Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[njbill]

I don’t think so. Kicking the guy after he shot him is a really, really bad fact in front of a jury. This guy ain’t getting off. He won’t get the death penalty, and shouldn’t, but he’s going away for a loooong time.

When things quiet down, the other cop will flip. In return for his testimony, they will either drop the charges or recommend no jail time. If this guy hadn’t stood on Brooks after he was shot, he probably wouldn’t have been charged at all.

What kind of human beings are these guys to kick and stand on someone after one of them has just shot him?

Maybe there are some facts out there that haven’t been disclosed that are helpful to the cops, but they better get their PR machines moving quickly because today was devastating to them.

Brooks was a violent felon who had just assaulted, slugged, disarmed two police officers, then shot a taser at them when fleeing.
They needed to make sure he wasn't getting up again.

Well they sure accomplished that by shooting him in the back.

These Keystone cops didn’t even place Brooks under arrest. I’m not aware if the BAC reading has been released, but even assuming they had a legal basis to arrest him, they didn’t do so. They would have had a hard time proving any charge of resisting arrest without having told him he was under arrest.

Since they didn’t place him under arrest, it is not altogether clear who was assaulting whom in their tussle.

This is classic second-degree murder, like a bar fight.

At the time the cop fired his gun, the taser Brooks had stolen had been fully discharged and thus was less lethal than a water pistol.

Why did they need to make sure he wasn’t getting up again? He had no weapon. He had no car. It doesn’t sound like he was very drunk. He was coherent. He wasn’t a danger to himself or others. They could have followed him home. They could have arrested him the next day. They had the breathometer evidence.

Instead Rolfe chose to murder him.

The problem here, which is something you see way too often, is that the cops refused to back down or back off. Instead, they chose to escalate matters and use unreasonable, illegal deadly force.

Depending on the jury, it arguably might have been a tough case to obtain a murder verdict. That is, until the evidence that the cop kicked Brooks after having shot him emerged. While that technically may not be an important fact to the murder charge, as any lawyer will tell you, it will dominate the juries’ thinking. And it will drive their verdict.

[jhu72]

I don’t think so. Kicking the guy after he shot him is a really, really bad fact in front of a jury. This guy ain’t getting off. He won’t get the death penalty, and shouldn’t, but he’s going away for a loooong time.

If you're so sure that is true, please explain this:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... e-CPR.html

Fake news?

Was that before or after he kicked the man he just shot?

Let me guess, his defense is going to be that he thought he tripped.

But back to the facts, do you really think his defense attorney can negate the kicking by arguing he told him to keep breathing? Good luck with that one.

Here is another cop that feared for his life:

This one always makes me sick to my stomach. This cop went to high school one town over from me. Not at the same time. He’s much younger.

Tamir Rice case takes the cake. 12 year old black boy with a toy gun and no accountability among the COPs. Just glee in the scumbag community.

[njbill]

Anyway, his criminal record was released today and explains why he wouldn’t cooperate when he awakened from his drunken stupor. I haven’t seen anyone post it. The charges that leap out are felonies for beating his children and then beating his (suddenly distraught) wife (different arrests) and the ever present ‘resisting arrest’.

You do realize that his priors are legally irrelevant to the incident the other night, right?

If he were convicted of something, they would be relevant to his sentencing, but they are not relevant to his guilt or innocence of any crime he committed the other night.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Plus we know the depths of OS’ misogyny from his prior posts. Got double aces with a black AND female.

Tell your therapist all about it.

A honey in her day.

[old salt]

When things quiet down, the other cop will flip. In return for his testimony, they will either drop the charges or recommend no jail time. If this guy hadn’t stood on Brooks after he was shot, he probably wouldn’t have been charged at all.

Maybe there are some facts out there that haven’t been disclosed that are helpful to the cops, but they better get their PR machines moving quickly because today was devastating to them.

No jury's going to watch the entire body cam video, then convict Brosnan of anything.
Howard is making a fool of himself. He's already lost his star witness.
Is he up for re-election before he has to take this sham to a Grand Jury ?
Maybe the Mayor can bring in Mike Nifong to land this wounded turkey for her.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the jury. Standing on a guy who your partner just shot is not something that will go over well with any jury. That’s what his lawyer will tell him. That’s why he will cut a deal.

Standing ? Did he have both feet & all his weight on Brooks, or was he simply restraining him, in case he regained consciousness ?

