Ya know these fired cops are getting their jobs back....

How ever you look at it, its gonna be a shit show for a while. I wonder why the chief was so quick to resign? If the cops followed standard protocol in the face of a life threatening altercation how can it reflect poorly on her? Is this the new normal now? Anytime a tough call is made the person at the top has to fall on his or her Sword?
God bless the men and women in Blue willing to expose themselves to the new normal. True friggin Heros these days for sure, at least the vast majority operating with in the rules anyway.
CD
 
The problem is , it wasn't a life threatening altercation. Perp discharges stun gun, turns and flees and takes 2 rounds to his back. Please, I could defend this guy successfully. The buck stops with her, what kind of police training is that?
 
Police chief probably wrote a letter to parole board to help him get out of jail during covid "because he was such an reformed upstanding citizen".
 
Scoflaw, I agree with Carpe Diem's statement of "Why she resigned so quickly". I am not disagreeing with you as where the buck stops and what the eventual outcome may be but she resigned before any investigation of the facts was completed.
I am not sure if the officer who fired had discharged his taser first, as he drops his taser and pulls his lethal weapon then fires just as Brooks fired the taser and turned away. Time from Brooks taser to shots fired is less than 2 seconds so an obvious reaction to the perceived threat.
My question is why did he feel the need to drop his taser and pull his lethal weapon?
 
If you watch the video you will see that the criminal did not turn completely around to fire the tazer. He reached backward to shoot while still running. Thus, the LEO fired while the criminal was partially turned and hit him in the back because that was how he was presented. Firing a weapon over your shoulder while running away doesn't negate the firing or the danger to the LEO. As noted this occurred in mere seconds after fight on the ground where the criminal was trying to wrestle away the LEO's firearm. The criminal's arrest record has not yet been disclosed. Want to bet this was not his first run in with law enforcement?
 
If you don’t run from cops after punching one down and taking his taser and turning while fleeing to shoot at the cop chasing you.... you won’t catch the bullet in the back.
Now we’re blaming cops for shooting at a fleeing assailant who’s shooting at you while he runs.
We are so f&$&ed.
 
scoflaw said:
The problem is , it wasn't a life threatening altercation. Perp discharges stun gun, turns and flees and takes 2 rounds to his back. Please, I could defend this guy successfully. The buck stops with her, what kind of police training is that?
Click to expand...
The Chief does not conduct training or set the guidelines for training. Most states use POST certification. Here in PA we have PA Act 120 which is governed by MPOETC. They decide the training requirements. The Chief will likely have a say in the department policies and procedures.

And back to what was said earlier, somebody mentioned letting him go and tracking him down later. Hmmm...so once perps know if they run they will not be chased and by the time the police catch him (if they ever do) he is no longer drunk. This will give every perp the green light to run from the police. It has happened with pursuits. This is almost as bad as saying if you punch a cop he cannot arrest you until later. How many bad guys will start punching cops?

And it could have very well have been life threatening. Don't know the percentages but many (if not most) officers shot in the line of duty are shot by their own weapon. Would have been very easy for that guy to take that officers gun and used it on him if he had hit him with that taser.
 
boatman37 said:
And back to what was said earlier, somebody mentioned letting him go and tracking him down later. Hmmm...so once perps know if they run they will not be chased and by the time the police catch him (if they ever do) he is no longer drunk. This will give every perp the green light to run from the police. It has happened with pursuits. This is almost as bad as saying if you punch a cop he cannot arrest you until later. How many bad guys will start punching cops?
Click to expand...

And that is what is going to happen. The pendulum is going to swing hard in that direction. Then in several years when lawlessness reigns, and we go thru some tragic instances of people protecting themselves (anyone remember Bernie Goetz) it will swing back.
 
See gun sales. My brother who is very even keeled has applied for his concealed carry permit and is buying a hand gun.

We debated this today.

I won’t carry because I know myself and I know I’d probably use it and I don’t want to deal w the legal disaster, regardless of any laws. All you have to see is what the legal system is doing to cops.

I don’t trust the legal system to protect my rights but will favor the victim especially if he’s black.
 
Regarding the chief in Atlanta that boogied so fast--I'm guessing that she was just about fed up with her job, fed up with the political climate in this country, fed up with local politicians and just said to herself: "FUGIT, I'm, not going to go through all the BS that will be coming down the pike. I am so outa here. Later guys, take care of yourselves."

