Another black man shot and killed by US police, but is this another George Floyd incident?

Maddog wrote:

Didgee wrote:

No you are talking bullshit, as you would get a fine of up to 2,500 Euro's and possibility of a ban. If found sleeping in your car under the influence
You would not be taken to the Police station
Why would you when details are taken and verified?
Hence again why did the US cops not do this and as asked get him a cab home?

So I have no idea what research you did, but on the ones I did, no where does it indicate that they have to be taken to the Police station, unless they are found driving

He was behind the wheel. He was driving. Or at least he was until he passed out trying to order a hamburger. That's why he was given a breathalyzer and was being arrested for a DUI.

Now, if he was in a parking spot. Keys out of the ignition and him not sleeping in the drivers seat, that would be completely different.  

They probably would let him go if he could get a ride because there isn't really any proof he was driving drunk. He could have pulled over and got drunk.

But when you DRIVE  into a drive through and pass out in front of all of the employees and they have to call 911 because you are blocking their drive through, it's hard to make a claim that you didnt drive there drunk.  

Maddog wrote:"I think you've had too much to drink to be driving," Mr Rolfe tells Mr Brooks when the breath test is complete. "Put your hands behind your back."


From the original post.

He was driving.  That's why he was being arrested.  Sleeping in your car drunk wont get you arrested for DUI.  

Didgee wrote:

Maddog wrote:

He was behind the wheel. He was driving. Or at least he was until he passed out trying to order a hamburger. That's why he was given a breathalyzer and was being arrested for a DUI.

Now, if he was in a parking spot. Keys out of the ignition and him not sleeping in the drivers seat, that would be completely different.  

They probably would let him go if he could get a ride because there isn't really any proof he was driving drunk. He could have pulled over and got drunk.

But when you DRIVE  into a drive through and pass out in front of all of the employees and they have to call 911 because you are blocking their drive through, it's hard to make a claim that you didnt drive there drunk.  

The car was parked

So I suggest by your second sentence you have checked and seen you were in error then under German law

In the transcripts, he asked to have an UBER called for him

You have no idea if he passed out, that is simple speculation on your part

Didgee wrote:

Maddog wrote:"I think you've had too much to drink to be driving," Mr Rolfe tells Mr Brooks when the breath test is complete. "Put your hands behind your back."


From the original post.

He was driving.  That's why he was being arrested.  Sleeping in your car drunk wont get you arrested for DUI.  

That is incorrect

The officer is making a statement

That does not mean he was driving

Again you are speculating

All of which is besides the point

Again they could have booked him and got him off home

The Police action escalated the situation

Maddog wrote:

Didgee wrote:

That is incorrect

The officer is making a statement

That does not mean he was driving

Again you are speculating

All of which is besides the point

Again they could have booked him and got him off home

The Police action escalated the situation

How did the car get into the drive through?

Maddog wrote:Passing out in the drive through is more common than many people understand. Happens a lot as folks leave the bars.  

You will get a DUI if you drive into a drive through and pass out behind the wheel.  You dont get to claim you were "parked".

Didgee wrote:

Maddog wrote:

How did the car get into the drive through?

Missing the point

Of course he had driven

At the time the Police stopped him, he was a sleep

Again he was compliant for most of the discussion with the Police

Did this warrant him being handcuffed and arrested?

No

That is what escalated this

He could have been booked and charged to appear later

Am off to work

Laters

Maddog wrote:

Didgee wrote:

Missing the point

Of course he had driven

At the time the Police stopped him, he was a sleep

Again he was compliant for most of the discussion with the Police

Did this warrant him being handcuffed and arrested?

No

That is what escalated this

He could have been booked and charged to appear later

Am off to work

Laters

We dont "book" people for DUI. We arrest them.  

The police didnt stop him either. They were called because some damn fool passed out in the drive through while DRIVING!  

He blew well over the legal limit.  

No cop in this country can turn a drunk loose when they are on camera blowing over .08.

And if you want to get real technical, the cops asked him  to move his car out of the drive through.  So he did drive while under the influence.  

If he had any sense, he would have taken off running in the very beginning and taken his chance with a fleeing and evading charge.  

I'm sorry he's dead, and I have a problem with the use of deadly force, but anyone in this guys position is going to jail for driving drunk.  

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


And given the level of violence displayed by the criminal... plus the fact he had just fired a taser at cops to further his attempt at escape... it is very reasonable to have considered that he could also likely have engaged in violence to other members of the public in order to further evade capture...

