Police guns down man after he tried to flee.

[Cow Poke]

Those are not sufficient reasons to kill someone

WOW, ya THINK?!?!?!

and if that were the case then he shouldn't be on the force in the first place.

Tragically, we don't find things out like this til after the fact.

It's not like he's a rookie, he's been around and has been involved in a bad shooting in the past.

OK, let's look at that --- show me the record, please.

[JimL]

Shoot to stop.

That's just it, you don't shoot someone who is running away unless there is good reason to believe that he is a danger to others. I'm assuming that you wouldn't have shot him in the back.

[Cow Poke]

They are not REALLY felons or murderers or bank robbers. They are just misunderstood and need counseling. The bank robber just needed the money more than the bank did.

Perhaps this funding challenged individual could just call the mayor, and city council could issue him a debit card!

The murderer was just acting selfishly and needs to learn how to share,

"Murderers Anonymous"!!!!! Maybe I could start a chapter in my Church!

and the felon isn't a felon, that's just the white man's rules meant to hold down the minorities.

Without laws, there would be no criminals!!! Problem solved!!!

[Cow Poke]

That's just it, you don't shoot someone who is running away unless there is good reason to believe that he is a danger to others.

Wow, you're almost sounding reasonable!

I'm assuming that you wouldn't have shot him in the back.

It's really hard to second guess, not knowing all the facts, but knowing what I know, and seeing what I've seen, I honestly don't believe I would have used deadly force.

[Darth Ovious]

First, he didn't really seem impaired to me. Secondly, I would not arrest someone for drunk driving if I did not witness the person actually driving. There's an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond that deals exactly with this subject, sleeping in a parked car and getting arrested.

If I had doubt (and I do) I would have taken his keys, impounded his car, and made him call a taxi or a friend/family member for a ride.

He was actually parked in the middle of the drive through. Its completely reasonable to come to the conclusion he drove to that point. Plus the staff at Wendy's already told you that the guy pulled up in the drive through and fell asleep.

[Darth Ovious]

Exactly, which the deceased actually offered to do. He offered to walk home, saying he only lived a short distance from there. When the cop in this instance decided to cuff him and bring him in he said "I think you've had to much to drink to be driving". Well, the guy obviously wasn't drunk, but he had just offered to walk home. But regardless of all that, they still shot him in the back as he was stupidly running away. The whole taser thing is ridiculous in my opinion, the cop was not in danger, he shot him because he wanted to shoot him, not because he had to. And over what, having a little to much to drink at his daughters birthday celebration and nodding off in a parked car. That's why people are calling for reform, the police sometimes seem to be a bit to trigger happy and seem to have too little respect for human life.

The guy failed a breathalyser test. You can complain all you want but the police DON'T SET THOSE LIMITS. The criminal justice system sets the limits for alcohol in concerns to drink driving. The police are instructed to arrest people who break those laws otherwise they could get into trouble themselves for not doing their job.

[Darth Ovious]

No one is suggesting that. If a cop has a legitimate reason to shoot to kill then that's what they need to do. But there are far to many instances where that is not the case.

This was one of those cases. Jim I'm a Brit. Our cops don't even have guns and I think the cop did what he had to do. I know others here in the UK who think the same way.

[Cow Poke]

He was actually parked in the middle of the drive through. Its completely reasonable to come to the conclusion he drove to that point. Plus the staff at Wendy's already told you that the guy pulled up in the drive through and fell asleep.

Besides, in most jurisdictions, being "in physical control of a motor vehicle" while intoxicated is still subject to DUI. [bolding mine]


Understanding Physical Control in the State of Georgia

Actual physical control of the vehicle is required to prove a defendant is guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol in the state of Georgia. This element is easily proven when a law enforcement officer pulls the driver over after observing the driver operating the vehicle. However, this is not always the case. Sometimes, a driver is found asleep in the car.

When law enforcement finds a car pulled over to the side of the road or parked and a driver asleep at the wheel, that individual may still be guilty of a DUI.

In most jurisdictions of which I am aware, this holds true.

[Darth Ovious]

Besides, in most jurisdictions, being "in physical control of a motor vehicle" while intoxicated is still subject to DUI. [bolding mine]


Understanding Physical Control in the State of Georgia

Actual physical control of the vehicle is required to prove a defendant is guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol in the state of Georgia. This element is easily proven when a law enforcement officer pulls the driver over after observing the driver operating the vehicle. However, this is not always the case. Sometimes, a driver is found asleep in the car.

When law enforcement finds a car pulled over to the side of the road or parked and a driver asleep at the wheel, that individual may still be guilty of a DUI.

In most jurisdictions of which I am aware, this holds true.

Thanks for that

[Cow Poke]

Thanks for that

You bet - you can't imagine how many times I heard "But I wasn't DRIVING!!!!"

[myth]

My information comes from the early 2000s but I'd imagine swishing alcohol around in your mouth is different than belching up gas containing alcohol. Unless they changed the law here the officer has to observe the suspect for 10 minutes before administering the test so they can't claim they belched before taking it.

But the road side tests are a joke and any competent attorney can rip them to shreds.

The touch the tip of the nose test? Several studies show that a significant portion of the population have trouble with it when sober -- especially those with neurological problems and those who are very nervous.

Walk a straight line? Uneven road conditions and even stepping on a rock or saying that your leg was asleep or recovering from a problem with a foot can void that. Someone who can barely stand up and keeps stumbling about or falling down is an obvious exception.

ABCs backward? Lots of folks have problems with that even sober.

This is why they were saying that their primary purpose was so that the officer conducting them was watching the suspect before administering a breath test.

