This is getting out of hand.

[Gmoney4WW]

Can police not shoot a suspect under any circumstance now? In Atlanta the man failed a sobriety test, and was sleeping in a car that was in the way of other cutomers. He resisted arrest, took the officers taser, and was running from the police. I did not see the footage of when he was shot, but if police are not allowed to use deadly force when warning him not to run away, after he took the officers taser?

You are handicapping officers ability to enforce the laws of this nation for all arrests after an incident such as this. You cannot allow a man to take a taser away from the police, and run away. If he had not resisted arrest in the first place, he would still be alive. It seems as if they are saying it doesn't matter what someone does, that deadly force is not allowed.(in almost any circumstance) If you allow this to happen, then the next officer is going to pull his gun and fire a bullet instead of a taser.

We have a prime instance of abusive law enfocement with George Floyd, but we are allowing the hysteria of protesters and media to turn it into a circus, where anything is considered abusive law enforcement. If the George Floyd thing hadn't happened this wouldn't be getting the same coverage.

One thing I do think is important to note though, if someone is running towards you, fire to kill is appropriate. When they are running away from you, maiming should definitely be an option.

 

[astonmartin708]

The kid put a good fight for someone who was apparently just passed out and failed a field sobriety test. It really seems like police need better instruction on effective but safe apprehension of suspects. I don’t necessarily fault the cop for his actions in this case considering the kid grabbed his gun-like weapon. Though I think restraint might have still been possible. It’s not like the kid would have done anything drastic if he had gotten away. They had his car after all.

finally, the person that set the restaurant on fire needs to be prosecuted to the utmost. She was apparently white if that’s important.

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

The kid put a good fight for someone who was apparently just passed out and failed a field sobriety test. It really seems like police need better instruction on effective but safe apprehension of suspects. I don’t necessarily fault the cop for his actions in this case considering the kid grabbed his gun-like weapon. Though I think restraint might have still been possible. It’s not like the kid would have done anything drastic if he had gotten away. They had his car after all.

finally, the person that set the restaurant on fire needs to be prosecuted to the utmost. She was apparently white if that’s important.

Brooks was not a “kid”, he was a 27 year old man.

Also, depending on the combination of relative physical statures/wrestling skills of the officers/suspects, it may not always be possible to apprehend a suspect safely just using the officer’s own physical prowess. That’s why they carry tasers in the first place. We can’t expect every police officer in the country to be a high-level MMA grappler.

And he didn’t get shot because he grabbed the officer’s gun-like weapon. He got shot because he pointed and fired the officer’s gun-like weapon at him. See embedded Instagram video at the end of this article.(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ks-pointing-taser-gun-police-deadly-shooting/)

 

[shon46]

Can police not shoot a suspect under any circumstance now? In Atlanta the man failed a sobriety test, and was sleeping in a car that was in the way of other cutomers. He resisted arrest, took the officers taser, and was running from the police. I did not see the footage of when he was shot, but if police are not allowed to use deadly force when warning him not to run away, after he took the officers taser?

You are handicapping officers ability to enforce the laws of this nation for all arrests after an incident such as this. You cannot allow a man to take a taser away from the police, and run away. If he had not resisted arrest in the first place, he would still be alive. It seems as if they are saying it doesn't matter what someone does, that deadly force is not allowed.(in almost any circumstance) If you allow this to happen, then the next officer is going to pull his gun and fire a bullet instead of a taser.

We have a prime instance of abusive law enfocement with George Floyd, but we are allowing the hysteria of protesters and media to turn it into a circus, where anything is considered abusive law enforcement. If the George Floyd thing hadn't happened this wouldn't be getting the same coverage.

One thing I do think is important to note though, if someone is running towards you, fire to kill is appropriate. When they are running away from you, maiming should definitely be an option.

You bring up many good points. When I grew up, when a person of authority told you to do something you either did it or suffered the consequences. There was no room for debate or question. While I despise seeing people die I also believe that If you mess with the bull there is a good possibility you will be harmed by its horns. Comply with the officers request and you go to jail for DUI but you live to see another day.

 

[TUMe]

Can police not shoot a suspect under any circumstance now? In Atlanta the man failed a sobriety test, and was sleeping in a car that was in the way of other cutomers. He resisted arrest, took the officers taser, and was running from the police. I did not see the footage of when he was shot, but if police are not allowed to use deadly force when warning him not to run away, after he took the officers taser?

You are handicapping officers ability to enforce the laws of this nation for all arrests after an incident such as this. You cannot allow a man to take a taser away from the police, and run away. If he had not resisted arrest in the first place, he would still be alive. It seems as if they are saying it doesn't matter what someone does, that deadly force is not allowed.(in almost any circumstance) If you allow this to happen, then the next officer is going to pull his gun and fire a bullet instead of a taser.

