Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdNoMore
And Ted Williams, paid commentator by Fox, should be believed over all of those who see it differently...because?
As far as being "overcharged," we'll see...as that is also arguable.
I think that falls under the phrase..."throwing the book at them."
1. Brooks was shot in the back,TWICE, while running away and not being a deadly threat to the cop (not only is a taser not considered a "deadly" weapon, it was useless after being discharged twice).
2. Rolfe (the skinhead looking shooter cop) kicked Brooks...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.
3. The other cop (Brosnan), stood on Brooks shoulder...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.
4. Brosnan 'policing' the brass from the gun, before any attempt at rendering aid to Brooks...who was laying on the ground dying.
5. Rolfe crowing "I got him" after shooting Brooks (twice, in the back, as a reminder).
6. Brosnan is volunteering to be a state witness and step over that "thin blue line"...that has allowed all too many other LEO's in getting off.
Knowing all of these facts, I predict it won't even go to court...but a plea deal will be worked out.
Hopefully, if justice is served...Rolfe will serve a very long time in prison. 
I also predict, that there will be a concerted effort to obfuscate/divert/distract/insert "whataboutism"...into this issue/thread. 
But back to my question...has anyone (given the additional facts revealed today), changed from their original position?
If not...why not?
|
And the victim was aggressively fighting the cuffs when he is found way over the limit drunk, he punched one officer in face, he stole a stun gun and used it against those trying peacefully to cuff him. He was punching all the way till he ran off. When he turned with weapon pointing at police, he was shot, which is in police training and a split second decision. In that split second decision do police know if it is a stun gun or real one he had on him, police had not frisked him yet.