Several of those tests aren't part of the battery of "standardized" field sobriety tests, so there's definitely some truth to what you're saying. The attorneys generally are not able to tear apart roadside tests by officers have been certified to conduct the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, because the test battery is research-based (developed by NHTSA) and the training in how to administer the tests addresses the issues you're describing (for instance, you're supposed to ask a series of questions about if they are normally able to walk a straight, if they have any mobility problems, if they're comfortable walking in their shoes, etc). The instances I'm aware of where attorneys do successfully challenge the SFST conclusions are when they're more familiar with the rules for conducting them than the officer is (attorneys who handle DWIs go take the certification classes and treat the course manual like a bible) either made mistakes on the roadside or gets tripped up on the stand, and the attorney then argues that they deviated from the 'standardization' part of the tests, and questions the competency of the officer. The rules are detailed and complicated, so there's significant room for minor error.

[Cow Poke]

Several of those tests aren't part of the battery of "standardized" field sobriety tests, so there's definitely some truth to what you're saying. The attorneys generally are not able to tear apart roadside tests by officers have been certified to conduct the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, because the test battery is research-based (developed by NHTSA) and the training in how to administer the tests addresses the issues you're describing (for instance, you're supposed to ask a series of questions about if they are normally able to walk a straight, if they have any mobility problems, if they're comfortable walking in their shoes, etc). The instances I'm aware of where attorneys do successfully challenge the SFST conclusions are when they're more familiar with the rules for conducting them than the officer is (attorneys who handle DWIs go take the certification classes and treat the course manual like a bible) either made mistakes on the roadside or gets tripped up on the stand, and the attorney then argues that they deviated from the 'standardization' part of the tests, and questions the competency of the officer. The rules are detailed and complicated, so there's significant room for minor error.

So, in a case like this, do you like the idea of a bodycam verifying that you crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's?

[myth]

As far as taser range, I've read that 15 feet is about the range. This image shows them closer, maybe 10 feet. I think when Brooks turned back to fire the taser, Rolfe slowed down to pull his weapon, so the range increased.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]45770[/ATTACH]

IIRC the optimal range for most of the air cartridges is 7-15 ft, but the maximum range of the standard cartridge is 21 feet. There are also special purpose cartridges with ranges in the 30-couple feet range (thought I doubt a random patrol officer would be carrying one of those, they actually suck for using at closer range).

[myth]

This case is more than complicated by the fact Rashard Brooks resisted arrest and attempted to use the Taser on the officers. A desperate man - he was on probation and likely would have had to go back to jail and was trying hard to get things right. The way non-violent Paroles are dealt with is another problem in this cascade of injustice. But for sure this case is not as clear cut as Floyd or Arbery.

And I'm sure eventually if this who thing keeps on keeping on we'll get to a situation where the killing by police was fully justified. Eventually. I'm sure you will all feel very vindicated then

The issue is not that sometimes deadly force is necessary and that sometimes the person that must be killed is black. the issue is that all too often black people get the short end of the stick, be it number of stops, probability of arrest, probability of incarceration, probability of death at the hands of police. That is the issue. Individual cases can only serve as examples of the trend - every single case is not. But Floyd and Arbery make the case quite clearly. Books too - only its not the sort of absolutely clear cut situation that can actually silence types like MM. In fact, as unbelievable as it is, neither was Arbery. Only a cop with his knee on the neck of an unarmed completely passive black man for almost 9 minutes can even come close to siliencing MM's need to impune the black man.

Oh wait, he and others even piled on talking about possible drugs in Floyd's system. Oh well.


I wonder if a full on lynching with people in hoods and a burning cross would be enough?

Guess we'll find out when the mob is done lynching the officers in this case.

Please back up your claims made here, since you haven't responded to my posts and continually make claims without backing them up. Also, Arbery wasn't a police case so it's not even relevant to this discussion. I asked you earlier to pick a single police killing of an black person in the last 5 years and make a presentation of facts that it was motivated by race. The fact that you haven't (or can't) do so is telling. Your conclusions about the state of police-community relations are not likely to be valid if your assumptions are invalid. If you're having a hard time showing me statistics that prove institutionalized racism on the part of police in this day and age, and you can't even come up with ONE example of a racist cop killing a black person, then you really should re-examine all of your assumptions.

I'll repeat it just in case you missed it earlier: I'm not condoning what happened to George Floyd. That's an example of a statistically rare event (unlawful police use of force) that resulted in someone's death. I'm not afraid to condemn that behavior, but liberal assumptions that cops are racist (or my favorite line "part of the problem") because they don't often condemn police behavior is flawed -- in that liberals often assume the use of force is unlawful, when that is totally not the case.

[JimL]

The guy failed a breathalyser test. You can complain all you want but the police DON'T SET THOSE LIMITS. The criminal justice system sets the limits for alcohol in concerns to drink driving. The police are instructed to arrest people who break those laws otherwise they could get into trouble themselves for not doing their job.

Yes, I know, I was just pointing out some facts in the case, but regardless, the shooting itself was unwarranted, and from what I've read illegal in Georgia at least. It's even illegal to fire a taser at a suspect who is running away. We can discuss all day whether he should have been arrested or how the officers handled the situation from the get go, or what they might have done differently. I didn't see a whole lot wrong, at least to my knowledge of them doing anything wrong or illegal up until the suspect escaped an ran. That's my only point of contention, and in so far as I understand the legal aspect, not to mention common sense, you don't shoot a suspect who is running away unless there is good reason to believe he is a danger to others. There was simply no reason to kill that man, period.