We have a prime instance of abusive law enfocement with George Floyd, but we are allowing the hysteria of protesters and media to turn it into a circus, where anything is considered abusive law enforcement. If the George Floyd thing hadn't happened this wouldn't be getting the same coverage.

One thing I do think is important to note though, if someone is running towards you, fire to kill is appropriate. When they are running away from you, maiming should definitely be an option.

Good post, but I can't accept the "shoot to maim." A policeman's hand gun is a powerful weapon. There was a happening awhile back where two suspects were shot. One in the torso and one in the leg. The one shot in the torso recovered. The one shot in the leg was hit in a large artery and died from bleeding. It can happen. There was another where the suspect was shot in the leg and the bullet hit a large bone and continued up hitting a number of vital organs. Again he died. Only shoot when you feel you must. Legs of a person running are harder to hit in the first place. If you want to get a hit shoot top dead center and the consequences are what they are. A twenty seven year old kids need to understand that.

 

[astonmartin708]

Brooks was not a “kid”, he was a 27 year old man.

Also, depending on the combination of relative physical statures/wrestling skills of the officers/suspects, it may not always be possible to apprehend a suspect safely just using the officer’s own physical prowess. That’s why they carry tasers in the first place. We can’t expect every police officer in the country to be a high-level MMA grappler.

And he didn’t get shot because he grabbed the officer’s gun-like weapon. He got shot because he pointed and fired the officer’s gun-like weapon at him. See embedded Instagram video at the end of this article.(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ks-pointing-taser-gun-police-deadly-shooting/)

He fired a non-lethal weapon at the cop. And the cop knew that he had taken it.

As to apprehension.... there were two grown-azz men trying to apprehend a guy who was apparently impaired enough to have just failed a sobriety test and have passed out in his car. It’s not like these guys were facing off 1V1 against Connor McGreggor. They need better training. In a 2 v 1 while you have the advantage of sobriety and tasers, pepper spray etc... you should be able to apprehend a normal guy even if he’s fighting back.

 

[astonmartin708]

For some reason this situation reminds me of a quote from the movie In Bruges... Just remove the words rob and Blank for arrest and Taser...

“I mean basically if you're robbing a man and you're only carrying blanks and you allow your gun to be taken off you and you allow yourself to be shot in the eye with a blank which I assume that the person has to get quite close to you then, yeah really it's all your fault for being such a poof, so why don't you stop wingeing and cheer the F up.”

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Disappointing that the cop was fired immediately, without a hearing to determine if he operated improperly, without the immediate haze of media pressure.

 

[TUMe]

Since one was dead and the other denied a hearing, nobody knows the story and different sides will pass their own. You would think the officer would have his right to "a day in hearing." The idea of a hearing is that you get to be heard if only in closed door.

 

[shon46]

Since one was dead and the other denied a hearing, nobody knows the story and different sides will pass their own. You would think the officer would have his right to "a day in hearing." The idea of a hearing is that you get to be heard if only in closed door.

The Mayor is on Biden’s short list to be VP. She needed to act quickly to impress her future boss and current BLM hostage takers. Due process be damned!

 

[astonmartin708]

The Mayor is on Biden’s short list to be VP. She needed to act quickly to impress her future boss and current BLM hostage takers. Due process be damned!

Biden's not going to choose the Mayor of anywhere as a running mate.

 

[astonmartin708]

Here's the body cam footage. It was a really bang-bang event. To be honest, the cops could have probably just let the drunk guy run and then picked him up later. Like I said, they had his car... it's not like he was going to be driving anywhere. Hindsight is 20/20 though. I would not fault the cops in this case in terms of any criminal liability. Although I think they should probably be targeted for additional training in restraint and apprehension. I don't think pulling your taser in that close of quarters is a great idea either. I understand they were trying to restrain him, but as we saw the assailant can grab your taser. The cops need to know how to better deal with these types of situations and have the situational awareness that the guy running away at the very beginning (before they went to the ground and he assaulted them) wasn't the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is him ending up dead.

The one thing that REALLY makes me nervous is that you can see a line of cars trapped in the drive thru line that the guy is running past. The cop starts shooting as they're running. He's not in any kind of stance or posture that produces accuracy. They could have easily had an accident and shot an innocent bystander in that line. I might reprimand him for that carelessness.

 

[maverickfp]

Huh. I agree with aston. Weird.

Yeah. I dont think i fault the cops there at all. Then again. Im not sure deadly force was necessary when the guy didnt have a deadly weapon...but why did the guy fight the arrest? This IS an instance where decent cops were just doing thr job and if you comply you live.

I couldnt see what the breathalizer said...anyone know?

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

Yeah, I mostly agree with Aston's post as well. I think that's indicative of one fact that is getting overlooked a lot in all of this. And that is that 99% of us agree on 99% of the things surrounding the issues of police brutality and race: racism is evil, police brutality is evil, cops have a hard job to do, most of them do it well and some of them do it poorly, etc.

