Transcripts For CNNW CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin 20200617

Have been every single day. Ive been out here for days now. They have been gathering here in this parking lot. Not just to demand justice but to reflect on what is currently happening across the country and here in atlanta. My producer pamela kirkland, a man was sitting here who just sat there and sobbed for about 10 minutes as he looked at the memorial that had been put in place for Rayshard Brooks. And a lot of people say this is not about rayshard. We want justice for him and his family but this is about being black in america. An this is so much bigger than that. So they have been listening to officials here in atlanta. Now theyre waiting to see whether or not theyre essentially going to put their money where their mouth is. I also talked with the police union and the police union has said that if charges are announced today, brooke, they feel it is at best premature, at worst political. The Union Representative who will represent those officers in they are, in fact, charged today said they dont believe that those two officers have received due process. They dont believe that a full investigation which they deserve has been done at this point. And they kind of attacked District Attorney howard and even mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms saying they were more concerned with politics than due process. But people at this wendys, marching in the street, morning, noon and night, for almost three weeks now in atlanta, say they feel like unless they get justice, atlanta is not going to get peace. Theyre going to keep marching in the streets. And i want to be clear it has been overwhelmingly peaceful in atlanta for the three weeks. There were a few nights, a few hours and you could see behind me the result of that where things got out of hand. But for the most part, people have been marching and demonstrating. Theyve been posting up in front of the capitol, in front of the District Attorneys office and in front federal buildings to make sure theyre heard and that is going to continue no matter what the charges are. Theyre still going to be in the streets. Every demonstrator said were not giving up. Were going to stay in the streets until we get justice because justice isnt just for rayshard, they want for all of the people who live in atlanta, especially the black and brown men and women who live here. And one piece is the charges, the other is a conviction. Diane, thank you so much. And well come back to you for reaction from folks in the community as soon as we get the news coming down from the texas a. Powell howard. So lets go to laura coates. And help us put this in perspective before we watch the d. A. Is this about the immediate threat that Rayshard Brooks posed these officers and the taser. It absolutely is. And weve seen the video and we know the confrontation was far longer than the moment from the struggle ensued until he ran away and shots were fired. But from the d. A. Perspective, theyll look at moment in time that the struggle began and whether or not the officer shooting was justified. Now to do that, they have to look at not only georgia law but also the Officers Police manual. Georgia law takes precedence and what it says is you could use lethal force if you believe, essentially, that lethal force may be used against you or somebody else and you are in reasonable fear of harm. Now when you talk about reasonableness, it is why it is a difficult case for the d. A. To come to a conclusive on, and it is a subjective interpretation by the officer and that is where the Police Manual comes in and why the police union have had a lot to say about this issue, about what he should or should not have done. But ultimately, remember, totality of circumstances matters here. They were aware he did not have a weapon. They patted him down. They knew who he was. Had his license. They also knew that he was in some form of fashion intoxicated. All of these go to the officers ability to make an assessment about the persons lethal threat. And finally, they know full well it was a taser. It was bright yellow and shiny, it is not a gun and it had been discharged a distance away from them. So all of this comes into play. Does the officer react because he thought lethal force or bought he thought he could not catch up to the person. The latter is no reason to shoot. Laura stay with me. Joey jackson, cnn legal analyst. And what will you be listening for here . So a few things going into the analysis. The first theyre going to look at was the officer in immediate fear of his life or physical injury. Very critical point. Number two theyre going to assess whether the force the officer used, deadly force, was proportionate to the threat that the officer posed at the time. So some would suggest there was no threat at all and as much as the taser was discharged and then you get one discarth and then you say Rayshard Brooks start to run. What was the necessity of using force. The third is reasonableness and that is the reasonableness of an officer in the position right then and there. Understand this also, brooke. The analysis that the prosecutor is going to use is twofold. In addition to what i just mentioned, right. Number