Okay, there is something that didn't sink in with me when I read and quoted the New York Times article on this. God knows, it is not the fault of the Times. They highlighted the relevant section of the video and repeated with the text. It is entirely my fault. To review this is the sequence of the last three seconds.
At 23:22:46 Brooks and Rolfe have gotten up off the ground, where Brooks has taken a taser and is fleeing, Rolfe behind him, also with a taser in his right hand.
At 22:47 Rolfe switches the taser to his left hand and reaches for his service firearm with his right. The Times pointed this out in graphic and text repeatedly. I didn't appreciate the significance.
Rolfe grabbing his service firearm; Brooks running with taser in front of him.
Also in that 47th second Brooks reaches back with his taser and points it at Rolfe. The significance however is that Rolfe made the decision to use deadly force on Brooks before Brooks even pointed his non-deadly taser at Rolfe. That is extremely important. It was lost on me, despite the New York Times' best efforts, and I apologize.
I think it was Stacey Abrams who tweeted, a man sleeping in his car should not end up dead. That is a despicable characterization of the incident. The police did not walk up to a sleeping man in his car and shoot him dead. By the time Brooks took off running he had committed at least three felonies: resisting officers with violence, battery on a law enforcement officer, and depriving an officer of means of protection; committed a fourth felony, aggravated assault or attempted aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, while fleeing; and there was probable cause for one misdemeanor, DUI.
In firing Rolfe the mayor of Atlanta stated that just because a police officer can use deadly force does not mean that he should use deadly force. That is a properly nuanced axiom. We are talking about matters of life and death here. Shouldn't you use deadly force only when confronted with deadly force? In the vast majority of cases, yes. Should a police officer use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing subject? In my opinion ABSOLUTELY NOT. Is that not what Rolfe did, use deadly force to apprehend a violent fleeing felon who was nonetheless non-deadly violent? It is. In my opinion, Rolfe used deadly force for apprehension, not in self-defense.
This is my nuance, I believe also proper. The evidence is that Rolfe made the improper decision to use deadly force to apprehend in one second. Rolfe did not start out chasing Brooks with his firearm out. There were two seconds, :45 and :46, where Rolfe was chasing Brooks displaying only non-deadly force, i.e. his taser. Restated, the only evidence is that Rolfe had intent to use only non-deadly force for two seconds and then the improper intent to use deadly force in the 47th second and beyond, to the time he shot Brooks in the 49th second.
Okay, I have decided, or re-decided. The police shooting of Rayshard Brooks was not justified. To restate Stacey Abrams, a drunk driver who commits three violent, non-deadly felonies against police officers should not end up dead. Rolfe should have let him go rather than kill him. That goes down about as pleasantly as drinking battery acid. You shot him twice in the back, man. Okay, that's better. You shot him to catch him, you didn't shoot in self defense. Bosnan didn't shoot, only you did, man. Okay, that's better. You had his name, you knew where he lived, let him the fuck run his fat ass off. Get in your car at your leisure, drive over his house at your leisure and book 'im, Dan-o! He will go to jail rather than to his grave. There is no doubt in my mind that in the 45th and 46th seconds what Rolfe was thinking that led him to make the decision to use deadly force is this:
1) "I am so fucking pissed I could fucking KILL this motherfucker!" Who amongst us would begrudge Officer Rolfe that feeling? Seeing no hands...
2) "I'm not gaining on him."
3) "What am I going to do if I do catch him? Tase him? I ALREADY DID FUCKING TASE HIM! IT HAD NO EFFECT! Take him into custody? I ALREADY TRIED TAKING HIM INTO FUCKING CUSTODY! THE MOTHERFUCKER OVERPOWERED ME AND MY PARTNER AND TOOK MY FUCKING TASER!"
Ergo.
I guarantee you this never entered Rolfe's mind:
1) "Oh, I'll let him go. I don't want to be chasing this motherfucker all over creation and I'm not going to kill him."
2) "Hoo doggie, this is a crowded parking lot! Better not shoot! Don't want to kill an innocent person or three in that gray car or that white car!"
Never
Entered
His
Mind.
SHOULD HAVE! Didn't.
