Atlanta Cop Garrett Rolfe Who Shot Rayshard Brooks Could Face Murder Charge

>>Follow Matzav On Whatsapp!<<

The Atlanta cop who shot and killed Rayshard Brooks could face a felony murder charge, Fulton County’s top prosecutors said Sunday.

Fulton District Attorney Paul Howard said his office will decide this week if Garrett Rolfe, who was fired following Friday’s fatal shooting, will be charged in the case — and said that could mean a murder charge, he told CNN.

“(Brooks) did not seem to present any kind of threat to anyone, and so the fact that it would escalate to his death just seems unreasonable,” Howard told the network. “If that shot was fired for some reason other than to save that officer’s life or prevent injury to him or others, then that shooting is not justified under the law.”

Read more at NY POST.



  1. at first i was like “he pointed a taser at him, of course the cop should repond”!
    Then i saw the video. and i was left asking “why, just why”….

    • Why what? Took me awhile but I found the video on youtube and it looks to me that the fleeing suspect stretched his arm out behind him and shot at the pursuing officers.

      • your right. its definitely correct what your sayin(though to clarify, it was a taser, not a gun, so i dont think ‘shot’ is correct)
        but then, think about it. The man was sleeping in a parking lot. not hurting anybody.
        Yes apparently he broke the law, but then, again, if you watched the video, you see these guys asking him questions and what, then suddenly “put your hands behind your back”. I mean really? c’mon. give him a citation tel him not to drive. but to suddenly escalate a situation from misdemeanor to taking him in? i was like c’mon, then he fights, then he runs. At that point they had a decision, chase him down, call for backup, and do this responsibly, or shoot. Why did they escalate it to this point? its one thing if he was hurting others, but he wasnt! So lets say you have to arrest him, why make the decision to shoot, and not trail from a distance while waiting for reinforcements?
        Is every man who for some stupidity liable to be arrested , now ok to shoot if he resists? I just dont see it?

          • i dont think pulling into a store parking lot to sleep qualifies as a good reason to arrest anybody. I have done so myself when driving at night.
            You conflate his puling over to sleep with falling asleep at the wheel, but that isnt the case is it?

  2. “(Brooks) did not seem to present any kind of threat to anyone”

    Not sure what the DA is talking about. He was shooting the taser at the officer.

    • sigh, reading comprehension my friend. He was not a threat to anyone so why arrest him.
      yes at the point where he pointed a taser at someone that WAS a threat, but if the cop would fall back he wouldnt be a threat. cop escalated a situation needlessly, and put himself in a position where he felt shooting was justified, all WAAAAY out of line. thats why he should be penalized.
      Look at the torah, when we talk about a criminal who is “ain lo damim” because of his ingerent threat, still if one is “yachol lehatzil b’echad m’eivarav” and instead kills him, he is a murderer. In this case, the black man was a nirdaf, as he WAS FLEEING THE POLICE, all the cop had to do was be responsible and call for backup, instead he escalated the situation to the point that he felt he can shoot. I dont know about you, but i dont think cops have that right.

  3. This is rediculius. What the officer did was justified!. Grab a cops taser & use it on him your going to get shot end of story. This is pathetic!. Why would any cop be ok with their position to work under such conditions?. I have never been a cop lover had my own negative run ins at traffic stops….but Please enlighten me….

    • yes, if woud have grabbed the cops taser and used it on him, then the cop would be justified. But if he was not “using it on him”, rather just fleeing the cop pursuing him, it becomes a lot less justified.
      Now, if there was a need to arrest him, then the cop would be justified in pursuing him in this case as well, but they arrested him over stupidity, at that point the situation escalated, it was the cops choice how to respond. engage in a manner that can lead to his death? or call for reinforcements and do it with brains. As a cop, you arent excused when you make ‘mistakes’ like this

  4. In my humble, non legal opinion, this cop, Fulton Rolfe, should be be indited on a murder charge. Of course, Mr. Brooks was not “a Tsadik”; but, running from the police with the officer’s Taser, a non lethal weapon in his hand, did not justify in him being shot dead, in the back. True, resisting arrest is a crime (correct me if I am wrong); but, willfully killing the alleged suspect, is definitely wrong. Especially, when the fleeing subject, posed no deadly harm to the police officer.
    As I wrote in a previous post, when Mr. George Floyd was killed while police custody, the average cop ‘out there’, is a minimally educated, non critical thinking individual, authorized to carry a lethal weapon.

    • tasers can be lethal and the cop has to know that he has taser and not real gun??? guy just resisted arrest and is now pointing a gun at him!! what must occur to justify shooting? world is going insane!!

