Context Matters in Use of Force Encounters: An Analysis of the Rayshard Brooks Shooting

Unlike the actions of the officer who killed George Floyd, the officer’s actions in this case were objectively reasonable and justified under the Fourth Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.

For those who are willing to take the time to watch, below is the full 43-minute body cam video of the events leading up to and including the shooting of Rayshard Brooks. I’ve also included several additional videos with different camera angles and perspectives. I share these videos because many people have claimed that the shooting was unjustified, including Fulton County District Attorney Paul L. Howard, who announced yesterday that Officer Garrett Rolfe is being charged with felony murder (among other charges). While the killing of George Floyd three weeks ago was rightly condemned by police officers and law enforcement agencies across the nation, the tragic death of Rayshard Brooks has been treated by many as a similar case when the facts of this case are VASTLY different. Unlike the actions of the officer who killed George Floyd, the officer’s actions in this case were objectively reasonable and justified under the Fourth Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. I encourage everyone to watch the videos for themselves, but here are a few brief thoughts that I hope provide some clarification:

First, we must recognize that any time another human being is killed, that person’s death should be mourned as an individual who is made in the image of God. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding one’s death, we should all recognize that death is an enemy, an interruption into God’s design for humans to live forever (see 1 Corinthians 15). It is therefore right to grieve with Rayshard Brooks’ family and friends, and we should pray for their comfort and peace.

Second, the full video makes clear that neither of the officers went in to this encounter seeking any sort of violent outcome; to the contrary, both of the officers acted admirably and did everything a reasonable officer could do to calmly and professionally maintain control of the situation and to respond appropriately to the 911 call they received. Moreover, the officers treated Brooks with dignity and respect during the entire encounter even when it was clear that Brooks was lying and/or intoxicated.

Third, as to the justification for the shooting, the video makes clear that Brooks resisted a lawful arrest, fought with the officers, gained control of one of the officer’s tasers, and ran away. None of these factors alone provides immediate justification for the use of deadly force. However, as Brooks is running away from the officers, he turns and fires the taser at Officer Rolfe (watch beginning at the 18-second mark in the Wendy’s surveillance video below or the 3:55 mark of the final compilation video). While a taser is considered a “less lethal” weapon, the firing of this taser nevertheless posed an imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm to the officer (this is the level of threat required for an officer to justifiably use deadly force). The reason the firing of the taser posed an immediate risk of death or serious bodily harm is because if the officer is incapacitated by the taser, the officer would no longer be able to retain control of his firearm and would be unable to defend himself from any other actions taken by the suspect. In light of the totality of the circumstances, any reasonable officer would conclude that a genuine threat of this nature existed.

I can understand why many who have not been through law enforcement training may believe that other options were available to Officer Rolfe or that the facts otherwise show the shooting to be unjustified. Here are a few of these critiques along with what I hope are helpful explanations:

(1) I have heard people say that the officers should have continued to pursue Brooks and only used other less lethal means to apprehend him. While in an ideal world perhaps this would be a possibility, in the real world this is impractical and dangerous. Unless someone has been tased or has watched or participated in taser training, it is honestly impossible to understand just how incapacitating a taser can be. As the Sheriff in another link I’ve posted below explains, a taser normally incapacitates an individual for 5 seconds per burst (this is a LOT longer than it sounds, especially when you count the seconds in the video to see how quickly everything unfolds). In light of these circumstances, the threat posed by the firing of the taser in this case satisfies the Fourth Amendment requirement that the officer or someone else be facing an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) I have also heard others say that Officer Rolfe should have known that once Brooks fired the taser and missed, it would be highly unlikely for Brooks to be able to reload the taser. Perhaps this is true, but this was a double shot taser, which means the taser could be fired more than once without reloading. Moreover, the time that elapses between Brooks firing the taser at Officer Rolfe and Officer Rolfe discharging his firearm is at most 2 seconds. Any reasonable officer would immediately react to a taser being pointed at them (not to mention fired at them) by drawing their firearm and then discharging their firearm if the officer still perceived a threat. In light of the totality of the circumstances (resisting arrest, fighting the officers, taking the officer’s taser, running away, and then firing the taser), Officer Rolfe’s actions were objectively reasonable, which is the standard by which officers are judged under the Fourth Amendment. NOTE: For an officer’s actions to be objectively reasonable, the officer is judged by what a reasonable officer in the same or similar circumstances would have done. Significantly, the Supreme Court has held that “[t]he ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight” (Graham v Connor, 490 U.S. at 396).

(3) Finally, much has been made about the fact that Brooks was shot in the back while he was running away. To be clear, had Brooks simply been running away, he would not have posed an immediate risk of death or serious bodily harm to the officer, and the shooting would not have been justified (as was the case with Walter Scott who was wrongly shot and killed, as he posed no immediate threat to the officer). However, in the present case Brooks was firing the taser as he ran away, which meant that he posed an imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm to the officer WHILE he was running away. Brooks turned part of his body toward the officer in order to fire the taser, but part of his body was continually turned away from the officer. In light of these circumstances, shooting Brooks as he was running away was objectively reasonable. Media reports that simply claim that Brooks was “shot in the back” or was “shot while he was running away” are misleading, especially if they fail to provide the relevant context (i.e., that Brooks fired as he was running away).

I hope these clarifications are helpful. As I posted yesterday, truth is a prerequisite for justice. It is because I desire for justice to be done in every case that I want to help others see what is true. My hope is that working through the facts and getting to the truth will enable us to make informed and just decisions. And when it comes to pursuing both truth and justice, sometimes that will mean that the officer is rightly charged (e.g., the cases of Walter Scott and George Floyd). However, in other cases (honestly the vast majority of cases) the officer’s actions are shown to be justified when all the facts become known. I believe that this is one of those cases.

I would be happy to answer any questions I can based on my own law enforcement training as well as the many cases and videos I have reviewed over the past 10 years or so. Below are the videos (again, they are worth watching so you have a full picture of both the incident itself as well as the officers’ demeanor during the entire encounter). Thanks to everyone who took the time to read these thoughts.

Here is the link to the full 43-minute body cam that provides context for the encounter (Officer Devin Bronsan’s camera):

Here’s the Wendy’s surveillance footage:

Here’s the vantage point from Officer Rolfe (shorter video):

Here’s a compilation video that provides abbreviated footage from the other videos but that also includes the view from the dash cam showing Brooks resisting arrest and taking the officer’s taser (begin at the 3:15 mark for the dash cam of Brooks resisting and taking the officer’s taser; 3:55 mark for immediately before the shooting):

Finally, here’s the interview with Sheriff Alfonzo Williams (Burke County, Georgia):