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

by Syl Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:37 pm

First topic message reminder :

I dont think so.

Everyone knows how George Floyd was slowly killed by a US cop, he was defencless and pleaded with the cop to get off him he couldn't breathe.

In this incident, the man was asleep in his car in a food drivethrough entrance forcing other cars to drive round him. When police were called they couldn't rouse him at first, then when they did and he was breathalised he was over the limit.

It progressed to the man resisting arrest, grabbing the cops taser running off, turning and pointing the taser at the cop....just what was that policeman to do?
What are they trained to do in a situation like this? stand there and be tasered??

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53052077

by eddie Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:17 pm

Maddog wrote:
eddie wrote:Didn’t the guy pull a taser on the cops?

And what strikes me as really bad is this:
Demonstrators burned the restaurant down! Wtf!?

He stole the cops taser and fired it at him.

Anyway, he has been charged with murder.

I know. But as Quill says, a taser is just a toy. Another black man shot and killed by US police, but is this another George Floyd incident? - Page 2 2190311264

Another black man shot and killed by US police, but is this another George Floyd incident? - Page 2 2190311264

by Maddog Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:18 pm

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

As for the restaurant, it's property. A life has been murdered. No equivalency. Certainly you are not going to insist that Brooks is responsible for the restaurant.

Besides, I'm quite sure the restaurant has insurance.

Oh well...that’s alright then.

Yes, destruction of property should be awarded with a medal now.

by Maddog Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:18 pm

eddie wrote:
Maddog wrote:

He stole the cops taser and fired it at him.

Anyway, he has been charged with murder.

I know. But as Quill says, a taser is just a toy.

I keep telling y'all he's full of more shit than a Christmas Goose.

by eddie Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:20 pm

Maddog wrote:
eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

As for the restaurant, it's property. A life has been murdered. No equivalency. Certainly you are not going to insist that Brooks is responsible for the restaurant.

Besides, I'm quite sure the restaurant has insurance.

Oh well...that’s alright then.

Yes, destruction of property should be awarded with a medal now.

Yep. It’s okay because the business owners have insurance. Rolling Eyes

by Original Quill Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:25 pm

Another black man shot and killed by US police, but is this another George Floyd incident? - Page 2 291431081-H

Aw...po baby...fall down go boom! Laughing

by Syl Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Didn’t the guy pull a taser on the cops?

And what strikes me as really bad is this:
Demonstrators burned the restaurant down! Wtf!?

A taser is a toy. How many times do I have to repeat that? It is a non-lethal form of restraint.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than 1,000 people in the U.S. have died after police stunned them with Tasers, and the stun gun was ruled to be a cause or contributing factor in 153 of those deaths, a Reuters examination found.

by eddie Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:01 am

Yes Syl, but it’s a toy.
Quill said.

by Syl Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:06 am

eddie wrote:Yes Syl, but it’s a toy.
Quill said.

And.....

(Reuters) - Warren Ragudo died after two Taser shocks by police intervening in a family altercation. Ramzi Saad died after a Taser shock by police during a dispute between Saad and his mother. Chinedu Okobi died after police used a Taser to subdue him in a confrontation they blamed on his refusal to stop walking in traffic.

All three were unarmed. All three had histories of mental illness. And all three died last year in a single northern California county, San Mateo.
They were among at least 49 people who died in 2018 after being shocked by police with a Taser, a similar number as in the previous two years, according to a Reuters review of police records, news reports and court documents.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-taser-deaths-insight/as-death-toll-keeps-rising-u-s-communities-start-rethinking-taser-use-idUKKCN1PT0YY

by eddie Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:47 am

Well, it’s just a toy...

by Syl Thu Jun 18, 2020 1:38 am

by Original Quill Thu Jun 18, 2020 4:03 am

eddie wrote:Yes Syl, but it’s a toy.
Quill said.

Well, why would police use tasers otherwise? Your examples are by police, and that kinda proves the point about police practices, innit?