      • uhh dude, you missed the story, its really not cool to condemn someone to death without knowing the story. you can watch the video, they knew he didnt have a gun

    • Why don’t you invite some of these black choir boys to your home for dinner, with their masks of course? For such an open-minded priviliged white, as yourself, you have to do more than just kneel in front of these alter boys to apologize for your guilt. You must invite them. Why do you hide in your all WHITE neighborhood?

      • your an idiot.
        Same way race should not be a factor in floyds death, unless it is proven that it was due to it, so to here it shouldnt be a factor. Its a matter of did the cop d the right thing, not about who feels oppressed.
        no one here mentioned race but you

  5. This country has gone insane. Since when is a drunk driver who resists arrest, grabs a weapon from an officer, runs a bit away, and points the incapacitating weapon at the officer not a threat?

    This is an open and shut non case. If the guy would’ve been white nobody ever would have heard of it. Because the criminal was black, the officer who neutralized the menace was fired, is facing charges, the chief of police resigned, and a restaurant was burnt down by a bunch of compatriot thugs of the neutralized criminal, while liberal American political establishment cheers.

    One of these days, Al Qaeda will be suing the families of the heroes that crashed the plane in Pennsylvania and killed the terrorists to prevent the attack on 9/11. I’m sure a “woke” jury will side with them, and a judge will give them a nice settlement.

    Welcome to USA 2020. Welcome to dystopia. Welcome to hell. George Orwell wishes you a pleasant stay.

    • did you see the video?
      I dont think he was a threat. A threat doesnt mean any person with potential to cause harm, think of who you’d have to round up if that were the case. Threat means someone “LOOKING” or in the mode of doing harm. This man did not fit that bill. I’ve seen police brutality. Havent you? this is not a condemnation of police.
      Just the fact is that when one is in power one has to be careful not to abuse it.
      The fact that a man was sleeping in a parking lot leads to his arrest for drunk driving, which is waaaaay over the top, and should end with him shot as he is fleeing, is no open and shut case my friend.

  6. The police “out there”!!
    Linda Tirado, a photo journalist for CNN, while covering the protests in Minneapolis following the murder of Mr. George Floyd, lost the sight of her left eye, when a “very bright cop” aimed a foam bullet right at her, ‘point blank’.
    If I remember correctly, the First Amendment to the Constitution give full right to the Press to cover public events; of All kinds, with out exception!

    • Too bad. The dumb female didn’t belong there. She was attempting to incite violence and she got what she deserved.

  7. I’m sorry, you guys are fools. HE TASERED A COP!!!!! Watch the video! The next step, if R”L he had been successful in compromising the police officer, was to obtain the officers’ weapon. The cop should be lauded for his bravery and given a promotion! The fact that readers to this frum, torahdiga website have drank the Liberal, left-minded, pro sub-culture, anti-Torah values kool-aid is shocking, upsetting, and a stark reminder of how deeply entrenched in galus we are. Yes, perhaps the officer could’ve aimed better and the shots could’ve disabled him, but it was the spur of the moment, and from the end of the video it is absolutely clear that he had no intention to kill.

    • The cop had a decision as he pursued. He could have trailed and called for backup, or…. done this. His choice was reckless.
      Had he actually been doing something that ACTUALLY WARRANTED arrest, that would be one thing. But this cop was messing with him, just because its “the law”. Think about that for a second.
      They blew a simple case into a big one for stupidity, and then continued down the rout of escalation, culminating in that man being shot “WHILE FLEEING”. The cop cooked this soup himself, he should be held liable because he didnt take the responsible rout. And as a cop, that should be the only rout you have.

    • Also, i’ll just note that i am not “left minded anti-torah”. Just because i dont agree with your assessment doesnt mean i dont agree with the torah. How about this;
      The Torah says one can kill a ba b’machteres. however, if he is yachol l’hatzil b’echad m’eivarav, and instead he kills him, then he is a murderer. So now, do you think this cop was in a posiyion of aino yachol l’hatzil b’echad m’eivarav?
      Think about it my friend, the officer put himself in a position that culminated in this, and he had “MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO IT DIFFERENTLY”so is it warranted? hardly.

  8. For those who found the police officer in Minneapolis guilty based on video evidence, they should find the police officer in this case innocent based on video evidence.

    To not do that, would be utterly hypocritical.

    • No its not. the question here is who is the aggressor. This man was fleeing the cop, not attacking him.
      therefore in both videos the cop was aggressor.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here