Video of Atlanta Shooting

Here’s video from a few different angles of the events leading up to, and after, the shooting that was put together by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

One question I had was whether or not the police had already searched him for weapons before he ran. They had not, so the police did not know when he turned around to shoot the stolen Taser whether it was actually the Taser, or some other weapon that the man had produced. All the officers knew was that the man was drunk, fought them, was running, and pointed back at them.

What I do see is a couple of cops who were respectful, sympathetic, polite, and reasonable during the arrest. The victim initiated the violence and ran. He was definitely drunk, but might have had other drugs in his system too. The autopsy will tell us that, but it’s not really material. We don’t know why he ran. It seems like an odd choice given the relative banality of the arrest and the charge.

With the full benefit of hindsight, I do not think that the officer should have discharged his weapon. The man was running with a non-lethal weapon and was not an immediate deadly threat to anyone but himself. But in the seconds that the officer has to make that determination without the benefit of knowing what the victim did not have another weapon and was not a threat, I can’t fault the officer for his decision. You will also notice that there were a couple of African-American supervisors on the scene afterwards and did not seem to think that there was anything racially charged about the tragic events. I expect that if the victim were white, the same result would have occurred.

86 Responses to Video of Atlanta Shooting

  1. Mar says:

    In the million dollar press conference today, the lawyer for the “victim” said the cops should have just let him go to near by relative’s home.
    Yeah, right.
    Or they should have let him run away.
    Right, let’s have a drunk have control of a tasar.
    But he was just sleeping.
    In the middle of the drive through.
    Sad that he died but it was his choices that put everything in motion.
    And the liberals are seizing on this and exploiting this man’s death.

  2. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Justified shooting.

    He stole cops taser and threatened officers with it.

    If I am a cop and these cops get charged….I am quitting and retiring if one cannot make instantaneous decision about a drunken idiot, resisting arrest and threatening the officers.

    Play stupid drunken games with officers, win stupid drunken prizes.

     

     

  3. Merlin says:

    If there were such a thing as a list of prerequisites for getting shot by law enforcement, Mr. Brooks would seem to have checked every box. Such a sad thing to see.

  4. jjf says:

    They’ve got his car and his identity.  What are the risks in letting him run?

  5. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Jjf,

    You just let him make off with officers taser in a drunken state?

    Just how pro-criminal, pro-evil are you?

  6. jjf says:

    Before that, Kevin.  Why pull out the taser if he resisted or ran?  You’ve got his car and his identity.  Why go down the paths where you might think you need to kill him?

  7. Owen Owen says:

    Oh, I don’t know… maybe he car jacks someone, takes someone hostage in a nearby home or business, steals a car and runs down a family of five while fleeing, assaults someone to make the cops stop to render aid… the list goes on. As we learned in Milwaukee, fleeing subjects do a lot of damage even when you don’t chase them.

  8. jjf says:

    Wow, that’s some first-class speculation.  I think you left out the “Thirty to 50 unkillable feral hogs.”

    And yet we can tell ourselves pleasant tales of cops telling drunks to go home and sleep it off, of speeders given a warning, and why it’s better to roll through a stop sign in Certain Neighborhoods.

  9. Owen Owen says:

    It is also speculation to think that he would have just calmly walked away.

  10. jjf says:

    You think he wanted to escape so he could have a chance to commit more crimes?  Or because in his drunk state he thought he could avoid arrest?

  11. Jason says:

    >You think he wanted to escape so he could have a chance to commit more crimes?  Or because in his drunk state he thought he could avoid arrest?

    Objection your honor, Speculation!

  12. Merlin says:

    I’m pretty sure most criminals would love to be arrested at their personal convenience, preferably by prior invitation and appointment. Now’s not a good time for you? Give us a call when you’re up to it, okay? Call me!

  13. jjf says:

    Why not have a conversation about what you want the police to do, Merlin.  You think some people are worth killing?

  14. Mar says:

    “You think some people are worth killing?”
    Absolutley.

  15. Merlin says:

    For myriad reasons some people will have it no other way. Figure that out and you’ll have all your answers. Until then, count your blessings that the urban combat hasn’t made its way to Mayberry yet.

  16. jjf says:

    Just part of the death cult, right Mar?

  17. dad29 says:

    hasn’t made its way to <strike>Mayberry</strike> ahhh…Dodge County.

     

  18. dad29 says:

    Speculation Warning!!!

    The goblin ran because he has a lengthy criminal record and he didn’t need another strike.

