Tucker Carlson, Rayshard Brooks, Garrett Rolfe and Mike Braun


Jamie123
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been watching quite a lot of Tucker Carlson recently. Sometimes I find myself agreeing with him, but at other times I think he's almost as unhinged as the people he's laying into. Here for instance he's interviewing Republican senator Mike Braun over his non-Republican stance over [well you all know what's been going on lately].

Anyway, he begins by saying how "disgraceful" it is that policeman Garret Rolfe is "facing the death penalty" for shooting dead Rayshard Brooks, after he punched him, stole his taser and fired it at another officer. He asks "What else could Rolfe have done?", as if this were some unanswerable rhetorical question.

Well rather than dodge the question like Sen. Braun, I'm going to answer it.

Call me a wet liberal if you will, but I think there is only one scenario in which the use of lethal force by the police is justified: an imminent threat to life. If he had grabbed an officer's loaded handgun it would have been another matter, but he didn't. He grabbed a taser. A taser is not a lethal weapon. Well OK, I guess it could be, if used against someone with a very weak heart, but not this particular taser. It had been fired twice, and could not be fired again without reloading. As Rolfe well knew.

The "weapon" that Brooks was holding when he died had all the lethal force of a broken water pistol.

"He took my taser" and "he punched me" just won't wash. Both deserve punishment for sure, but hardly a Judge-Dredd-style summary on-the-street execution.

What else could Rolfe have done? Plenty. He had his colleagues around him, and others could easily have been called up. The suspect was on foot, and not lethally armed. Don't tell me that a team of skilled cops couldn't have run him down and captured him without filling his body with lead.

As for "facing the death penalty", Rolfe hasn't even been tried yet, let alone sentenced.

Admittedly this is all predicated on press reporting of this incident being accurate, but even Carlson isn't claiming any false news element. If this is the best example he can find of "police being unfairly persecuted" he obviously isn't looking very hard.

Edited by Jamie123
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The ACLU, which skews pretty hard to the left, disagrees with your assessment about the lethality of a taser.

2. In a previous case involving a charge of police brutality, a Georgia DA argued that, under Georgia state law, a taser is a lethal weapon. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

3. I realize your comparison of a taser's lethal potential to that of a "broken water pistol" was hyperbole, but in this case it's particularly unhelpful hyperbole.

4. This was not a "Judge Dredd-style execution". The cop did not stand over the downed perpetrator and put a bullet in his skull. He fired on a perpetrator who was pointing a stolen police weapon at him.

5. Second-guessing what a cop "should have done" is a fun game to play, especially for those who hate cops. It's a completely different game when you're the one being shot at and absorbing the punches.

 

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that @Jamie123's* post can be classified as a variation on the extremely common theme I hear all the time from Europeans, which goes something like this: "Americans should be less American and more like us Europeans." Needless to say, and even as a self-proclaimed Europhile, I heartily disagree.

*For the record, in case anyone doesn't already know this, I'm very fond of Jamie123**. I value his participation on this forum and enjoy hearing his opinions and insights. Just in case anyone thought I had something personal against Jamie, nothing could be further from the truth.

**I keep misspelling "Jamie" as "Jaime", a fairly common Hispanic given name. If I do so at any point in the future, just assume I'm using the Spanish version of his name to give my post some Spanish flair***.

***As opposed to "Spanish flare", which would involve habañeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

1. The ACLU, which skews pretty hard to the left, disagrees with your assessment about the lethality of a taser.

2. In a previous case involving a charge of police brutality, a Georgia DA argued that, under Georgia state law, a taser is a lethal weapon. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

4. I realize your comparison of a taser's lethal potential to that of a "broken water pistol" was hyperbole, but in this case it's particularly unhelpful hyperbole.

OK I'm no expert on tasers, I rather thought the whole point of them was to allow police to incapacitate people without killing them. But OK - I'll bow to your superior knowledge on that point. The fact remains though that that particular taser was out of juice. It had been fired twice. It was totally useless as a weapon - lethal or otherwise - unless reloaded.

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

5. This was not a "Judge Dredd-style execution". The cop did not stand over the downed perpetrator and put a bullet in his skull. He fired on a perpetrator who was pointing a stolen police weapon at him.