What should happen now? Rolfe should not be charged. If I were the mayor of Atlanta I could not bring myself to fire Rolfe, which has happened, not for a wrong, albeit deadly, decision made in one second in the heat of felonious, non-deadly, violence committed against him and Officer Bosnan. I could not do it. Not tonight anyway, maybe tomorrow morning I'll feel differently, but tonight I would feel ashamed to fire Rolfe...Okay, well it didn't take that long. Yeah, I would fire him. He killed to apprehend, not in self-defense. He fired three shots in a fucking crowded parking lot.You cannot have that on your force.
The rules of deadly force use have to be revamped, or vamped if they have not already been.
1)THOU SHALT NOT USE DEADLY FORCE TO APPREHEND EVEN A VIOLENT (ALTHOUGH NON-DEADLY) FLEEING FELON.
2) THOU SHALT NOT USE DEADLY FORCE WHEN DOING SO WOULD ENDANGER THE PUBLIC
I assume that those rules has been vamped. I don't think revamping it would change the behavior of Rolfe. I think a majority of police officers would have shot Brooks under similar circumstances if you leave out the public danger. They really are trained in that. Where'd that third shot go? Jesus, he shot right between two occupied vehicles. WTF Rolfe! It is very fortunate someone else didn't get killed or injured. The point though is, you give polic officers firearms (they don't get 'em in Britain) and you tell them to apprehend criminals, especially violent ones. Well, some of them are going to make the wrong decision in the 47th second (Not as many when endangering the public). Fire them when they do; revamp your hiring strategy to try to weed out 47th second deadly wrong decision makers in public (Good luck with that.).
The rest of the chronology.
Brooks turning his taser on Rolfe.
22:48, the flash of Brooks' taser at the instant of discharge, clearly w-a-y over Rolfe's head.
However it is possible Rolfe was damn well hit or affected by the taser blast. He stumbles into the red car while Brooks is well clear of it.
Also in the 48th second Rolfe, against the red car, levels his firearm at Brooks.
Into the 49th second either Rolfe has not shot his firearm yet or the shot(s) have not effected Brooks, who still has a running stride.
This is the moment, also at :49, when Brooks has been hit. The still makes it look like he is walking but he has been shot and is about to collapse to the pavement.
Still in the 49th Brooks is going down.
Still in the 49th Brooks is almost on the ground, partially obscured by the gray car.
At 23:22:46 Brooks and Rolfe have gotten up off the ground, where Brooks has taken a taser and is fleeing, Rolfe behind him, also with a taser in his right hand.
At 22:47 Rolfe switches the taser to his left hand and reaches for his service firearm with his right. The Times pointed this out in graphic and text repeatedly. I didn't appreciate the significance.
Rolfe grabbing his service firearm; Brooks running with taser in front of him.
Also in that 47th second Brooks reaches back with his taser and points it at Rolfe. The significance however is that Rolfe made the decision to use deadly force on Brooks before Brooks even pointed his non-deadly taser at Rolfe. That is extremely important. It was lost on me, despite the New York Times' best efforts, and I apologize.
I think it was Stacey Abrams who tweeted, a man sleeping in his car should not end up dead. That is a despicable characterization of the incident. The police did not walk up to a sleeping man in his car and shoot him dead. By the time Brooks took off running he had committed at least three felonies: resisting officers with violence, battery on a law enforcement officer, and depriving an officer of means of protection; committed a fourth felony, aggravated assault or attempted aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, while fleeing; and there was probable cause for one misdemeanor, DUI.
In firing Rolfe the mayor of Atlanta stated that just because a police officer can use deadly force does not mean that he should use deadly force. That is a properly nuanced axiom. We are talking about matters of life and death here. Shouldn't you use deadly force only when confronted with deadly force? In the vast majority of cases, yes. Should a police officer use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing subject? In my opinion ABSOLUTELY NOT. Is that not what Rolfe did, use deadly force to apprehend a violent fleeing felon who was nonetheless non-deadly violent? It is. In my opinion, Rolfe used deadly force for apprehension, not in self-defense.
This is my nuance, I believe also proper. The evidence is that Rolfe made the improper decision to use deadly force to apprehend in one second. Rolfe did not start out chasing Brooks with his firearm out. There were two seconds, :45 and :46, where Rolfe was chasing Brooks displaying only non-deadly force, i.e. his taser. Restated, the only evidence is that Rolfe had intent to use only non-deadly force for two seconds and then the improper intent to use deadly force in the 47th second and beyond, to the time he shot Brooks in the 49th second.
