"The Ware County district attorney identified the Waycross police officer Wednesday who shot an unarmed man in April as Matthew Brooks, a patrol officer.
Rick Currie, district attorney of the Waycross Judicial Circuit, said this week he will not ask a grand jury to indict Brooks in the April 12 shooting of Andrew Poole at the Garlington Heights public housing complex on the western edge of the city.
Brooks was searching the upper floor of an apartment for a suspect in a homicide when Poole emerged from behind the door of a bedroom that Brooks had been told was unoccupied. Brooks said he saw something silver in Poole’s hand and fired, although no weapon was found. Poole has recovered from being shot in the abdomen.
Brooks has been with the Waycross Police Department five years, is SWAT-trained and had previously served five years as a detention officer in Glynn County, Currie said."
The statement, "Brooks said he saw something silver in Poole’s hand and fired, although no weapon was found." I call statements like this a "verbal deathtrap" because like spiders both police and prosecutors weave these statements in defense of the officer while attempting to convince the public of the dangerous demands of the police profession (the officer walking into a room that was suppose to be unoccupied). Statement like this are used to to also justify the high frequency of unarmed victims being shot and killed.
These statements also serve to help investigators and prosecutors expend the least amount of time and resources in clearing a officer of any misconduct. The redundant use of these statements by police has conditioned the public to believe the victim is always to blame for requiring the officer to use deadly force.
"The suspect looked like he was going for a gun", "the suspect's body movement was interpreted as threatening", "the suspect wrested for the officers weapon or the suspect was running away."
One of the following statements are usually provided in a initial police statement to the media and in subsequent investigation reports. These statements provide the cornerstone in supporting the exoneration of a police officer involved in the shooting of unarmed individual. The brief list below are some of the more familiar statements often heard:
1.. "I thought subject was going for a weapon"
2. "He had a hand in his waistband"
3. "I could not see his hands"
4. "He was moving or fidgeting in the car"
5. "I thought his cell phone was a weapon"
6 ."He reached to the floorboard of his car"
7. "He leaned and reached over towards his glove compartment"
8. "I though my gun was my taser"
9. "I thought his wallet was a weapon"
10 ."He tried to run me over with his vehicle"
12 ."He tried to take my weapon in a struggle"
13. "It was dark but I saw something shiny in his hand"
14. "His facial expression and disposition led me to think he had a weapon"
One of the most overly used explanations given by a police officer involved in a shooting of an unarmed person is , "I feared for my life." which is mutually exclusive from the other above statements. "I feared for my life" requires no other supporting evidence. It can be viewed as a 'blanket or catch all statement' taken at face value and not questioned by investigators. A police officer involved in a shooting has as much latitude in using any of these statements as does a prosecutor in deciding not to charge a officer in a shooting regardless of contradictory evidence.
The problem with accepting the veracity of any of these statements from police is the inability to challenge whether the officer decision to use lethal force could have been improper. Any of these standard excuses given by a officer can be shaped and contoured to fit whatever circumstances that present the officer in the most favorable position to be released from any charge of misconduct. Families of unarmed victims have a extremely hard uphill battle to disprove the officers version of events. Even contradictory witnesses statements who were present on the scene or in some cases captured video of an incident take a lower priority than a officer's explanation.
Officers who shoot unarmed citizens coupled with prosecutors who rarely challenge the officer's explanation of events contribute to the public apathy towards a corrupt criminal justice system. These excuses have become as common as the grand juries decisions that vote against indicting the the guilty officers. If only dead men could talk.