06-17-2020, 03:28 PM
We are all having this discussion in part because protests against police brutality swept the nation following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police, and continue still. The protests have crystallized into a movement for sweeping police reform. Reform activists argue that cases like Floyd's are not the result of a few "bad apples," but recur year after year in many different communities also as an expression of systemic racism, enabled by a toxic "police culture" (discussed below) which police cannot be trusted to fix themselves. We are having a national debate about this now, as "the other side" argues there is no such racism and police are just fine--except for a few bad apples, whose prosecution we should concentrate on in ways that don't undermine public trust in the police as a whole or shift funding priorities. Banning choke holds ok, though.
This national debate means that in the next year, some 3-5 cases of excessive police action (in addition to Floyd's) will receive closer scrutiny from the press, politicians, and reform activists, according to how each highlights some aspect of the above-mentioned "police culture" on interpretation of existing law, on the behavior of prosecutors who work daily with the police, and upon the training often appealed to when deciding whether an officer's actions were "reasonable." Reformers will use these cases to test and push the reform they seek, and to measure whether any such reform is actually occurring. Quite likely the Brooks case will be one of these 3-5.
The following quote highlights the essential points the reformers of "police culture" would like to see addressed . . .
. . . starting with a bench trial option in which an officer who has been investigated 12 times in the last five years* and disciplined at least once for excessive force "will be sure to walk" pro forma after shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. Or maybe charged with nothing.
The "mob" of voters who want reform will not likely find that a reasonable outcome. If we have arrived at a point where there is "zero chance" that such an officer can be charged for shooting a DUI stop in the back for taking his taser--and can "get his job back"--that will perfectly illustrate the problem they want addressed.
If there is a jury trial, then at some point the prosecution is going to introduce a still photo of Officer Rolfe with his gun pointed at Brook's back as Brooks runs away, the moment before Rolfe fires. They will align this moment with the existing Georgia statute on an officer's use of lethal force "only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person." They will ask, first, if the officer appears to be preventing great bodily injury to himself as he fires at Brooks' back, regardless of whether he was in danger earlier. Then they will ask if the inebriated Brooks appears to threaten "death or great bodily injury" to others with his already fired taser. Did firing at him in a residential area (and missing once) increase or decrease risk of injury to others?
The jury will hear some police experts testify that the officers actions were "in line with police training," and therefore ok, but other experts will emphasize not only the back shot, but the rejected option--let him flee, call for back up--and argue the actions were not so in line. For MSM news commentators following the trial, this will raise questions about that training, the relative emphasis on "shoot for body mass" as opposed to "let him run"--all to be put before the public.
Certainly embarrassing that Brooks manhandled two police officers and wrested a weapon of intermediate force (classified with pepper spray and impact weapons) away from them and then "fired" it in flight. A jury might wonder if shame and anger factored into Rolfe's "split second decision."
I suspect we are going to hear a lot more about the "could have let him run" option. We'll read of comparable cases, of officers who did "let him run," whether that increased or decreased risk to the public, whether more white than black suspects receive the benefit of the doubt, etc. and consider how comfortable police departments and others are with officers exercising split-second decisions in favor of life. And we'll hear some argue that the choice between letting Brooks run and killing him would just be very hard for any reasonable person. And people will have to decide if they really want law officers, and prosecutors, to assume such decisions are so "very hard" in such cases that either option is “appropriate.” That will be a key to deciding how reasonable or unreasonable people are when, as voters, they view police actions from their chairs.
One side of this debate will focus on history, police training, statistics and trial processes to reframe existing standards of "appropriate" actions. Calling them "unreasonable" might not work well when "reasonable" is itself what is in question.
*Including once failing to report discharging his firearm (with other police officers) at a truck thief who rammed his vehicle, and who was also shot in the back. According to this Guardian article, it is not clear that Rolfe was ever disciplined for this, though an angry judge flagged it. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/17/rayshard-brooks-shooting-police-officer-cover-up-accusations-garrett-rolfe
This national debate means that in the next year, some 3-5 cases of excessive police action (in addition to Floyd's) will receive closer scrutiny from the press, politicians, and reform activists, according to how each highlights some aspect of the above-mentioned "police culture" on interpretation of existing law, on the behavior of prosecutors who work daily with the police, and upon the training often appealed to when deciding whether an officer's actions were "reasonable." Reformers will use these cases to test and push the reform they seek, and to measure whether any such reform is actually occurring. Quite likely the Brooks case will be one of these 3-5.