     

  19. Mar says:

    “Just part of the death cult, right Mar?”
    So, if someone is raping and murdering your family, jjf, you would do what? Someone is pointing a knife or gun at you, you would do what? Someone is aiming a gun at another person, you would do what?
    Just throw your up your arms and say “Please stop, kind sir. You shall not do such violence or I will slap you silly”

  20. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Jjf,

    Thanks for confirming your pro-criminal, pro-evil attitude.

  21. dad29 says:

    if someone is raping and murdering your family, jjf, you would do what?

    Call the Hall Monitor, silly.  Or maybe a social worker.

  22. jjf says:

    Mar, sounds like you live in an exciting neighborhood.

    What do those examples have to do with this case?  Can you imagine a form of policing that wouldn’t have led to Brooks’ death?

  23. Mar says:

    “Why not have a conversation about what you want the police to do, Merlin.  You think some people are worth killing?”
    Gee, jjf, maybe because you said that?
    Perhaps you forgot that you wrote that.

  24. jjf says:

    I have no doubt that we have police forces as a means of government force.  I think police process can be improved.  They didn’t need a process that says “shoot ’em in the back if they flee” in this case.  They had his car.  They had his ID.  He’d shown he was drunk.  They no doubt knew his priors at this point.  Yes, he didn’t comply when they wanted to finally cuff him.  So why kill him?

  25. Mar says:

    jjf, when am I going get my apology for you saying “Just part of the death cult, right Mar?”?
    And good thing you are not a police officer because you certainly lack the good judgement and common sense to be a police officer.

  26. jjf says:

    Apology for what, Mar?

  27. Mar says:

    I guess in your case, being a butt head and saying stupid things. But if that was the case, you would have to apologize 24-7

  28. Mar says:

    “So why kill him”.
    More like, why did they shoot him.
    He already displayed he was very violent and a danger to society.
    He stole an officers taser and shot it at the cop. He could have incapacitated the officer and stole his gun.
    A taser can be lethal if the person has no clue how to operate it.
    The cop thought he was in mortal danger.
    Instead of pointing the taser, he could have been pointing a gun. He had not been searched yet.
    And he got shot in the back because he was running away with his back toward the cop. But slightly turned his body when he aimed the taser at the cop.
    Any more questions you need answers to?

  29. jjf says:

    He resisted arrest and tried to flee.  The taser was out because they thought they had to subdue him y could arrest him.

    So again, we kill him?  Drunks make bad decisions; you can’t consent when you’re drunk, right?  So kill him, right?

  30. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    jjf,

    Do stupid things when drunk.   Win stupid prizes.

     

  31. Mar says:

    I think jjf is drunk typing today.

  32. Mar says:

    So, Monday Morning Quarterback jjf, what would you have done?

  33. jjf says:

    If your objective is to kill as few people as possible, what could they have done differently?  Given that they had his car, his ID, and evidence he was drunk, when he resisted arrest they could’ve avoided tasing and killing by letting him run.  Catch him again later.

  34. Mar says:

    So, basically, if someone resists arrest just let them go?
    And when he resists again? And again? And again? And if he goes out and commits more crimes? Or if decides to get into another car and crashes into a car with a family inside and kills them?
    Again, good thing you are not a cop. You just don’t show good judgement, common sense.
    You may be good at computers (though not simple data bases) but you lack the insight of being on the frontlines of stressful situations.

  35. Owen Owen says:

    It’s the long term impact, too. Think of Milwaukee’s “no chase” policy. By not chasing, the police encouraged criminals to flee every time a cop got behind them. This resulted in more, not less, cars racing recklessly through the city, more injuries, more deaths, and more crime. If the police have a policy of “if a drunk guy resists and runs, just let him go,” then a lot more drunk guys will resist and run. It won’t end well.

  36. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    jjf,

    The “objective” is to arrest and capture as many criminals as possible.

    Resist, fight with police in drunken state…win stupid prizes.

    So you want drunken idiots to eacape consequence for drunken idiocy?

     

  37. Jason says:

    >when he resisted arrest they could’ve avoided tasing and killing by letting him run.  Catch him again later.

    And if he resisted that time?   Try again tomorrow?  You are a fool, plain and simple.   I’m sure Pat and Leroy and even Creepy Joe Biden would agree, you’re a fool and showing it off every word you type on this subject.

     

    >If your objective is to kill as few people as possible,

    Their objective is to keep the public safe.  “To Serve and Protect”… not to let bad people go when they don’t want to get arrested for crimes.