I think in most cases a taser hit is harmless. It's just a toy.

by nicko Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:46 am

Quill, your wrong, have you not seen the result of a person being hit by a Taser ? 99% drop to the ground at once, it is NOT a Toy !

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:41 am

Quill is deluded...

by Syl Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:44 pm

"Rayshard Brooks death: Police officer Garrett Rolfe charged with murder

The former Atlanta police officer who killed Rayshard Brooks has been charged with 11 offences including felony murder following the death of the 27-year-old black man in a Wendy’s restaurant car park.
Garrett Rolfe, who fired two shots into Mr Brooks’s back on 12 June, could face life in prison or the death penalty if convicted

Mr Rolfe was fired and police chief Erika Shields resigned just hours after the shooting. The other officer, Devin Brosnan, was placed on administrative duty. He also faces a charge of aggravated assault. Arrest warrants have been issued for both men."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/rayshard-brooks-death-police-shooting-atlanta-garrett-rolfe-wendys-georgia-latest-a9571951.html

by Syl Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:48 pm

It's been reported that many police in Atlanta are failing to turn up for work in support of their fellow officers.

Can you blame them?

by Maddog Thu Jun 18, 2020 3:50 pm

Syl wrote:It's been reported that many police in Atlanta are failing to turn up for work in support of their fellow officers.

Can you blame them?

I was wondering when this would start. If they all start walking out, there really is no replacement. The national guard cant do it. Even the entire US military cant do it as most members have no training for law enforcement.

by Maddog Thu Jun 18, 2020 3:55 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Quill is deluded...

It's a toy like a nightstick.,

Its causes injury, but usually not death.

by Original Quill Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:11 pm

Maddog wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Quill is deluded...

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.

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:37 pm

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...

by Original Quill Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:45 pm

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.

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:50 pm

The prick had already violently assaulted two officers... If he had hit one with the taser then he could have easily grabbed his gun and shot and killed him and the other officer too...!

by Original Quill Thu Jun 18, 2020 6:30 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The prick had already violently assaulted two officers... If he had hit one with the taser then he could have easily grabbed his gun and shot and killed him and the other officer too...!

Point 1: I think the law allows the police to do the like to him. The cops should have followed the rules.

Point 2: Haha... There you go again with the what-if's, tommy. What if the guy were an alien, trying to show the cops an improved weapon..or a better way to use the taser? Laughing

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 18, 2020 6:38 pm

Don't be a twat... After this idiots behaviour resisting arrest and violently assaulting the cops and robbing one of them of his taser, then trying to shoot the cop with the taser... The situation had escalated to an extremely high level of seriousness and criminality and danger...

It was the criminal himself who created this situation... and the cop was well within his rights to fire his gun at him...!!!

by Original Quill Thu Jun 18, 2020 6:54 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Don't be a twat... After this idiots behaviour resisting arrest and violently assaulting the cops and robbing one of them of his taser, then trying to shoot the cop with the taser... The situation had escalated to an extremely high level of seriousness and criminality and danger...

I agree, the situation had escalated...at Officer Rolfe's actions. The first officer on the scene had wanted to let Brooks park out of the way and sleep it off...a practical solution. But Rolfe wanted to escalate the situation.

Tommy Monk wrote:It was the criminal himself who created this situation... and the cop was well within his rights to fire his gun at him...!!!

It's not a matter of rights. The police officer is taking our tax money to do a job, not kill citizens. If he can't do the job, he should admit it and move on.

A police officer is not a warrior, but a conflict resolver. Only in a police state, where he would be doing the bidding of some dictator, is it appropriate for the police to turn on the citizens.

Officer Rolfe was hired to be a de-escalater, and yet he did just the opposite. He was fired on the spot for not doing his job. Subsequently, a few days later, he was arrested because he had caused a death.

Everything went according to plan.

by Maddog Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:07 pm

Cops don't let drunk people sleep it off in their car.

