Man gets life in killing over 'stolen' PlayStation 2
by Xav de Matos 
{ Jun 28th 2009 at 11:00PM } 
During his trial, Brooks claimed the shooting was in self defense, but prosecution argued he immediately resorted to the most extreme measures possible. According to prosecution, Brooks was known for "flashing a gun" and "dealing drugs." At sentencing, the mother of the deceased (Brant Daniels) forgave Brooks, calling him "a good kid who made a wrong choice."
Fresno County Superior Court sentenced Brooks to 25 years to life for the first-degree murder of Daniels. Brooks was also sentenced to 25 years for using a gun and a combined 59 years and four months for the attempted murder of the other three men involved in the altercation. Following the conviction, Brooks was remorseful, saying that he prayed for the "forgiveness" of Daniels' family and friends.
[Photo Credit: AP Images]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
blackarmy @ Jun 28th 2009 11:04PM
OK then so first try and beat up 4 guys THEN use the gun. Got it!
... it's probably more complicated then that but meh.
DeoWulf @ Jun 28th 2009 11:12PM
Probably more like don't shoot to kill. I know if I was ever in a position where I had to use a gun to defend myself I would probably aim at the leg of my attacker and run around the nearest corner. But I don't think many people really believed him on self-defense plea anyway.
muffin1man @ Jun 28th 2009 11:16PM
well they're just shooting down his claim of self defense in this regard. but not condoning what he did, if 4 guys come to MY house and accused me of something i didnt do well one might just fear for his life...and what i also dont understand is why people gotta get their friends to come with them to handle their own business. it looks weak to me
Sly @ Jun 28th 2009 11:27PM
personally i would aim for the kneecaps but... um... yeah...
WREturns @ Jun 29th 2009 12:07AM
I know we've all seen enough cheesy cop movies to think that we're good enough under pressure to shoot someone's kneecap in the midst of a high-pressure situation. But you're not. If you have a firearm and you receive training for it, you're taught to only use it if it's a life or death situation and, if it is, to shoot to kill.
Sly @ Jun 29th 2009 12:10AM
i said aim. i never said hit. :)
and i'm pretty sure it would be hard to miss with a sawed off shotty.
Sly @ Jun 29th 2009 12:14AM
and another thing, i know a lot of cops that were trained to hit to disable, not to kill. aiming for the hands and leg joints. fatal shots aren't all they're supposed to do, you know.
WREturns @ Jun 29th 2009 12:17AM
Right, but you're not a cop. Civilians that legally own a firearm and are trained to use it are trained to kill. However, I have no rebuttal for the sawed-off shotgun argument...
undrssthemachine @ Jun 29th 2009 12:42AM
most likely (i didn't RTFA, so i'm not sure) the self defense was dropped because it sounds like he fired preemptively, if someone is coming at you and trying to stab/beat/shoot you and you stab/shoot/beat back, then you have an argument for self defense, but you can't shoot someone because you're pretty sure they might try to hit you.
j.howlett @ Jun 29th 2009 12:45AM
sawed offs are illegal. i feel if you're in a situation as a private citizen where you feel you need to use a gun, shoot to kill. if the situation is not that serious maybe you shouldn't use a gun.
Look At This Suit @ Jun 29th 2009 1:11AM
If you are in a position where you need to use a gun in self defense, you ALWAYS shoot to kill.
Sly @ Jun 29th 2009 1:14AM
j. howlett, not all sawed offs are illegal. they just have to meet a certain barrel length. and if you're shooting someone with a shotgun in a situation like this, chances are you're doing more than 1 illegal thing...
and WRE, you never said civilians. you said "If you have a firearm and you receive training for it, you're taught to only use it if it's a life or death situation and, if it is, to shoot to kill." and i'm pretty sure that includes most cops. so both of my arguments stand.
The Dark Wayne @ Jun 29th 2009 1:42AM
just use batarangs, works for me. Recyclable too
Sly @ Jun 29th 2009 1:43AM
look at this suit, here's the way i see it. if your opponent is armed, shoot to kill. if he's unarmed and just trying to beat you up, aim for the legs.
WREturns @ Jun 29th 2009 2:01AM
Sly,
Okay, so then I clarified my point. Just because I made a vague statement doesn't mean that you win the argument no matter what. And I would be willing to bet that the overwhelmingly vast majority of policemen in the world are trained to shoot to kill. You need to lay off the late-eighties/early-nineties movies for a while, pal. ; )
Sly @ Jun 29th 2009 2:17AM
"Just because I made a vague statement doesn't mean that you win the argument no matter what."
again, you're not reading what i'm saying. i never said i won. i just said that the argument still stands. trust me, if i thought i "won", i would have rubbed it in your face in the douchiest way possible ;)
and my comment to look at this suit sums up my thoughts on the matter and i'll leave it at that. good night, WRE. and no, i will keep watching 80's/90's cop flicks.