one is going to be the reason to believe that a crime occurred here. Number two, it is going to be whether or not they believe they could prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and the prosecutor may just [ inaudible ] in the circumstances and say if it is a close question, lets bring it to a jury and we know that could be healthy for all of the three elements, the immediate threat to the officer, lets allow a jury to make that determine facing. Lets allow the jury to make the determination and the reasonableness and a jury could decide that too keeping with what laura said, the excellent points, of knowing, look, he wasnt on with the exception of the taser, which is not a Deadly Weapon, they patted him and there was no good. You have his license and the car, hes going to come back at some point. Was it necessary to take his life. And so that is the and finally what charges if any should apply whether or not both officers should have charges levels against them at this point. Lets work on your wifi signal so i so i could hear from you. I was trying to hang on your every word. And we have a former police chief dekalb, and served on obamas tosk force or policing. And you said this shooting might be lawful but awful or something to that effect. Do you stand by that after several days now of analysis . Well, yes, i do. And here is the thing. At the end of this, were going to get a determination here from the d. A. Who is going to analyze everything. Hes going to analyze the law and the physical evidence that is put in front of him. Hes going to analyze witness statements. And there is going to be a number of other information that will come into play here. This is one of the things where sometimes they may be written into law that things are lawful but did we really have to go to extreme in which we did in decisions that we make. Now is some of this going to come off as being training issues and how we think about how we train the type of calls we respond, how we respond to those calls. And i think this decision here today is really going to whatever decision this is, training as we know it today in how we think about use of force today, very well may change in terms of how we train and how policies are written so what im really very anxious here to see how the d. A. Will describe this. And then that is just the first part of this. And then well see what comes afterwards. But this is just one of those situations where there are a lot of times decisions that we could make and ive said this right from the beginning, brooke, is that could we just have allowed him to have someone pick him up . Is it always necessary to make an arrest . Pick him up meaning forgive me for jumping in. Meaning they had his plates and they could have tracked him down. Right. They could have tracked him down. They could have done that. But even before it got to that point, he could have had his sister come pick him up and officers could have dropped him off and so forth and so on. So those are the things that hopefully well learn from this tragic situation. But officers who made the decision to shoot, he now may have to be the one to articulate to a court, to a system and due process will take place as to why he took that action that he did. I want to come back to you because well chat after we hear from the d. A. On the charges. Cheryl dorsey, retired l. A. Police sergeant. What are you thinking ahead of this . Well, listen, murder is much, much worse than just being awful. Let me tell you from a Police Officers perspective what was going on in this young mans mind. Mr. Brooks was getting the best of him physically. The officer articulated im going to tase you and mr. Brooks was like, no youre not. He took the taser and he ran. And those officers knew that they were going to be ribbed from now on. They will forever be known as the guys who let the suspect, a drunk, get your taser and take off with it. So he wasnt going to let that happen. This is punishment, brooke. What i say content of cop. You pis a officer off and there is a price to pay. He said he took my fing taser and said it twice and then whether he couldnt catch him he shot him in the back twice and he took a victory lap after that because the officer said i got him. I got him. This was punishment. They have so many other things that they could have gone. So many other alternatives. As a Patrol Officer and supervisor for 20 years they could have set up a perimeter and requested an air unit and directed units in the direction he was traveling, they had his car and his drivers license. They knew exactly who he was. There was no exigent circumstance. The taser is nonlethal whether it is used by an officer and norn lethal when it is taken from a officer. Laura coates, i was reading part of the Atlanta Police policy manual which just happened to be updated last week and this is worth listening to. An officer could use deadly force when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect possessed a Deadly Weapon or deseiss when use the against a person is likely to or does result in serious Bodily Injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious Bodily Injury to the officer or others. So help explain this and as it pertained to, i