Fatal shooting of Rayshard Brooks

[Cristo Rei]

I'll link an article but u can find it all over the net now
How Rayshard Brooks Was Fatally Shot by the Atlanta Police

So the question is this... Did the officer have the right to shoot the man?

The cops weren't in danger. He was running away, too fast for them... BANG BANG BANG... DEAD
U can't shoot a man dead cos he is faster than u. One leg shot would of been sufficient to stop him, just one...

 

[historyb]

So the question is this... Did the officer have the right to shoot the man?

Yes. Just because hindsight is 20-20 we have no knowledge of what the officer thought, my priest took the training and said you have less than a split second to decide if your life is in danger. These idiots need to stop struggling. We weren't there in that time and it is easy to judge later.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

I'll link an article but u can find it all over the net now
How Rayshard Brooks Was Fatally Shot by the Atlanta Police

So the question is this... Did the officer have the right to shoot the man?

The cops weren't in danger. He was running away, too fast for them... BANG BANG BANG... DEAD
U can't shoot a man dead cos he is faster than u. One leg shot would of been sufficient to stop him, just one...

Considering the fact that the suspect had not committed a violent crime, I would NOT think that the shooting was justified, but I'm not an officer. I don't know what they're trained to do in a situation where a suspect has wrestled an officer's taser away from him and then fired the taser at the officer. One thing not shown in this video is that the suspect tased one of the officers before the chase. I guess this is another one for the courts to decide.

The unfortunate fallout is that the Wendy's was burned down by protesters, and the Atlanta police chief, who was sympathetic with the peaceful protesters, resigned.

 

[historyb]

One thing not shown in this video is that the suspect tased one of the officers before the chase.

I think the biggest problem is something you outlined here, we only ever see a small segment and assume we know everything and so make a rash judgement without knowing anything. In this modern society we like to judge on scant little evidence on our feelings instead of using rationality. Just as the people responded with emotions and burned downed Wendy's (those people should be arrested for arson) because emotions trump all. Emotions will be the death of America nd the human race. My opinion only we should jettison our emotions

 

[Scoot]

I don't have much to comment on - as I'm ignorant of too many facts.

I know how it looks - but I've also talked to people (one just yesterday who told me that they have been involved in high stress conflict incidents that later look back on video's and honestly say that the video doesn't reflect their recollection of what was happening at the time). That's not to say that video's lie - but I suspect they only give us part of a picture and it's easy to be deceived by seeing a video once and coming to conclusions without knowing all the facts, the stress, what was going through people's minds, etc.

One question I do have though - is that it says that the initial intercept was calm and polite for 40 odd minutes. I don't understand or have experience with policing in the USA - but I'm trying to figure out what takes over 40 minutes of dialog before a conclusion is required for something that 'seems' pretty basic.

Another concern I have is with the rapid retirement of the police chief. I think this sets a bad example to the public in that she has also judged just as quickly as the public - and that sort of judgement is acceptable instead of getting the facts first. (It's quite possible that she's using this as an excuse to get out of dodge too - as I'm hearing a lot of police are taking the option on early retirement at the moment with all that is going on).

 

[Enoch111]

So the question is this... Did the officer have the right to shoot the man?

The more pertinent question is whether this drunken person had the right to grab a police officer's taser (as reported).

"...But Brooks managed to wrestle the stun gun from Bronsan's hands. He scrambled to his feet and ran out of the view of the patrol car camera. Rolfe is seen aiming what appears to be his yellow stun gun and fires, apparently missing Brooks.

Rolfe's body camera apparently dislodged and fell to the ground during the struggle but continued to record, capturing three gunshots.

Surveillance video taken from the Wendy's showed Brooks running through the parking lot with Rolfe and Bronsan behind him. At one point, Brooks turned and allegedly shot the stun gun at Rolfe who drew his service weapon from his holster and opened fire. The video showed Brooks falling to the ground, and the officers converging on him..."
Rayshard Brooks went from telling Atlanta officer about visiting mother's grave to being fatally shot: Video

Why would any sane person grab an officer's taser unless his next step was to taser the officer? After all war has been declared on the police.

And yes, the officer could have shot to disable. It has been my contention that police officers should have BOTH regular guns and tranquilizer guns, and be proficient in both. It would be far better to knock out a suspect with a tranquilizer dart and then cuff him. If course, the justice system being what it is, that would also be a waste of time, since the judge would give him a slap on the wrist and have him released.