Weasel words -- like "sleeping" rather than "passed out" or "parked" rather than blocking a moving line of traffic.

All 12 jurors won't be that stupid.

[Typical Lax Dad]

When things quiet down, the other cop will flip. In return for his testimony, they will either drop the charges or recommend no jail time. If this guy hadn’t stood on Brooks after he was shot, he probably wouldn’t have been charged at all.

Maybe there are some facts out there that haven’t been disclosed that are helpful to the cops, but they better get their PR machines moving quickly because today was devastating to them.

No jury's going to watch the entire body cam video, then convict Brosnan of anything.
Howard is making a fool of himself. He's already lost his star witness.
Is he up for re-election before he has to take this sham to a Grand Jury ?
Maybe the Mayor can bring in Mike Nifong to land this wounded turkey for her.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the jury. Standing on a guy who your partner just shot is not something that will go over well with any jury. That’s what his lawyer will tell him. That’s why he will cut a deal.

Standing ? Did he have both feet & all his weight on Brooks, or was he simply restraining him, in case he regained consciousness ?

Weasel words -- like "sleeping" rather than "passed out" or "parked" rather than blocking a moving line of traffic.

All 12 jurors won't be that stupid.

Nope they won’t. Hopefully a jury of his peers won’t be too lazy to stay awake during the trial:

Use of Deadly Force
(CALEA 6th ed. Standard 4.2.1)
An employee may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when:

1. He or she 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 and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or

2. When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (O.C.G.A. Section 17-4-20) and the employee reasonably believes that the suspect’s escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person

[old salt]

I don’t think so. Kicking the guy after he shot him is a really, really bad fact in front of a jury. This guy ain’t getting off. He won’t get the death penalty, and shouldn’t, but he’s going away for a loooong time.

When things quiet down, the other cop will flip. In return for his testimony, they will either drop the charges or recommend no jail time. If this guy hadn’t stood on Brooks after he was shot, he probably wouldn’t have been charged at all.

What kind of human beings are these guys to kick and stand on someone after one of them has just shot him?

Maybe there are some facts out there that haven’t been disclosed that are helpful to the cops, but they better get their PR machines moving quickly because today was devastating to them.

Brooks was a violent felon who had just assaulted, slugged, disarmed two police officers, then shot a taser at them when fleeing.
They needed to make sure he wasn't getting up again.

Well they sure accomplished that by shooting him in the back.

These Keystone cops didn’t even place Brooks under arrest. I’m not aware if the BAC reading has been released, but even assuming they had a legal basis to arrest him, they didn’t do so. They would have had a hard time proving any charge of resisting arrest without having told him he was under arrest.

Since they didn’t place him under arrest, it is not altogether clear who was assaulting whom in their tussle.

This is classic second-degree murder, like a bar fight.

At the time the cop fired his gun, the taser Brooks had stolen had been fully discharged and thus was less lethal than a water pistol.

Why did they need to make sure he wasn’t getting up again? He had no weapon. He had no car. It doesn’t sound like he was very drunk. He was coherent. He wasn’t a danger to himself or others. They could have followed him home. They could have arrested him the next day. They had the breathometer evidence.

Instead Rolfe chose to murder him.

The problem here, which is something you see way too often, is that the cops refused to back down or back off. Instead, they chose to escalate matters and use unreasonable, illegal deadly force.

Depending on the jury, it arguably might have been a tough case to obtain a murder verdict. That is, until the evidence that the cop kicked Brooks after having shot him emerged. While that technically may not be an important fact to the murder charge, as any lawyer will tell you, it will dominate the juries’ thinking. And it will drive their verdict.

.. They were in the process of placing him under arrest when he broke free.

Rolfe had no way to know the level of charge left in the taser, let alone the time to pause & think it through.

You know darn well how the laws are written to give the benefit of the doubt to the police in situations like this when use of force decisions have to be made in an instant.

Brooks escalated the situation by slugging one of the officers (maybe Rolfe), taking a taser, fleeing & firing the taser. Rolfe took the next step to stop him. This case is a loser for the prosecution. It's just a way to buy time, to placate the mob, hoping they'll lose steam in the months ahead as the case drags it way to trial.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I don’t think so. Kicking the guy after he shot him is a really, really bad fact in front of a jury. This guy ain’t getting off. He won’t get the death penalty, and shouldn’t, but he’s going away for a loooong time.

When things quiet down, the other cop will flip. In return for his testimony, they will either drop the charges or recommend no jail time. If this guy hadn’t stood on Brooks after he was shot, he probably wouldn’t have been charged at all.