know it is the officers response and was it proportionate. This is exactly what the prosecutor will have to look at. From a former prosecutor, when youre talking about the potential for a conviction, the last thing you want is to have the nuances involved that you are describing, brooke, and the statute. When you have to look and comb through and say, was there some basis, some reasonable basis for this officer to act the way he did, guess what, if there are doubts in the mind of the prosecutor or a close examination, that is what might happen to your jury. So this is a consideration for the d. A. But the fact it was a taser and it was not a gun. Yes, that is correct. However, because the language that a particular Police Manual which again does not override georgia law, does not override georgia law is one of the reasons why you have to look at the reasonableness of the officer. Could this person have used a Deadly Weapon or on the. A taser is an object. Does is have the potential to cause harm to the people in the immediate area oar officers. The officer was not in immediate threat of harm and we were in a parking lot where there were cars in the drivethru. So we didnt see in the Video Surveillance people outside of their cars who were in the direct path that mr. Brooks was running to to assess whether or not somebody could be tased by a taser already discharged. So you have to calculate that. Were looking at it in hindsight. One of the things that officers have used as a protection to get the benefit of the doubt is the phrase splitsecond decisions. Theyre forced to make splitsecond decisions all of the time. So while were considering the whole list of calculus here, what the prosecutor will look to is whether or not he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt or even charge a crime when you have a splitsecond decision to assess all of what i meanted compared to what a jury could in hindsight. Having said that, the analysis is so on point that the fact that lethal force has always been intended to use as a last resort. Not a kneejerk reaction and so if retaliation or knee jerk was the reason, you have a crime. Otherwise you have a debate that the prosecutor has to resolve. Laura stand by. Everyone stand by. If you are just joining us were waiting for news, this is an empty podium, were about to see the District Attorney of Fulton County, atlanta, make a decision on the officers involved in Rayshard Brooks death over the past weekend. Do not move. Quick break. Youre watching cnn were back in just a moment. U have been do. You are transforming business models, and virtualizing workforces overnight. Because so much of that relies on financing, we have committed two billion dollars to relieve the pressure on your business. As you adapt and transform, were here with the people, financing, and technology, ready to help. From grills to play setsutdoor financing, and technology, and more one of a kind finds. It all ships free. And with new deals every day you can explore endless options at every price point. Get your Outdoor Oasis delivered fast so you can get the good times going. Wayfair. Youve got just what i need. Did you know diarrhea is often causedtry pepto diarrhea. Food . Pepto® diarrhea is proven effective to treat symptoms, and it also targets the cause of diarrhea. The 3 times concentrated liquid formula coats and kills bacteria to relieve diarrhea. While the leading competitor does nothing to kill the bacteria, pepto® diarrhea gets to the source, killing the bad bacteria. So, try pepto® diarrhea, and remember to have it on hand every time you travel. Also try pepto®bismol liquicaps for onthego relief. vo love. Its what weve always said makes subaru, subaru. And right now, love is more important than ever. In response to covid19, subaru and our retailers are donating fifty million meals to feeding america, to help feed those who now need our help. Its all part of our commitment to our communities through subaru loves to help. Love, its what makes subaru, subaru. My agerelated macular degenso today i made a plan with my doctor, which includes preservision. Because he said a multi vitamin alone may not be enough. And its my vision, my morning walk, my sunday drive, my grandsons beautiful face. Only preservision areds2 contains the exact nutrient formula recommended by the National Eye Institute to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. Its how i see my life. Because its my vision. Preservision. Can i find an Investment Firm with a truly longterm view thats been through multiple market cycles for over 85 years . With capital group, i can. Talk to your financial professional or consultant for investment risks and information. Were back with even more breaking news on this wednesday afternoon. Again, quick peek, live look inside of the Fulton County, waiting to hear from the d. A. On the possible Rayshard Brooks killing over the weekend. Let me pivot to the white house. Were getting news that john bolton is making explosive claims about President Trump and his new book the room where it happened. As excerpts are released days before the scheduled release and one day after the administration filed a lawsuit to block the release. So the New York Times is reporting into the