MarioSpitza @ Jun 29th 2009 4:47AM
Yes, it is more complicated. The issue at hand is that he killed them, not that he tried to shoot them. If he hadn't kill them, the trial would probably be a lot better off for him.
Still, as it is, there seems to be some sort of major miscarriage of justice here. He got 25 years to life for 'first degree murder'? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 'first degree murder' when you willfully and *planned* to kill someone? I didn't follow the case, but considering the four guys he shot approached him, that means the shooting occurred without any premeditation, so I don't see how it can be first degree murder.
Secondly, the rest of that: He's getting about 59 years for 'attempted murder'? Am I hearing that right? That's about 20 years for each person he attempted to shoot (including one he didn't). So he's getting a sentence (a piece, mind you) that an actual murderer would get for each attempt to shoot at a group that accosted him?
While I'm sorry for the death of that guy, this seems to be a serious case of injustice. I also have to question how constitutional it is considering that the total jail time would add up to greater than the average human lifespan and it is essentially for one death.
Jake B @ Jun 29th 2009 5:21AM
If you aren't going to shoot to kill aim below the waist, that way you get assault instead of attempted murder.
Blank-Mage @ Jun 29th 2009 9:41AM
Or just have an intimidatingly large German Shepard. Works every time.
FlamingEffigy @ Jun 29th 2009 11:08AM
Or just live in the UK, where we don't have to think about whether we should shoot to kill, or be shot, and can go about our lives happy in the knowledge that if someone's gonna kill us, we'll have a decent chance of defending ourselves without having to kill other guy and probably go to prison.
Now watch me get down voted for speaking against guns.
Sir Buzz Killington( The Artist formerly known as Jakka) @ Jun 29th 2009 12:25PM
Actually...thanks to Chavs, UK might be one of the places that would be a lot better off if everyone had a gun - and this is coming from a strict anti-gun protester.
There would be much natural selection for the first year, but then it'd turn out to be a much safer place.
XBL: xGeneral DEATHx PSN: Deeth82 @ Jun 29th 2009 1:49PM
To further a-splode blackarmy's inbox, here are my two cents:
If four people forcibly made their way into my house to accuse me of something and were not asked/allowed in, I would definitely be packin'...although the gun would be a last resort.
If I shot at someone's kneecap with a sawed-off shotgun, I may as well shoot that person in the face if I'm using buckshot...blasting that leg off will almost certainly guarantee that they bleed out before help can arrive. If you're using shells filled rock salt, sure, shoot for the legs, but remember that the party accusing you of stealing a playstation can sue your ass off in civil court for the injuries you've caused. In other words, kids...guns should ALWAYS be a last resort, but if they are your only option, you might as well shoot to kill.
XBL: xGeneral DEATHx PSN: Deeth82 @ Jun 29th 2009 1:55PM
Flaming Effigy:
I certainly won't downvote you for speaking your mind, but keep in mind one main point: Laws are for honest people...if you think there are no guns in your country in the hands of criminals, I can safely say you should probably re-evaluate your stance. I would rather be able to bring a gun to a gunfight than a knife/fists.
John @ Jun 29th 2009 2:15PM
Not to mention the heinous knife crime rates in England.
Being involved in a knife fight on EITHER side is a near guarantee that you will be cut, no matter what steven segal does on tv, the majority of gun confrontations involving self defense with a firearm never even reach the point of shots fired as the sight of a gun is usually enough to make a unarmed/lesser armed attacker shove off.
But of course I forgot how you brits live in magical candy land where no one ever hurts anyone else and you ride chocolate carousels to work every day at the unicorn petting zoo.
XBL: xGeneral DEATHx PSN: Deeth82 @ Jun 29th 2009 2:26PM
Rule #1 of knife-fighting: If you choose Fight over Flight, expect to get cut.
Yeah, I don't know where people get these ideas that gun control somehow halts any and all criminal activity, but riding a chocolate carousel to work everyday sounds pretty kick-ass, even if it is messy.
sony boy @ Jun 28th 2009 11:07PM
tsk tsk. how stupid. who would dare kill someone over a frikin ps2, or any game console for that matter?!?!?! This should stay in jail for enternity.
plus, a ps2 is the cheapest, undead console, in the market!!
muffin1man @ Jun 28th 2009 11:23PM
this incident happened about 2 yrs. ago. i dont think the ps2 was dead back then and its not dead now actually....but its about principle if u think u got the guy who stole it from u, u dont let him get away with it. it makes u look like a punk. even if dude had stolen some socks from him i doubt it woulda made a diference
Nate Addison @ Jun 28th 2009 11:25PM
but sony boy....what you fail to understand is that the memory card was still in the system. His Kingdom Hearts and Final Fantasy XII save data were in danger....not to mention his "Hot Coffee" mod from San Andreas...MY GOD MAN!!!!! HOW COULD ANYONE WITHSTAND THAT UTTER BRUTALITY!!!! THE HORROR!!!
