RAYSHARD BROOKS KILING: MAYOR BOTTOMS' RUSH TO JUDGMENT AGAINST THE POLICE.

ICHEOKU says administrative rationality demands that those in power and in charge act measuredly, deliberatively and decisively; and not to allow themselves to be stampeded into taking hastily actions without first thinking them through. Mayor of Atlanta Keisha Lance Bottoms was too quick to pronounce judgment on the policeman Garret Rolfe, who killed Rayschard Brooks and also in her demanding the resignation of the former police Chief Erika Shields. The Mayor should have waited until all the facts are in, garnered through investigation, before taking any action against Officer Rolfe who fired the fatal shots and demanding and receiving the resignation of the now former Police Chief Erika Shields. 

Now that it is true that the police officer in hot pursuit acted in self defense as Georgia State Law provides, which classifies taser as a deadly weapon, what will the Atlanta Mayor do to redress the wrong she did to the police man and woman. Will she reinstate  the police chief and also give the policeman his job back or will she sullen away in obstinacy because the killing of Rayschard was according to her, personal because it could have been any of them, people of color. It reminded ICHEOKU of Barack Obama's comment during Trayvon Martin killing by George Zimmerman that had he had a son it would just look like Trayvon. What ICHEOKU does not understand is why people of color in power always play up their skin color, while at the same time not allowing or tolerating white people to also proudly hold up their whiteness. For them, it is always about their skin color but they equally do not want you to treat them as colored people and you marvel at this obvious troubling conflict. 

Anyway, back to the lawfulness of the shooting. The Fulton County District Attorney Paul Ford Jr, while commenting on the other previously fired two Atlanta policemen who tasered two teenagers in a car during the George Floyd's protest, said that tasers are classified by Georgia State laws as a deadly weapon. It therefore naturally follows that a policeman being tasered should act to defend himself with deadly force as well. So, what exactly did the Atlanta Mayor expect a policeman to do when a deadly weapon was being deployed at him, afterall Rayschard Brooks did turn, pointed and discharge the taser at the pursing police officer. Without a doubt, Rayschard Brooks' intention was to demonize the pursuing policeman in order to escape arrest and you wonder why nobody is calling out the infra-digs perpetrated by the now deceased escapee who not only resisted arrest, fought the police, stole their weapon but fired it at the officer in his hot pursuit. 

None of the critics of the policeman is giving him a benefit that he only fired his weapon after Rayschard fired at him, notwithstanding the varying lethality of a taser and a gun. The policeman did not set out to kill Rayschard as both men were running, the police chasing Rayschard, until suddenly, fearing capture, Rayschard changed the game into a armed shooting conflict. Yes, everyone agrees that the policeman should have been more circumspect with discharging his gun, but that is besides the point. The controlling issue is whether he was authorized and allowed under the law to discharge his weapon and not how he chose to exercise the discretion. His state of mind when he fired his weapon is imperative and only he can say exactly what was running through his mind at the time his index finger made contact with the trigger. So, what every other person says or thinks about what he did is irrelevant, once it is established that he acted within the law. 

His action may be horrible but it is not unlawful and if not unlawful, there is no criminal violation, hence no criminal liability. It was not premeditated either nor was it accompanied by malice since both men were having a polite chat before Rayschard decided to become uncooperative, leading to the cascade of wrong events which culminated in his being killed. At most, the policeman could be blamed for not being more restrained and not firing his gun, but he had the supreme right to fire his gun under the circumstance and he broke no law by doing that. It was a decision which was his to make and he chose to not restrain himself and fired his gun. He chose to exercise his given prerogative under Georgia State's law which makes it permissible for a policeman to use deadly force to defend himself against a suspect's deadly weapon. A taser is classified as a deadly weapon under Georgia's extant law and he acted accordingly. 

ICHEOKU says Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms was too quick to act and acted too hastily in firing the police officer and demanding and receiving the resignation of the police chief. The Mayor wanted to please her black people who were irate that another black man was killed by a white policeman and their anger is understandable. But the Mayor must understand that she is not a Mayor for only black people as other people live in Atlanta too. White people, Hispanic, Indians, Chinese, Arabs, Asians, Caribbean, Africans etc are other people who live in Atlanta and these people want to see justice done as well. These people should also factor into what black Mayor Bottoms does and this imperative should always be part of what guides her actions. Now, therefore, the Mayor must equally bravely address her black folks and explain to them why the policeman did nothing wrong and that he acted as he was authorized under the law of the State of Georgia to act. 

Thereafter, the Mayor should give back to the policeman his badge and gun and also recall the forced out police chief. That is the right call to make under the existing Georgia State law which classifies taser as a deadly weapon. The Mayor must also understand that she is a mayor for all, including the policeman and the forced out police chief, and not just the vocal black lives matter group. Both the policeman and the former police chief deserves justice as well. Fairness demands that nobody passes sentence on anybody without first examining all the facts in the case, especially where an existing law is on the accused's side. ICHEOKU says no matter how abhorable what now former policeman Garret Rolfe did might seem, he did not break the law and without breaking the law he committed no crime for which he should lose his job or in any other way be held criminally liable, period. #GIveHimBackHisBadgeAndGun. #RecallThePoliceChief