  38. jjf says:

    Mar, or what if he runs home and sleeps it off?

  39. Jason says:

    >what if he runs home and sleeps it off?

    Objection, Speculation!

     

  40. jjf says:

    Owen, a cop chasing a suspected criminal carries a certain amount of risk.  It’s an urban environment.  There’s no shortage of stories of innocents who died because of this.  Is it more or less risk than your assertion that more suspected criminals are simply fleeing when they see a cop?  Is the risk worth it?

    I’d bet it was well within the Atlanta officer’s discretion to escalate or not escalate the situation at that point.  Again, they knew who he was and they had his car in this situation.  Why kill him over that?

    And let’s not forget Wisconsin’s habit of letting people enjoy their multiple DUIs… six, seven times…

  41. Mar says:

    >what if he runs home and sleeps it off?
    And you would trust them to do that?

  42. Mar says:

    Funny how jjf is blaming the cops but not 1 word of blame for criminal who resisted and put everything into motion.
    Well, not funny, but pretty sad.

  43. Jason says:

    Mar, Johnny twists his worldview to fit his preconceived proximate cause. Stupidly twists, I might add. Notice he has completely avoided my questions in other topics… they dont fit hit pretty little utopia so he is wishing them away. Like a child under 6 does often.

  44. Mar says:

    Well, they charged the officer with murder and 10 other charges.
    Mob justice wins out again.
    So sad, so pathetic.
    But when he is acquitted, the liberal rioters and looters will do what they best: destroy things in the inner cities.

  45. jjf says:

    You know, for Regular People, a little drinking and driving is OK!

  46. Jason says:

    >You know, for Regular People, a little drinking and driving is OK!

    I know of no one on here who has supported any softer penalties on drunk driving.  WTF is your point with this foul ball Foust?  More noise and distraction as always.

  47. Mar says:

    Wow, jjf, I assume is a regular guy.
    He must drink and drive.
    Must be that white privilege.

  48. jjf says:

    But it’s part of Our Culture, Mar! Our Heritage!

  49. Mar says:

    Well, jjf, if you were born in Wisconsin, beer is in your DNA. Probably part of the 17th Chromosome. I’m pretty sure about that.
    But that doesn’t excuse drinking while driving.

  50. Le Roi du Nord says:

    “if you were born in Wisconsin, beer is in your DNA. Probably part of the 17th Chromosome. I’m pretty sure about that.”

    Lets see the science on that whopper, mar.

  51. MjM says:

    Two weeks ago;

    “As you all know, under Georgia law, a taser is considered as a deadly weapon”. – Fulton County District Attorney Paul L. Howard Jr., June 3 press conference, announcing charges against other officers, four of whom he charged with aggravated assault for using and pointing their tasers at protesters.

    DA Howard Jr. just lost his case. Which one is unclear.

  52. Mar says:

    MjM, the DA is a political a-hole. He is not interested in justice, he is looking at the political ramifications. If it hurts President Trump, they will do whatever they can do to hurt him, including using innocent people as pawns.

  53. jjf says:

    Mar, what about rolling through stop signs?

  54. Mar says:

    “Lets see the science on that whopper, mar.” Get a sense of humor, jackass.

  55. Mar says:

    “Mar, what about rolling through stop signs?”
    What about it?
    I’ve been pulled over for it in the past.

  56. Jason says:

    >I’ve been pulled over for it in the past.

    Next time, just push the cop to the ground and run home.   You can get your ticket when it’s convenient for you.

  57. jjf says:

    Oh, Mar, but some folks here on B&S have said it’s OK to roll through the stop signs in Certain Bad Neighborhoods because of the danger of carjacking.

  58. Mar says:

    Really, jjf, who?

  59. Jason says:

    >Really, jjf, who?

    Leroy did a few months back.

  60. Le Roi du Nord says:

    No j, I have never said that. mar should be calling you a liar next post.

  61. Mar says:

    Wow, Le Roi, you remember that but not any of your other lies?
    Ok.

  62. Le Roi du Nord says:

    mar:

    That is the beauty about telling the truth; you don’t have to remember what bs you said previously. You and trump should try that some time.

  63. Mar says:

    “you don’t have to remember what bs you said previously.”
    That fits you perfectly Le Roi.

  64. Tuerqas says:

    Before that, Kevin.  Why pull out the taser if he resisted or ran?  You’ve got his car and his identity.  Why go down the paths where you might think you need to kill him?