Drunk people can't be trusted to not start the car and drive off as soon as the cops are gone. Especially those who are found passed out behind the wheel in a drive through line.

Rolling Eyes

by Original Quill Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:13 pm

Maddog wrote:Cops don't let drunk people sleep it off in their car.

Drunk people can't be trusted to not start the car and drive off as soon as the cops are gone. Especially those who are found passed out behind the wheel in a drive through line.

Cops shouldn't kill drunk people, either. Seems the Atlanta police department has some sorting out to do.

by Maddog Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:22 pm

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...

It can be reloaded with a second round. The drunk guy wouldn't have been able to fire a second shot. They can be used as an old fashioned stun gun once you have fired a round. That requires pressing the gun against someone.

In any event, they are not toys, and no one in their right mind would buy one for a child to play with.

The DA in this case is in a run off election coming up in a month. This is a political move as much as anything.

Police are allowed to use deadly force to prevent being incapacitated and this cop was likely doing exactly as trained.

I would have preferred that he let the guy go and catch him later. But I don't think this is murder either.

From an actual expert, not a pretendy one on a forum.

“During the chase, Mr. Brooks turned and pointed the Taser at the officer,” the authorities said, adding that “the officer fired his weapon, striking Brooks.”

Kalfani N. Turè, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, said the shooting of Mr. Brooks was what was known in police circles as “lawful but awful.”

That is, he said, officers are trained that they have the right to escalate their use of force if they believe someone is threatening to incapacitate them.

In the case of Mr. Brooks, Professor Turè said, other options were available to the officers: Identify Mr. Brooks through his car and track him down later, for instance, or call for backup to help apprehend him.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/police-tasers.html

by Original Quill Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:57 pm

Maddog wrote:Kalfani N. Turè, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, said the shooting of Mr. Brooks was what was known in police circles as “lawful but awful.”

But unfortunately, it wasn't lawful. Hence, authorities (of a deep southern state) have brought charges.

Red has a southern understanding of guns, and gun laws. 'We get to use 'em, but only on blacks...oh, and uh, just don't get caught.'

Unfortunately, with cell phone cameras, too many of those southerners are getting caught. That's what happened with Ahmaud Arbery, Keith Lamont Scott, and now Rayshard Brooks, to name but a few.

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 18, 2020 11:03 pm

Not sure about that Maddog... I am not an expert on tasers but I have read that since about 2012, the regular taser devices used by police are ready loaded to discharge two times, ie just like a gun with two bullets in is able to be fired two separate times...

But even if this criminal had not had this taser, that he had grabbed out of the cops belt while violently fighting against the cops to resist arrest and escape... Isn't it the case that the cops would have been following procedure by shouting at the escaping criminal that he should stop and surrender, or else he could face them shooting at him to make him stop...?

by Original Quill Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:03 am

Tommy Monk wrote:But even if this criminal had not had this taser, that he had grabbed out of the cops belt while violently fighting against the cops to resist arrest and escape... Isn't it the case that the cops would have been following procedure by shouting at the escaping criminal that he should stop and surrender, or else he could face them shooting at him to make him stop...?

No. The shooting of the suspect would have been illegal, as the officer was not facing a life threatening situation. To call out and threaten the same would be a non sequitur.

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:18 am

Are you sure quill...?

https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/8/13/17938226/police-shootings-killings-law-legal-standard-garner-graham-connor

by Original Quill Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:23 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

Are you sure quill...?

https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/8/13/17938226/police-shootings-killings-law-legal-standard-garner-graham-connor

I'm sure about the law of use of lethal force.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 US 1 (1985) says the officer may shoot if s/he "perceives" that the the threat is real. The justices ruled 6-3 that shooting fleeing suspects who are not an imminent threat violates the person's constitutional rights. They said officers can use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon only if they have reasonable grounds to think the suspect is a danger to police or bystanders.

That merely shifts the subject to the objective evidence surrounding the incident. The police officer must then prove the facts, and then argue that it constitutes objective evidence.

