Bodycam footage of Atlanta shooting of Rayshard Brooks

[Goodheart]

Well, actually, the shooting is not on this video, but the altercation that preceded it.

So, is resisting arrest a capital offense when he's no mortal threat to anybody? I call this MURDER.

&feature=youtu.be

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. He should not have been killed

He should not have been driving drunk. He should not have resisted arrest. He should not have assaulted two police officers. He should not have stolen a weapon. He should not have shot at the officer with the taser. He should not have attempted to avoid consequences for driving impaired. He should not have been shot. He should not have been killed.

Ugliness all around.

[Goodheart]

2. The biggest matter in ALL of that?

He was killed. That's the biggest issue. And it was uncalled for. He was not a bodily threat to anybody.

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. Yes. Death is the biggest issue...but it was the end of a long line of significant mistakes.

I think minimizing the driver's actions "he was just sleeping," does a disservice to addressing change.

[Goodheart]

6. I fully agree that he should have been arrested.

I don't agree that police officers get to execute somebody who is not an imminent mortal threat.

[LizBeth]

13. This point, I have not read a single post stating an officer gets to execute somebody who is not an

imminent mortal threat.

All I have listened to is people spelling out what happened and how it all was wrong, a series of mistakes. But I see a number of post argue that as if it has been posed.

[mcar]

29. Why should he have been arrested?

They had his car, his keys, his information. Why not just call him a cab and have him come to the station next day?

[treestar]

55. Probable cause of drunken driving

That's not the policy and if we want that changed, we need a lot more than expecting current laws to not be enforced. They'd have to be repealed. I think most judges think you can be booked directly when arrested and don't expect the us to trust a person to come in the next day to be booked voluntarily.

[maximusveritas]

5. He shot a taser at the cop. If he incapacitates the cop then he grabs his gun and shoots

If we start blaming cops for this kind of thing, who in their right mind would want to be a cop if they are going to be sitting ducks for violent people to attack them and assault them without any defense.

[Goodheart]

7. Did he incapacitate the cop? Yes or No?

Had the danger of such already passed? Yes or No?

[maximusveritas]

8. Only because the cop shot him before he was shot himself

From the video, it looks like the cop shot him just as he was aiming the taser to hit him.
So no, the danger had not passed at all. You do not get to attack cops, steal their taser, and attempt to shoot them with it and expect to get away with it. It is shocking to me that people are actually even debating this.

[Goodheart]

14. Er, no. That's not what the video shows.

It shows Brooks reached back, fired the weapon in a sort of "stop fucking chasing me" sort of way, and then proceeded to run. I think he was shot in the back. We shall see about that.

[maximusveritas]

18. Brooks fell after running a bit after, but the video does not clearly show when the cop fired.

Maybe that will be determined later depending on where the bullet entered him.

[Goodheart]

19. This is not the only video.

I should have said "the Wendy's security cam video shows..."

[cayugafalls]

47. After listening and watching the entire full bodycam video,

Officer Roth states that Mr. Brooks was shot in the back and the buttocks. That Mr. Brooks had discharged the taser but it missed wildly.

So the shots were either fired after he discharged the taser and it had missed, or concurrently as he discharged the taser. From the video, shots appear to happen after taser discharge.

I suppose we will have to wait and see for the official report, but that is my understanding at this point.

[sir pball]

83. All I need to know is the cop's first words after firing. "Got'im."

I've plinked a LOT, from tin cans with a .22 to (attempted) paper at 1000 yards with a .338; I've also hunted a lot and pulled a gun on a person once, not pleasant and not something I'd like to do again.

The only time I've ever blurted out "Got it" was after hitting a can or a bottle, certainly never after taking game - the mere concept of saying that after taking a human life is so monstrously incomprehensible to me, literally all I can say is that cop thought no more of Brooks than a tin can he was casually shooting at, no matter where he hit him.

[treestar]

56. So it would be OK for the cop to chase him then

right? And now the cop has to fight him while he has a taser.

[StarfishSaver]

70. I believe a taser of works once, then it's dead

[SlogginThroughIt]

104. Unless the cop picked up the leads and stuck them into his own skin

Unless the cop picked up the leads and stuck them into his own skin the taser was a non issue.

True the shocks can be fired once but the cartridge can only be fired once from what I have read. Perhaps there is a different taser I am not aware of?