OK - mentioning Judge Dredd was hyperbole. But the "police weapon" he was holding was - literally - as dangerous as a broken water pistol.

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

3. Your opinion on what a Georgia cop should do in a dangerous situation, when given along with a five-dollar bill, will buy you a cup of joe at the local Atlanta diner.

6. Second-guessing what a cop "should have done" is a fun game to play, especially for those who hate cops. It's a completely different game when you're the one being shot at and absorbing the punches

Well OK you do have a point there. I have never been a police officer and am totally an "armchair general" in this matter. But what's the alternative? Condone an officer shooting dead an effectively unarmed man? I certainly don't think the death penalty should be invoked. (Even if I believed in the death penalty - which I don't.) But all the same, the police cannot expect to do something like this, and for there to be no fallout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

But what's the alternative? Condone an officer shooting dead an effectively unarmed man?

Absolutely. Watch the video I linked to. An officer cannot tell whether someone is armed (or, for that matter, whether another officer's taser is discharged and thus ineffective). When a cop is attacked, he has the inherent right to defend himself. If he has legitimate reason to believe his life is in danger—and yes, it's possible to be beaten to death—he has every right to defend himself with deadly force, just like you or me. (Well, just like me. Not sure what UK laws on self-defense allow. Maybe Brits are required to absorb a blade or lead slug to the gut before they can legally exercise any self-defense.)*

*The parenthetical comment was meant mostly tongue-in-cheek, but maybe not. Europeans have a much different perspective on things such as acceptable self-defense than do Americans.

Edited by Vort
What the heck does "UA" mean? How did I mistype A for K?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

Europeans have a much different perspective on things such as acceptable self-defense than do Americans.

I don't know what perspective the "Europeans" have!

Seriously though, if I ever had to defend myself with deadly force, I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if I had to explain my actions before a court of law. I'd just have to put my hope in a sensible jury!

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I don't know what perspective the "Europeans" have!

Seriously though, if I ever had to defend myself with deadly force, I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if I had to explain my actions before a court of law. I'd just have to put my hope in a sensible jury!

In the US, if it can be shown you were acting in self-defense, the DA would never even charge you with homicide. It would never go to court. I suppose that's an illustration of the difference in attitude between Europeans and Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

OK I'm no expert on tasers, I rather thought the whole point of them was to allow police to incapacitate people without killing them. But OK - I'll bow to your superior knowledge on that point. The fact remains though that that particular taser was out of juice. It had been fired twice. It was totally useless as a weapon - lethal or otherwise - unless reloaded.  

Yes, it's supposed to be a less lethal alternative to firing a metal bullet, although the same Georgia DA who ruled on the Brooks case is the same DA that ruled the taser as a lethal weapon when it was fired against an unruly student resisting arrest. 

But you're looking at a taser in the hands of the person who is supposed to be holding a taser.  This is not the case in this situation.  The taser was in the hands of Brooks the perpetrator, not Rolfe the cop.  In this case, Brooks, purposefully fired it upon the cop... which means it was intended to incapacitate the cop WHO HAS A GUN.  The next step to that altercation is for Brooks to take the gun from the incapacitated cop and fire it.

 

Quote

OK - mentioning Judge Dredd was hyperbole. But the "police weapon" he was holding was - literally - as dangerous as a broken water pistol.  

It isn't.  Try it sometime - get yourself shot by a broken water pistol, then get yourself tased.

 

Quote

Well OK you do have a point there. I have never been a police officer and am totally an "armchair general" in this matter. But what's the alternative? Condone an officer shooting dead an effectively unarmed man? I certainly don't think the death penalty should be invoked. (Even if I believed in the death penalty - which I don't.) But all the same, the police cannot expect to do something like this, and for there to be no fallout.

The alternative is for Brooks to stop beating up his kids, stop getting sent to jail, stop driving around drunk as a skunk while on parole, and stop getting violent against police officers.  You cannot expect the police to not defend himself against violence when all he wants is to go home safe to his own children.  The fallout is overblown in this case.  If Brooks was not black, this would be an open and shut cop-did-his-job case.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Vort said:

In the US, if it can be shown you were acting in self-defense, the DA would never even charge you with homicide. It would never go to court. I suppose that's an illustration of the difference in attitude between Europeans and Americans.