I will say I don't think just letting him run away at the beginning is a viable option as far as a standard procedure for police in this situation. What makes us think he's going to be any more receptive to getting arrested in a couple hours or a couple days? Also, if he knows the police are coming for him, there's a possibility that he would get armed and resist arrest in an even more dangerous way, etc. etc.

 

[HuffyCane]

Good post, but I can't accept the "shoot to maim." A policeman's hand gun is a powerful weapon. There was a happening awhile back where two suspects were shot. One in the torso and one in the leg. The one shot in the torso recovered. The one shot in the leg was hit in a large artery and died from bleeding. It can happen. There was another where the suspect was shot in the leg and the bullet hit a large bone and continued up hitting a number of vital organs. Again he died. Only shoot when you feel you must. Legs of a person running are harder to hit in the first place. If you want to get a hit shoot top dead center and the consequences are what they are. A twenty seven year old kids need to understand that.

This. A gun is a deadly weapon. It’s impossible to manage the risk it poses. What if you miss a leg and kill the innocence kid on the street with the ricochet. You graduate up the use of force level based on the threat presented. If deadly force is justified, you kill. This business of surrendering the initiative to the people who might kill you by pausing to carefully aim at a leg is absolutely delusional.

 

[HuffyCane]

Also, if he knows the police are coming for him, there's a possibility that he would get armed and resist arrest in an even more dangerous way, etc. etc.

This. It’s not as simple as just issuing a misdemeanor capias request and driving off. In the short term, you don’t know the risk to the community that a man that wrestles with two police officers, disobeys orders to stop, takes their weapons and shoots at them will do. Guys wanted for murder do this. So do people whose crime is simply falling asleep at the wheel. I’ve been tasered twice in training. It’s not something you just take and keep going. The toxicology will be telling.

In the long term, if they let him go, if they can even find him, they have to assume that he will use deadly force to resist or flee. So you are talking avoid taking 8 to 15 officers on a high risk warrants service request. Tactical team. No knock. Etc. Expensive. Dangerous. Basically a SWAT team like you see on TV. And unintentional injuries happen all the time that take officers off the road for extended periods. You let him go. You have to ask your teammates to help clean up your mess and risk their lives.

 

[HuffyCane]

View embedded media

Here's the body cam footage. It was a really bang-bang event. To be honest, the cops could have probably just let the drunk guy run and then picked him up later. Like I said, they had his car... it's not like he was going to be driving anywhere. Hindsight is 20/20 though. I would not fault the cops in this case in terms of any criminal liability. Although I think they should probably be targeted for additional training in restraint and apprehension. I don't think pulling your taser in that close of quarters is a great idea either. I understand they were trying to restrain him, but as we saw the assailant can grab your taser. The cops need to know how to better deal with these types of situations and have the situational awareness that the guy running away at the very beginning (before they went to the ground and he assaulted them) wasn't the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is him ending up dead.

The one thing that REALLY makes me nervous is that you can see a line of cars trapped in the drive thru line that the guy is running past. The cop starts shooting as they're running. He's not in any kind of stance or posture that produces accuracy. They could have easily had an accident and shot an innocent bystander in that line. I might reprimand him for that carelessness.

Go outside in the street with a friend in the dark. Give him a fifteen foot head start and tell him to run 30 yards, then turn and point either a real unloaded gun in you direction or a dart gun he is also carrying. Then try to guess which one he pointed at you. You’ll be guessing. From the standpoint of a reasonable officer in that position, there’s a threat that appears to be a handgun being displayed. It could be the taser he just took or a handgun he pulled out for the first time. Sure, the taser is color tipped for safety, but good luck seeing that in the dark, while running, with someone who might kill you pointing it at you. You fire to protect yourself. Firing in a crowded parking lot is not problematic. He had reasonable cause to believe his life was in danger. You defend against that and depend upon your training taking over in the high stress situation to manage the known risk to those who may be hit. If there’s negative training outcomes here, it’s him tripping and falling into the car, though it’s unclear to me if that’s because he was actually tasered by the fleeing subject.

 

[astonmartin708]

Yeah, I mostly agree with Aston's post as well. I think that's indicative of one fact that is getting overlooked a lot in all of this. And that is that 99% of us agree on 99% of the things surrounding the issues of police brutality and race: racism is evil, police brutality is evil, cops have a hard job to do, most of them do it well and some of them do it poorly, etc.

I will say I don't think just letting him run away at the beginning is a viable option as far as a standard procedure for police in this situation. What makes us think he's going to be any more receptive to getting arrested in a couple hours or a couple days? Also, if he knows the police are coming for him, there's a possibility that he would get armed and resist arrest in an even more dangerous way, etc. etc.