Given the same set of circumstances I likely would have done the same. Then jumped on a plane headed somewhere to a land far, far away.
 
El Capitan said:
See gun sales. My brother who is very even keeled has applied for his concealed carry permit and is buying a hand gun.

We debated this today.

I won’t carry because I know myself and I know I’d probably use it and I don’t want to deal w the legal disaster, regardless of any laws. All you have to see is what the legal system is doing to cops.

I don’t trust the legal system to protect my rights but will favor the victim especially if he’s black.
Click to expand...

EC, tell him to buy a S&W so it helps my stock. I think you are wise to follow your instincts regarding the gun. I knew cops who should have followed those instincts when it came to choosing their future career as a cop. By way of an FYI, I would not be a cop today for any amount of money. It ain't the risks of the job that would dissuade me, it's all the other crap floating around in the air. I put up with it for many years but that was years ago. I can't imagine the pressures of wearing the blue today.
 
IMHO: Based on my experience with police involved shootings (While not a lawyer, I’ve had a fair amount of experience investigating and reviewing them from the union, supervisory and command perspectives here in NY.)
The Atlanta case is a legally justified shooting!
The second the guy turned his hand towards the pursuing officer with the taser (a weapon) in that hand and pointed it at the officer it became a justified shooting.
The police officer does not have to wait for him to fire that weapon (although the guy did), or even know for a fact that the weapon was capable of firing a projectile.
He just has to reasonably believe it.
Considering the violent scuffle and the forcible taking of the weapon from the other officer in the moments immediately before the shooting incident, it won’t be hard for him to make a case for reasonableness.
In any subsequent court procedures that might happen his lawyer can call a long list of police experts who can support the argument that the officer was reasonable in thinking that a weapon being pointed at him could cause him harm.
The use of the word Homicide by the Medical Examiner is a technical term, not a legal judgement by that Medical Examiner about culpability.
It’s a word they use when one person dies as a result of the actions of another.
The question then becomes a legal one of whether or not the actions were justified under the law.
Example: If a Police Officer and a bad guy who has just committed a crime were face to face and the bad guy fired a shot at the officer from an illegally possessed gun, missing him, and the officer returned fire hitting the guy center mass and killing him instantly it would still be classified Homicide by the Medical Examiner. The question would then become whether or not it was justified.
There would be an investigation, the case would be presented to a Grand Jury, they would be instructed by the prosecutor in the guidelines for the use of force, and then make a decision on whether to indict or not.
The assumption in the above hypothetical example by most reasonable people would be that there would be no indictment because of the clear cut and dry circumstances.
Unfortunately though, when politics, public emotion, media frenzy, etc. enter in to it, the outcome isn’t always reasonable.
An over zealous prosecutor can “indict a ham sandwich“ in a politically charged case like this if they want because they alone instruct the grand jury about the law and present the case without any rebuttal from the subject’s attorney. The subject’s attorney isn’t allowed to appear in front of the Grand Jury.
If indicted, the officer can opt for a Judge Trial if he wants. If he draws an activist Judge who convicts him, or opts for a jury who convicts him he can appeal it.
If he continues to draw activist Judges through the State appeals process he can go higher.
If the case goes all the way to the US Supreme Court who agrees to hear it they will likely make a decision consistent with two 1980’s cases (Tennessee V. Garner & Graham V. Conner).
It would boil down to the question of what the officer reasonably believed when he fired the shots, or what a reasonable police officer would be expected to believe in that situation, not what a politician, media talking head, upset member of a community, or other person with a moral difference of opinion would believe.
The result would be any conviction would be overturned.
 
Last edited:
My step-son graduated from the academy in 2009 and was hired by his department 2 days later. He is now a Cpl. detective. We are in a small county but he is in the county seat about 40,000 population. He is ready to get out but probably won't be able to. Not many jobs in this area that pay what he is making now and with a 6 year old daughter, mortgage and 2 car payments it would be tough. The bright side is he is a detective so he isn't usually on the front line making these decisions anymore. He is on the CERT team but that's not an every day thing. His Chief doesn't have their backs either. That had an incident a few years ago where one of their cops was interrogating an arson suspect and the suspect stood up and got in the officers face. The officer stayed in his seat and tried to de-escalate. When the officer finally stood up they both ended up on the floor with the officer on top. When they came out the suspect had a busted up face. The Chief fired the officer almost immediately even though the officer said he was punched first. Step-son is head of their union and reviewed the video. You could see the officers head snap backwards while they were on the floor. Exactly the way the officer described it. He was re-instated but the fact was the Chief didn't even watch the video before making a decision.

