NE_Pilot

Yes, Officer Rolfe already discharged his Taser twice. Brooks disarmed and took Officer Brosnan's Taser. That is the Taser he pointed at Officer Rolfe.

It is interesting to note that the DA stated that Officer Brosnan had agreed to testify against Rolfe, Brosnan's attorney disputes this claim. Also of note the the DA claimed to have worked with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) to reach the decision to charge, however the GBI has publicly stated that they have not concluded their investigation and were surprised by the announcement of the DA to press charges and that they were not consulted on the charges by the DA.

This DA, in a previous case involving police use of a taser, is charging the officers with aggravated assault. Aggravated assault in Georgia is "assault with a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury."
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atl...HA723UGEKQS54/

The DA is also currently in a runoff election. He is also under investigation for funneling $140,000 of money from the city of Atlanta through his non-profit to pay himself.
https://www.ajc.com/news/local/gbi-o...HbCfGNJcxMJ6O/

rickair7777

Yes, it's entirely possible.

There is plenty of legal precedent and inertia that makes it hard to convict cops in heat-of-the-moment actions. Plus all of the usual legal technicalities and loopholes of which perps are so enamored.

But looks like the cop in MSP had an existing personal relationship, and not a good one, with Floyd. That provides a reasonable motive for assault/murder other than "got carried away in the heat of battle". Chauvin might be in more jeopardy.

Personally I think it will be tough to convict the guys in ATL of anything serious, situation was too dynamic. Defense will probably want the trial moved to the Aleutian islands or something, hard to get a fair trial in ATL. Etc, etc.

Excargodog

Yeah, I actually think the Acquittal of three of the officers is virtually a slam-dunk. When Chauvin was initially charged it was for third degree murder. The main reason to up the charge to second degree murder - a very questionable call, is that without that change none of the other three officers could be charged with being accomplices, since third degree murder indicates no intent, merely a ‘depraved’ lack of concern for human life, whereas any accomplice charge requires the main perp to INTEND a crime and the accomplices to cooperate with that intent.

While upping the charge and charging the other three may have made the politicians happy, it’s going to make the prosecution very difficult, and the political advantage that was obtained by charging the other three cops - two of them rookies with only about a week on the job - as accessories to murder threatens to backfire badly politically when they are acquitted. And people also tend to forget that the default is innocent. If even one of the 12 jurors is not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin, rather than the toxic levels of Meth, fentanyl, and carfentanyl, and significant vascular disease, killed Floyd, then it’s a hung jury.
That will raise tempers all by itself, even if there is a retrial.

And speaking of change of venue, every politician in MSP has poisoned the well on this one. They’ll probably have to go to a different county, perhaps even a far more conservative one than Hennepin (and almost all are more conservative than Hennepin). That won’t sit well with the BLM movement either.

Nor does it help that the Attorney General, who is now at least nominally in charge of the prosecution, only practiced law for three years before becoming a politician and political hack For the next 27 years, and none of those three years was as a prosecutor.

contrails12

“Atlanta police rules do not allow an officer to fire even a Taser, let alone a firearm, at someone running away, Howard added.”

from the Reuter's article

rickair7777

Fine but important distinction between...

1. Running away.

2. Running away while turning and firing a lethal-ish weapon at a cop.

I think most cops today all got the memo that they can't shoot a non-violent perp in the back when he's just plain running away. Now the DA (for apparent political purposes) is going to split hairs about "less-lethal" weapon policy and "what's right". Good luck with conviction on that, and I mean that sarcastically.

NE_Pilot

Howard has told numerous lies already, this is just another one. It’s looking more like Howard is trying to setup the new DA to fail, since they will be saddled with this case after Howard loses his re-election, or possibly a last ditch effort to pander for votes. Either way, it does distract the media from the investigation into his possible corruption.

ItnStln

What was the DA smoking? Asking for a friend.

ItnStln

Thanks, I signed it.