Well, you have his car... which would be impounded. If he ever wanted it back, he'd have to do something. Either way, a drunk driver ends up off the streets... and, now he caught a resisting arrest charge to go with it. Maybe next time you get him, you do it with more backup. If it were an assailant who had just committed a violent crime, or who's continued freedom would be some actual trouble (like a drug dealer) I would say... yeah, chase him. But in this situation, the guy running didn't pose much of a threat to anyone besides himself (after he lost the use of his car).

That's the problem with cops being trained to ALWAYS chase the bad guy. Sometimes it's more safe for society, to let the guy run and grab him at some other time. Same thing goes with guys fleeing in cars. A car chase causes more danger than the apprehension of most bad guys. Same goes for cops rushing to the scene of emergencies of crimes. I saw a cop hauling ass through a Walmart parking lot in order to get to an old guy who had fainted in the Walmart entryway where paramedics were already on scene. I was waiting for him to hit a pedestrian pushing a cart to their car. That would have been a nice lawsuit.

A lot of this comes down to better situational awareness, and better communication between officers, agencies, etc...

 

[astonmartin708]

In any case, I think this video will be shown to police across the country regarding what NOT to do when you're trying to restrain someone for DUI.

 

[HuffyCane]

Well, you have his car... which would be impounded. If he ever wanted it back, he'd have to do something. Either way, a drunk driver ends up off the streets... and, now he caught a resisting arrest charge to go with it. Maybe next time you get him, you do it with more backup. If it were an assailant who had just committed a violent crime, or who's continued freedom would be some actual trouble (like a drug dealer) I would say... yeah, chase him. But in this situation, the guy running didn't pose much of a threat to anyone besides himself (after he lost the use of his car).

That's the problem with cops being trained to ALWAYS chase the bad guy. Sometimes it's more safe for society, to let the guy run and grab him at some other time.

It’s not misdemeanor resisting arrest or even felony resisting arrest with force. It’s two counts of felony battery on a law enforcement officer, one count of grand theft taser, one count of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer and if he did actually taser the guy who ran into the car, then it’s aggravated battery on a Leo. What you are seeing here is a serious crime. You can’t say in your first message that the public was in danger from the events then say it’s just some drink drive incident. People desperate enough to hit cops, steal their weapons and try to hurt them with them tend to want to do other desperate things that can get innocent people hurt and incentivize other persons in his position to do the same.

 

[HuffyCane]

In any case, I think this video will be shown to police across the country regarding what NOT to do when you're trying to restrain someone for DUI.

There’s no doubt about that.

The bigger question is why you think this wasn’t a dangerous incident up until the arrest but you think the cops should have been more careful in how they restrained him.

 

[HuffyCane]

Huh. I agree with aston. Weird.

Yeah. I dont think i fault the cops there at all. Then again. Im not sure deadly force was necessary when the guy didnt have a deadly weapon...but why did the guy fight the arrest? This IS an instance where decent cops were just doing thr job and if you comply you live.

I couldnt see what the breathalizer said...anyone know?

Dollars to doughnuts there’s something in his system that wont show up on that EBT for him to behave that way with that level of strength.

They had no idea whether what he was pointing at them was the taser or a gun he had in his pocket.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Huh. I agree with aston. Weird.

Yeah. I dont think i fault the cops there at all. Then again. Im not sure deadly force was necessary when the guy didnt have a deadly weapon...but why did the guy fight the arrest? This IS an instance where decent cops were just doing thr job and if you comply you live.

I couldnt see what the breathalizer said...anyone know?

>.04, at this point that's all they've released to the public.

 

[HuffyCane]

>.04, at this point that's all they've released to the public.

We would need to see the field sobriety tests. You are guilty of DUI if your are impaired. .08 blood/breath alcohol can establish impairment. But people with less than that can still be DUI, especially when combined with other chemicals/drugs that don’t show up in the breath test. Cops know those handheld EBTs are notoriously unreliable, but they are getting better. You basically make a decision to arrest based on what you observe and the EBT is used to confirm
or bolster the arrest. The test that matters is the one given in the station or mobile unit using a breathalyzer.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Yeah, I mostly agree with Aston's post as well. I think that's indicative of one fact that is getting overlooked a lot in all of this. And that is that 99% of us agree on 99% of the things surrounding the issues of police brutality and race: racism is evil, police brutality is evil, cops have a hard job to do, most of them do it well and some of them do it poorly, etc.

I will say I don't think just letting him run away at the beginning is a viable option as far as a standard procedure for police in this situation. What makes us think he's going to be any more receptive to getting arrested in a couple hours or a couple days? Also, if he knows the police are coming for him, there's a possibility that he would get armed and resist arrest in an even more dangerous way, etc. etc.

