meanwhile. In Georgia

JUST IN:  Statement from former APD Officer, Garrett Rolfe's, new criminal defense team:

"I’ve been prosecuting or defending Georgians in the criminal justice system for 25 years. But never in my career have I seen a District Attorney act so unethically without regard for his professional obligations in pursuit of reelection. Twice in the past few weeks Paul Howard has put his own ambitions ahead of the good of his constituents as he seeks to capitalize on a series of national tragedies. Under Georgia’s Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8, Paul Howard is prohibited from making “extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.” In fact, he is only permitted to inform the “pubic of the nature and extent” of his actions “that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose.” He has violated that rule today and also made blatant false statements.  He has also acted rashly, before the official investigation has been completed by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI). Had Paul Howard waited for the GBI to complete its investigation he would have learned that while Rayshard Brooks’ death was tragic, Officer Garrett Rolfe’s actions were justified under Georgia law and that there is no legal basis to charge him with 11 felonies.  On June 12, 2020, Officer Brosnan responded to a call that a person was passed out in a car at a Wendy’s. Suspecting that the driver, Rayshard Brooks, was drunk, Officer Brosnan requested the assistance of an officer with specialized training in conducting DUI investigations: Officer Rolfe. The DUI investigation that followed was routine, and at the end of it, Officer Rolfe determined that he had probable cause arrest Mr. Brooks. No one is disputing that probable cause existed for Mr. Brooks’ arrest. And there is no argument that Officer Rolfe was anything other than courteous to Mr. Brooks over the course of their encounter. There is also no dispute that, up until the moment of his arrest, Mr. Brooks, too, was polite and cooperative.  Suddenly, something changed. Mr. Brooks began to struggle with, and attack, both Officer Brosnan and Officer Rolfe. Under Georgia law, Mr. Brooks’ forceful resistance to arrest, and his attack on the officers, constituted felony obstruction. All Georgia citizens, including police officers, are entitled to use force to defend themselves from forcible felonies.  Over the course of the encounter, Officers Brosnan and Rolfe attempted to use the least amount of force necessary to end the encounter and ensure their safety, while Mr. Brooks continued to escalate, until he at last he punched Officer Rolfe in the face, a second felony.  Then, Mr. Brooks took Officer Brosnan’s TASER, a third felony. A TASER is an offensive weapon under Georgia law and has been declared to be a deadly weapon by Paul Howard; in fact, one of his investigators swore that a TASER is a deadly weapon before the Honorable Belinda Edwards on June 2, 2020.  

 

 

 

- 2 - 

 

One video shows Mr. Brooks pointing the TASER at Officer Brosnan’s head, and Officer Brosnan’s lawyer stated that Mr. Brooks shot Officer Brosnan with the TASER, a fourth felony. At that point, Officer Rolfe deployed his TASER, but it had no effect. Mr. Brooks began running through the parking lot armed with Officer Brosnan’s TASER. But he wanted to deter pursuit. So instead of continuing to run, he paused, reached back, pointed, and fired what we now know was Officer Brosnan’s TASER at Officer Rolfe; this was an additional aggravated assault, a fifth felony. Officer Rolfe heard a sound like a gunshot and saw a flash in front of him, and so he did what any officer in that situation would do: he dropped his TASER, pulled his gun, and fired it at Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks fell to the ground, Officer Rolfe gathered himself, and then he immediately called for EMS and began life-saving measures.  That Officer Rolfe was justified is clear under Georgia law. A police officer may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. When Mr. Brooks chose to attack two officers, to disarm one of them, and to point and fire a deadly weapon at Officer Rolfe, he took their lives, and his own, into his hands. He took the risk that their justified response might be a deadly one.  Nobody is here to applaud the death of Mr. Brooks. He was a father, he was a member of his community, and his death was a tragedy. But not every tragedy is a crime. Time and again in this country, we have used tragic deaths to push for new and harsher prosecutions and for less empathy for the accused. But following every sad event with yet another prosecution isn’t an end to this cycle— it is simply another aspect of its continuation.  Although we can all understand the grief of Mr. Brooks’ family, Officer Rolfe’s actions were justified by the law. But Paul Howard’s choice to charge him is justified only by his hopes to improve his performance against Fani Willis in the upcoming runoff election.   I will be joined by Bill Thomas of the W.H. Thomas Firm in defending Garrett Rolfe in reference to the criminal charges and we will announce the rest of our team at a later date."

 

      Noah H. Pines       Ross & Pines, LLC

Please visit here to donate: GeorgiaLEO.org/supporters