, , , , , ,

Gentle readers, I’ll not have a comprehensive article on this case for you on Friday.  Some of the realities of moving have once again caught up with me, but that’s not the primary reason I’m taking a bit more time on this case: I’m finding more and more information you need to know, and will need the weekend to put it all together.

The parallels between this case and the Trayvon Martin case are striking.  In both, a rogue prosecutor trumped up outrageous and unprovable charges.  In both, charging decisions were not made based on the law and the evidence, but on political considerations and to placate a racist mob.  In both, the prosecutor unethically involved the attorneys for the family of the deceased, attorneys with a direct financial interest in the outcome.  And in both, the prosecutor made claims he could not prove.

Example: in the Brooks case, the Black prosecutor–not a prosecutor who happens to be Black–said a Taser is not a deadly weapon.  Not long before the Brooks case, Paul Howard, on camera, said a Taser is a deadly weapon.  This has the potential to make him a witness, and this alone may make proving his case beyond a reasonable doubt impossible.

During his press conference where he announced a veritable statute book of charges against former Officer Garrett Rolfe, Howard said Brooks was never a threat.  Millions have seen him violently beating the two officers and shooting a Taser at Rolfe.  Howard admitted Brooks fired the Taser at Rolfe from a distance of about 12 feet, but missed over his head!  This would indicate he was firing at Rolfe’s face, which any reasonable person would realize could cause serious bodily injury–blindness–or death.

This is just the beginning, gentle readers.  I’ll be back with a Saturday article, and of course, the Sunday Funnies.  See you then!