What kind of human beings are these guys to kick and stand on someone after one of them has just shot him?

Maybe there are some facts out there that haven’t been disclosed that are helpful to the cops, but they better get their PR machines moving quickly because today was devastating to them.

Brooks was a violent felon who had just assaulted, slugged, disarmed two police officers, then shot a taser at them when fleeing.
They needed to make sure he wasn't getting up again.

Well they sure accomplished that by shooting him in the back.

These Keystone cops didn’t even place Brooks under arrest. I’m not aware if the BAC reading has been released, but even assuming they had a legal basis to arrest him, they didn’t do so. They would have had a hard time proving any charge of resisting arrest without having told him he was under arrest.

Since they didn’t place him under arrest, it is not altogether clear who was assaulting whom in their tussle.

This is classic second-degree murder, like a bar fight.

At the time the cop fired his gun, the taser Brooks had stolen had been fully discharged and thus was less lethal than a water pistol.

Why did they need to make sure he wasn’t getting up again? He had no weapon. He had no car. It doesn’t sound like he was very drunk. He was coherent. He wasn’t a danger to himself or others. They could have followed him home. They could have arrested him the next day. They had the breathometer evidence.

Instead Rolfe chose to murder him.

The problem here, which is something you see way too often, is that the cops refused to back down or back off. Instead, they chose to escalate matters and use unreasonable, illegal deadly force.

Depending on the jury, it arguably might have been a tough case to obtain a murder verdict. That is, until the evidence that the cop kicked Brooks after having shot him emerged. While that technically may not be an important fact to the murder charge, as any lawyer will tell you, it will dominate the juries’ thinking. And it will drive their verdict.

.. They were in the process of placing him under arrest when he broke free.

Rolfe had no way to know the level of charge left in the taser, let alone the time to pause & think it through.

You know darn well how the laws are written to give the benefit of the doubt to the police in situations like this when use of force decisions have to be made in an instant.

Brooks escalated the situation by slugging one of the officers (maybe Rolfe), taking a taser, fleeing & firing the taser. Rolfe took the next step to stop him. This case is a loser for the prosecution. It's just a way to buy time, to placate the mob, hoping they'll lose steam in the months ahead as the case drags it way to trial.

Poorly trained. You should hire Rolfe. He is going to need a job.

[old salt]

I opened up my own situation in response to Cradles nephew, a place 5-10yrs who I wouldn’t have given two thoughts about and this cat wants to immediately go there. Same person putting ugly surnames to 20 something women regularly. And put out there that if folks wanted to comment on it negatively they’d get the unfiltered response. It was all there plain as day.

Well I hope you feel better now. Glad I could help.

I believe I was replying to you attacking me as a racist & misogynist

I make fun of media members of both genders, public figures.
It would be patronizing to exclude women.
...& Nicolle Wallace hasn't been a 20 something for 2 decades now.

[njbill]

When things quiet down, the other cop will flip. In return for his testimony, they will either drop the charges or recommend no jail time. If this guy hadn’t stood on Brooks after he was shot, he probably wouldn’t have been charged at all.

Maybe there are some facts out there that haven’t been disclosed that are helpful to the cops, but they better get their PR machines moving quickly because today was devastating to them.

No jury's going to watch the entire body cam video, then convict Brosnan of anything.
Howard is making a fool of himself. He's already lost his star witness.
Is he up for re-election before he has to take this sham to a Grand Jury ?
Maybe the Mayor can bring in Mike Nifong to land this wounded turkey for her.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the jury. Standing on a guy who your partner just shot is not something that will go over well with any jury. That’s what his lawyer will tell him. That’s why he will cut a deal.

Standing ? Did he have both feet & all his weight on Brooks, or was he simply restraining him, in case he regained consciousness ?

Weasel words -- like "sleeping" rather than "passed out" or "parked" rather than blocking a moving line of traffic.

All 12 jurors won't be that stupid.

The DA said he was standing on him. Haven’t seen a video. Maybe this was based on the eyewitness testimony.

Restraining him by standing on a guy who was just shot through the heart in case he regained consciousness? Not sure I would make that argument to the jury.

Again, this guy will cut a deal. He will testify against his partner. In return he won’t do any time.

BTW, notwithstanding what his lawyer said later in the day, he already has been a cooperating witness. He could have refused to talk to the authorities. Said he is taking the fifth or told them to subpoena him before a grand jury. Instead, he has cooperated.

