Well, a few things:
(1) This thread is rampant with folks drawing conclusions first and citing facts that support their conclusions after drawing their conclusions. Goat, I think you're pretty much the only one who is trying to understand the facts first, then try to attain some balanced understanding of those facts . . . everybody else . . . not so much.
(2) One side cites the fact that Brooks had a prior felony conviction, blew a 1.08 breathalyzer on the night of his death, resisted arrest, stole a taser and then shot the taser at the police officer who ended up killing him as definitive proof that the guy deserved what he got. The other side cites Officer Rolfe's 12 incidents on his employment disciplinary record as definitive proof that the cop had not business being on the street. None of this is dispositive of anything . . . it's all just evidence that goes into the soup that will be presented to a jury, unless there's a plea deal reached prior to trial.
(3) Paul Howard, the Fulton County DA, is under political pressure, as he's in a tough reelection campaign and he's being investigated by the GBI, plus he has some sticky sexual abuse allegations pending:
https://www.gpbnews.org/post/gbi-la...tigation-allegations-against-fulton-county-da. Howard operates in a county that is predominantly black in one part - primarily the city of Atlanta - and predominantly white in the northern reaches of the county. He's in for a tough race, facing a runoff in the primary against a competent competitor. I think a jury will see where Howard overreaches in the charges and legal arguments . . . the fact that Howard is facing political pressure means not much, IMO.
(4) When it all comes out in the wash, Rolfe's claim of self-defense depends on whether the taser possessed and shot at Rolfe by Brooks is a weapon of which Rolfe could reasonably be in fear for his life. Stelios' admitted blood-lust and the spittle on Hoopsdoc's chin in this thread pretty much disqualify anything they say from consideration as having no credibility. But the mere fact of the taser is enough to merit a closer look . . . .
(5) The thing is, we don't know much about the taser. We don't know what level of power it had to know whether it's potentially lethal. We don't know whether it had one or two darts, whether the ammunition that the taser possessed had been fully deployed when Rolfe shot Brooks in the back, and we don't know what Rolfe knew about the taser and its status when he shot Brooks. Delving into the training Rolfe received regarding the taser and its use seems to be a worthy line of questions to pursue . . . . What did he know about the potential lethality of the taser? What did he know about reloading the taser, and the likelihood of Brooks being able to do so when he shot Brooks? What did he know about the deployment of the taser's ammunition when he shot Brooks?
(6) Absent some very favorable questions regarding his knowledge about the taser, Rolfe's shooting of Brooks looks bad based on the facts specific to and ancillary to the shooting. First, Rolfe shot Brooks in the back. Well, that might be a case of bad timing, where Brooks turned his back to Rolfe just as Rolfe fired his weapon . . . kind of like the penalties on kickoffs where the defender turns his back to a blocker just as the hit is being made; if it's against our team we bitch about it, and if it's in favor of our team we say "damn right". So that alone doesn't get me to a conviction, but it sets up the argument for other facts to consider . . . such as Rolfe kicking Brooks while Brooks is on the ground dying, and the two officers not providing immediate first aid to Brooks while Brooks is dying . . . Howard said that the officers didn't start first aid until 2 minutes after Brooks was on the ground . . . that can easily be construed as evidence of intent to harm Brooks, which buttresses a felony murder charge . . . not good for Rolfe or the other officer.
(7) As to Brooks' motivation for running, the fact is that he didn't want to go back to jail. But the reason he didn't want to go back to jail is fairly telling . . . he didn't want to be treated as an animal.
https://people.com/crime/rayshard-b...d-being-treated-like-animals-law-enforcement/. IMO, that's a potentially fruitful line of inquiry regarding police policy: Are police trained and conditioned to treat the public they encounter like things instead of like human beings? Is that where policing in the US has gone off the rails? Put a different way, is it better to have as a police officer a former high school defensive tackle whose primary qualification for the job is that he can intimidate and manhandle the people he encounters, or is it better to have a police officer who can read people and figure out how to solve the immediate problem without having to resort to intimidation/manhandling? My reading of BLM is that, at the root of all this, all anyone is asking for is to be treated like a human being rather than a thing.
