordinary person, especially a child or elderly person? Without some explanation of that magical effect, then either the cops should not have been using deadly force to threaten the guy with imminent serious bodily harm in the first place, or him wildly firing the safe device that has no risk of serious bodily harm does not justify shooting him multiple times in the back.
Unless they can answer the question above, it’s just the typical double standard we’ve learned to expect from police. Cops taze people all the time with little provocation, including people who are obviously at heightened risk of heart issues from it, and the justification is that it’s not dangerous. But as soon as one is even vaguely pointed their way, it’s an deadly situation with a risk of serious bodily harm and they now claim to be justified in shooting someone (in the back, even).
And yet, somehow, the rest of Western World cops somehow manage not to kill more than a couple of people per year:
Is it that their people don’t get drunk and struggle with cops?
To a large extent, the cops in other countries don’t have reason to assume that a citizen (sober or otherwise) is armed. But that takes us down the 2nd Amendment rabbit hole, which this thread doesn’t need.
To a two-year old with a hammer…
This! They shot an unarmed man running away from them, period.
In Alameda an African-American is forced to the ground and handcuffed for the crime of dancing in the street.
Bowie, Jagger, and all Van Halen got away with it, simply because they’re white! If they were black, they’d be arrested for dancing, plus incitement to dance.