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:26 am

In the 1980s, a pair of Supreme Court decisions — Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor — set up a framework for determining when deadly force by cops is reasonable.

Constitutionally, “police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances,” David Klinger, a University of Missouri St. Louis professor who studies use of force, said. The first circumstance is “to protect their life or the life of another innocent party” — what departments call the “defense-of-life” standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect poses a dangerous threat to others.

The logic behind the second circumstance, Klinger said, comes from the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner. That case involved a pair of police officers who shot a 15-year-old boy as he fled from a burglary. (He’d stolen $10 and a purse from a house.) The court ruled that cops couldn’t shoot every felon who tried to escape. But, as Klinger said, “they basically say that the job of a cop is to protect people from violence, and if you’ve got a violent person who’s fleeing, you can shoot them to stop their flight.”

by Maddog Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:45 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

Not sure about that Maddog... I am not an expert on tasers but I have read that since about 2012, the regular taser devices used by police are ready loaded to discharge two times, ie just like a gun with two bullets in is able to be fired two separate times...

But even if this criminal had not had this taser, that he had grabbed out of the cops belt while violently fighting against the cops to resist arrest and escape... Isn't it the case that the cops would have been following procedure by shouting at the escaping criminal that he should stop and surrender, or else he could face them shooting at him to make him stop...?

You can shoot someone running away with a gun, who you expect will use it. Say like a terrorist who has already shot people.

This shooting is going to be more of a self defense shooting. The cop is going to claim that he reacted to having a taser shot at him and didn't have time to see if it struck him and was going to be effective at incapacitating him.

Of course with another cop right there, it might be difficult to claim that he worried about being incapacitated and left defenseless.

I think the professor that I quoted had this right. It's "lawful, but awful".

Firing the cop was the right move. Charging him with murder is a political stunt.

by Original Quill Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:47 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

In the 1980s, a pair of Supreme Court decisions — Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor — set up a framework for determining when deadly force by cops is reasonable.

Constitutionally, “police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances,” David Klinger, a University of Missouri St. Louis professor who studies use of force, said. The first circumstance is “to protect their life or the life of another innocent party” — what departments call the “defense-of-life” standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect poses a dangerous threat to others.

The logic behind the second circumstance, Klinger said, comes from the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner. That case involved a pair of police officers who shot a 15-year-old boy as he fled from a burglary. (He’d stolen $10 and a purse from a house.) The court ruled that cops couldn’t shoot every felon who tried to escape. But, as Klinger said, “they basically say that the job of a cop is to protect people from violence, and if you’ve got a violent person who’s fleeing, you can shoot them to stop their flight.”

Ahah...but they have to prove the facts leading to a conclusion that the suspect is an immediate danger to the officer or others in the vicinity. That usually means brandishing a lethal firearm.

It is on the analogy to Graham v. Conner, that people are claiming that the taser would suffice as a lethal weapon. But a taser does not suffice, and the cops knew that Brooks only had a taser.

See, it's a sticky-wicket for the cops. If they try to create law saying a taser is a lethal weapon, then they will have to answer for the next case, when they shoot a taser and someone dies. Double-edged sword.

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:49 am

Maddog wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Not sure about that Maddog... I am not an expert on tasers but I have read that since about 2012, the regular taser devices used by police are ready loaded to discharge two times, ie just like a gun with two bullets in is able to be fired two separate times...

But even if this criminal had not had this taser, that he had grabbed out of the cops belt while violently fighting against the cops to resist arrest and escape... Isn't it the case that the cops would have been following procedure by shouting at the escaping criminal that he should stop and surrender, or else he could face them shooting at him to make him stop...?

You can shoot someone running away with a gun, who you expect will use it. Say like a terrorist who has already shot people.

This shooting is going to be more of a self defense shooting. The cop is going to claim that he reacted to having a taser shot at him and didn't have time to see if it struck him and was going to be effective at incapacitating him.