book bolton said house lawmakers missed opportunities in their impeachment inquiry and should have impeached the president for trying to intervene in Law Enforcement for political reasons. So to our chief White House Correspondent we go, jim acosta. And tell me, what are the biggest claims that bolton is making in this book . Reporter there are huge claims this this book, brooke. And the president is trying to stop it. The Justice Department filed a lawsuit to try to block its publication. That is not going to work out. The book is coming out. Bolton is releasing excerpts of it and were seeing excerpts on the New York Times, washington post. But i wan to tall your attention to an oped that John Bolton Former National adviser has in the wall street journal. They all detail some of the excerpts from the book that are quite shocking, really. But in the wall street journal in this oped, bolton delves into the concerns hes had about the president s china policy and he talks about some of the exchanges that the president has had with the chinese leader xi jinping and i will tell you there are a couple of things in here that we have to say flatly, these are his claims. They have not been checked with the white house at this poin. But this is what the former National Security adviser is saying in the book according to an oped written by john bolton. He said that in a conversation that the president had with xi jinping, at one point he said that the u. S. Had too many elections because he didnt want to switch away from President Trump and that at one point the president said that he is heard from people that there are too many elections in the u. S. And that perhaps he should be able to be allowed to serve beyond two terms in office. And as this conversation was was going back and forth, according to john bolton, the president turned to xi and asked the chinese leader for help in the 2020 election. Now why is this significant . It is significant because the president of the United States was impeached by the house of representatives earlier this year for seeking foreign help in this case from ukraine in the 2020 election, and at that time, as you know, john bolton was hotly sought after as a witness. Did he not go up and testify. There was a whole back and forth between the administration and congress as to whether bolton and other top aides to testify. He ultimately did not testify. But this book is going to allege when it comes out next week on june 23rd, that the president sought help from china in the 2020 election. And we could talk about this all day long, brooke. Obviously there was that moment on the south lawn of the white house when the president said out loud that he not only wanted ukraines help and chinas help in the 2020 election and that was parsed over so many times and we did this through the entire impeachment saga and one of the reasons why the white house is so very much concerned about this book coming out is because it details some very explosive allegations. And of course there are many bolton critics out there saying that all of the press coverage and the white house even playing into this press coverage by trying to block the book, all of this is just going to serve to sell john boltons book which is doing well now if you look at the chart on amazon. But i think if you boil everything down, brooke, the most stunning observation that ive been able to make looking at the excerpts is that the president at one point, according to this oped, stunningly turned the conversation to the coming u. S. President ial election, pleading with xi to ensure that he would win. Now, brooke, it does not get any more stunning than that when you talk about what the president has been accused of doing in the 2016 campaign. Hell say the Russian Investigation all added up to nothing. And then the ukraine investigation and in which he was caught in a transcript, the rough transcript of the phone conversation with the president of ukraine, president zelensky and now here is another example cited by john bolton in his book, the room where with happened, where he alleges that the president sought xis help in the 2020 election. Stunning, brooke. To underscore, looking at this piece that john bolton wrote, to me the key line, i, john bolton, am hardpressed to identify any significant trump decision during my white house tenure that wasnt driven by reelection calculations. Jim. Reporter that is right. And that is one of the, i guess, most damning quotes in the bolton book, no question about it. But one of the things that john bolton said and this is laid out in the New York Times treatment of the bolton book that came out this afternoon, is that bolton believes that the house impeachment managers and theyre going to theyre going to be upset when they hear this and disagree with this, but boltons claim is that the house impeachment managers on democratic side committed mal practice and in that they narrowed the investigation to ukraine and they should have been looking at other things that the president was up to. Now i will tell you, and weve reported on this. Ive talked to trump advisers who have said, and they said this jokingly, the president has done worse things than what happened with ukraine. They write off as