They can't shoot everyone that fights with them. Not wanting to go to jail isn't going to be enough. That's what this guy was doing. He was on parole (for beating his kids and a DUI) and he knew this arrest was going to send him back to prison. He freaked, over reacted and fought like hell to get away, including stealing a taser and using it. But he wasn't going on a killing spree if he got away. Discharging the taser towards a cop was an assault designed to incapacitate the cop. Legally the cop can use deadly force, but it doesn't mean he won't be charged by an overzealous DA trying to win an election next month.

That's one of the problems with our system. The DA is elected and they need to appeal to the voter as much as the law.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's a toy like a nightstick.,

Its causes injury, but usually not death.  

That's exactly right.  It's a toy as compared to an actual lethal weapon.  Police are taught this, and moreover they are trained to exercise good reasoning skills.The Brooks murder was a cop with little or no impulse control, and a southern amount of prejudice.

Didgee wrote:

Maddog wrote:

We dont "book" people for DUI. We arrest them.  

The police didnt stop him either. They were called because some damn fool passed out in the drive through while DRIVING!  

He blew well over the legal limit.  

No cop in this country can turn a drunk loose when they are on camera blowing over .08.

And if you want to get real technical, the cops asked him  to move his car out of the drive through.  So he did drive while under the influence.  

If he had any sense, he would have taken off running in the very beginning and taken his chance with a fleeing and evading charge.  

I'm sorry he's dead, and I have a problem with the use of deadly force, but anyone in this guys position is going to jail for driving drunk.  

Yeah because people over the limit are a danger to  people in their beds sleeping this off?

Never heard such nonsense in all my life

It would be different if in the act of driving, but he had stopped and was alseep

He could have been booked and to appear in court at a later date

What is the need to arrest and place someone in jail, when they could be sent home without their car in a cab?

Its irrational and irresponsible policing which as seen can and does lead to escalations

If you think someone over the limit asleep in their car is a dangerous criminal

Then you fail to see the problems here in this with policing

The issue here is around whether someone is no longer a danger to the public and they would no longer be if taken home in a cab

They would still have to go to court and face criminal proceedings for their actions

Tommy Monk wrote:

Maddog wrote:

They can't shoot everyone that fights with them. Not wanting to go to jail isn't going to be enough. That's what this guy was doing. He was on parole (for beating his kids and a DUI) and he knew this arrest was going to send him back to prison. He freaked, over reacted and fought like hell to get away, including stealing a taser and using it. But he wasn't going on a killing spree if he got away. Discharging the taser towards a cop was an assault designed to incapacitate the cop. Legally the cop can use deadly force, but it doesn't mean he won't be charged by an overzealous DA trying to win an election next month.

That's one of the problems with our system. The DA is elected and they need to appeal to the voter as much as the law.

But he may well have injured other members of public in his desperation to escape... might have held one hostage or beaten somebody out of a car to drive off in... And so many more possibilities...

Syl wrote:What I did find unusual from the start.
The police arrived to see his car blocking the drive through. They knocked hard several times on the car window and there was no response. One of the cops opened the car door, they had to shout to rouse him, the driver was obviously under some sort of influence, confused and slurring his words.

The officers then instructed him to move the car to a designated parking space. They then went back over to their own vehicle and waited. The car didn't move, he had fallen back to sleep again.

The cops had to once more go over, open the door, and shout loudly to rouse him, they again told him to move the car.

Why did they even trust him to remain behind the wheel....I'm sure  Brit cops would not have allowed that.

Syl wrote:What I did find unusual from the start.
The police arrived to see his car blocking the drive through. They knocked hard several times on the car window and there was no response. One of the cops opened the car door, they had to shout to rouse him, the driver was obviously under some sort of influence, confused and slurring his words.

The officers then instructed him to move the car to a designated parking space. They then went back over to their own vehicle and waited. The car didn't move, he had fallen back to sleep again.

The cops had to once more go over, open the door, and shout loudly to rouse him, they again told him to move the car.

Why did they even trust him to remain behind the wheel....I'm sure  Brit cops would not have allowed that.

Maddog wrote:

Didgee wrote:

Yeah because people over the limit are a danger to  people in their beds sleeping this off?

Never heard such nonsense in all my life

It would be different if in the act of driving, but he had stopped and was alseep

He could have been booked and to appear in court at a later date

What is the need to arrest and place someone in jail, when they could be sent home without their car in a cab?