The Baron @ Jun 29th 2009 8:23AM
I don't think the PS2 was necessarily the main cause.
John @ Jun 29th 2009 2:17PM
Yeah muffin man, cause confronting the guy you think stole your PS2 with no proof and 4 of your "homies" to back you up is the proper response instead of say calling the police.
Kinsey @ Jun 28th 2009 11:16PM
For a minute there, I thought this was gonna be a Dave Chappelle gag.
Markez @ Jun 28th 2009 11:19PM
I'd be able to at least get a laugh out of this story if the old codger on the left was actually the criminal... Like not being able to play Bejeweled anymore threw him into a rage.
...as it is now it's just sad, though.
Sly @ Jun 28th 2009 11:26PM
the convicted guy looks kinda scared, not like a kind of guy that would go around flashing his gun and dealing drugs. but anyone dying over a PS2 is just sad, in more ways than 1.
Sly @ Jun 28th 2009 11:24PM
> At sentencing, the mother of the deceased (Brant Daniels) forgave Brooks, calling him "a good kid who made a wrong choice."
wow nice lady.
Wes @ Jun 29th 2009 1:54AM
She has to be nice to him. He's going to be out in 5 years and he'll have a gun again in 5 years and 3 days.
SpydaKat 17 @ Jun 29th 2009 2:30AM
Wow that's a fancy skill you've got there swami
bryan @ Jun 28th 2009 11:28PM
What a poorly worded title. Man gets life in killing.....
Martin Greenberg @ Jun 28th 2009 11:40PM
Plus, the article says it was almost 60 years, but not life.
Martin Greenberg @ Jun 28th 2009 11:41PM
Never mind. I'm a moron.
Kazuo Mishima @ Jun 28th 2009 11:30PM
Damn, that really sucks..
AvA (ice~) @ Jun 29th 2009 3:06PM
I don't think this guy should get life in prison, honestly...
arrness @ Jun 28th 2009 11:36PM
i like these kind of articles.
kojo87 @ Jun 29th 2009 2:44AM
um..... why exactly?
tmacairjordan87 @ Jun 28th 2009 11:38PM
"a good kid who made a wrong choice."
Yes...flashes a gun around, shoots people, flees from the scene, and is known for dealing drugs. A real role model for your kids right there.
Sly @ Jun 29th 2009 12:12AM
hey, at least he gave himself up instead of getting into a firefight with the coppers...
SonyHomie (PSN: superballa123) @ Jun 29th 2009 12:41PM
@tmacairjordan87
Sounds like your just believing everything the prosecutor says. It's his job to make the defendant look bad so unless you were put in the same situation you have no right to comment on the actions he took. Have this been a cop he would have just gone home free. Those cops who shot an unarmed man (Sean Bell) 50 times are sure role models, right?
Brian @ Jun 29th 2009 2:06PM
the known for flashing gun and dealing drugs isnt necasarilly true. plus hell in an area where 4 guys come after you for maybe stealing a ps2 there isnt many ways to make a life
i think its crazy he gets life for this who knows what they threatened its way too extreme
Toyin @ Jun 28th 2009 11:48PM
This is total BS. The guy didn't even have the PS2, and there was four guys probably beating his door down demanding the console back. The fact he only killed one of these idiots is enough reason to claim self defense in my books. And even if it was murder technically, then he should get 10-25 yrs, not all this other crap about weapon+attempted murder. They where probably going to beat this kid up, you don't get four men together for a little chit chat - I'd have done the same thing and as the accused! Completely self defense.
And besides, this isn't a vigilante society. If they really thought he had the stolen PS2, then they should have gone to the cops.
CH3BURASHKA @ Jun 29th 2009 12:12AM
The weirdest part of it all is that 4 guys didn't have 150 bucks between them to buy another one.
Fun DMC @ Jun 29th 2009 12:25AM
Perhaps you should read up on the situation.
The kids didn't beat down the door - in fact, they had a discussion with the killer and a friend, a discussion which he left to retrieve the gun. You talk about 'calling the cops' - don't you think this guy, who had the opportunity to go to his bedroom and retrieve the gun, could have called the cops himself? Anywhos, he came back with the gun, and when he flashed the gun, the guys started retreating. And you know what he did? He fucking shot them, as they retreated - I know this, because all the reports I've seen say the kids were shot in areas on their back, except for the dead kid, who was shot in the neck.
He overreacted and killed someone. Whether or not you believe he deserves life in prison for that, the facts make it pretty clear that 'self defense', this was not.