Okay, I have decided, or re-decided. The police shooting of Rayshard Brooks was not justified. To restate Stacey Abrams, a drunk driver who commits three violent, non-deadly felonies against police officers should not end up dead. Rolfe should have let him go rather than kill him. That goes down about as pleasantly as drinking battery acid. You shot him twice in the back, man. Okay, that's better. You shot him to catch him, you didn't shoot in self defense. Bosnan didn't shoot, only you did, man. Okay, that's better. You had his name, you knew where he lived, let him the fuck run his fat ass off. Get in your car at your leisure, drive over his house at your leisure and book 'im, Dan-o! He will go to jail rather than to his grave. There is no doubt in my mind that in the 45th and 46th seconds what Rolfe was thinking that led him to make the decision to use deadly force is this:
1) "I am so fucking pissed I could fucking KILL this motherfucker!" Who amongst us would begrudge Officer Rolfe that feeling? Seeing no hands...
2) "I'm not gaining on him."
3) "What am I going to do if I do catch him? Tase him? I ALREADY DID FUCKING TASE HIM! IT HAD NO EFFECT! Take him into custody? I ALREADY TRIED TAKING HIM INTO FUCKING CUSTODY! THE MOTHERFUCKER OVERPOWERED ME AND MY PARTNER AND TOOK MY FUCKING TASER!"
Ergo.
I guarantee you this never entered Rolfe's mind:
1) "Oh, I'll let him go. I don't want to be chasing this motherfucker all over creation and I'm not going to kill him."
2) "Hoo doggie, this is a crowded parking lot! Better not shoot! Don't want to kill an innocent person or three in that gray car or that white car!"
Never
Entered
His
Mind.
SHOULD HAVE! Didn't.
What should happen now? Rolfe should not be charged. If I were the mayor of Atlanta I could not bring myself to fire Rolfe, which has happened, not for a wrong, albeit deadly, decision made in one second in the heat of felonious, non-deadly, violence committed against him and Officer Bosnan. I could not do it. Not tonight anyway, maybe tomorrow morning I'll feel differently, but tonight I would feel ashamed to fire Rolfe...Okay, well it didn't take that long. Yeah, I would fire him. He killed to apprehend, not in self-defense. He fired three shots in a fucking crowded parking lot.You cannot have that on your force.
The rules of deadly force use have to be revamped, or vamped if they have not already been.
1)THOU SHALT NOT USE DEADLY FORCE TO APPREHEND EVEN A VIOLENT (ALTHOUGH NON-DEADLY) FLEEING FELON.
2) THOU SHALT NOT USE DEADLY FORCE WHEN DOING SO WOULD ENDANGER THE PUBLIC
I assume that those rules has been vamped. I don't think revamping it would change the behavior of Rolfe. I think a majority of police officers would have shot Brooks under similar circumstances if you leave out the public danger. They really are trained in that. Where'd that third shot go? Jesus, he shot right between two occupied vehicles. WTF Rolfe! It is very fortunate someone else didn't get killed or injured. The point though is, you give polic officers firearms (they don't get 'em in Britain) and you tell them to apprehend criminals, especially violent ones. Well, some of them are going to make the wrong decision in the 47th second (Not as many when endangering the public). Fire them when they do; revamp your hiring strategy to try to weed out 47th second deadly wrong decision makers in public (Good luck with that.).
The rest of the chronology.
Brooks turning his taser on Rolfe.
22:48, the flash of Brooks' taser at the instant of discharge, clearly w-a-y over Rolfe's head.
However it is possible Rolfe was damn well hit or affected by the taser blast. He stumbles into the red car while Brooks is well clear of it.
Also in the 48th second Rolfe, against the red car, levels his firearm at Brooks.
Into the 49th second either Rolfe has not shot his firearm yet or the shot(s) have not effected Brooks, who still has a running stride.
This is the moment, also at :49, when Brooks has been hit. The still makes it look like he is walking but he has been shot and is about to collapse to the pavement.
Still in the 49th Brooks is going down.
Still in the 49th Brooks is almost on the ground, partially obscured by the gray car.