No way would I want to be a cop today.
 
To add to what JVM225 just posted, reasonableness of a police officer is different than reasonableness of a citizen. Reasonable Suspicion takes into account an officers training and experience so their reasonable suspicion may be different than the average citizens in the courts eye. What may be reasonable to him may not be reasonable to Joe Citizen and the court acknowledges that.
 
JVM225 said:
IMHO: Based on my experience with police involved shootings (While not a lawyer, I’ve had a fair amount of experience investigating and reviewing them from the union, supervisory and command perspectives here in NY.)
The Atlanta case is a legally justified shooting!
The second the guy turned his hand towards the pursuing officer with the taser (a weapon) in that hand and pointed it at the officer it became a justified shooting.
The police officer does not have to wait for him to fire that weapon (although the guy did), or even know for a fact that the weapon was capable of firing a projectile.
He just has to reasonably believe it.
Considering the violent scuffle and the forcible taking of the weapon from the other officer in the moments immediately before the shooting incident, it won’t be hard for him to make a case for reasonableness.
In any subsequent court procedures that might happen his lawyer can call a long list of police experts who can support the argument that the officer was reasonable in thinking that a weapon being pointed at him could cause him harm.
The use of the word Homicide by the Medical Examiner is a technical term, not a legal judgement by that Medical Examiner about culpability.
It’s a word they use when one person dies as a result of the actions of another.
The question then becomes a legal one of whether or not the actions were justified under the law.
Example: If a Police Officer and a bad guy who has just committed a crime were face to face and the bad guy fired a shot at the officer from an illegally possessed gun, missing him, and the officer returned fire hitting the guy center mass and killing him instantly it would still be classified Homicide by the Medical Examiner. The question would then become whether or not it was justified.
There would be an investigation, the case would be presented to a Grand Jury, they would be instructed by the prosecutor in the guidelines for the use of force, and then make a decision on whether to indict or not.
The assumption in the above hypothetical example by most reasonable people would be that there would be no indictment because of the clear cut and dry circumstances.
Unfortunately though, when politics, public emotion, media frenzy, etc. enter in to it, the outcome isn’t always reasonable.
An over zealous prosecutor can “indict a ham sandwich“ in a politically charged case like this if they want because they alone instruct the grand jury about the law and present the case without any rebuttal from the subject’s attorney. The subject’s attorney isn’t allowed to appear in front of the Grand Jury.
If indicted, the officer can opt for a Judge Trial if he wants. If he draws an activist Judge who convicts him, or opts for a jury who convicts him he can appeal it.
If he continues to draw activist Judges through the State appeals process he can go higher.
If the case goes all the way to the US Supreme Court who agrees to hear it they will likely make a decision consistent with two 1980’s cases (Tennessee V. Garner & Graham V. Conner).
It would boil down to the question of what the officer reasonably believed when he fired the shots, or what a reasonable police officer would be expected to believe in that situation, not what a politician, media talking head, upset member of a community, or other person with a moral difference of opinion would believe.
The result would be any conviction would be overturned.
Click to expand...

All true. Except you forgot the mob. The mob is now ruling things. Don't like a statue -- mob can tear it down. Don't like a store -- mob can burn in down (after looting of course). Don't like a dude's t-shirt -- the mob can get you fired. The mob wants these cops arrested without investigation, even in justified cases. The mob wants these cops convicted. I hate to see what the mob is going to do when some get acquitted.
 
Add to that the complete impossibility that he’ll get an impartial jury when this goes to trial.
And we all know that politics dictates indictments are handed down and this goes to trial.

The “law” will have little to do w anything unfortunately.
 
EC, I'd be very surprised if his attorney opted for a jury trial. As you said, it would be impossible to get an unbiased jury. Judges tend to stick with the facts. Not always, but probably more often than juries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,241
Messages
1,429,113
Members
61,122
Latest member
DddAae
Back
Top