[old salt]

When things quiet down, the other cop will flip. In return for his testimony, they will either drop the charges or recommend no jail time. If this guy hadn’t stood on Brooks after he was shot, he probably wouldn’t have been charged at all.

Maybe there are some facts out there that haven’t been disclosed that are helpful to the cops, but they better get their PR machines moving quickly because today was devastating to them.

No jury's going to watch the entire body cam video, then convict Brosnan of anything.
Howard is making a fool of himself. He's already lost his star witness.
Is he up for re-election before he has to take this sham to a Grand Jury ?
Maybe the Mayor can bring in Mike Nifong to land this wounded turkey for her.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the jury. Standing on a guy who your partner just shot is not something that will go over well with any jury. That’s what his lawyer will tell him. That’s why he will cut a deal.

Standing ? Did he have both feet & all his weight on Brooks, or was he simply restraining him, in case he regained consciousness ?

Weasel words -- like "sleeping" rather than "passed out" or "parked" rather than blocking a moving line of traffic.

All 12 jurors won't be that stupid.

The DA said he was standing on him. Haven’t seen a video. Maybe this was based on the eyewitness testimony.

Restraining him by standing on a guy who was just shot through the heart in case he regained consciousness? Not sure I would make that argument to the jury.

Again, this guy will cut a deal. He will testify against his partner. In return he won’t do any time.

BTW, notwithstanding what his lawyer said later in the day, he already has been a cooperating witness. He could have refused to talk to the authorities. Said he is taking the fifth or told them to subpoena him before a grand jury. Instead, he has cooperated.

They didn't know he was shot through the heart. They couldn't be sure how badly he was wounded. Brooks had already surprised them once.

So why would Brosnan's attorney issue a statement saying he wasn't cooperating & had not agreed to testify ?
That won't generate any good will from the prosecutor.
Now that Brosnan's been praised by the prosecutor & the Brooks family lawyer, it'll be hard to turn on him now.
It just makes Howard's case look rushed & sloppy.

[old salt]

Poorly trained. You should hire Rolfe. He is going to need a job.

Good idea. I may need a personal protective detail soon.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Poorly trained. You should hire Rolfe. He is going to need a job.

Good idea. I may need a personal protective detail soon.

He could use the paycheck.

[6x6]

I don’t think so. Kicking the guy after he shot him is a really, really bad fact in front of a jury. This guy ain’t getting off. He won’t get the death penalty, and shouldn’t, but he’s going away for a loooong time.

When things quiet down, the other cop will flip. In return for his testimony, they will either drop the charges or recommend no jail time. If this guy hadn’t stood on Brooks after he was shot, he probably wouldn’t have been charged at all.

What kind of human beings are these guys to kick and stand on someone after one of them has just shot him?

Maybe there are some facts out there that haven’t been disclosed that are helpful to the cops, but they better get their PR machines moving quickly because today was devastating to them.

Brooks was a violent felon who had just assaulted, slugged, disarmed two police officers, then shot a taser at them when fleeing.
They needed to make sure he wasn't getting up again.

These Keystone cops didn’t even place Brooks under arrest. I’m not aware if the BAC reading has been released, but even assuming they had a legal basis to arrest him, they didn’t do so. They would have had a hard time proving any charge of resisting arrest without having told him he was under arrest.

Since they didn’t place him under arrest, it is not altogether clear who was assaulting whom in their tussle.

Not sure what type of law you practice but you might want to brush up. He wasn’t under arrest? C’mon man! Surely you remember probable cause. He was not free to leave. They have no obligation to tell him he was under arrest. Just amazing to me you think he didn’t resist arrest.

[njbill]

.. They were in the process of placing him under arrest when he broke free.

Rolfe had no way to know the level of charge left in the taser, let alone the time to pause & think it through.

You know darn well how the laws are written to give the benefit of the doubt to the police in situations like this when use of force decisions have to be made in an instant.

Brooks escalated the situation by slugging one of the officers (maybe Rolfe), taking a taser, fleeing & firing the taser. Rolfe took the next step to stop him. This case is a loser for the prosecution. It's just a way to buy time, to placate the mob, hoping they'll lose steam in the months ahead as the case drags it way to trial.

A key, if not essential, part of placing him under arrest is to tell him he is being arrested. They didn’t do that. This fact isn’t all that significant to the charges against Rolfe, given that Brooks is dead.