 

[Cristo Rei]

One thing not shown in this video is that the suspect tased one of the officers before the chase

Did u try the link, i think it shows it there

 

[Cristo Rei]

The unfortunate fallout is that the Wendy's was burned down by protesters, and the Atlanta police chief, who was sympathetic with the peaceful protesters, resigned.

So Wendy's was burnt down by peaceful protesters... LoL u must either mean it was burnt by rioters or ur just joking around playing the CNN reporter

 

[Cristo Rei]

I think the biggest problem is something you outlined here, we only ever see a small segment and assume we know everything and so make a rash judgement without knowing anything. In this modern society we like to judge on scant little evidence on our feelings instead of using rationality. Just as the people responded with emotions and burned downed Wendy's (those people should be arrested for arson) because emotions trump all. Emotions will be the death of America nd the human race. My opinion only we should jettison our emotions

Don't ever let what u feel
make you forget what's real

Facts over feelings

 

[Cristo Rei]

One question I do have though - is that it says that the initial intercept was calm and polite for 40 odd minutes. I don't understand or have experience with policing in the USA - but I'm trying to figure out what takes over 40 minutes of dialog before a conclusion is required for something that 'seems' pretty basic.

I was thinking the exact same things. Cops down here would have you in the back of the divvy van within 10 minutes.
I don't know why they didn't breathalyze him straight away.
Also they found him asleep in his car, he wasn't driving it. So what were they arresting him for then?

 

[lforrest]

Don't ever let what u feel
make you forget what's real

Facts over feelings

Is this a gap in the generations? People don't suppress their emotions as much any more?

 

[lforrest]

I was thinking the exact same things. Cops down here would have you in the back of the divvy van within 10 minutes.
I don't know why they didn't breathalyze him straight away.
Also they found him asleep in his car, he wasn't driving it. So what were they arresting him for then?

You can be arrested for a DUI if you are behind the wheel of a parked car.

 

[Scoot]

And yes, the officer could have shot to disable. It has been my contention that police officers should have BOTH regular guns and tranquilizer guns, and be proficient in both. It would be far better to knock out a suspect with a tranquilizer dart and then cuff him. If course, the justice system being what it is, that would also be a waste of time, since the judge would give him a slap on the wrist and have him released.

Hi Enoch111,

I like a lot of what you post, but I will add in here that from my experience with handguns and also talking to police here in Australia - I do not believe that 'shooting to disable' is an option. Pistols are not the most accurate weapon, especially for a moving target. Add to that the struggle beforehand, (and quite possibly elevated adrenaline) with nerves - accuracy is gone.

As for tranq darts - I suspect that's what tasers are for. The suspect took away that option from the police. I'm not sure adding yet another piece of equipment would be the best option to an already crowded outfit.

I love the TV shows where the cop shoots a gun out of a bad guys hand, or shoots them in the leg to disable - but in reality from my limited but 1st hand experience - I suspect this is all show, and very unlikely in the real world.

I'm not familiar with the USA laws, but as I understand it here in Australia police are taught to shoot center mass for precisely these reasons. They aim center - they will (hopefully) hit something.

I also suspect that if an officer tried to shoot to disable, it's quite possible that they would be opening themselves up to guaranteed prosecution and open for being sued as well. The use of a deadly weapon not warranted if the danger didn't require a response to shoot at center mass to stop the threat. And since they've broken police protocols I suspect they'd risk being hung out to dry on their own. (Even more so in the current climate). If they were to take that approach, they would have been safer to stop running and just let him go - far less risk than admitting to trying to shoot to disable. Sadly - I can see more police very quickly erring on the side of just letting criminals go if there's any perceived risk at all - and this will be exploited by criminals. We're heading into dangerous times indeed.

It's another tragic outcome, but the suspect needs to take a lot of responsibility for his actions as well. It's amazing in these scenario's how it's so easy (myself included) to focus on the responsibility of the police and overlook the suspect being responsible for their own actions.

I'm not here to comment on whether what has happened was warranted or not. (I don't know) - just wanted to give a different perspective on the whole 'shoot to disable'.

 

[Scoot]

I was thinking the exact same things. Cops down here would have you in the back of the divvy van within 10 minutes.
I don't know why they didn't breathalyze him straight away.
Also they found him asleep in his car, he wasn't driving it. So what were they arresting him for then?

I've seen a number of USA video's where the police take ages to get around to performing actions. Like you - I'm used to seeing things get dealt with quickly - reducing the time to escalate. It seems that the longer someone is detained from going about their lives, the more agitated they become. Add alcohol to that - and it seems like a recipe for disaster.