Its irrational and irresponsible policing which as seen can and does lead to escalations

If you think someone over the limit asleep in their car is a dangerous criminal

Then you fail to see the problems here in this with policing

The issue here is around whether someone is no longer a danger to the public and they would no longer be if taken home in a cab

They would still have to go to court and face criminal proceedings for their actions

He was still in control of the vehicle. That's why he was being charged with DUI not public intoxication.

And yes we could just send everyone home that gets caught drunk behind the wheel.  

Let me know of another country that does that,  

Didgee wrote:

Maddog wrote:

He was still in control of the vehicle. That's why he was being charged with DUI not public intoxication.

And yes we could just send everyone home that gets caught drunk behind the wheel.  

Let me know of another country that does that,  

Dodged the question

Again what threat do they pose to people when sent home in a cab and then asleep in bed, after being found asleep in their car?

I already showed in Germany you do not get arrested for sleeping in your car

Maddog wrote:

Didgee wrote:

Dodged the question

Again what threat do they pose to people when sent home in a cab and then asleep in bed, after being found asleep in their car?

I already showed in Germany you do not get arrested for sleeping in your car

No one is a threat when they are home sleeping. They are when they are drunk behind the wheel and still operating the vehicle.  

We dont get arrested for sleeping in our car here either.  

Stop being obtuse. Your silly ego is getting in the way of you understanding what happened here.  

Didgee wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No one is a threat when they are home sleeping. They are when they are drunk behind the wheel and still operating the vehicle.  

We dont get arrested for sleeping in our car here either.  

Stop being obtuse. Your silly ego is getting in the way of you understanding what happened here.  

Nothing to do with ego, you immature wally

This is about being critical of bad policies, which for some reason you are getting worked up over

So if the threat has been neutralised.

Why arrest, handcuff and take to jail this person. When you can process this through the courts, after already obtaining the information of the individual?

By arresting, handcuffing and taking to jail and processing. How mach Police time out on the streets has been lost through this?

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:What I did find unusual from the start.
The police arrived to see his car blocking the drive through. They knocked hard several times on the car window and there was no response. One of the cops opened the car door, they had to shout to rouse him, the driver was obviously under some sort of influence, confused and slurring his words.

The officers then instructed him to move the car to a designated parking space. They then went back over to their own vehicle and waited. The car didn't move, he had fallen back to sleep again.

The cops had to once more go over, open the door, and shout loudly to rouse him, they again told him to move the car.

Why did they even trust him to remain behind the wheel....I'm sure  Brit cops would not have allowed that.

I can almost assure you the police car has him blocked in

Another thing the cops do here is start filming to build a case for a DUI. We can usually refuse to take a breathalyzer or have blood drawn (it's actually the smartest defense). So they would have him on video doing all of this for a future court case if needed.  That would include doing a poor job of parking.

I imagine the same thing would happen if the guy parked his car in the middle if the street. The cops would take the chance of letting him move a few feet and getting the car off the street, even if they suspect he had been drinking.  

It would also give them a better case for a DUI, because they can put the driver behind the wheel, operating the motor vehicle.

They will get you to incriminate yourself if they can.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I can almost assure you the police car has him blocked in

Another thing the cops do here is start filming to build a case for a DUI. We can usually refuse to take a breathalyzer or have blood drawn (it's actually the smartest defense). So they would have him on video doing all of this for a future court case if needed.  That would include doing a poor job of parking.

I imagine the same thing would happen if the guy parked his car in the middle if the street. The cops would take the chance of letting him move a few feet and getting the car off the street, even if they suspect he had been drinking.  

It would also give them a better case for a DUI, because they can put the driver behind the wheel, operating the motor vehicle.

They will get you to incriminate yourself if they can.

But if you look at the first couple of minutes on this video it doesn't look as if the police did block him in.

Didgee wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No one is a threat when they are home sleeping. They are when they are drunk behind the wheel and still operating the vehicle.

We dont get arrested for sleeping in our car here either.

Stop being obtuse. Your silly ego is getting in the way of you understanding what happened here.

Nothing to do with ego, you immature wally

This is about being critical of bad policies, which for some reason you are getting worked up over

So if the threat has been neutralised.

Why arrest, handcuff and take to jail this person. When you can process this through the courts, after already obtaining the information of the individual?

By arresting, handcuffing and taking to jail and processing. How mach Police time out on the streets has been lost through this?

Maddog wrote:Well, that part of the video does show him operating the vehicle, hence the DUI charge.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

I think I am right in saying that today's taser has 2 shot capabilities... Like a double barrel shotgun has 2 separate shots that can be fired...

