DA Letter_Redacted - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 Taylor to put the pipe down, but Taylor was noncompliant, so Officer Roelofs discharged his Taser. The Taser probes made contact with Taylor, however he did not fall, appeared unaffected, and still retained full muscle control with the metal objects still in his hands. Officer Roelofs gave several more unsuccessful commands to Taylor to drop the pipe, and eventually fired two shots at Taylor immediately after Taylor pulled a Taser dart from his body while still holding the metal bars with his other hand. Certainly, it would have been preferable if OCDA obtained a voluntary statement from Officer Roelofs regarding his state of mind at the time of the shooting. However, Officer Roelofs’ decision to decline to give the OCDA a voluntary statement may not legally and ethically be used to draw negative evidentiary inferences regarding Officer Roelofs’ conduct and state of mind. It should also be noted that, in order for Officer Roelofs to be justly and lawfully charged and convicted with a crime in this incident, it is the OCDA’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Roelofs did not act in reasonable and justifiable self-defense or defense of another when he shot Taylor. As should be apparent from the above-described analysis, the prosecution would be unable to carry that burden in this case. A jury analyzing these facts could justly conclude that it was reasonable for Officer Roelofs to believe his life and the lives of others were in danger. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support any criminal charges in this case. CONCLUSION Based upon a review of all of the evidence provided to and obtained by the OCDA, the entirety of the facts contained in all the available reports and interviews reviewed, and pursuant to the applicable legal principles, it is our legal opinion that there is insufficient evidence to support the filing of criminal charges in this case. Accordingly, the OCDA is closing its inquiry into this incident.