the president pining out loud, that sort of thing. But we have a pattern here, brooke. Back in the 2016 campaign he asked for the russians to find Hillary Clintons emails. Then with ukraine, he is seeking help from president zelensky and captured in a transcript and here the National Security adviser is saying that he sought help from china in the 2020 election. There is obviously a pattern. The white house is going to say it is all nonsense. And the White House Press secretary was asked about the book in the briefing and said it contains classified information, it shouldnt come out. But there are damning allegations in the book. No question about it. They voted not to hear this information and, b. , john bolton was in the job for a handful of months, why didnt he speak out earlier. Reporter that is a big question. Vivian selma, what do you have to add to the conversation . Well obviously, brook, the relationship between trump and ambassador bolton was bumpy from the start. Keep in mind that boltan was actually a national sure adviser from the very beginning. He put his hand up and expressed interest in taking the role. But the president turned him down early on and so when the opportunity came when h. R. Mcmaster left bolton was there and at that point there had been bumps in the road for the administration so the number of people who expressed interest in the job had begun to wain. But john bolton who has a long career in Public Service and knows the government and how it works ant the interagency process which is important for the nsc, said woe be willing to take on the challenges. From my conversations from him and his public statements, he always had disagreements with President Trump before he went into the white house. As far as his views on warmer ties with russia and any kind of trusting relationship with beijing. And a number of other things. He was very skeptical about trying to forge any peace deal with north korea. He very much wanted to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Accord which is something hang on one second. We have to go to atlanta to the District Attorney in Fulton County. Lets go. Before we started today, i wanted to acknowledge mrs. Miller who is the husband of Rayshard Brooks. She is here today with her attorney and after we make our presentation, she is going to make some remarks on mr. Stewart. We also have with us today three witnesses from west memphis, tennessee, and they are here with their lawyer Sean Williams and we are also going to ask mr. Williams to address you as well. So, we have decided to issue waur warrants in this case today. I have with me copies of the warrants and after my presentation we will let you know how you can get copies of the warrants to date. So, the question is asked why were we able to charge this case now . So i want to explain that we have already had an opportunity to speak with three of the witnesses in this case. And those are the three witnesses who were from west memphis, tennessee. We have had an opportunity to conduct interviews with seven other witnesses other than the three witnesses from tennessee. Weve also had an opportunity to view lets see if you could turn it on. So, we have had an opportunity to review eight videotapes, two atlanta body cam tapes, two Atlanta Police Department Dash cam tapes, we also had an opportunity to review a wendys surveillance tape and also viewed three citizen cell phone videos. With many of the videos we have the opportunity to enhance the videos so that we could get a better look. The other thing that we have had an opportunity to do is to view some of the physical evidence. The chevrolet trail blazer was a vehicle that was in the line at wendys on the night of this incident and it received a shot from officer rolfes gun. Weve had an opportunity along with the gbi now to view that trail blazer. My office has had an opportunity to inspect the crime scene. We have conducted a canvas of the area. We started at 1 15 on saturday morning and we have been working on this case around the clock since that time. Go to the next slide. We have spent some time examining the taser evidence in this case. Weve actually examined and possessed the two tasers that were used. We have also had an opportunity to examine the taser logs that are prepared as the tasers are used. And we have also consulted with a taser expert from the company that manufactures the tasers. We received a preliminary medical autopsy. Weve received a preliminary ballistics report and in reaching our conclusions today we have worked with the Georgia Bureau of investigation as well as the Atlanta Police department. This will be the fourth time that we have asked that arrest warrants or issued in a case before an indictment. This lists the other three cases that we were involved with where an arrest warrant was issued prior to indictment. Unfortunately this marks the 40th prosecution of Police Officers for misconduct here in our county. And this is the ninth time that weve prosecuted a homicide case committed by an police officer. Eight of those cases involved black males and one of those cases involved a black female. So, in reaching our decision, that we considered important. And one of the things that we noted from our evaluation