Of course with another cop right there, it might be difficult to claim that he worried about being incapacitated and left defenseless.

I think the professor that I quoted had this right. It's "lawful, but awful".

Firing the cop was the right move. Charging him with murder is a political stunt.

In the 1980s, a pair of Supreme Court decisions — Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor — set up a framework for determining when deadly force by cops is reasonable.

Constitutionally, “police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances,” David Klinger, a University of Missouri St. Louis professor who studies use of force, said. The first circumstance is “to protect their life or the life of another innocent party” — what departments call the “defense-of-life” standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect poses a dangerous threat to others.

The logic behind the second circumstance, Klinger said, comes from the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner. That case involved a pair of police officers who shot a 15-year-old boy as he fled from a burglary. (He’d stolen $10 and a purse from a house.) The court ruled that cops couldn’t shoot every felon who tried to escape. But, as Klinger said, “they basically say that the job of a cop is to protect people from violence, and if you’ve got a violent person who’s fleeing, you can shoot them to stop their flight.”

by Maddog Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:49 am

Kalfani N. Turè, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, said the shooting of Mr. Brooks was what was known in police circles as “lawful but awful.”

I doubt Kalfani is a redneck.

Unlike Quill, he's a real professor.

by Maddog Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:53 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Maddog wrote:

You can shoot someone running away with a gun, who you expect will use it. Say like a terrorist who has already shot people.

This shooting is going to be more of a self defense shooting. The cop is going to claim that he reacted to having a taser shot at him and didn't have time to see if it struck him and was going to be effective at incapacitating him.

Of course with another cop right there, it might be difficult to claim that he worried about being incapacitated and left defenseless.

I think the professor that I quoted had this right. It's "lawful, but awful".

Firing the cop was the right move. Charging him with murder is a political stunt.

In the 1980s, a pair of Supreme Court decisions — Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor — set up a framework for determining when deadly force by cops is reasonable.

Constitutionally, “police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances,” David Klinger, a University of Missouri St. Louis professor who studies use of force, said. The first circumstance is “to protect their life or the life of another innocent party” — what departments call the “defense-of-life” standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect poses a dangerous threat to others.

The logic behind the second circumstance, Klinger said, comes from the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner. That case involved a pair of police officers who shot a 15-year-old boy as he fled from a burglary. (He’d stolen $10 and a purse from a house.) The court ruled that cops couldn’t shoot every felon who tried to escape. But, as Klinger said, “they basically say that the job of a cop is to protect people from violence, and if you’ve got a violent person who’s fleeing, you can shoot them to stop their flight.”

Yes, and cops will have to prove that he was a risk to society if he escaped. I wouldn't want to try to prove that this guy was a risk.

And cops have no legal obligation to shoot anyone to protect the public. That's been settled law for quite some time.

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:55 am

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

In the 1980s, a pair of Supreme Court decisions — Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor — set up a framework for determining when deadly force by cops is reasonable.

Constitutionally, “police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances,” David Klinger, a University of Missouri St. Louis professor who studies use of force, said. The first circumstance is “to protect their life or the life of another innocent party” — what departments call the “defense-of-life” standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect poses a dangerous threat to others.

The logic behind the second circumstance, Klinger said, comes from the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner. That case involved a pair of police officers who shot a 15-year-old boy as he fled from a burglary. (He’d stolen $10 and a purse from a house.) The court ruled that cops couldn’t shoot every felon who tried to escape. But, as Klinger said, “they basically say that the job of a cop is to protect people from violence, and if you’ve got a violent person who’s fleeing, you can shoot them to stop their flight.”

Ahah...but they have to prove the facts leading to a conclusion that the suspect is an immediate danger to the officer or others in the vicinity. That usually means brandishing a lethal firearm.

It is on the analogy to Graham v. Conner, that people are claiming that the taser would suffice as a lethal weapon. But a taser does not suffice, and the cops knew that Brooks only had a taser.