[treestar]

116. the guy took the taser. That shows how much he wants

to fight his case on the street rather than the courtroom.

So we are entitled to take a cop's taser and shoot it the one time towards him/her? Is there any case law to support that?

[SlogginThroughIt]

121. He was NOT a mortal threat.

How is this difficult for you to understand?

[Happy Hoosier]

138. Take a step back...

and listen to yourself. You are saying that this merits the use of DEADLY force (as in DEAD)? No one here, I think, is questioning that what the guy did is wrong, and the cops can clearly use force to subdue in this case. The question is whether or not simply forcefully resisting means that the cops can, at their discretion, decide to kill someone?

'Cause ya know, drunk people have been known to make decisions now and again, and last I checked, they are not worth the death penalty.

[HotTeaBag]

69. Yep.

[sir pball]

82. Are Tasers "imminently" deadly weapons?

If so, then they shouldn't be in the policing arsenal, as pepper spray is just about as effective and generally nonlethal. Give them a beanbag or special rubber bullet gun, if you want an escalated but still less-lethal tool.

Your whole argument hinges on the cop feeling "imminently" threatened for his life. Please explain how a single "perp", firing a Taser at one of multiple officers, is in any way an imminent threat.

[SlogginThroughIt]

103. WRONG!!! The cartridge can only be fired once.

Once the cartridge was fired it was no longer a threat.

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. What should the officers have done?

Let the dangerous man run away with the weapon and kill or assault someone? I can see the headlines now. This option is assuming he is not dangerous. But, his actions have already shown himself to be a dangerous actor.

Just sent him a summons: so he can come back get his car and drive drunk, killing or injuring someone. I can see the headlines now. Remember that he was visiting a friend, and they did not know where the friend lived.

Just let him sleep it off: so he can wake up and drive drunk....I can see the headlines now.

Call in other officers to assist in locating him: perhaps use a dog to find him. But, he had a weapon and was acting dangerously.

Deadly force should be the last resort. There should be other reasonable options. What are they?

[Goodheart]

16. Say what??

There's no reason to presume he would have assaulted or killed somebody, much less with a non-lethal tazer.

[Evergreen Emerald]

23. Presumption based on his assaultive dangerous actions.

And, tasers can be lethal.

[treestar]

58. Once he grabbed the taser you still think

it will be looked at like that? He had taken a taser from a cop. That's pretty good evidence that he's not a pussy cat. He will use that taser on anyone who tries to stop him, no? He's desperate enough to get away. Do we all have the right to decide on the street whether we are going to be arrested or not?

Fight it in court, no on the street. You might win with the judge. You will not win with the cop. Would we really feel safe? We'd all need guns for sure. To fight the cops and to fight other people who can commit crimes against us but have the right not to be arrested for DUI.

[SlogginThroughIt]

105. He was shot in the back. Seemingly after the taser cartridge was disharged.

Police should definitely not be shooting their guns in pursuit in a high traffic area. Completely negligent. There are multiple levels of complete ineptitude here.

[treestar]

115. So turning their back is enough

to justify all they did before, including resisting arrest? Once you turn your back you are entitled to leave without being arrested? Why is this guy entitled to not be arrested and why should he not fight it in court instead of with the cops on the scene?

[SlogginThroughIt]

122. Yes.

What you are talking about is vengeance. Not justice. The cop doesn’t get to shoot someone for a crime. And that is exactly why the cop is being charged with murder.

[treestar]

127. This decision is made in a split second!

Where do you get off accusing them of vengeance? Even if it was a mistake, it is no where near vengeance.

[SlogginThroughIt]

129. It is vengeance.

You are sayibg that because the person resisted arrest and other criminal behavior that excuses the murder. That is doling out revenge. Their job isn’t to sentence. Shooting him a d killing him is a form of punishment at that point as he no longer poses a mortal threat. How is this so hard for you to understand? The cop is being charged for murder. You are wrong.

[treestar]

132. I did not say that!

Straw man! It was a split second self preserving immediate reaction, which we would all have! No ones was sentenced.

May as well say the police officer has no right to defend him/herself! If no shootings are ever right they should not have guns. And see how many people in this society will take the job in this country of the Second Amendment.

If the cop is wrong and even vengeful in every case, even with a subject resisting arrest, you have lost all objectivity.