The same could happen here. The CPS (as we call it here) doesn't prosecute all cases the police sent it. Firstly there has to be a "reasonable chance of a conviction", and secondly the case has to be "in the public interest". (In theory anyway - though with some of the charging decisions they make, you wonder what kind of weed they're on.)

But I think if I shot dead a man who was pointing an unloaded taser at me, I think it's very unlikely I wouldn't be facing a jury.

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

But I think if I shot dead a man who was pointing an unloaded taser at me, I think it's very unlikely I wouldn't be facing a jury.

It was not an unloaded taser. 

And there's the difference.  In the USA, you will only be facing a jury if the guy who shot you with a taser did not fire first.  Europeans have this attitude that you first have to be dead then you can defend yourself.  Americans have this attitude that you defend yourself while you're still alive.  So, whereas a European will wait until he has gotten tased, then his gun taken from him and shot at his head, then he'll say, "I shoulda fired my gun!".  An American will say, "Take your hands off that taser or I'll shoot."

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It isn't.  Try it sometime - get yourself shot by a broken water pistol, then get yourself tased.

If the taser was unloaded, I imagine the sensation would be pretty much the same.

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The next step to that altercation is for Brooks to take the gun from the incapacitated cop and fire it.

Firstly he'd have had difficulty incapacitating anyone with an unloaded taser. The taser had been fired twice during the altercation...though I suppose in the heat of the moment he might have lost count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It was not an unloaded taser. 

Quote

He said that before shooting Brooks, Rolfe fired his stun gun twice at the fleeing man in another violation of department rules.

"The Atlanta policy says you cannot fire a Taser at someone who is running away. So you certainly can't fire a handgun at someone who is running away," Howard said.

Howard said that at the time Rolfe aimed and fired at Brooks' back from 18 feet, 3 inches away, "Rolfe was aware that the Taser in Brooks' possession was fired twice and presented no danger to him.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/atlanta-police-force-policy-violated-multiple-times-fatal/story?id=71295429

 

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

If the taser was unloaded, I imagine the sensation would be pretty much the same.

Firstly he'd have had difficulty incapacitating anyone with an unloaded taser. The taser had been fired twice during the altercation...though I suppose in the heat of the moment he might have lost count.

Rolfe had his own taser out and ready to fire after the first shot of his partner's stolen taser but it failed.  When Brooks turned around to fire the 2nd shot, the cop got his firearm and shot Brooks.  Your armchair quarter-backing is looking at the event ALREADY KNOWING what's going to happen.  It takes quite a bit of molasses sureality to go through that kind of altercation. 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

 

You do know that Howard is the Georgia DA we've been mentioning, right?

Here's some background on Paul Howard - he is facing a run-off election.  He is hell-bent on getting some fire on his campaign to get re-elected.

Now go back to your google search and look at the statements from the Defense Attorneys.  Also, if you can still find it, go watch the FULL video of the altercation.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You do know that Howard is the Georgia DA we've been mentioning, right?

Here's some background on Paul Howard - he is facing a run-off election.  He is hell-bent on getting some fire on his campaign to get re-elected.

Now go back to your google search and look at the statements from the Defense Attorneys.

Here it is. I believe I copied this from a @mirkwood post on this forum. I have lightly edited it, formatting it into paragraphs for clarity. The DA, Paul Howard, seems to be a piece of work.

Statement from former APD Officer Garrett Rolfe's new criminal defense team

I’ve been prosecuting or defending Georgians in the criminal justice system for 25 years. But never in my career have I seen a District Attorney act so unethically without regard for his professional obligations in pursuit of reelection. Twice in the past few weeks Paul Howard has put his own ambitions ahead of the good of his constituents as he seeks to capitalize on a series of national tragedies. Under Georgia’s Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8, Paul Howard is prohibited from making “extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.” In fact, he is only permitted to inform the “pubic of the nature and extent” of his actions “that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose.” He has violated that rule today and also made blatant false statements. He has also acted rashly, before the official investigation has been completed by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI).