I don't think the cops would have let him run away and escape. At least one officer would have chased him in a car, others would have chased him on foot. Such that they would have had other officers join the chase in short order. He, the criminal, wouldn't have had much of a chance to do anything but extend the chase. The only issue would be possible danger to other civilians.

I doubt this guy was a large threat, he was probably just working on liquid courage and the adrenaline of fight or flight. But the officers couldn't be assured of that. If he had lived, and was later quizzed in a sober state, he probably would have felt stupid for what he did.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

We would need to see the field sobriety tests. You are guilty of DUI if your are impaired. .08 blood/breath alcohol can establish impairment. But people with less than that can still be DUI, especially when combined with other chemicals/drugs that don’t show up in the breath test. Cops know those handheld EBTs are notoriously unreliable, but they are getting better. You basically make a decision to arrest based on what you observe and the EBT is used to confirm
or bolster the arrest. The test that matters is the one given in the station or mobile unit using a breathalyzer.

They said he failed a breathalyzer, that is what I'm going off of.

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

Well, you have his car... which would be impounded. If he ever wanted it back, he'd have to do something. Either way, a drunk driver ends up off the streets... and, now he caught a resisting arrest charge to go with it. Maybe next time you get him, you do it with more backup. If it were an assailant who had just committed a violent crime, or who's continued freedom would be some actual trouble (like a drug dealer) I would say... yeah, chase him. But in this situation, the guy running didn't pose much of a threat to anyone besides himself (after he lost the use of his car).

That's the problem with cops being trained to ALWAYS chase the bad guy. Sometimes it's more safe for society, to let the guy run and grab him at some other time. Same thing goes with guys fleeing in cars. A car chase causes more danger than the apprehension of most bad guys. Same goes for cops rushing to the scene of emergencies of crimes. I saw a cop hauling ass through a Walmart parking lot in order to get to an old guy who had fainted in the Walmart entryway where paramedics were already on scene. I was waiting for him to hit a pedestrian pushing a cart to their car. That would have been a nice lawsuit.

A lot of this comes down to better situational awareness, and better communication between officers, agencies, etc...

You're absolutely right on the Walmart parking lot example, but I have serious doubts about if it's a good idea to just let suspected criminals run away while you're attempting to arrest them. I'll leave it to people with more expertise in law enforcement to comment on that.

Regardless, one of the things that I think needs to be pointed out in this particular situation is the relative amount of ink that has/will be spilled debating the decisions of the LEO's that led to Brooks' death vs. the decisions of Mr. Brooks that led to his death. In my judgment, there is at most a shaky case to be made that the officers clearly made a wrong decision in the whole stream of events. It seems like a lot of split second decisions that seem pretty justifiable to me (caveat, I'm not familiar with LEO training, so I'm not sure what the actual protocol is in a situation like this one). On the other hand, there are several clear wrong decisions made by Mr. Brooks that led directly to his death. If he had not chosen to do all five of the actions listed below (which put the LEO's in the position to have to make those tough split-second decisions), he would almost certainly still be alive at this moment:

1. Drive while intoxicated.
2. Pass out in a Wendy's drive thru.
3. Violently resist arrest after failing field sobriety tests.
4. Steal a police officer's taser.
5. Point/fire the taser at a police officer.

I guess my biggest beef in all of this is not that LEO's actions are being scrutinized (they should be), but that these instances are being used to push a narrative that all innocent black American's are at risk of wide-spread police brutality simply because of their race. For an example of said narrative-pushing, Stacey Abrams, the 2018 Democratic nominee for Governor of Georgia, said the following: "And what I would say is: There is a legitimacy to this anger. There is a legitimacy to this outrage. A man was murdered because he was asleep in a drive-through. And we know this is not an isolated occurrence.” That quote is either very ill-informed or intentionally misleading, neither one of which is fitting for someone of her prominence in Georgia and on the national stage. (https://news.yahoo.com/rayshard-bro...jTPaZ5F9Gfi1-I_HfdDiZDxM2O24QcF2v-tKLUAoLYPE8)

 

[HuffyCane]

>.04, at this point that's all they've released to the public.

Associated Press is reporting .108, over the legal limit.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Associated Press is reporting .108, over the legal limit.

Thanks, I hadn't seen that yet.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Go outside in the street with a friend in the dark. Give him a fifteen foot head start and tell him to run 30 yards, then turn and point either a real unloaded gun in you direction or a dart gun he is also carrying. Then try to guess which one he pointed at you. You’ll be guessing. From the standpoint of a reasonable officer in that position, there’s a threat that appears to be a handgun being displayed. It could be the taser he just took or a handgun he pulled out for the first time. Sure, the taser is color tipped for safety, but good luck seeing that in the dark, while running, with someone who might kill you pointing it at you. You fire to protect yourself. Firing in a crowded parking lot is not problematic. He had reasonable cause to believe his life was in danger. You defend against that and depend upon your training taking over in the high stress situation to manage the known risk to those who may be hit. If there’s negative training outcomes here, it’s him tripping and falling into the car, though it’s unclear to me if that’s because he was actually tasered by the fleeing subject.

