Police Shooting of Rayshard Brooks

Protesters burned the Wendy's store to the ground last night. That is violent criminal and the arsonist(s) should be identified, arrested, and jailed.

The New York Times has done a great public service. They have gathered and analyzed video all of the video they could get their hands on of the shooting. They did not however get their hands on this video taken by the officers body cameras.

This is Officer Bosnan's body cam.

And this is Officer Rolfe's body cam:

If the read-out there, 108, is .108 breath alcohol content then Brooks was DUI per that hand-held breathalyzer.

That is a remarkably civil interaction between Brooks and the officers--until the time Officer Rolfe tells Brooks to put his hands behind his back to be handcuffed. Brooks admits early on that he had too much to drink. Rolfe, the shooting officer, remarks "Yeah, I can tell," i.e. he could smell the alcohol on Brooks' breath. Brooks agrees to a hand-held breath test. Rolfe administers it, does not tell Brooks the results. This is the only test for drunkenness that is on this body cam footage, which I don't understand. I don't understand why either officer's body camera didn't capture the one-legged stand test.

With all that said, Brooks, nor any other citizen, has the right to violently resist even an illegal arrest. You cannot do what Brooks did. 

The Times notes in their chronology:

At 10:33 p.m. Friday, police officers were called to Wendy’s restaurant at 125 University Ave. in South Atlanta. Mr. Brooks had fallen asleep in his vehicle, which was parked in the drive-through, causing other customers to drive around him, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said in a statement.

I have bolded those three entries because 1) this was a case where the police responded to a call. They were not out creating crime. Under any theory of policing the police have to respond to calls. 2) Brooks was obstructing other drivers in the drive-through lane. 3) This is all according to the investigating agency, GBI.

The first video the Times published and analyzed is of Brooks performing the one-legged stand field sobriety test:

The Standardized Field Sobriety Test has three components, the one-legged stand video'd, the HGN or horizontal gaze nystagmus and the walk-and-turn. I at least have been told by DUI investigators that first-among-equals of those three is the HGN. I do not know if other of the SFST's were administered besides the one-legged stand. 

During the one-legged stand you can see Brooks' lips move, which is how the test is supposed to be administered. The subject is told to count one thousand one, one thousand two, etc. until the officer tells him to stop performing the test. You don't see either officers' lips move telling Brooks to stop. Brooks performs the test for nine seconds in this vid cap before dropping his right foot but Brooks already is already performing the test when the video starts. That is, we don't see the officers' instructions to him before he starts performing the test. We see him first when he already has his right leg up. We do not know therefore how long Brooks has had his leg up before the videographer began filming. The officer is to time him for thirty seconds. Brooks successfully performs the one-legged stand for less than one-third the standard time as captured on the video--unless the officers told him to stop beforehand. Besides the length of time I see little indicia of impairment. Officers are told to look for signs that the subject cannot maintain his balance such as wobbling while standing, hopping, putting his right foot down, holding his arms out for balance. I see the slightest movement in Brooks' upper torso, no hopping, no leg buckling, no holding his arms out. To me, the only clear sign that Brooks failed that test is the nine-second hold versus the thirty-second standard but as above, the video starts with Brooks already with his leg up. I do not know if police concluded that Brooks failed that test and if other of the SFST's were administered to Brooks they are not captured on video NYT examined.

NYT:

Video filmed by another witness shows Mr. Brooks grappling with the officers on the ground. He seizes a Taser from Officer Brosnan, stands up and punches Officer Rolfe. Officer Rolfe fires his Taser gun three times. The darts hit Mr. Brooks, and Officer Rolfe continues trying to stun him.

I did not know about the punch, which you can clearly see in the video; I thought it was twice, not three times, that Brooks was hit with the Taser. The important points are that Brooks overcame two police officers of apparent big size, punched one of them squarely on the side of the head, and the three Taser shots did not stop him. Non-lethal force failed to subdue Brooks.

NYT:

Mr. Brooks runs away, holding Officer Brosnan’s Taser gun. Officer Rolfe gives chase, and continues to try to stun Mr. Brooks...Officer Rolfe chasing Mr. Brooks. In seconds, Officer Rolfe passes his Taser from his right hand to his left hand, and reaches for his handgun.

While being chased, and in full stride, Mr. Brooks looks behind him, points the Taser he is holding in Officer Rolfe’s direction and fires it. The flash of the Taser suggests that Mr. Brooks did not fire it with any real accuracy.

Officer Rolfe discards the Taser he is carrying, draws his handgun and fires it three times at Mr. Brooks as he is running away. Mr. Brooks falls to the ground.

On the Times HD video it is clearer than on the above that, as the Times says, Brooks clearly fires the Taser he took from one of the officers high of Officer Rolfe. Yet, equally clearly, Officer Rolfe reacts as if hit with the Taser, he stumbles against the red car. It is at that moment that the Times says Rolfe fired three shots at Brooks with his service firearm.

My opinion is not changed. The police shooting of Rayshard Brooks was justified.