Nightsticks are weapons.

If you are threatening an officer with a weapon and they shoot you it's likely justified. If you're running away and they shoot you in the back ?

Not so much.

That poor cop.
He just wouldn't put a cap into the guy.
He's probably drummed out of the department.

Nothing between talking and TASERing a guy to get control of the situation is at the root of the problem. What are the options to handle a situation between talking and TASERing? Are there none?

https://thegrio.com/2020/06/14/raysh...-cam-shooting/

in case you haven't seen the Brooks bodycam video



Did the cop offer to give the guy a ride home?

No, he repeatedly asked the guy to submit evidence against himself (for later trial).

The guy admitted drinking, then the cop asked him to take a portable breath test (PBT). Note, this test is not admissible for blood-alcohol content, only to determine the presence of alcohol. This is information the cop already had, but he is trained to build evidence for an eventual trial.



The guy offered to walk home.

No, the officer continued to ask the guy to submit evidence against himself.



The cops were not there to help. They were there to arrest & convict.



The guy was cooperative & compliant until the cops tried to grab him & lock him up.

We need a gestalt shift in our attitudes and expectations regarding law enforcement.


Deescalation over deterrence.

Rehabilitation over retribution.



The cops had Brooks' car and his license. He was no longer a threat that night.

Being arrested for DUI, he would be bailed out within a day or two (Georgia provides the right to bail for all misdemeanors).



Even before the shooting, the officer was just "doing his job", but that's not what his job should be.

Ouch. Incredibly damning video. Anyone who watches that video and still pushes the narrative that he wasn’t resisting is straight up lying.

Wait until the body camera videos are released that show Floyd resisting even more. The mayor has been doing his best to keep them hidden for a reason.

@iamnotawerewolf

He commited a crime, that warranted collection of evidence, and an arrest, according to GA law. If you want to let people walk, go be cop.

In what jurisdiction can you receive the death penalty for evading arrest? Pointingva TASER at peace officer?

He received the death penalty without a trial, btw.

Arrest decisions are discretionary, itshot.

Speeding is a crime, too.

And that's within the current paradigm.

You seem to be missing the call for the paradigm to shift.

Fired a taser. Truth over facts.

It's very ticky tacky but they all seemed to have a good dialogue going up until the arrest. The officer kind of just went out of flow and just went to put handcuffs on the guy but seems like the way they were conversing it would have been more natural to inform him first he was being put under arrest. Minor point and I wouldn't say the officer was necessarily wrong it just kind of stuck out to me the way the interaction had been going up to that point.

The interaction was pretty lecturey. But yeah, putting the cuffs on was abrupt, and Brooks decided he didn't agree.

I was going to edit to "discharged a TASER."

Again, in what jurisdiction is the death penalty applicable for discharging a TASER at a peace officer.

Now, you can answer.

The guy should have been arrested and not allowed to walk home. He was drunk enough that he decided to take a nap in the drive thru line.
There is too much liability to give drunk drivers a pass because they will continue their behavior. Too many times in the late 80's was it shown that people were given a pass on an arrest only to kill someone in the future while drinking and driving. It was a big point for MADD and getting the DUI laws more strict.

How about, "Mr. Brooks, we're going to drive you home, and issue you a court summons for Driving Under the Influence."?

He wasn't given the death penalty.

You can't even answer the question.

I can't say for sure in Georgia but normally you need to have your blood or breath tested on a calibrated machine or nothing holds up in court. That's either going to be at the hospital or at the station. The days of letting people off on drunk driving are over and anyone with a driver's license pretty much knows that.

They had a recorded confession. He admitted to driving after drinking.

I like how you all assert invalid premises and think you have a gotcha when people dont answer them. You don't even care you've asked a flawed question, maybe because you think it validates your warped view of the world, when people reject it. Like, does your mom know you are an idiot?

She does.

Doubt it holds up in court.

Driving after drinking isn’t a crime. Most places it’s only a crime if your BAC is above a particular level.

If you think they should cut the guy a break and just drive him home and call it a night, fine. But if you think that they should be investigating a DWI at all, it is unreasonable to say “Well he admitted drinking 1.5 margs, that’s all we gotta do”.

I think the killing was ridiculous and clearly outside the law and the guy who fired the shots at someone running away should be charged. I also think if you got a call that a guy was driving drunk and found him asleep in a car, they should try and investigate and possibly arrest them. At the same time, cops are absolutely 1000 percent more likely to just tell a white guy in a suit to call a cab than the guy here.

This pretty much encapsulates the entire issue. Very nice.