[SlogginThroughIt]

133. You did say that.

I summed it up with the word vengeance but regardless of what happened up until that point is completely meaningless (and still didn’t require murder). He had no weapon that was a mortal threat. So if you think that it is excusable that they murdered him then why? Because if shit that went down before the bullets hit him? That is revenge. And whether or not it was split second or not it says to me that these cops do not need to be armed if they cannot be trained to not shoot into the night at a person that is running away from them.

He wasn’t a threat to them.
The cop chose to open fire even though there were other people there abd again He was no longer a threat.

If you are going to excuse cops of murder because of split second non-life threatening situations. NOTHING will ever get any better because they will ALWAYS have that excuse. Always.

The problems are their culture, their training, and quite possibly their own mental makeup.

Stop excusing murder.

[Happy Hoosier]

139. It's a Taser, not a handgun.

There was nothing here justifying the use of deadly force, especially after he shot the Taser. Taser's are single use.

[treestar]

142. They can have two cartridges

Learned this from a cop who has one like that.

[mcar]

30. They could have woken him up, taken his keys

called him a cab and sent him home. He didn't need to be arrested.

The "weapon" was a taser which, according to GA police, is not considered a lethal weapon.

Why would you assume he was "dangerous" or that he would "kill or assault someone?"

[Evergreen Emerald]

34. So, decriminalizing drunk driving is one option.

That is what you are suggesting. Generally what happens is after arrest and DUI processing (breath or blood test) the driver is released, unless there are prior DUIs. So, unless he had priors, he would likely have been home within a couple of hours.

There was a case in Seattle where a woman was sent home, and she called an Uber to go pick up her car. She drove drunk again and killed a little girl on the way home. For years Hailey's Law required law enforcement to tow drunk driver vehicles based on this case. The Supreme Court recently overturned the law.

I don't agree with you that decriminalizing drunk driving is an option.

Regarding your question about assumption that he is dangerous. He showed himself to be dangerous. He attacked two officers, stole a dangerous weapon (that can be lethal depending on its use), and shot at the officers. I think a reasonable assumption could be that he may continue that behavior.


No one should have been killed.

[mcar]

35. ...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213593970

[cayugafalls]

78. Your gonna get crickets on that from some on this thread...

They just don't want to get it...

[treestar]

59. How far do you think you can get with the idea

that DUI arrests should not be made at the scene?

The suspect decided he had a right not to be arrested at the scene. Do we all have that right? Great. As long as the cops make sure we get home without driving. And we as a society trust people to go to bed and not drive again and surely they will appear in court when asked?

[treestar]

57. Agree people are working too hard because they

believe that to oppose police brutality, it can never be possible that they shot someone justified. No ability to tell one case from another or nuance.

[SlogginThroughIt]

106. How do you find justification in this shooting?

There is no justifying this shooting. There was no imminent threat, officers firing a gun in a high traffic area. This was a complete shit show. Zero justification for shooting someone with a taser that couldn't be shot again.

[treestar]

114. Someone resisted arrest

that creates confusion and an emergency situation. Why is that being justified?

[SlogginThroughIt]

123. It isn't being justified.

Resisting arrest is a crime that a judge should rule on. Not a reason to kill the person. What world do you live in?

[treestar]

126. I did not say that it justified killing a person

Why did you put those words in my mouth?

But it does create a tense situation. Once you resist arrest, you've increased your chances of getting killed. Yet that is all the cop's fault, according to some posts. The cop is supposed to make split second decisions as if they have all the time in the world to deliberate.

There are posts saying, if you reason them through, that a person has an absolute right to resist arrest, run away, and that society, via law enforcement, must let them go, or even escort them home, then politely invite them to court. In DUI cases, this allows the alcohol to burn away.

I don't think people who have lost loved ones to drunk drivers will be on board, along with the majority of society.

[StarfishSaver]

75. I don't know - why not ask his superiors at the Atlanta PD who fired him

They seem to think his actions were unjustified notwithstanding all of the progressives online claiming, "I oppose police brutality BUT, this guy deserved to be shot in the back while he was running away ... "

When you're still trying to defend the killing of unarmed back that the police themselves aren't even defending, you might want to do some serious soul searching ...

[SlogginThroughIt]

107. Agreed. There is something wrong with someone in this thread.

[Bettie]

118. It is shocking to me that

several people are just all-in on cops killing another black man. WTF?