The taser had two charges. Both had been expended. Brooks discharged the last one right before Rolfe shot him. Rolfe can’t count to two? Sure, make that argument to the jury. Maybe they will buy it. Maybe they won’t.

In any event, Rolfe shot him when he was out of taser range. And, of course, the most critical fact of all is that Brooks was running away.

A reasonable cop under the circumstances would have at a minimum paused to see what Brooks was going to do. Rolfe knew the only weapon he had was the taser. If he charged back at him, maybe we would have a different situation. But at the moment he fired his weapon, Brooks was running away and had his back to him.

Yes, the law does give the cops advantages. The problem for Rolfe is that the jury will decide most of the key issues and, as I have said, will be greatly influenced by the fact that Rolfe kicked Brooks after he knew he had shot him in the back.

Yes, Brooks did escalate the situation by wrestling with the cops and by taking one of the tasers. But the situation never got to the point where the use of deadly force by the cops was justified. Rolfe, himself, further escalated matters by firing his gun when he had no legal justification for doing so.

I don’t discount the fact that part of what motivated the DA today was placating the mob. Nevertheless, given the facts that have been revealed to date, there seems to be a reasonable basis for the charges against Rolfe.

I keep coming back to this. Kicking Brooks after he had just been shot is a really, really bad fact before a jury. Unless the DA has exaggerated that or if there is no clear video evidence or if the eyewitnesses recant, I doubt Rolfe will want to face a jury. Don’t forget. This is a Fulton County jury, not a jury from Simi Valley.

[old salt]

If you think he might freak out & resist when you tell him he's under arrest, you handcuff him first, tell him he's under arrest & inform him of his rights.

Given the prejudicial statements of the Mayor & the public unrest, they should get a change of venue.

[youthathletics]

Wonder if the cop was kicking the taser gun away.

[Typical Lax Dad]

If you think he might freak out & resist when you tell him he's under arrest, you handcuff him first, tell him he's under arrest & inform him of his rights.

Given the prejudicial statements of the Mayor & the public unrest, they should get a change of venue.

That’s conjecture

[njbill]

They didn't know he was shot through the heart. They couldn't be sure how badly he was wounded. Brooks had already surprised them once.

So why would Brosnan's attorney issue a statement saying he wasn't cooperating & had not agreed to testify ?
That won't generate any good will from the prosecutor.
Now that Brosnan's been praised by the prosecutor & the Brooks family lawyer, it'll be hard to turn on him now.
It just makes Howard's case look rushed & sloppy.

He probably didn’t know he had been shot through the heart and he may not have known how badly he was hurt. But he certainly knew he had been shot and was down on the ground. Sure, he can make those arguments to the jury and he can say he thought it was necessary to stand on a guy he knew had been shot. Maybe the jury will buy it. Maybe they won’t.

But he will be offered a pretty sweet deal that will involve no jail time. He will take it so the jury will never decide those issues.

I suspect his lawyer is simply making these comments to save face for Brosnan with his fellow cops. Maybe he hasn’t yet agreed to testify at trial, but he undeniably has cooperated by speaking with the authorities, probably at great length.

I suspect the prosecutor understands why the lawyer said what he did. He might have even given him a heads up about it.

[njbill]

Not sure what type of law you practice but you might want to brush up. He wasn’t under arrest? C’mon man! Surely you remember probable cause. He was not free to leave. They have no obligation to tell him he was under arrest. Just amazing to me you think he didn’t resist arrest.

Not criminal so you have me there.

In his comments today, the DA mentioned that the cops had not told him he was under arrest. Sounds like it might have been significant to a resisting arrest charge. Sounds like in all of the time the cops had been talking to him they never said anything about arresting him. At least on the video I have seen, they don’t tell Brooks what he blew.

It also sounds like Brooks kept trying to talk them into letting him go. Maybe he thought they ultimately were going to do that.

I think an element of resisting arrest is that the defendant has to know he is under arrest. I suspect that is why the cops usually expressly say that. Yes, I think you can prove that through other evidence, but it is certainly easier if you have expressly said the words.

Assuming his BAC was over the limit, then, yes, they had probable cause to arrest him.

In terms of whether he was free to leave, at least on the video I have seen, I don’t see Brooks either asking that or the cops telling him he isn’t free to go.

What I’m saying is that if they didn’t tell him he was under arrest, I think any resisting arrest charge might’ve been more difficult to prove. Moot, of course, since the cop killed him.