was that mr. Brooks on the nice of this incident was calm, he was cordial, and really displayed a cooperative nature. Secondly, even though mr. Brooks was slightly impaired, his demeanor during this incident was almost jovial. Also, we noted that he received many instructions from the officers and he was asked many questions. Some of the questions he was asked repeatedly. But for 41 minutes and 17 seconds he followed their instruction. He answered the questions. The fourth thing we noted is that mr. Brooks was never informed that he was under arrest for driving under the influence. And this is a requirement of the Atlanta Police department when one is charged with dui. The Atlanta Police department own procedures require that that person is informed immediately that they are under arrest. And then he was grabbed from the rear by officer rolfe who made an attempt to physically restrain him after the 41 minute and 17 second discussion. We considered it as one of our important considerations that mr. Brooks never presented himself as a threat. At the very beginning he was peacefully sleeping in his car. After he was awakened by the officer, he was cooperative and he was directed to move his car to another location. He calmly moved his car. Mr. Brooks was asked whether or not he had a weapon. He indicated that he did not. Without even resistance, he passed his drivers license to the officers. And the officers then asked mr. Brooks whether or not he would consent to a patdown or a body search, and mr. Brooks allowed them to search him and the search yielded no weapon. We found that it was of interest that when the officers patted mr. Brooks down they noticed there was a bulge in his pants. They did not pull that item out of his pocket. They took mr. Brooks word that that bulge represented a number of dollar bills. But mr. Brooks never displayed any aggressive behavior during the 41 minutes and 17 seconds. Now this is a another important consideration that we discovered as we evaluated this case. Once mr. Brooks was shot, there is an atlanta policy that requires that the officers have to provide timely medical attention to mr. Brooks or to anyone who is injured. But after mr. Brooks was shot, for some period of two minutes and 12 seconds, there was no medical attention applied to mr. Brooks. But when we examine the videotape and in our discussions with witnesses, what we discovered is during the 2 12 that officer rolfe actually kicked mr. Brooks while he laid on ground, while he was there fighting for his life. Secondly, from the videotape, we were able to see that the other officer, officer bronsan actually stood on mr. Brooks shoulders while he was there struggling for his life. We were able to conclude that based on the way that these officers conducted themselves while mr. Brooks was lying there, that the demeanor of the officers immediately after the shooting did not reflect any fear or danger of mr. Brooks but their actions really reflected other kinds of emotions. So, as we are drawing our legal conclusion in this case, we were led by the two foundational cases in this matter. One being tennessee versus garner and what that case points out is when an officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect that the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses an immediate threat of death or of serious physical injury to that officer. The next foundational case that we used in our analysis is graham versus connor which says that this test is based upon that of a reasonable officer on the scene and not the individual officer, but a reasonable officer on the scene. Weve concluded at the time mr. Brooks was shot that he did not pose an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or officers. If you would get the photograph. This is the first photograph that we were able to to see if you could get it straight. What this photograph illustrates is the point that officer rolfe at this point was firing the taser and this is mr. Brooks who was firing a taser as well. But i dont know if you could see it clearly, the prongs from the taser were actually fired above officer rolfes head. Like to also look at the position of officer rolfe in mr. Brooks, that they are here next to this red automobile. If we look at the next photograph if we look at the next photograph, well see that the positions of both parties, theyve changed. Mr. Brooks has now moved away from his original position and we estimate the distance is probably about 12 feet. And officer rolfe has moved about 10 feet from the position in what is our exhibit number one. This second video, or second still shows the very instance that the shot was fired into the back of mr. Brooks. And we have already calculated the distance and the distance that they are apart at that time was 183 at the time this shot was fired. So based upon that information, we have concluded that mr. Brooks was running away at the time that the shot was fired. Mr. Brooks was shot twice in the back. One of the shots was a center shot to the back that penetrated his heart and it was done by a 9 millimeter glock. Now one of the things that we also relied upon in our conclusion is something that is called under the law, referred to as an excited utterance. And