From my reading, he was patted down before the struggle and they found no weapons. They might have missed a knife, but I don't know how they could have missed a gun.

 

[astonmartin708]

It’s not misdemeanor resisting arrest or even felony resisting arrest with force. It’s two counts of felony battery on a law enforcement officer, one count of grand theft taser, one count of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer and if he did actually taser the guy who ran into the car, then it’s aggravated battery on a Leo. What you are seeing here is a serious crime. You can’t say in your first message that the public was in danger from the events then say it’s just some drink drive incident. People desperate enough to hit cops, steal their weapons and try to hurt them with them tend to want to do other desperate things that can get innocent people hurt and incentivize other persons in his position to do the same.

I was referencing the point at which he bolted, before they brought him to the ground. At that point it was only the DUI related charges and the resisting arrest. As soon as the cops tackle him and he fights back all of the other charges start accruing.

I will always discourage the use of a firearm around innocent civilians and I will vehemently discourage the use of a firearm around innocent civilians when its use is tactically unsound to prevent accidental civilian casualties. (Shooting while on the run near a crowded drive thru where people were surely filming the event)

Here's a question to ask yourself. If this same scenario happens in the UK, where the officers don't all have sidearms (they do have tasers, which could of course be taken from them)... What happens? The guy runs away and nothing happens. No one dies. Or at least the guy has a chance to sober up and realize how much crap he just got himself into. I don't see why that's not a viable scenario here. His punishment didn't fit his crimes. I'm not saying the cops were wrong given the state of our law enforcement system. But I think the system could be re-optimized for situations like this to prevent loss of life while still making sure law breakers are punished appropriately.

 

[HuffyCane]

I was referencing the point at which he bolted, before they brought him to the ground. At that point it was only the DUI related charges and the resisting arrest. As soon as the cops tackle him and he fights back all of the other charges start accruing.

I will always discourage the use of a firearm around innocent civilians and I will vehemently discourage the use of a firearm around innocent civilians when its use is tactically unsound to prevent accidental civilian casualties. (Shooting while on the run near a crowded drive thru where people were surely filming the event)

Here's a question to ask yourself. If this same scenario happens in the UK, where the officers don't all have sidearms (they do have tasers, which could of course be taken from them)... What happens? The guy runs away and nothing happens. No one dies. Or at least the guy has a chance to sober up and realize how much crap he just got himself into. I don't see why that's not a viable scenario here. His punishment didn't fit his crimes. I'm not saying the cops were wrong given the state of our law enforcement system. But I think the system could be re-optimized for situations like this to prevent loss of life while still making sure law breakers are punished appropriately.

In the romantic era of post war England through the 1970’s, nothing would have happened because he would be unlikely to be carrying a gun. In this scenario, you must assume he was carrying a gun. So how you handle the situation is entirely different.

Cops in the UK are more concerned about sharp edged weapons like knives and even swords. Their lack of firearms is linked to public concerns about prior military occupations by their armed forces and not tactics or public safety. In fact, the number of authorized firearms officers is way up in recent years and seeing them in London isn’t unusual. All cops in Northern Ireland are armed to the teeth.

 

[Clong83a]

Can police not shoot a suspect under any circumstance now? In Atlanta the man failed a sobriety test, and was sleeping in a car that was in the way of other cutomers. He resisted arrest, took the officers taser, and was running from the police. I did not see the footage of when he was shot, but if police are not allowed to use deadly force when warning him not to run away, after he took the officers taser?

You are handicapping officers ability to enforce the laws of this nation for all arrests after an incident such as this. You cannot allow a man to take a taser away from the police, and run away. If he had not resisted arrest in the first place, he would still be alive. It seems as if they are saying it doesn't matter what someone does, that deadly force is not allowed.(in almost any circumstance) If you allow this to happen, then the next officer is going to pull his gun and fire a bullet instead of a taser.

We have a prime instance of abusive law enfocement with George Floyd, but we are allowing the hysteria of protesters and media to turn it into a circus, where anything is considered abusive law enforcement. If the George Floyd thing hadn't happened this wouldn't be getting the same coverage.

One thing I do think is important to note though, if someone is running towards you, fire to kill is appropriate. When they are running away from you, maiming should definitely be an option.

I get your point, but also must ask: Did they really need to apprehend him? He was drunk in a car, and guilty of a DUI, I get that. But he was chatting and cooperating with the police right up to the point when they tried to arrest him. He even cooperated with a breathalyzer. They knew who he was, they had his ID. Could they not simply have taken his keys and called him a cab? Then charged him with the DUI when he came to get his car out of impound? Or just mail him a court summons?