I'd be very interested to hear from USA coppers as to why it seems to take longer to deal with these issues over there and what their perspective is.

 

[Cristo Rei]

Questions to Americans
Why where they with the man for 40 minutes? So long
Why do cops make people do that weird stuff to see if their drunk? Our cops just use a brethilizer
Why was Rayshard even running for when his car was there? The cops have the cars rego and therefore his address right?

They need to recruit higher grade cops. Ones that are fit and strong that would never have got manhandled to begin with
But after a 30 second wrestle for life and death the body is physically exhausted and the mind is in panic mode
At a range of 1 or 2 meters a good shooter would not of needed to aim for center of mass.
Even at 6-8 meters a good shooter has how many bullets, 16, to send below the waist in a non threatening situation

 

[Scoot]

Questions to Americans
Why where they with the man for 40 minutes? So long
Why do cops make people do that weird stuff to see if their drunk? Our cops just use a brethilizer
Why was Rayshard even running for when his car was there? The cops have the cars rego and therefore his address right?

They need to recruit higher grade cops. Ones that are fit and strong that would never have got manhandled to begin with
But after a 30 second wrestle for life and death the body is physically exhausted and the mind is in panic mode
At a range of 1 or 2 meters a good shooter would not of needed to aim for center of mass.
Even at 6-8 meters a good shooter has how many bullets, 16, to send below the waist in a non threatening situation

Hey Cristo Rei. Some great questions I'd like to see answered. However if I may - I disagree with your end conclusion...

At a range of 1 or 2 meters a good shooter would not of needed to aim for center of mass.
Even at 6-8 meters a good shooter has how many bullets, 16, to send below the waist in a non threatening situation
​

Firstly, a shot below the waste can be life threatening indeed.

Secondly - as I understand it - police are not trained to shoot to disable,. Expecting them to consider this is asking police at a moments notice to use a lethal weapon in a way they are not trained in, for a purpose it is not designed to be used for is a huge ask that no person could be expected to reasonably consider under 'instant' circumstances.

If you will bear with me as I expand on this. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the bullets that police use. If not, just to give some idea - they're not the same as military. They are much nastier, designed to almost explode as it were on impact with flesh. I believe this is part to reduce damage after first impact to any bystanders (not penetrate through and keep going) as well as to inflict the most 'stopping power' possible. I believe they're banned in war by the Geneva convention (they are that nasty) but not in civil policing duties. If one of those comes close to an artery, it's good night. Police handguns are designed for one purpose - to kill. I suspect from what I know - if I got shot in the leg a few times by one of those bullets - there's a good chance I wouldn't survive.

As for the distance - I think 6-8 is a more realistic example to consider aim than 1 to 2 meters.

For myself - I have had the privileged of seeing first hand police training (here in Australia). I have seen the targets that they shoot at (at around 7 yards) and the pattern that some officers shoot at such close distance when put under pressure. That's a static target (not moving), and some would struggle to hit a stationary leg.

If you're interested, I would encourage you to find a pistol range and have a go. (It's worth the experience :) ). When there, do 10 fast pushups just before shooting, and see how you go at 7 yards. After that, add considerations to a moving target (not just away in a linear direction, but as a leg is) and the added stress. (Although I don't even think you'll need to at that point). If you willing to trust me - I would suggest a moving target with a pistol would be exponentially more difficult. That's not to mention other factors such as police ammunition having more recoil anticipated than the average target loads at target ranges, plus sighting in a dark environment with that moving target.

I honestly have no idea how those Olympians that do those jogging, and then pistol shooting event (not sure what's it's called) - do it. They're amazing. RESPECT! (Although they don't have big recoil to consider), but even so...

Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not saying this to be smart. Being honest - I used to think very similar to you with this - they should shoot to disarm. That was until I started getting experienced with handguns, and also got to interact and talk with police at shooting ranges. Now - I see things very differently and have some understanding (not much, but enough to consider) of what police deal with to change my initial opinion. It was a huge eye opener to me not to judge someone until I've attempted to walk a mile in their shoes. I just wanted to share this with you to give you another perspective on the matter you may not be aware of and to explain how I love the questions you're asking, but why I disagree with your conclusion. :)

As you've probably noticed with my posts, I try not to come to conclusions on matters I'm not familiar with. I have no opinion on whether the officer acted correctly or not in this instance - but at the risk of being bold - I think this is one instance where I have had enough first hand experience and knowledge to form a informed opinion that shooting to disarm would not have been an option in this scenario. Would have been better for them to stop chasing and let him go than to attempt that.

