So he shot a fleeing suspect in the back, from 18 feet away", when the suspect had what the police officer knew to be an empty, fully discharged taser. Even if a taser was a lethal weapon it no longer was except in a Chinese Lolipop Man sort of way.
Except that none of the witness accounts and video neither demonstrated nor was credible to anything close to what you described.
That you would say that without pointing to any specific statement i made that is not supported by the snippet of fact you posted is the least surprising thing ever. Because you cannot. In fact, let us do this.
Brooks tried to break free and he and the officers scuffled on the ground. During the struggle Brosnan drew his taser, but Brooks wrested it from him and fired it [28]
That is one for the two shots in the taser.
Brosnan says the taser contacted him and he struck his head on the pavement, causing a concussion.[24] Brooks stood up and punched Rolfe, who drew his own taser and fired both cartridges at Brooks with no effect.[25] Brooks fled
"So he shot a fleeing suspect"
...through the parking lot with Brosnan s taser still in hand. While still running,
Still fleeing.
Brooks glanced back, half-turned,
Again, still fleeing.
and fired the second shot of Brosnan s taser capable of two shots before being reloaded[26]
The second shot meant the taser was unloaded. As I wrote, "when the suspect had what the police officer knew to be an empty, fully discharged taser. Even if a taser was a lethal weapon it no longer was except in a Chinese Lolipop Man sort of way." Now, the lolipop man bit is an In Bruges reference for Bart, but the point is, without a charge the taser is only a weapon in a blunt force trauma way.
at Rolfe but his aim was high.[19][27]
According to prosecutors, Brooks and Rolfe were 18 feet (5.5 m) apart[29][a]
"from 18 feet away" which means the taser could not even be used to strike Rolfe.
when Rolfe dropped his taser,
"what the police officer knew to be an empty, fully discharged taser." Rolfe knew it had only two shots. That is why he dropped his.
drew his handgun[19] and shot Brooks once in the midback and once in the buttocks;[30]
"So he shot a fleeing suspect in the back". You cannot shoot someone in the midback or butt except from behind, meaning Brooks was either still fleeing, or had stopped,.which would be worse for the cop. I chose the more favorable presumption.
prosecutors allege the third shot struck a nearby vehicle, narrowly missing its three occupants.[25][28]
I realize you will not admit it, but every single thing I wrote was factual supported by the very quote you posted.
Ergo, charges dropped.
Indeed they were. And that is the problem. Prosecutors do not pursue use of force charges against police, leaving them unaccountable.