    One other little thing on that, even with his car and ID, the alleged criminal has to be present to charge him.  You can’t charge a car or an ID for a crime.  When we were stupid kids, a friend of mine had to ditch his car and run once.  They had his license plate and car, but they couldn’t even tow it, as it was in a legal place to park.  No perpetrator, no crime.  Anyone, has that changed?

    That said, I do not think lethal force was necessary based on video evidence, but I would not charge the cop with murder either.  When someone you are chasing turns and points with something in their hands, it would be hard for training not to kick in.  Any soldier would have shot immediately.  I don’t know exactly what training an office receives in that predicament.

  65. jjf says:

    That’s where a warrant for arrest comes in, right?

  66. Mar says:

    And there goes cop hating criminal love jjf again.
    jjf just loves putting big fat kisses on criminals but is so hateful toward the cops.
    Btw,jjf, how is that no bail law working in NYC. You must be having wet dreams about that and all the crimes criminals are committing after they are released without bail.

  67. jjf says:

    Mar, maybe you can ask Owen if he remembers talked about rolling through stop signs in Certain Places in Milwaukee.

  68. Mar says:

    Why don’t you ask him?

  69. jjf says:

    Oh, you know, Mar!  I’m a racist evolution-loving lying liar who always lies, but you’re one of the common-sense truth-tellers around here!

  70. Le Roi du Nord says:

    mar:

    You make a patently false claim, “if you were born in Wisconsin, beer is in your DNA. Probably part of the 17th Chromosome. I’m pretty sure about that.”, fail to provide an iota of proof, yet call me a liar.    You are never going to win that conservation.

  71. dad29 says:

    It’s the long term impact, too.

    Broken Windows theory 101.

  72. dad29 says:

    Wow, Le Roi, you remember that but not…

    …..how Walker took $6 Large out of your pocket?

  73. dad29 says:

    I would not charge the cop with murder either

    Correct.  But the DA over-charged this guy, just as Ellison over-charged the Minneapolis cop.  The defense will claim–with justification–that the fentanyl overdose killed Floyd.

    But the over-charging will have the desired result:  “Not Guilty” verdicts, followed by riots, looting, pillaging, murders, and more destruction of the rule of law that LeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy worked so hard to maintain (he says.)

    And those riots should happen about 6 months after Trump’s second inauguration.  Summertime!!

  74. Mar says:

    Le ROI, get a sense of humor, you dork.

  75. dad29 says:

    Let’s chip in $2.00 each and maybe he can BUY a sense of humor.  And as a bonus, it’ll partially make up for that $6K he lost to Walker.

  76. jjf says:

    Dad29, tell me a joke.

  77. Mar says:

    Gee, a 3 year old was just killed in Chicago by gun fire
    I I think we need Black Lives Matter to protest.
    Oh wait, these racists and terrorist won’t.

  78. jjf says:

    Don’t worry Mar, there’s plenty of Second Amendment advocates who will stand up for your right to have an “accident” that might kill a child or anyone else in your very own home.

  79. Mar says:

    jjf, wrong again. I provided a link on another post that has been posted yet to show you how wrong you are.

  80. Randall Flagg says:

    “They had not, so the police did not know when he turned around to shoot the stolen Taser whether it was actually the Taser, or some other weapon that the man had produced.”

    On the video, you can clearly see it was a taser.  Bright yellow gives it away. The cop himself says the suspect fired the Taser at him.

  81. Mar says:

    Who cares Randall, it was still a weapon, a weapon the DA prosecuting said was a deadly weapon only a week or so before the shooting.

  82. Randall Flagg says:

    The jury will care, Mar.  They will also care about the cop’s history of complaints, including  a previous shooting: https://www.apmreports.org/story/2020/06/17/officer-garrett-rolfe-atlanta-shooting

  83. Merlin says:

    The jury will also consider that tasers are classified as deadly weapons under Georgia state law. Details are such bothersome things.

  84. Randall Flagg says:

    Details are the opposite of bothersome Merlin.  Of course that will be considered.  So will Atlanta PD’s use of force policy, their actions after they shot him, the timing of the officer drawing his gun……

  85. Mar says:

    Liar. Randall, all this talk about the cop but not one word about the thug who violently fought the cops, stole the taser and pointed the taser at the cop.
    I guess he is blameless in your eyes.

  86. Mar says:

    My apologies Randall, I did not mean to write Liar. Not sure how it got there, but my apologies.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.