Given the way everything went down, I am not saying the cops did anything wrong, per se. They tried to make the valid arrest and things escalated quickly when he got defensive and chose to fight. But he was drunk, and prone to make bad decisions in that mindset, and the confrontation could have been avoided. Perhaps a more fundamental change in the way we apprehend people and police people for these kinds of crimes can and should change.

There is plenty that I don't know here, admittedly. Maybe they ran his ID and found he had an outstanding warrant. Maybe he had a violent history and they didn't want to let him remain out in public in his current state of mind. Maybe it was his 5th DUI and they were worried he'd skip town. They may have been perfectly justified in trying to bring him in, but my point is that perhaps "bringing him in" oughtn't be the standard practice for minor crimes if you already know everything you need to know to issue a citation or arrest warrant later. I guess I also disagree that they need to attempt to maim someone who is running away, provided they know who the perpetrator is and he/she is not wanted for any violent crimes.

 

[HuffyCane]

I get your point, but also must ask: Did they really need to apprehend him? He was drunk in a car, and guilty of a DUI, I get that. But he was chatting and cooperating with the police right up to the point when they tried to arrest him. He even cooperated with a breathalyzer. They knew who he was, they had his ID. Could they not simply have taken his keys and called him a cab? Then charged him with the DUI when he came to get his car out of impound? Or just mail him a court summons?

Given the way everything went down, I am not saying the cops did anything wrong, per se. They tried to make the valid arrest and things escalated quickly when he got defensive and chose to fight. But he was drunk, and prone to make bad decisions in that mindset, and the confrontation could have been avoided. Perhaps a more fundamental change in the way we apprehend people and police people for these kinds of crimes can and should change.

There is plenty that I don't know here, admittedly. Maybe they ran his ID and found he had an outstanding warrant. Maybe he had a violent history and they didn't want to let him remain out in public in his current state of mind. Maybe it was his 5th DUI and they were worried he'd skip town. They may have been perfectly justified in trying to bring him in, but my point is that perhaps "bringing him in" oughtn't be the standard practice for minor crimes if you already know everything you need to know to issue a citation or arrest warrant later. I guess I also disagree that they need to attempt to maim someone who is running away, provided they know who the perpetrator is and he/she is not wanted for any violent crimes.

Watching the whole video, there’s some issues that led to the situation where he was able to break free.

First, the initial officer to make contact with him woke him up and directed him to drive his car and park it. At least in Florida, that’s a pretty serious breach of protocol and public safety. He could have easily hit someone while parking or driven off. You do a wellness check and if ambulatory, ask them/remove them from the vehicle.

So that tells me that the officer approached the situation in a casual manner or perhaps even attempted to deescalate the encounter even as it started.

Second the length of the conversation is crazy long. Ten to twenty minutes is what you need to make contact, separate the person from their car to verify alcohol is emanating from their person and not inside the car, then determine that the odor of alcohol is not on their clothes but being emitted from their mouths by observing their appearance, unsteady standing and walking, red eyes, glassy eyes, slurred speech, and the failure of field sobriety exercises and other indicators of impairment.

These guys appear to be giving the guy every benefit of the doubt and started to achieve a strange rapport. Mistake.

That level of familiarity may have come back to haunt them when they tried to hook him and maybe didn’t have their guard up that he might resist.

But everything that happened after that is a consequence of decisions the subject made, not the police.

 

[Clong83a]

Watching the whole video, there’s some issues that led to the situation where he was able to break free.

First, the initial officer to make contact with him woke him up and directed him to drive his car and park it. At least in Florida, that’s a pretty serious breach of protocol and public safety. He could have easily hit someone while parking or driven off. You do a wellness check and if ambulatory, ask them/remove them from the vehicle.

So that tells me that the officer approached the situation in a casual manner or perhaps even attempted to deescalate the encounter even as it started.

Second the length of the conversation is crazy long. Ten to twenty minutes is what you need to make contact, separate the person from their car to verify alcohol is emanating from their person and not inside the car, then determine that the odor of alcohol is not on their clothes but being emitted from their mouths by observing their appearance, unsteady standing and walking, red eyes, glassy eyes, slurred speech, and the failure of field sobriety exercises and other indicators of impairment.

These guys appear to be giving the guy every benefit of the doubt and started to achieve a strange rapport. Mistake.

That level of familiarity may have come back to haunt them when they tried to hook him and maybe didn’t have their guard up that he might resist.

As always, I appreciate your perspective. I thought it was weird to tell a suspected DUI to drive anywhere as well, but it is nice to have that confirmed. I also thought that maybe it was a possible entrapment? If they never saw him operating a vehicle and only sleeping in one, maybe they thought they needed to have him operate the vehicle to firm up the case? Or maybe I am reading too much into it. In any case, I get that things happen on the job and sometimes people die. Also I get that this guy made two big mistakes that in combination might get you hurt/killed by a cop: 1) a DUI, and 2) stealing a taser. But I still have a problem with someone getting shot in the back.