The following quote highlights the essential points the reformers of "police culture" would like to see addressed . . .
(06-16-2020, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What defense? Has the former officer been charged with a crime? Also, if charged the officer will certainly go for a bench trial in which he will be sure to walk. Quite honestly, if the DA files charges he'll just be pulling a Mosby, filing charges to appease a mob instead of actual doing their job properly. Even if you disagree with the use of force, there is zero chance that a provable crime was committed. Not only that, but the officer is almost certainly going to get his job back based on the lack of due process in his firing. This is not a blatantly obvious abuse of authority like tasing those two college students. At worst this is a debatable shooting, there is no criminal conduct in this incident by the officer visible to any reasonable, fair minded person.
. . . starting with a bench trial option in which an officer who has been investigated 12 times in the last five years* and disciplined at least once for excessive force "will be sure to walk" pro forma after shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. Or maybe charged with nothing.
The "mob" of voters who want reform will not likely find that a reasonable outcome. If we have arrived at a point where there is "zero chance" that such an officer can be charged for shooting a DUI stop in the back for taking his taser--and can "get his job back"--that will perfectly illustrate the problem they want addressed.
If there is a jury trial, then at some point the prosecution is going to introduce a still photo of Officer Rolfe with his gun pointed at Brook's back as Brooks runs away, the moment before Rolfe fires. They will align this moment with the existing Georgia statute on an officer's use of lethal force "only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person." They will ask, first, if the officer appears to be preventing great bodily injury to himself as he fires at Brooks' back, regardless of whether he was in danger earlier. Then they will ask if the inebriated Brooks appears to threaten "death or great bodily injury" to others with his already fired taser. Did firing at him in a residential area (and missing once) increase or decrease risk of injury to others?
The jury will hear some police experts testify that the officers actions were "in line with police training," and therefore ok, but other experts will emphasize not only the back shot, but the rejected option--let him flee, call for back up--and argue the actions were not so in line. For MSM news commentators following the trial, this will raise questions about that training, the relative emphasis on "shoot for body mass" as opposed to "let him run"--all to be put before the public.
(06-16-2020, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, they could have let him run with the weapon he was actively using against them. Of course, you have the benefit of watching this scenario from your chair, not having just fought the guy on the ground and had him steal your weapon. The officer in question had to make a split second decision and IMO, he did not act inappropriately. I do appreciate your statement though, it shows just how unreasonable many people can be when analyzing police use of force decision.
Certainly embarrassing that Brooks manhandled two police officers and wrested a weapon of intermediate force (classified with pepper spray and impact weapons) away from them and then "fired" it in flight. A jury might wonder if shame and anger factored into Rolfe's "split second decision."
I suspect we are going to hear a lot more about the "could have let him run" option. We'll read of comparable cases, of officers who did "let him run," whether that increased or decreased risk to the public, whether more white than black suspects receive the benefit of the doubt, etc. and consider how comfortable police departments and others are with officers exercising split-second decisions in favor of life. And we'll hear some argue that the choice between letting Brooks run and killing him would just be very hard for any reasonable person. And people will have to decide if they really want law officers, and prosecutors, to assume such decisions are so "very hard" in such cases that either option is “appropriate.” That will be a key to deciding how reasonable or unreasonable people are when, as voters, they view police actions from their chairs.
One side of this debate will focus on history, police training, statistics and trial processes to reframe existing standards of "appropriate" actions. Calling them "unreasonable" might not work well when "reasonable" is itself what is in question.
*Including once failing to report discharging his firearm (with other police officers) at a truck thief who rammed his vehicle, and who was also shot in the back. According to this Guardian article, it is not clear that Rolfe was ever disciplined for this, though an angry judge flagged it. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/17/rayshard-brooks-shooting-police-officer-cover-up-accusations-garrett-rolfe
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
