Police guns down man after he tried to flee.

[myth]

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.

Not sure about GA, but in my state we don't have any legal authority to take their keys or tow their car off of private property, unless they are under arrest and request we tow the vehicle (or if they'r under arrest and refuse to authorize us to leave the vehicle there, we'll tow it because we have arrested them and we're now responsible for the safety of their property). They usually request that we turn the vehicle over to a friend or family member to avoid to the tow fees, but that's AFTER they've been arrested.

Having him call a taxi or friend and family member are options, but they have drawbacks as well. First, he's totally capable of returning to get his car while drunk and then drive it home (why would he do this? to avoid the business towing his vehicle while he's away). There's also no guarantee a friend or family member would prevent him from driving. I've literally seen the same guy arrested for DWI twice in one night in the same car. After the first arrest he was released into the custody of a relative, who drove him straight back to his car on the side of the road and let him get in his car to drive home. The same officer that had just arrested him was driving by and saw it (luckily), so he AND the relative wend to jail. Him for DWI (again) and the relative for aiding and abetting DWI. Part of the decision making process here is about mitigation of risk to the drunk driver and the public in general, and being nice to the person creating that risk takes a back seat to these other considerations.

The other part is enforcing the law. You're coming at this from the perspective of a nice person who doesn't want to get anyone in trouble. And that's great, but the police have a job and that's to enforce the law. Here they received a complaint from the business, and encountered an individual who they suspected was violating the law. They then conducted a 40-minute investigation and concluded that he WAS in violation of the law, and proceeded to try to take him into custody. They literally did their job exactly the way they're supposed to, and in a pretty professional manner at that. As a police officer who is certified in the field sobriety testing procedures and encountered more drunks and drunk drivers than I care to recall, I didn't see anything in that video that caused me to think Brooks was sober. I will say (again) that the video angles do not permit me to observe enough about the sobriety tests to say whether I'd call his performance a pass or fail. But he displayed a ton of verbal indicators typical to drunks (some of which I listed elsewhere).

Also, I see that you seem to not be a fan of the police, but you've also been noting that you don't think the officer committed a crime. I appreciate you being open-minded about this and being willing to say so. We need more people to have your attitude when evaluating these situations after the fact.

[myth]

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.

You sound a like a broken record. You believe this, but I'm given you a whole long argument about how it wasn't murder and you refuse to respond. Why is that? Because you can't articulate a rational argument in defense of your claim.

And you don't get to backtrack, and now claim your only problem is the shooting. You claimed earlier that Brooks passed all the field sobriety tests, so PROVE IT or retract the claim.

[Darth Ovious]

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.

Well I guess the bold is where we disagree. He turned back to shoot the taser and yes he was a danger to others in his condition. He is a danger for running away with A WEAPON to start off with. The cop had to chase him because he had a taser and when the guy fired back with the taser he fired too.

[Mountain Man]

People say, "But they had his personal information! They could have let him go and then swung by his house later to pick him up!"

Right, the police should allow a violent, angry drunk guy run free through the community. That's as stupid as thinking that the officer didn't believe he was in danger because he didn't flinch.

[myth]

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?

It's a double edged sword. If you're on your game and checked every single little box correctly, then the BWC is huge help. But if you did something small like substitute a one word for another in your instructions, you might find yourself in a long battle in court over the use of "leg" versus "foot", or something equally asinine. On the whole, I've found the body camera/dash camera footage is helpful. I'd go back through and watch the video later and see or hear all kinds of things I missed during the actual stop, and the video is super helpful if you review while writing your report. The reports end up much more detailed. Additionally, sometimes the video footage is just REALLY BAD for the defendant.

I won't go into specifics here, but I once had a nice sidebar with a defense attorney about what's in a certain video and it led to a complete course change for the defense strategy (this was a preliminary hearing, pre-discovery, so they didn't know). Love that panic look and the phrase "I need to talk to my client again". Honestly, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why people lie to and hide information from their own attorneys.

[myth]

People say, "But they had his personal information! They could have let him go and then swung by his house later to pick him up!"

Right, the police should allow a violent, angry drunk guy run free through the community. That's as stupid as thinking that the officer didn't believe he was in danger because he didn't flinch.

He was also in a rental car and not from Atlanta, so that would make it more difficult to find him.

[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?

