JUSTICE FOR RAYSHARD BROOKS: ATTENTION: Georgia Bureau of Investigations DIRECTOR Vic Reynolds, DISTRICT ATTORNEY Paul Howard, CONGRESSSMAN, David Scott RE: Murder of Rayshard Brooks 

ATTENTION: Georgia Bureau of Investigations DIRECTOR Vic Reynolds, DISTRICT ATTORNEY Paul Howard, CONGRESSSMAN, David Scott RE: Murder of Rayshard Brooks 

I saw the video.  

I saw citizen Mr. Brooks resisting officers arresting him.  

I saw citizen Mr. Brooks wrestle the tazer from your officer. 

I saw citizen Mr. Brooks point the tazer at an armed officer that’s trained in combat by your city.  

But, before I talk about how shooting Mr. Brooks, this American citizen not one, not two but three times - twice in the back - was an excessive use of force, even though a drunk Mr. Brooks had a tazer in his hand, I’d like to go back to the beginning of this confrontation where we see Mr. Brooks, a citizen of the United States caught, not driving while intoxicated, not caught fighting anyone, not caught posing any harm to anyone else but caught responsibly sleeping the intoxication off in his car in a parking lot.  

I cannot stress the simplicity of the beginning of this scenario enough: American citizen Mr. Brooks was too drunk to drive home, so Mr. Brooks was safely sleeping his intoxication off in his car in a Wendy’s parking lot when he was approached by your officers, Devin Brosnan and Garrett Rolfe.  

Is it a crime to sleep in a car?  

Is it a crime to be drunk in a parked car?  

He was drunk in public. But, so what? Mr. Brooks was in a parked car. Asleep.  

So, why was he even being arrested?  

Did the officers assume that Mr. Brooks was too drunk to know his rights?  

Did your officers assume that since they were called – even though the 911 call should have never been made in the first place – that they needed to arrest Mr. Brooks in order to make showing up on the scene seem worth their time? 

Your officers handled this with a disregard for this man’s rights and his humanity  from the moment they showed up.  

Your officers didn’t have the right to even ask Mr. Brooks to get out of his car. Mr Rayshard Brooks was not suspected of any crime.  

Once your officers were able to assess the situation, doing their job of serving and protecting an innocent public citizen – in this case Mr. Brooks - should have led your officers to have prompted 27-year old Mr. Rayshard Brooks to call someone to come and pick him up. Protecting and serving a tax-paying citizen should have led your officers to prompt Mr. Brooks to call an Uber, they should have allowed Mr. Brooks to walk home, they should have offered this 27 year old young man a ride home or simply allowed him to continue to sleep it off in his car, they should have allowed him to not have a criminal record from an unwarranted arrest. Your officers’ job to serve and protect should have allowed Mr. Brooks to live to see another day.  

But, your officers decided to place him under arrest, for what?  

So, Mr. Brooks resisted an arrest that was unwarranted in the first place.  If your officers were already overstepping this young man’s rights, what would stop your officers from ‘accidently’ killing him for any reason? Put yourself in the mind of this unarmed black man whose only crime was being black. I mean, officers who don’t follow protocol are killing black men all over the country, right? So, Mr. Brooks decided to fight for his life.  

Mr. Brooks was under the influence, so officers should have expected that this young man’s reactions to his rights as a U.S. citizen being violated to be heightened, even unreasonable.  

Your officers’ reckless behavior in this situation resulted this young man’s life being cut short. Shooting him three times – twice in the back – for running and then pointing a tazer at your officer was excessive.  It would be excessive even if the pursuit was of an armed criminal. Which Mr. Brooks was not.  

The officer could have just maimed him. But, the officer chose to shoot to kill. And for that, this officer should be immediately arrested and prosecuted for murder. This officer is a professional trained to deal with these situations with discernment. Yet, this officer showed a reckless disregard for Mr. Brooks rights, his humanity and his life.  

Had your officers chosen to relate to Mr. Rayshard Brooks as a human being, they would have been able to see any male member of their own family in Rayshard’s eyes – their Dads, their uncles, their brothers. They would have been able to see themselves in this young man’s eyes. Had your officers chosen to deal with this situation as professionals, trained to uphold a standard of serving and protecting citizens, they would have scanned their minds for a instance in their own lives when they had drank too much and chose to sleep the intoxication off in a parked car – safe - rather than on the road putting others in danger.  

Mr. Rayshard Brooks and his family have suffered drastic consequences as a result of this situation. So, your officers should have to suffer drastic consequences because it is their recklessness and disregard for this young man’s rights and his humanity that escalated the situation to a tragic one.  They are both responsible for the death of this American citizen was named Rayshard Brooks.   

Why is Garrett Rolfe still employed as a police officer? He should be fired immediately for violating My Brooks’ rights and allowing this situation to escalate to the point of death. Both officers Devin Brosnan and Garrett Rolfe should be arrested and charged with murder.  They are responsible for this 27 year old mans death.  

D. Baucum 

Leave a comment

Add comment