In a headline reminiscent of the National Enquirer, the Los Angeles Times ran an editorial Tuesday titled: “Atlanta police killed a Black man for being drunk at Wendy’s.” No. Mr. Brooks was not killed for being drunk.

Rayshard Brooks was killed after resisting arrest, attacking two police officers, taking an officer’s Taser and shooting it at a police officer. The decision by the Times’ editorial board to intentionally omit this last fact is damning proof of its effort to create a narrative that serves a social agenda, despite evidence that supports a contrary conclusion…

In Georgia, an officer is entitled to use deadly force when he reasonably believes his life is in danger or he’s at risk of receiving a serious physical injury. When this case goes to trial, the jurors will be instructed that they must consider the context of Brooks attacking the officer, grabbing the Taser and shooting the Taser at the officer. This analysis includes the possibility that if Brooks hit the officer with the stolen Taser, he could grab the officer’s gun and shoot him.

Brooks was shot immediately after attempting to tase the officer. Despite Wednesday’s charges, a dispassionate analysis of the evidence raises serious questions about whether the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, in that split second of chaos and instinct, the officer did not fear for his safety.