Also, kindly admit that your assumption earlier when you called me a racist was also racist in and of itself. Your assumption that calling someone an idiot means I could only be saying that because they're black reflects your own racial bias about the intelligence of black people. Classic example of unintentional racism at work. If the show fits, wear it.

[Cow Poke]

It's a double edged sword. If you're on your game and checked every single little box correctly, then the BWC is huge help. But if you did something small like substitute a one word for another in your instructions, you might find yourself in a long battle in court over the use of "leg" versus "foot", or something equally asinine. On the whole, I've found the body camera/dash camera footage is helpful. I'd go back through and watch the video later and see or hear all kinds of things I missed during the actual stop, and the video is super helpful if you review while writing your report. The reports end up much more detailed. Additionally, sometimes the video footage is just REALLY BAD for the defendant.

I won't go into specifics here, but I once had a nice sidebar with a defense attorney about what's in a certain video and it led to a complete course change for the defense strategy (this was a preliminary hearing, pre-discovery, so they didn't know). Love that panic look and the phrase "I need to talk to my client again". Honestly, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why people lie to and hide information from their own attorneys.

Yeah, I've shared before about the time I arrested a city council woman, and she filed charges against me, the city, the mayor, the chief of police, the Boy Scouts of America (ok, maybe not that last one) and was absolutely determined to "have my badge" (bet you never heard that one ).

We had a pretrial hearing where we sat with her, her attorney, our guys, our city attorney... we had a big old video recorder in the squad room where she was processed, and it was sitting on the conference table in the room where we met.

Our city attorney said, "your honor, with your permission, can I just play a little of the recording from the squad room?. He didn't wait for a response, he just leaned forward and pushed the "play" button. The video showed the woman acting like a crazy person, opening her blouse, showing her boobs, screaming the F word over and over, screaming that she'd have my Fn badge, doing the middle finger.... HER attorney reached over and pushed the STOP button, and, rather red-faced, said, "I think we're done here".

Even the council woman seemed absolutely stunned by her own performance -- she just kept staring at the TV, and her attorney had to pull her by the arm and say, "come on, let's go....."

[oxmixmudd]

Also, kindly admit that your assumption earlier when you called me a racist was also racist in and of itself. Your assumption that calling someone an idiot means I could only be saying that because they're black reflects your own racial bias about the intelligence of black people. Classic example of unintentional racism at work. If the show fits, wear it.

That is about as stupid as it gets. What it relates to is my shock that you would attack a District Attorney that way, so much so, and given the fact he was black, I made the potentially false assumption that his race is what was motivating your false assessment of him.

I'll admit that was a rash assumption about you on my part. I can't know from your response what motivated your derision of him.

But that response had nothing to do with racism on my part.

[myth]

That is about as stupid as it gets. What it relates to is my shock that you would attack a District Attorney that way, so much so, and given the fact he was black, I made the potentially false assumption that his race is what was motivating your false assessment of him.

I'll admit that was a rash assumption about you on my part. I can't know from your response what motivated your derision of him.

But that response had nothing to do with racism on my part.

Thanks for retracting the statement, I'll leave that matter alone now.

My derision for him is because of his politically and personally motivated lies have led to ruining the lives of two officers who haven't done anything wrong.

Even the Georgia Bureau of Investigation called him out on Facebook for doing the press conference and charges before they were even done with investigation. Speaking of the GBI, they're investigating said DA for his use a nonprofit to funnel city funds to himself to pad his own salary, which is a violation of Georgia law. https://www.ajc.com/news/local/gbi-o...HbCfGNJcxMJ6O/

Howard lost in his primary election, which led to a run-off election being scheduled for August. He's a corrupt politician looking to gain votes to stay in office by appeasing the crowd and arresting two officers without any legal justification whatsoever. Not that you'll believe me, but I talked to the Chief Assistant District Attorney in my area today about this shooting. Their assessment based on my state's laws? Legal use of deadly force. None of this is as clear-cut as you seem to think it is.

[oxmixmudd]

Thanks for retracting the statement, I'll leave that matter alone now.

My derision for him is because of his politically and personally motivated lies have led to ruining the lives of two officers who haven't done anything wrong.