that is when someone makes a immediate statement and because it is made without the ability to consult with council or to think about it, under the law an excited utterance is considered as highly reliable. And at the time that the shot was fired, the utterance made by officer rolfe was, i got him. That is the statement that was made at that time. We also noted that officer rolfe was firing a taser at mr. Brooks, the city of atlanta s. O. P. , in fact, prohibit officers from firing tasers someone who is running away. So the city of atlanta says you could not even fire a taser at someone who is running away. So you certainly cant fire a gun, a handgun at someone who is running away. So, in addition to our findings, as many of you all already know, that the atlanta mayor, mayor Keisha Bottoms and the Police Department concluded that officer rolfes actions were excessive and in violation of apd s. O. P. , i believe it is 4. 1. 1. And after their analysis that the actions were excessive, officer rolfe was fired. We have also concluded that rolfe was aware that the taser in brooks possession, that it was fired twice. And once it is fired twice, it presented no danger to him or to any other persons. Now, we have had something quite remarkable to happen in this case and it involves the testimony of the other officer devin bronsan, he has now become a states witness. He has decided to testify on behalf of the state in this case. What he has said to us that is within a matter of days he plans to make a statement regarding the culpability of officer rolfe. But he indicated that he is not psychologically willing to give that statement today. Officer bronsan, however, has admitted that he was, in fact, standing on mr. Brooks body immediately after the shooting. So these are the charges that we have had filed today, signed by one of our superior court judges. These are the 11 charges against officer rolfe. The first charge is felony murder. This is a death as a result of an underlying felony and in this case the underlying felony aaggravated assault with a Deadly Weapon and the possible sentence is for a felony murder conviction would be life, life without parole or the death penalty. Now, hes also charged by in the arrest warrant with aggravated assault with a Deadly Weapon and this is a a count charging him for the shooting of mr. Brooks, and the possible sentence for aggravated assault is one to 20 years. The second the third aggravated assault account is for the shooting towards or in the direction of mr. Melvin evans. Mr. Evans was the person who was seated in the car. If we have the picture. And if you would point out, this automobile is the place that mr. Evans and his two companions were driving. And a shot was fired and i believe we also got a photo of the shot that ended up in the vehicle. I think you have to stand it up. And so with count four, against officer rolfe, it charges him with aggravated assault for firing the weapon in or in the direction of daniel killians who was in the passenger side of the front seat of the car. Next slide. Count five is an aggravated assault charge and this was a charge for shooting towards or in the direction of michael perkins, mr. Perkins was seated in the rear of this same vehicle at that time, there a charge for criminal damage for shooting into that vehicle. Also, officer rolfe is charged with seven violations of office, each one of those carries a one to five sentence. These are violations of his oath of office for the city of atlanta. Arresting mr. Brooks for the dui without immediately informing him of the arrest. Shooting a taser at mr. Brooks while he was running away which again is a violation of atlantas own thirdly, Excessive Force when shooting a firearm at mr. Brooks. And, number four is the failure to render timely medical aid. Those are the four violations of oath. The eighth is for kicking mr. Brooks. And the possible sentence for kicking mr. Brooks is from one to 20 years. And we actually have a photograph. And these are the charges for officer brosnan. And there are a total of three charges. And the first charge is for aggravated assault. And this is for standing or stepping on mr. Brooks shoulder. And the possible sentence for this crime is one to 20 years. And this is a photograph of officer brosnan, who you can see to the right. And at the time of the photograph, he is standing on the body of mr. Brooks. And, as ive indicated earlier in our conversations with officer brosnan, he has admitted that he stood on the body of mr. Brooks. He said he believes that he was standing on mr. Brooks arm. But that is what the photograph shows. Weve also charged him with, additionally, two violations of oath. One is for the standing on the shoulder. That is an unauthorized weaponless control technique, which the city of atlanta prohibits. And the second violation of oath was for the failure to render timely medical aid to mr. Brooks. So, the arrest warrants have already been signed. We are asking officer rolfe and officer brosnan to surrender themselves by 6 00 p. M. Tomorrow. We are because officer brosnan is now becoming a cooperating witness for the state, we are asking the court to grant a bond of 50,000 and to allow officer brosnan to sign that bond, as i