See, it's a sticky-wicket for the cops. If they try to create law saying a taser is a lethal weapon, then they will have to answer for the next case, when they shoot a taser and someone dies. Double-edged sword.

No... all that is needed is the that a violent offender is fleeing and a belief that they pose a dangerous threat to others...

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:59 am

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...

by Maddog Fri Jun 19, 2020 1:08 am

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.

by Didgee Fri Jun 19, 2020 1:13 am

People need to listen to the tapes of the conversion by the Police on this incident

The Police are 100% at fault here and escalated the situation where someone was intoxicated

This is an example of poor policing

In Germany they go through two years training and obtain a degree before they are let out to work in the field

The issue with the US, is they should spend 20% of their time in work. Doing training with scenarios in dealing with many aspects they may face

The US Police force certainly needs to reform. They are sending out many people armed with basic training. Where they should have constant continued training at least once a week

We do not send soldiers out to battle with so little training

Continued training with home in skills and make for a better police force

People can argue all they like here, but the Police acted poorly here

The guy even stated to be called a UBER cab to get home and instead the Police sought to arrest him

They should have got him off home to bed and dealt with when he was sober

by Original Quill Fri Jun 19, 2020 1:15 am

Maddog wrote: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.

The DA is elected by the same voters who will sit on the jury. The system is built with rare unanimity in mind.

by Original Quill Fri Jun 19, 2020 1:16 am

Didgee wrote:People need to listen to the tapes of the conversion by the Police on this incident

The Police are 100% at fault here and escalated the situation where someone was intoxicated

This is an example of poor policing

In Germany they go through two years training and obtain a degree before they are let out to work in the field

The issue with the US, is they should spend 20% of their time in work. Doing training with scenarios in dealing with many aspects they may face

The US Police force certainly needs to reform. They are sending out many people armed with basic training. Where they should have constant continued training at least once a week

We do not send soldiers out to battle with so little training

Continued training with home in skills and make for a better police force

People can argue all they like here, but the Police acted poorly here

The guy even stated to be called a UBER cab to get home and instead the Police sought to arrest him

They should have got him off home to bed and dealt with when he was sober

+1 and

. Nailed it.

by Maddog Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:51 am

Didgee wrote:People need to listen to the tapes of the conversion by the Police on this incident

The Police are 100% at fault here and escalated the situation where someone was intoxicated

This is an example of poor policing

In Germany they go through two years training and obtain a degree before they are let out to work in the field

The issue with the US, is they should spend 20% of their time in work. Doing training with scenarios in dealing with many aspects they may face

The US Police force certainly needs to reform. They are sending out many people armed with basic training. Where they should have constant continued training at least once a week

We do not send soldiers out to battle with so little training

Continued training with home in skills and make for a better police force

People can argue all they like here, but the Police acted poorly here

The guy even stated to be called a UBER cab to get home and instead the Police sought to arrest him

They should have got him off home to bed and dealt with when he was sober

Germans allow drunk drivers to go home in an Uber?

I'm not saying it doesnt happen, I just thought Europeans were more strict with drunk drivers than Americans in general.

by Maddog Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:59 am

Ok, I did a little research. In Germany you will go to the police station to be processed. They are not going to just let you go home in an Uber.

by Original Quill Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:08 am

Maddog wrote:Ok, I did a little research. In Germany you will go to the police station to be processed. They are not going to just let you go home in an Uber.

But neither will they kill you, as in Georgia. Wink

by Didgee Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:28 am

Maddog wrote:Ok, I did a little research. In Germany you will go to the police station to be processed. They are not going to just let you go home in an Uber.

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

by Maddog Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:31 am

Didgee wrote:
Maddog wrote:Ok, I did a little research. In Germany you will go to the police station to be processed. They are not going to just let you go home in an Uber.

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.

by Maddog Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:39 am

"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.

by Sponsored content