Most likely will never make it to a jury-- more likely a plea deal.
The wrinkle isn’t that a stray bullet hit an innocent bystander vehicle.
The wrinkle is that the stray bullet now constitutes felony aggravated assault on the occupant because the round was fired during what is now classified as an aggravated assault on Mr. Brooks resulting in felony murder.
This is reprehensible, no question at all.
Agreed. I haven’t seen the video of the kick, or the officer standing on Mr. Brooks. I really don’t understand why someone would stand on a gunshot victim.
Functionally, it’s a death sentence for Mr. Brooks either way. My bet is that he and his counsel roll the dice…
It won’t go to trial because they can’t get a conviction. No matter how disgusting the post-shooting conduct by the officer was, that doesn’t change the elements needed to convict on the charges related to the use of deadly force. Under the law the officer was justified. It is all sad and unfortunate.
Here are the list of charges by defendant:
Mr. Rolfe:
- Felony murder of Mr. Brooks( death as a result of an underlying felony)
- Aggravated assault of Mr. Brooks with a deadly weapon
- Aggravated assault of Mr. Brooks by kicking him with a shod foot
- Aggravated assault of bystander #1 in the car that was hit by the stray bullet
- Aggravated assault of bystander #2 in the car that was hit by the stray bullet
- Aggravated assault of bystander #3 in the car that was hit by the stray bullet
- Criminal damage in the first degree for the stray bullet that hit the car
- Violation of oath of office by a public officer
- Violation of oath of office by a public officer
- Violation of oath of office by a public officer
- Violation of oath of office by a public officer
The four violations of oath are for violating department policies by b**using a taser on Mr. Brooks as he ran away, b**failure to render timely medical aid to Mr. Brooks, b**shooting Mr. Brooks twice in the back and b**failing to inform Mr. Brooks that he was under arrest for DUI.
Officer Brosnan:
- Aggravated assault of Mr. Brooks by standing or stepping on his shoulder
- Violation of oath of office by a public officer
- Violation of oath of office by a public officer
The two violations of oath are for violating department policies by b**employing an unauthorized weaponless control technique which the city of Atlanta prohibits, by standing on Mr. Brooks, and b**failure to render timely medical aid to Mr. Brooks.
If you have Sirius radio I would recommend you listen to the first 25 minutes of the second hour of the Michael Smerconish program on the POTUS channel #124. You can listen on demand beginning tonight. It had a detailed analysis of the case by a criminal defense attorney.
Aren’t there cases where the cop fires wildly at a fleeing suspect, kills a bystander, and the suspect is charged for the murder?
@sorghum - yes. The case from about a year ago where a fleeing suspect ran into Trader Joe’s and the police fired at him, during a typically busy afternoon at the store, and hit a woman who was killed. The suspect was charged with murder. This was in California.
There was another case where police were chasing a hijacked UPS van. They opened fire on the van, on a busy highway, and the hijacked UPS driver was killed. That was in Florida a few months ago. Not sure who was charged there. It is possible that other vehicles were hit with gunfire too, but I’m not sure.
I am not a lawyer.
If Mr. Rolfe’s defense counsel can prove that discharging his duty weapon was justified would that negate charge #2 above, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon?
If charge #2 is negated, does that nullify the felony murder charge?
If charge #2 is negated, does that nullify charges #4, #5, #6 and #7 that pertain to the stray bullet hitting the bystander’s car?
Do the four violation of oath charges exist outside the purview of the qualifying felony charges? By that I mean, despite a decision of guilt or innocence on the felony charges, do the violation of oath charges have their own standing, and can Mr. Rolfe reasonably expect to be charged for these?
As expected, Atlanta police calling in sick and not responding to 911 calls. The new normal.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/21/us/trader-joes-los-angeles/index.html and other articles indicate that the suspect was shooting at the police. Doesn’t necessarily mean that police shooting back when the suspect was in a crowded area was the best decision, though… https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/31/trader-joes-shootout-police-melyda-corado-lapd
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ups-hijacking-gun-battle-florida-killed-two-nearly-200-shots-n1104961 describes this incident.