For me - the issue here isn't whether or not the police should have shot to disable. I really strongly believe it wasn't a reasonable to expect the police to consider it.

The question is whether or not the use of deadly force that was used - in a way they are trained to (shoot center mass) was appropriate for the situation, and how much responsibility should sit on the shoulders of the suspect.

It's tragic what's happened - but now more than ever I believe the police (and everyone really) could do with people trying to gain a little more understanding of what is reasonable and unreasonable in their expectations. They're copping a lot. (Excuse the pun).

If you've managed to read this far in my post - thanks for taking the time out to read and consider my ramblings and experience. If you manage to still read on and have read this to - you also have great eyesight. :)

 

[Cristo Rei]

Firstly, a shot below the waste can be life threatening indeed

Hit the femoral artery and you can bleed out in 5 minutes if u cant stop it. Dead

Secondly - as I understand it - police are not trained to shoot to disable,. Expecting them to consider this is asking police at a moments notice to use a lethal weapon in a way they are not trained in, for a purpose it is not designed to be used for is a huge ask that no person could be expected to reasonably consider under 'instant' circumstances.

I though police could only shoot if harm was imminent. Do you know the law on cops using a firearm com im not sure?
So, considering the man hadn't committed a crime and was running off I believe the use of a firearm is unnecessary.

To your point, i can understand that. The cops would most probably be trained like that. It only makes sense if your going to use a firearm in a dangerous situation. Can't afford such a a compromise

But are they allowed to use the firearm in a situation such as these? If so then non-lethal tactics and methods must be considered by the the police force.
I don't hold any blame on this cop. I believe he didn't have the intent to kill, he made a bad decision under a situation so intense its impossible to imagine. Panic. Real life or death panic, during a 30 second physical struggle. You cannot replicate that pressure in training without putting your life in serious danger

If you will bear with me as I expand on this. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the bullets that police use. If not, just to give some idea - they're not the same as military. They are much nastier, designed to almost explode as it were on impact with flesh. I believe this is part to reduce damage after first impact to any bystanders (not penetrate through and keep going) as well as to inflict the most 'stopping power' possible. I believe they're banned in war by the Geneva convention (they are that nasty) but not in civil policing duties. If one of those comes close to an artery, it's good night. Police handguns are designed for one purpose - to kill. I suspect from what I know - if I got shot in the leg a few times by one of those bullets - there's a good chance I wouldn't survive.

Nasty. I know hollow tips leave a small entry wound and a huge exit wound.
But ur saying these bullets stop in the body. What are they called?
Reducing the damage after first impact is a strong argument for using them so i don't know what the solution to ammo could be

As for the distance - I think 6-8 is a more realistic example to consider aim than 1 to 2 meters.

For myself - I have had the privileged of seeing first hand police training (here in Australia). I have seen the targets that they shoot at (at around 7 yards) and the pattern that some officers shoot at such close distance when put under pressure. That's a static target (not moving), and some would struggle to hit a stationary leg.

If you're interested, I would encourage you to find a pistol range and have a go. (It's worth the experience :) ). When there, do 10 fast pushups just before shooting, and see how you go at 7 yards. After that, add considerations to a moving target (not just away in a linear direction, but as a leg is) and the added stress. (Although I don't even think you'll need to at that point). If you willing to trust me - I would suggest a moving target with a pistol would be exponentially more difficult. That's not to mention other factors such as police ammunition having more recoil anticipated than the average target loads at target ranges, plus sighting in a dark environment with that moving target.

I honestly have no idea how those Olympians that do those jogging, and then pistol shooting event (not sure what's it's called) - do it. They're amazing. RESPECT! (Although they don't have big recoil to consider), but even so...

Me... Im a gun, a real six shooter... loL. Na honestly never shot a handgun, just shot guns and rifles (hunting not military)
My 6-8 meter estimate was something i must of picked up from video games. LoL

I like the cross country nordic skiiers with the air rifles. How fit and good shot would you have to be

As you've probably noticed with my posts, I try not to come to conclusions on matters I'm not familiar with. I have no opinion on whether the officer acted correctly or not in this instance - but at the risk of being bold - I think this is one instance where I have had enough first hand experience and knowledge to form a informed opinion that shooting to disarm would not have been an option in this scenario. Would have been better for them to stop chasing and let him go than to attempt that.

For me - the issue here isn't whether or not the police should have shot to disable. I really strongly believe it wasn't a reasonable to expect the police to consider it.

The question is whether or not the use of deadly force that was used - in a way they are trained to (shoot center mass) was appropriate for the situation, and how much responsibility should sit on the shoulders of the suspect.