Had Paul Howard waited for the GBI to complete its investigation he would have learned that while Rayshard Brooks’ death was tragic, Officer Garrett Rolfe’s actions were justified under Georgia law and that there is no legal basis to charge him with 11 felonies. On June 12, 2020, Officer Brosnan responded to a call that a person was passed out in a car at a Wendy’s. Suspecting that the driver, Rayshard Brooks, was drunk, Officer Brosnan requested the assistance of an officer with specialized training in conducting DUI investigations: Officer Rolfe. The DUI investigation that followed was routine, and at the end of it, Officer Rolfe determined that he had probable cause to arrest Mr. Brooks. No one is disputing that probable cause existed for Mr. Brooks’ arrest. And there is no argument that Officer Rolfe was anything other than courteous to Mr. Brooks over the course of their encounter. There is also no dispute that, up until the moment of his arrest, Mr. Brooks, too, was polite and cooperative. Suddenly, something changed. Mr. Brooks began to struggle with, and attack, both Officer Brosnan and Officer Rolfe. Under Georgia law, Mr. Brooks’ forceful resistance to arrest, and his attack on the officers, constituted felony obstruction. All Georgia citizens, including police officers, are entitled to use force to defend themselves from forcible felonies. Over the course of the encounter, Officers Brosnan and Rolfe attempted to use the least amount of force necessary to end the encounter and ensure their safety, while Mr. Brooks continued to escalate, until he at last he punched Officer Rolfe in the face, a second felony. Then, Mr. Brooks took Officer Brosnan’s TASER, a third felony. A TASER is an offensive weapon under Georgia law and has been declared to be a deadly weapon by Paul Howard; in fact, one of his investigators swore that a TASER is a deadly weapon before the Honorable Belinda Edwards on June 2, 2020.

One video shows Mr. Brooks pointing the TASER at Officer Brosnan’s head, and Officer Brosnan’s lawyer stated that Mr. Brooks shot Officer Brosnan with the TASER, a fourth felony. At that point, Officer Rolfe deployed his TASER, but it had no effect. Mr. Brooks began running through the parking lot armed with Officer Brosnan’s TASER. But he wanted to deter pursuit. So instead of continuing to run, he paused, reached back, pointed, and fired what we now know was Officer Brosnan’s TASER at Officer Rolfe; this was an additional aggravated assault, a fifth felony. Officer Rolfe heard a sound like a gunshot and saw a flash in front of him, and so he did what any officer in that situation would do: He dropped his TASER, pulled his gun, and fired it at Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks fell to the ground, Officer Rolfe gathered himself, and then he immediately called for EMS and began life-saving measures.

That Officer Rolfe was justified is clear under Georgia law. A police officer may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. When Mr. Brooks chose to attack two officers, to disarm one of them, and to point and fire a deadly weapon at Officer Rolfe, he took their lives, and his own, into his hands. He took the risk that their justified response might be a deadly one.

Nobody is here to applaud the death of Mr. Brooks. He was a father, he was a member of his community, and his death was a tragedy. But not every tragedy is a crime. Time and again in this country, we have used tragic deaths to push for new and harsher prosecutions and for less empathy for the accused. But following every sad event with yet another prosecution isn’t an end to this cycle— it is simply another aspect of its continuation. Although we can all understand the grief of Mr. Brooks’ family, Officer Rolfe’s actions were justified by the law. But Paul Howard’s choice to charge him is justified only by his hopes to improve his performance against Fani Willis in the upcoming runoff election. I will be joined by Bill Thomas of the W.H. Thomas Firm in defending Garrett Rolfe in reference to the criminal charges and we will announce the rest of our team at a later date.

Noah H. Pines Ross & Pines, LLC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jamie123, also... if you haven't yet... I highly recommend you watch the movie Sully (Tom Hanks).  This is a "Based on the true story" of Chelsey Sullenberger, a pilot who landed his plane on the Hudson River.  It was quite eye-opening when the event was viewed from the audio capture in the cockpit compared against the armchair quarterbacking of the "simulation crew" who were investigating the events through their simulations already knowing what is going to happen next.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

Firstly there has to be a "reasonable chance of a conviction", and secondly the case has to be "in the public interest". (In theory anyway - though with some of the charging decisions they make, you wonder what kind of weed they're on.)

Is there any zeroeth condition that the person must actually be guilty of wrongdoing? Or is getting a conviction that someone thinks is in the public interest the only real consideration? Sincere question. Because it sounds like actual wrongdoing is in many instances not even seriously considered as a criterion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, Classifying a taser as a deadly weapon makes about as much sense as classifying pepper spray or handcuffs as deadly weapons. 

