Anybody else think that "got him!" indicates they would have shot Mr. Brooks even without that tazer

Makes you wonder how these murderous cops were trained in the use of weapons. Also, it might be interesting to learn if these same murderous cops are video game players.

They had his ID and car yet still decided deadly force was necessary to keep him from running away? That's just dumb, unnecessary and bad training-or overt racism.

that Cop's Warrior Training Sessions.

Conversation I had with a Suburban Police Chief and his Deputy Chief about the down stream effects of this particular Training. This Chief refused to allow anything even closely related too,anything Warrior Related. They both empathized that their Hiring and Training was all about Community Service and Community Protection.

This Chief and Deputy Chief forecast what happened in MPLS. Several of weeded out Officers from this Suburban as well as a couple other Western Burb Departments were hired by Mpls PD .

them, wrestle the taser from the cop's hand as he was trying to use it on Brooks during the struggle, and was able to get away from them with the taser in his hand. At that point it became a matter of pride, it was personal, they had to "get him."

One other thing Rolfe told a supervisor after the shooting during a videotaped conversation is very troubling: “As I pursued him, he turned and started firing the Taser at me," adding ”He definitely did shoot it at me at least once." In another report, a police spokesperson stated Rolfe was justified in shooting Brooks because the suspect fired the taser as he was running away, thereby creating an imminent and deadly threat to both officers as he was running away.

Police tasers can only be fired one time, at one target. They have to be reloaded after being fired. If Rolfe was certain Brooks fired the taser "at least once," he must have known the device could not be used against either officer again. If Rolfe knew the taser had been fired "at least once" why did he have to shoot Brooks in the back?

Available to police. Three shot is the most I am aware of.

This guide states police tasers can be activated several times, to produce more than one shock on a single suspect, but firing the pins/electrodes that attach to a suspect and cause the shock can only be done once.

https://www.stun-gun-defense-products.com/buy-stun-gun/TASER-Frequently-Asked-Questions.html

Do you know if the APD uses the new taser that can be fired up to three times? I haven't seen anything about the type of taser that was involved in the APD incident.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1202736/The-Taser-gun-capable-shocking-people-reloaded.html

That can give multiple shocks. There are also some models that have two or three cartridges so can shoot multiple times.

Tasers are not something I have hands on experience with so I do not know if the second/third shot only requires a trigger pull or if any other operation must be performed.

As to what model APD uses, I have no idea. It merely means the statement that the taser was fired at least once might be correct.

I was looking at several taser models available for police use, from several different manufacturers. It's amazing how these "non-lethal" devices are being marketed to security and police agencies.

The new multiple dart models can fire several projectiles at different targets without reloading, or replacing compressed air cartridges. Some high-end models are even wireless, they don't require the thin wires connecting the gun to the darts to produce shock. The ranges are even increasing; some advertise an effective wireless distance of about 35 feet.

The multi-dart models are large and expensive, though. The one Brooks took from the officer looked pretty small in his hand.

Is absurd.

Might have been imminent and deadly if he WASN'T running away.

The skin we walk around in is seen by too many people as a deadly weapon.

I saw footage of that officer soon after the fact saying that he thought he was tased in the leg... um, wouldn’t he have had some lingering effect? He was starting to construct his justification, is what that was.

The narrator said Rolfe had another taser out. He then discarded it and took out his firearm.

So would it have been drunk guy with taser versus cop with taser? Which would have been non-lethal

All of the cops will receive written reprimands for poor judgement and handling of the situation. The officer who had the Taser stolen from him will probably get suspended (with pay) for a few days. The officer that shot Mr. Brooks will get a couple weeks suspended (with pay). And no charges filed. Too many outs for the cops: 1) resisting arrest (no matter how absurd it may be) 2) stealing a police weapon 3) firing the weapon at the police (assault)

The biggest issue against the cops defense is that they had his car and ID. There wasn't even a need to chase him, just wait for him at his house.

he managed to escape their control and made them look bad. No way their toxic strongman egos would allow him to escape. They had to take him down to save face.

Fuckers is right.

Sid

They were working on a hair trigger.

in the bodycam video. It seemed that they were careful and measured with him until he decided to resist arrest. I have to ask, why did he do that? It always ends badly.

...opening fire on a person with a non-lethal weapon as they ran away suggests a hair trigger, to me.

Brooks' split second decision to go from cooperative to bolt from being arrested must have seemed pretty hair-trigger to the cops who had spent twenty minutes talking politely with him. In their training and experience, they have to react just as quickly as the situation changes on a dime.

Brooks had the taser, the cops had to give chase. What would the liability of the police department be if he used it on someone else, after they had let it slip out of their possession?

... around him and the cops could've let him run especially after he shot the taser.

There's no excuse for the escalation by the PD, hell ... even arresting him is stretch

Garrett Rolfe's attorney has a much easier job ahead of him than Derek Chauvin's attorney does.

... any are going to believe brooks was a threat with a taser and since Rolfe patted him down already they knew he didn't have a gun so that isn't going to pass.

People who give cop the BOTD will accept anything from Rolfe including he thought his life was in danger from a taser ... there are ..> WAY < fewer of these people these days.

will find those people if they exist at all, it's his/her job to do so. The first step will be to have any trial conducted in a suburban county, and not Fulton County. A judge just might go for that, to try to minimize potential violence outside of an Atlanta courthouse if the jury comes back with either a not guilty verdict, or a guilty verdict on a greatly lessened charge.

Just look around here ...

about the video that showed the scuffle, the chase, and the shooting? Or is it one from before the handcuffs came out?

...