However, both of the above incidents involved suspects who would be considered highly dangerous, presumably allowing for a more aggressive police response in chasing and shooting in department policy guidelines.
Support for an officer who kicked a dying suspect.
Nice.
Perhaps if we want to get rid of the bad apples in the police force they should fire all of the officers who demonstrate support for these bad apples?
@GKUnion All of the charges regarding how the officers treated Mr. brooks after he was shot will likely stand on their own, even if the shooting is ruled as justified, since they are in regards to their behavior after Mr Brooks was clearly not a threat and was in need of aid. If there is a charge regard the fact that they didn’t notify Mr. Brooks that he was under arrest, that will also likely stand on its own.
The aggravated battery charge for kicking Mr. Brooks carries a 1-20 year sentence.
The 4 violation of oath charges are felonies that carry penalties of 1-5 years each.
He’s going to jail no matter what, but the fallout from anything short of a full murder conviction could be catastrophic.
The DA may have done Atlanta a disservice by overreaching with the charge of felony murder, completely neglecting to manage expectations of an understandably outraged community.
A question for the lawyers out there. Can the defense attorney bring up the fact that the DA is being investigated by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation?
Given this and the DA being behind of terms of re-election, it certainly gives the appearance of a high risk strategy to win back the voters. It’s a dangerous game though, with either Rolfe or Atlanta paying the price depending upon the outcome.
This seems to me to be a case where firing, plus charges for failure to render aid, would be more appropriate than a murder charge.
That isn’t entirely a moral assessment - its also a pragmatic one. We can’t have police officers, who need to make split-second decisions in often dangerous circumstances, afraid to fire their guns lest they make the wrong call and wind up in jail. In this case, from everything I’ve read, I think this was more than a cop either panicking or misjudging a situation; this was someone who I suspect had no love for criminals, to the point of being careless with their lives. Even so, this isn’t a George Floyd case, either. You did have a drunk person who had assaulted police running around with a dangerous, if typically not deadly, weapon.
On the other hand, an officer who shows such poor judgment shouldn’t be an officer any longer. If you’re going to have some form of qualified immunity, the flipside has to be that you rigorously investigate and punish bad policing internally. If a police officer kills someone unjustifiably, but in the commission of his duties and facing what a reasonable person could consider to be a legitimate threat, the answer is that this person shouldn’t be a police officer any longer. The situation was created because of his job, and if he doesn’t have that job, he ceases to be a public threat.
The difference between this and the George Floyd case is that Rolfe’s is a case of disproportionate response, not unprovoked aggression or violence absolutely unnecessary to performing the function of his job. And while the failure to render aid, plus previous history of complaints, leads me to suspect Rolfe himself doesn’t deserve much sympathy, I don’t want to set a precedent of scared cops who overreact winding up in prison. Overreacting, in these specific cases, proves you are bad at your job, not that you are a criminal who should be deprived of his freedom. And again, apart from the moral issue - in practical terms, people are not going to be willing to become police officers if you totally do away with the concept of qualified immunity, and rightly so.
Has anyone seen any video of the alleged kicking or standing on the victim? If there was an cell phone video it would have surfaced by now.
This video clearly shows him rendering aid and in fact running from his patrol car with his medical kit. Definitely less than the time claimed by the DA of not rendering aid. Not to mention his car was not right next to victim.
Shots fired - 0:32
Starts Back to Patrol Car: - 0:49
Starts Back to Victim after putting on gloves/calling ambulance/getting medical bag - 1:47
Arrives Back at Victim - 1:54
In most advanced countries police are very afraid to use their weapons, and come under exacting scrutiny if they ever do. Yet police are recruited and they are not killed in large numbers.
Even in the US, only 27% of police officers surveyed in 2016 ever fired their guns on duty outside of training or practice (note: does not necessarily mean that they actually hit someone):
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/08/a-closer-look-at-police-officers-who-have-fired-their-weapon-on-duty/
The fact that the DA is being investigated is all over the local news. Might add another challenge, should they even consider taking this case to trial, to what venue they would need to change to. For many reasons it would be difficult, to say the least, to try it in Fulton County.