EDIT: Despite what I said above, I still also thought it was kind of weird that the cop was fired immediately. I can only conclude that is because of the current protests going on in Atlanta and that he is the victim of the current political climate. He may very well have been fired anyhow after an internal review, particularly if he has a history of complaints or some such or he violated some internal policy in the lead up to the shooting, but it seemed awfully quick and likely a biased decision.

 

[HuffyCane]

They don’t need to see him driving, but they do need someone who witnessed him in “actual physical control” of the vehicle. Passed out in the drivers seat with the engine going is enough.

Though I did actually win a case once where the defense was the man attempted to drive, but was too drunk to get the keys in the ignition. His wife saw him in the parking lot of their condo and couldn’t get him to come upstairs so she started the car to run the A/C so he wouldn’t have a heart attack in the Florida heat. Somebody else in the parking saw him, thought passed out was dead or dying and called ambulance. Then the cops came and arrested him for DUI. Even though under the law it was enough for him to just have the potential to drive, the jury bought the excuse that he hadn’t performed the requisite act necessary to complete the crime and cleared him. Costly lesson that paid me $15,000.00.

 

[astonmartin708]

Watching the whole video, there’s some issues that led to the situation where he was able to break free.

First, the initial officer to make contact with him woke him up and directed him to drive his car and park it. At least in Florida, that’s a pretty serious breach of protocol and public safety. He could have easily hit someone while parking or driven off. You do a wellness check and if ambulatory, ask them/remove them from the vehicle.

So that tells me that the officer approached the situation in a casual manner or perhaps even attempted to deescalate the encounter even as it started.

Second the length of the conversation is crazy long. Ten to twenty minutes is what you need to make contact, separate the person from their car to verify alcohol is emanating from their person and not inside the car, then determine that the odor of alcohol is not on their clothes but being emitted from their mouths by observing their appearance, unsteady standing and walking, red eyes, glassy eyes, slurred speech, and the failure of field sobriety exercises and other indicators of impairment.

These guys appear to be giving the guy every benefit of the doubt and started to achieve a strange rapport. Mistake.

That level of familiarity may have come back to haunt them when they tried to hook him and maybe didn’t have their guard up that he might resist.

But everything that happened after that is a consequence of decisions the subject made, not the police.

I disagree with the last sentence. His death was a consequence of the police officers' decision to shoot him. Whether or not that decision is justified can be up for debate, but the fact that he was shot wasn't strictly a consequence of his actions. He didn't pull the trigger himself. I would agree that he influenced the actions that the officers took but he didn't determine them.

As I said in an above comment, what would have happened in this situation in the UK where they don't (all) have sidearms? The encounter would have continued, but neither then black man nor the police officer would have been likely to die. The fact that in some parts of the world, the man would have lived should tell you that "everything that happened after" is not strictly "a consequence of his decisions" alone.

 

[lawpoke87]

It’s my understanding he in fact had a violent history and had just got out of prison after being sentenced for 7 years for beating his children. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong as I don’t want to erroneously accuse a dead man of felony child abuse.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I disagree with the last sentence. His death was a consequence of the police officers' decision to shoot him. Whether or not that decision is justified can be up for debate, but the fact that he was shot wasn't strictly a consequence of his actions. He didn't pull the trigger himself. I would agree that he influenced the actions that the officers took but he didn't determine them.

As I said in an above comment, what would have happened in this situation in the UK where they don't (all) have sidearms? The encounter would have continued, but neither then black man nor the police officer would have been likely to die. The fact that in some parts of the world, the man would have lived should tell you that "everything that happened after" is not strictly "a consequence of his decisions" alone.

The potential criminal(Mr Brooks) was working within the system he is a part of.(US legal and law enforcement system) He (Mr Brooks) was under no illusion that the police would not have weapons in any situation the police were called to, as in Britain. Thus he should have known his actions might cause his death. I would, you would, any US citizen or immigrant of sound body and mind would. Certainly someone who had been to prison would know this.

 

[astonmartin708]

The potential criminal(Mr Brooks) was working within the system he is a part of.(US legal and law enforcement system) He (Mr Brooks) was under no illusion that the police would not have weapons in any situation the police were called to, as in Britain. Thus he should have known his actions might cause his death. I would, you would, any US citizen or immigrant of sound body and mind would. Certainly someone who had been to prison would know this.

My knowledge of the police's propensity to misuse force doesn't excuse the misuse of that force. If I run from the cops in the US, they all have guns... that doesn't mean I should expect that my actions will cause me to be shot dead. Nor does me cursing at one of them mean I should expect them to punch me in the face. That's not how justice should work and that's the point I'm trying to make.