indicated that he would become one of the first Police Officers to actually indicate that he is willing to testify against someone in his own department. As for officer rolfe, the person who fired the two bullets, we are asking we are recommending no bond for officer rolfe. If he is given a bond, that would be done by one of our secure court judges. But because of the severity of his act, and then following up that act with kicking mr. Brooks, we are asking that he not be granted a bond. I think thats it. I do want to ask mr. Sean williams. Mr. Williams represents melvin evans, who was driving the vehicle from memphis. I have already apologized to mr. Evans on behalf of the people of Fulton County and the city of atlanta. He was only down here for a short while. And its really unfortunate that he was his vehicle was fired upon that night. Thank you, mr. Howard. I first want to, on behalf of all three of my clients, who not only witnessed this horrific and tragic killing of this young man. I want to offer the condolences from them to the Rayshard Brooks family and particularly his daughter. It has been very difficult for each one of my clients because they witnessed it. And they themselves have a lot of emotion awhat they saw and what they were a part of unvoluntarily. I want to thank paul howard personally and commend him. Ive been doing these type of cases across this nation. And mr. Howards one of the few prosecutors who will actually go on the line to even investigate Something Like this as serious as this and to do it in a way that i believe makes this city proud, as im a resident of this great city. And, as he said, with greatness comes responsibility. The city of atlanta is a great city. And i want to apologize to my clients themselves that they came from memphis and witnessed this. Theyre not going to get statements here today. But i have confirmed to you that they have met with the Georgia Bureau of investigation, provided statements as well as information to support what you saw presented today by paul howard. It confirms that at no time was mr. Brooks ever a threat to anyone including the officers in that wendys parking lot. My clients statements confirm that mr. Brooks was running, his back was turned. And was never a threat to anybody. The only threat that arose is when officer pulled out a gun, two of those bullets entered mr. Rayshard brooks body killing him. One of those bullets entered my clients vehicle, almost killing them. We could be here talking about four murders. And for that my clients have suffered a lot, but nothing compared to what this family has. And with that said, my clients are here to join the fight of justice to provide in iassistance to this family as well as to the Fulton County District Attorneys office as well as the gbi. And they look forward to the opportunity where they have justice served. And i want you to know that they were fearful for their lives. That bullet came very close to them. And mr. Brooks body laid less than ten feet from their vehicle. And keep in mind, this was in a crowded wendys drivethru parking lot. And when you take the actions of reasonableness, as mr. Howard said, reasonableness never has a Deadly Weapon being fired when you have innocent bystanders like my clients standing. All of those things as well as the fact that mr. Brooks was not a threat to any officer that night shouldve gone into play, but it didnt. And i hope and pray with this action by the Fulton County District Attorneys office as well as the actions by mayor bottoms and the task force that we dont have to have any more press conferences like this any time soon. Thank you, mr. Howard. I appreciate it. And, ladies and gentlemen, mrs. Miller, who is the wife of Rayshard Brooks is here today. I think her attorney Chris Stewart is going to speak. Good evening. Im Chris Stewart. Tom ickas not in a position to speak right now. She wasnt aware of all of this information, just like we werent aware, just like i dont believe the nation was aware of all of this that the shot happened after the deployment of the taser where he started running again, that you would kick another human being after you just put two bullets in his back. But even in dark times like this, you have to try and see the light. And the positivity of this situation is the courageousness of officer brosnan to step forward and say what happened was wrong. It is officers like that who change policing. And i know hell probably catch all kind of problems and hate and things like that. But its the courageousness of those type of officers that we love and support. Its the courageousness of District Attorneys that are going to do their job. And we were willing to accept whatever the findings were. But thats why people elect you. Do your job. Thats why you become a police officer. Do whats right. So, its not a day of joy watching the charges and whats going to happen to this officer because it shouldnt happen. So, its heartbreaking, but it is an attempt to redefine justice. Because, like i said before, we dont have any idea what it is anymore in this world. And if this is what justice is going to start looking like, officers stepping forward to stop other officers, coming forward and helping try and get a family who now has