Two key points on Rayshard Brooks case

that I have not seen mentioned in the press.

  1. First officer on scene woke Brooks, then told him to move car out of lane he was blocking while asleep. That action should invalidate any possible arrest for DUI or DWI, because the only evidence the officers had of Brooks illegally operating a motor vehicle while under too much alcohol was in response to a directive by a police officer (and Brooks COULD in theory have been arrested had he refused to obey the directive of the officer).  At that point, I would argue that any competent attorney could have gotten any arrest invalidated because the first officer had apparently made a determination that it was okay for Brooks to drive.
  1. I have watched all publicly available videos multiple times. What I have seen — and NOT seen remarked uopn — is that during the struggle the first officer on the scene, the one who did NOT shoot Brooks, is taking out his Taser to try to subdue Brooks, which is why Brooks was able to grab it. That was an attempt to protect himself.  Yes, he was resisting arrest, but (a) an arrest that almost certainly would have been overturned, and (b) under the circumstances was totally unnecessary, given how cooperative Brooks had been.

Please note —  that does not even get to the fact that there was no basis for a bvreeathalizer test, Brooks having passed the field sobriety tests administered by the now fired officer who killed him. If you watched the video of that on Lawrence last night, it is clear the officer was TRYING to trip him up, holding his finger in position for unnecessarily extended time (and not able to do so, despite multiple attempts.

I am NOT a lawyer. I know what I can see. Just offering a couple of observations.

Peace.