Also FWIW, I've been tased by cops before.  It was a demonstration of the nonlethal stuff they have, and I jumped at the chance to be on the business end of a live demonstration.  The cop asked me how many seconds of juice I wanted.  I asked him how many seconds he went through in his training - he said three seconds.  In one of my not-most-mature moments, I proudly asked for four seconds.  

I had someone take a video of the thing - yep, there I am, managing to yell "NoMore NoMore NoMore" three times in that last second.  

It was a singular experience.  I didn't know what I thought of such things before the demonstration.  It made me a huge fan of tasers in the hands of law enforcement.  I'd much rather be tazed and cuffed, than wrestled or beaten and cuffed, or even pepper sprayed and cuffed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

FWIW, Classifying a taser as a deadly weapon makes about as much sense as classifying pepper spray or handcuffs as deadly weapons.

Actually, I agree with this. My previous point was that the corrupt DA seeking reelection wants the taser classified as a deadly weapon when a cop uses it on an uncooperative and threatening suspect, but then TWO WEEKS LATER wants the taser classified as non-deadly when a perpetrator steals one and tries to use it against a cop. Whichever side the cop is on, you can bet that Paul Howard stands firmly on the other.

Unless, I assume, the perpetrators are attempting to defile Paul Howard's house. Then he probably stands with the police, at least until the threat is past and he can once more take the police to task for not doing their jobs adequately. Such people have earned the absolute right to live in the anarchy they so desperately desire. Just don't take me or mine with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

Is there any zeroeth condition that the person must actually be guilty of wrongdoing? Or is getting a conviction that someone thinks is in the public interest the only real consideration? Sincere question. Because it sounds like actual wrongdoing is in many instances not even seriously considered as a criterion.

I think the theory is that guilt and innocence are no business of anyone but the jury. Even a judge is not supposed to opine on whether a person is guilty or innocent. The most he/she can say is whether or not a "reasonable jury properly instructed" could find a person guilty based on the evidence presented.

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

But what's the alternative? Condone an officer shooting dead an effectively unarmed man? 

I don’t know that those are the only two alternatives.

The case at hand concerns me for at least two reasons:  because a) the cop apparently had a history of misconduct, and b) it sounds like maybe the Taser was useless and the cop knew (or should have known) it.  I don’t know whether any of that’s true; nor am I well situated to find out.  Our country has a system where one agency is assigned to gather the facts and evidence and pass it on to a prosecutor, who presents it to a judge, who gives the defendant an opportunity to make his case and then hands the case off to twelve (or nine, in Utah’s case) citizens who are specifically chosen for their ability and willingness to sift through all the evidence available in an impartial way and reach a conclusion.  

Having done some sniffing on public cases and unearthed details that the press never saw fit to disclose to the public; and also having been tangentially involved in some high-profile cases where the press only got involved because someone saw it as tactically advantageous to involve them (resulting in some outrageously one-aided public coverage)—I’m personally leery of the ability of “the public” to make an informed second-guessing of the decisions made by police administrators and/or the findings of fact arrived at by a court of law following due process.  As a new lawyer, I was trained that when dealing with the press I should never say anything more than “we have faith in the court system to arrive at a just result, and we would ask the public for patience as the process plays out”.  I have absolutely *no* patience for lawyers who deliberately try their cases in the court of public opinion. 

When it looks strongly like a person is actually being denied due process—sure, go have a protest or whatever.  But what bugs me about this case (and many other cases invoked in the whole BLM debate), is that a) people have already made up their minds that the process isn’t going to work; b) they base that on previous perceived “failures” of the system where they really don’t know enough to say whether the system actually failed or succeeded; and c) their perceptions of the current situation are probably more based on partisan or ethnic allegiances than on the facts of the case itself.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

He said that before shooting Brooks, Rolfe fired his stun gun twice at the fleeing man in another violation of department rules.

"The Atlanta policy says you cannot fire a Taser at someone who is running away. So you certainly can't fire a handgun at someone who is running away," Howard said.

Notice the bolded.  That should tell you that the reporter didn't know what the freak they were talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share