Even the Georgia Bureau of Investigation called him out on Facebook for doing the press conference and charges before they were even done with investigation. Speaking of the GBI, they're investigating said DA for his use a nonprofit to funnel city funds to himself to pad his own salary, which is a violation of Georgia law. https://www.ajc.com/news/local/gbi-o...HbCfGNJcxMJ6O/

Howard lost in his primary election, which led to a run-off election being scheduled for August. He's a corrupt politician looking to gain votes to stay in office by appeasing the crowd and arresting two officers without any legal justification whatsoever. Not that you'll believe me, but I talked to the Chief Assistant District Attorney in my area today about this shooting. Their assessment based on my state's laws? Legal use of deadly force. None of this is as clear-cut as you seem to think it is.

I have already admitted this is not the same sort of clear cut case Arbery and floyd are. But kicking the man you just shot and refusing to render aid will be very difficult acts to justify and point to abuse way beyond anything justifiable.

The DA laid out 11 clear violations.

But that said, this one, unlike Arbery or floyd, will require some patience to sort out.

[rogue06]

I have already admitted this is not the same sort of clear cut case Arbery and floyd are. But kicking the man you just shot and refusing to render aid will be very difficult acts to justify and point to abuse way beyond anything justifiable.

The DA laid out 11 clear violations.

But that said, this one, unlike Arbery or floyd, will require some patience to sort out.

Again, can you explain why the DA released a single frame from what he claims is a video of the officer kicking the man? Why wouldn't he release the video or even a sequence of images?

I mean doesn't this raise a red flag in your mind?

[JimL]

Wow, you're almost sounding reasonable!



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.

Seeing what you've seen, why not?

[Ronson]

Not sure about GA, but in my state we don't have any legal authority to take their keys or tow their car off of private property, unless they are under arrest and request we tow the vehicle (or if they'r under arrest and refuse to authorize us to leave the vehicle there, we'll tow it because we have arrested them and we're now responsible for the safety of their property). They usually request that we turn the vehicle over to a friend or family member to avoid to the tow fees, but that's AFTER they've been arrested.

Having him call a taxi or friend and family member are options, but they have drawbacks as well. First, he's totally capable of returning to get his car while drunk and then drive it home (why would he do this? to avoid the business towing his vehicle while he's away). There's also no guarantee a friend or family member would prevent him from driving. I've literally seen the same guy arrested for DWI twice in one night in the same car. After the first arrest he was released into the custody of a relative, who drove him straight back to his car on the side of the road and let him get in his car to drive home. The same officer that had just arrested him was driving by and saw it (luckily), so he AND the relative wend to jail. Him for DWI (again) and the relative for aiding and abetting DWI. Part of the decision making process here is about mitigation of risk to the drunk driver and the public in general, and being nice to the person creating that risk takes a back seat to these other considerations.

I don't know the laws in Georgia either. But my suggestion about an impound meant taking the vehicle to an impound yard. As I understand, the vehicle was a rental car so perhaps the company should have been notified to collect it.

The other part is enforcing the law. You're coming at this from the perspective of a nice person who doesn't want to get anyone in trouble. And that's great, but the police have a job and that's to enforce the law.

Is it? Under every circumstance? Then warnings should never be given out. And again, the cops did not witness Brooks actually driving.

Here they received a complaint from the business, and encountered an individual who they suspected was violating the law. They then conducted a 40-minute investigation and concluded that he WAS in violation of the law, and proceeded to try to take him into custody. They literally did their job exactly the way they're supposed to, and in a pretty professional manner at that. As a police officer who is certified in the field sobriety testing procedures and encountered more drunks and drunk drivers than I care to recall, I didn't see anything in that video that caused me to think Brooks was sober. I will say (again) that the video angles do not permit me to observe enough about the sobriety tests to say whether I'd call his performance a pass or fail. But he displayed a ton of verbal indicators typical to drunks (some of which I listed elsewhere).

Also, I see that you seem to not be a fan of the police, but you've also been noting that you don't think the officer committed a crime. I appreciate you being open-minded about this and being willing to say so. We need more people to have your attitude when evaluating these situations after the fact.

I've had significantly more bad interactions than positive ones, yes. I'm not a member of their fan club. But if someone shoots at a cop - or anyone - that person has a right to defend themselves. Rolfe has that right. Based solely on the video I've seen, I wouldn't have charged him with anything. That doesn't mean the incident doesn't need to be investigated further, beyond the video.

[rogue06]

The first time I came across this was back in the early 1990s, Civil Rights activist Hosea Williams was arrested for a DUI/DWI when he was found pulled off along the side of the road and asleep while the car was running. If you are in the position of operating a vehicle that is running it appears you can be charged.