So... After this criminal fired the taser the first time at the cop, he was well within his rights to shoot at him, to prevent being shot by the criminal with the tasers second round...

If you are in a police state, tom, you don't need any excuse.

In America we like to think we are more civilized.  You need threat of your life, or the life of another, before using deadly force.

JulesV wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If you are in a police state, tom, you don't need any excuse.

In America we like to think we are more civilized.  You need threat of your life, or the life of another, before using deadly force.

Like I said earlier, the police manage to arrest multiple killers and deliver them in one piece to a prison cell. Eg that Wallmart shooter  who killed so many people (and many other shooters) get arrested and taken unharmed to prison.

Strange that somehow the cops cannot manage to deliver the likes of Floyd or Rayshard (who have committed lesser crimes) unharmed to prison cells too, they deliver them to morgues instead.
Funny old world!

JulesV wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If you are in a police state, tom, you don't need any excuse.

In America we like to think we are more civilized.  You need threat of your life, or the life of another, before using deadly force.

Like I said earlier, the police manage to arrest multiple killers and deliver them in one piece to a prison cell. Eg that Wallmart shooter  who killed so many people (and many other shooters) get arrested and taken unharmed to prison.

Strange that somehow the cops cannot manage to deliver the likes of Floyd or Rayshard (who have committed lesser crimes) unharmed to prison cells too, they deliver them to morgues instead.
Funny old world!

Original Quill wrote:

JulesV wrote:

Like I said earlier, the police manage to arrest multiple killers and deliver them in one piece to a prison cell. Eg that Wallmart shooter  who killed so many people (and many other shooters) get arrested and taken unharmed to prison.

Strange that somehow the cops cannot manage to deliver the likes of Floyd or Rayshard (who have committed lesser crimes) unharmed to prison cells too, they deliver them to morgues instead.
Funny old world!

Look to skin color.  Blacks represent 13% of the general population in the US.  According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in 2013 blacks accounted for 59% of the total prison population.  How do we get from there to here?

The Sentencing Project wrote:Such broad statistics mask the racial disparity that pervades the U.S. criminal justice system, and for African Americans in particular. African Americans are more likely than white Americans to be arrested; once arrested, [African Americans] are more likely to be convicted; and once convicted, and [African Americans] are more likely to experience lengthy prison sentences. African-American adults are 5.9 times as likely to be incarcerated than whites and Hispanics are 3.1 times as likely. As of 2001, one of every three black boys born in that year could expect to go to prison in his lifetime, as could one of every six Latinos—compared to one of every seventeen white boys. Racial and ethnic disparities among women are less substantial than among men but remain prevalent.

Tommy Monk wrote:If they weren't doing the crimes in such an excessive disproportionate rate... Then they wouldn't be doing the time at an equally excessive disproportionate rate...

Tommy Monk wrote:Now... Nobody is trying to say that all black males are violent criminals... And nobody is trying to say that all violent criminals are black males either... The overwhelming vast majority of black males in this age group are hard working decent law abiding citizens...

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill... Stop trying to ignore the facts!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:



If they weren't doing the crimes in such an excessive disproportionate rate... Then they wouldn't be doing the time at an equally excessive disproportionate rate...


A prime example is the murder rate in the US... Blacks account for only about 13% of population... But are responsible for around half the murders every year...


But when you whittle it down further... It is actually black males between the ages of 18-45 who are responsible for almost all of these murders... While this category is only about 3% of the US population...


Then if you look at statistics for other serious/violent crimes too... This same demographic of black males is hugely disproportionately responsible for these crimes too...





Quill... Stop trying to ignore the facts!!!

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill... Stop trying to ignore the facts!!!

You hate blacks.  Yet you are responsible for their plight.  Shame on you.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Now... Nobody is trying to say that all black males are violent criminals... And nobody is trying to say that all violent criminals are black males either... The overwhelming vast majority of black males in this age group are hard working decent law abiding citizens...

That's like, "some of my best friends are blacks".

Ben Reilly wrote:Agreed, what Tommy said is entirely fair and true.

It's not racist to say that some black people are violent criminals -- it's far more racist to pretend that NO black people are violent criminals.

Ben Reilly wrote:Black people have it rough in the United States and have had it even rougher in the past.

That doesn't mean that when a black person commits a violent crime, you don't label him or her a violent criminal.

It's not about politics, it's just logic.