“Sadly, it resulted in his death, but make no mistake, the use of force was controlled by one person, the individual who resisted arrest, stole the weapon, ran away and then pointed it at the officers, which is clear on the video.”
Mr Bongino also said:
“Obviously a man died. That’s tragic. Nobody wants to see that, whether it’s on the police side, on the community side, anywhere, we get that,” Bongino said in response. “Having said that, I always ask the question when it comes to law enforcement issues for the people who are sadly ignorant of them, many of whom haven’t lived in the shoes of a law enforcement officer themselves: ‘Well, what would you do?’”
I’m afraid Mr Bongino is feeding us a fairy tale, as there were other options that could easily have been taken that likely could have resulted in Mr Brooks still being alive and well.
Let’s look at the incident in steps. Step 1 was the interactions between the police officers and Mr Brooks before they attempted to arrest him. During the interactions all was calm and Mr Brooks was cooperative. He took a field sobriety test and a portable breath test (PBT). He stayed that way up to the moment officers went to place him in handcuffs. At that point everything went south. There were options other than arrest Mr Bongino, and unless NYPD tied officers hands in DUI stops, you know that it’s true.
Officer’s discretion could have been used to try and convince Mr Brooks to let them call a cab for him or an Uber to get him safely home. Mr Brooks asked officers if he could leave his car and walk to his nearby sister’s home. Now, while letting him walk isn’t a good choice in case Mr Brooks were to get injured on his walk, officers could have tried to get Mr Brooks to call someone to come and pick him up, or even to drive his car for him. Any of these options could have resulted in a good outcome, but are apparently overlooked by Mr Bongino.
Step 2 is the attempted arrest and shooting of Mr Brooks. Yes, he did start physically resisting arrest and ended up with all three on the ground, the officers attempting to gain control over Mr Brooks. As the video showed, during the fight, Mr Brooks took control of one officer’s taser, broke free and ran. He was allegedly tasered by Officer Rolfe, which was ineffective. Officer Rolfe gave chase and ended up firing three shots, two of which struck Mr Brooks in the back.
Mr Bongino states that Mr Brook stole an officer’s weapon, meaning the taser. What he doesn’t bother to state is that a taser is a less, or non, lethal weapon. The officers know the characteristics of what happens should one of them be hit by a taser. Granted Mr Brooks turned and fired the taser and then turned away continuing to flee when he was shot and killed. He was not a direct threat to the officers or anyone else at that point.
Again, in his remarks, Mr Bongino makes it seem as there were no other options at this point. Again, Mr Bongino isn’t being fully honest. The officers could have continued the chase while calling for more assistance to take Mr Brooks into custody. The officers could have called for a perimeter to be put into place and then search for Mr Brooks. They knew he was not armed with a firearm, nor is the taser a deadly weapon. They knew who he was since he was identified by the officers and Mr Brooks’ car was still in the parking lot.
Long and short, in this former officer’s opinion, from reviews of the video, there was no justification for the use of deadly force.
Mr Bongino, I realize your a conservative and a source for Fox News to call upon. But, an honest evaluation would have discussed the other options available.
Until next time