It's tragic what's happened - but now more than ever I believe the police (and everyone really) could do with people trying to gain a little more understanding of what is reasonable and unreasonable in their expectations. They're copping a lot. (Excuse the pun).

If you've managed to read this far in my post - thanks for taking the time out to read and consider my ramblings and experience. If you manage to still read on and have read this to - you also have great eyesight. :)

Ye I totally agree. The cop didn't have to shoot.
As far as shot to disable, my suggestion was really thinking out loud. Cos if they are allowed to shoot like that then a different approach should be considered by the police force

 

[Scoot]

I'm not sure on the USA laws. IIRC I think i saw a real life cop show once where the cops were shooting at a fleeing car - so I suspect that the RoE so to speak may be a bit different there, whether it's state to state or otherwise.

The bullets are basically hollow points (or the ones I've seen more designed to 'open up' than just be hollow points. I've seen the ones up close they have used here in Aus, and it makes my eyes water to think of the damage. A pistol has a much lower velocity (but often a much heavier grain projectile) compared to rifles so as I understand it, the impact physics are a little different. I've actually seen projectiles fly down range from hand guns (sunlight in the perfect position - it's quite amazing to see them go out and hit the target). I wouldn't believe myself if I hadn't saw it myself. (Sorry to the others reading as us two have gone off talking guns n stuff.)

Just another tragic loss of life that didn't have to happen. I'm not passing judgement on anyone as I don't know the full circumstances, but it's real sad regardless.

Thanks for hearing me out on the "shoot do disable" option. I was first a bit taken back by some of the personal attacks I saw on this site when I first came here - but I'm getting to find that there's a number of people I can challenge (or they can challenge me) in what I believe is the true Christian way - hearing each other out - and I find it a real blessing. Thank you!

 

[Cristo Rei]

I'm not sure on the USA laws. IIRC I think i saw a real life cop show once where the cops were shooting at a fleeing car - so I suspect that the RoE so to speak may be a bit different there, whether it's state to state or otherwise.

The bullets are basically hollow points (or the ones I've seen more designed to 'open up' than just be hollow points. I've seen the ones up close they have used here in Aus, and it makes my eyes water to think of the damage. A pistol has a much lower velocity (but often a much heavier grain projectile) compared to rifles so as I understand it, the impact physics are a little different. I've actually seen projectiles fly down range from hand guns (sunlight in the perfect position - it's quite amazing to see them go out and hit the target). I wouldn't believe myself if I hadn't saw it myself. (Sorry to the others reading as us two have gone off talking guns n stuff.)

Just another tragic loss of life that didn't have to happen. I'm not passing judgement on anyone as I don't know the full circumstances, but it's real sad regardless.

Thanks for hearing me out on the "shoot do disable" option. I was first a bit taken back by some of the personal attacks I saw on this site when I first came here - but I'm getting to find that there's a number of people I can challenge (or they can challenge me) in what I believe is the true Christian way - hearing each other out - and I find it a real blessing. Thank you!

No probs. Reason and just civilized discourse in general is almost dead these days.
Too many people pick a camp and dig in for a fight till the death.

I watched a show once on panic and what it does to people. It was so scary because the only way to replicate true panic is to go into a dangerous situation. One test was to submerge them in a clear box. To escape the box u had to twist this and pull that and rotate this, it was a tricky procedure but they knew what to do. Out of 3 people only one person escaped.
Another person almost had it but paniced causing him to loose calm and just start shaking the cage mindlessly. A crane quickly lifts the cage out of the water. The third person started panicing straight away puling and turning the same bar in a hopless fashion.

Have u ever paniced for your life. I remember being stuck in a rip once. My mate was standing just a few meters away. I kept paddling and paddling but was getting no where. Im not a strong swimmer and i was getting tired and i started to panic. In my panic i put in all the energy i had left on a big final do or die push. Lucky my mate had grabbed someones board and positioned it perfectly for me to get to. I hope i don't die in a state of panic like that.

What is the worse way to die... So many people will say drowning...
But why, there is no pain. U eventually inhale water and pass out... Its that feeling of panic that people dread

I think being burnt at the stake would be one of the worse. The pain would be horrific and the panic would be terrible too
U pass out due to either lack of oxygen or inhalation of flame

Its funny that you talk about the physics of the bullet cos i think about that as well. Im in engineering and i have a bit of a man crush on Isaac Newton, LoL, favourite scientist anyway

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Did u try the link, i think it shows it there

Oh, okay, I thought I saw it in a different video. I've watched several.