[StarfishSaver]

120. I think the melanin orientation of the "authorities" has something to do with

why they're "questioning" the validity of the conclusion they drew that the shooting was unjustified and the officer needed to be fired and charged.

How else to explain claiming to be allies in the fight against police brutality but insisting that shooting a fleeing black man in the back was justified even when the police department says it wasn't - and going so far as to suggest the police department is lying about it?

[Ms. Toad]

27. He was several feet away from the policeman when he shot the taser

with a second officer right there. Had he incapacitated the officer, and been moving toward him to remove his weapon, there would have been more justification for using deadly force.

But officers must make deadly force decisions on reality, not on what could have happened.

The officer knew his momentum was moving away from the officer, so to come back and get a weapon requires more time than if he was charging a the time he used the taser.
The officer knew there was another officer within shooting distance if the man did turn and charge - so merely shooting a taser in the direction of the officer does not justify killing him

[treestar]

60. Second sentence is just untrue

The first is appalling. They have to wait until they are incapacitated? The cops are expected to prevent bad things aall the time. He could have hit a civilian with that taser. So you'd be behind a copy saying "He hasn't incapacitated me, ,so I could do nothing."

[Ms. Toad]

81. I was addressing the specific "what if" scenario posed -

the risk that he could taser the police officer and take his gun, essentially elevating any incident involving a taser to a deadly threat.

In this scenario (which is the scenario in which the officer had to make the decision):

* The individual was running away.
* The civillians were all in cars - not at risk for being tased
* Being tased is not a deadly threat - at least that is what police claim when they use tasers on people - if they aren't when you use them on others, then they aren't when pointed at you.
* So the threat of being tased does not justify the use of deadly force - unless you are in a scenario that being tased would make deadly (like close proximity in which being tased would put the officer close enough to the perpetrator that he could get their gun before others couldl incapacate him).
* That was not the situation here. He was running away and turned to shoot. His momeum was carrying him away from the officer - he was not charging the officer, which would have justified the use of deadly force. Not only was he not charging the officer - he was far enough away that if he had managed to change momentum and lunge for the gun, the other officers nearby could easily have stopped him at the point when deadly force became necessary because - for example - he was lunging for a deadly weapon.

And if you don't like my explanations - then you likely won't like whatever explanations ultimately are provide by the Atlanta PD, which fired him almost immediatley.

[oasis]

28. The cop should have let the Brooks walk home like he offered to do.

They were trying like hell to stick him with a DWI even though he only drove from the order lane to the parking space (ON PRIVATE PROPERTY). Brooks wasn't having it so he resisted. His death is on the cops entirely.

[Polybius]

87. Entirely?

So because he "wasn't having it" it's ok to resist? My Uncle was killed by a drunk driver. We should not take drunk driving lightly.

With that being said, should he have been shot? Oh hell no! But up until that point, I don't see any misconduct.

[oasis]

90. Key word "driving". nt

[treestar]

54. He was. He has a taser.

He could have disabled an officer and then taken their gun.

Really we should not get to the point where we have to defend every situation and blame every cop. Look at each case on its merits. Don't decide ahead of time the cop must always be guilty of the worst and the civilian did nothing wrong.

Our elected legislatures made laws that it is unlawful to resist arrest. We decided that is a thing. We discourage that. The whole purpose of courts is to avoid violence in the street.

All he had to do was let them cuff and him take him to be booked. He'd be out on bail now with a court date.

[SlogginThroughIt]

108. The taser was discharged no?

Everything I read said the taser was discharged. And everything I have read says the cartridge only fires once. So it doenst soundlike he could have used it on a civilian.

[madville]

124. Most tasers can still be used as a stun gun once the cartridge/prongs are fired

They have contacts in the end of the taser that still perform as a stun gun when pressed against the skin or even through clothes, so still capable of incapacitating someone and the battery is good for multiple uses.

[jmg257]

3. No, but maybe a felony in this case - "violence" in resisting would be key.

a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, a person who knowingly and willfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b) Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any law enforcement officer, prison guard, correctional officer, probation supervisor, parole supervisor, or conservation ranger in the lawful discharge of his official duties by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person is guilty of a felony and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Prison for 1-5 years, not the death penalty.

[jmg257]

11. Yep. And you are supposed to get due process!

[treestar]

61. He didn't get the death penalty for resisting

He did not get the death penalty. He escalated a situation on the street because he decided he had the right not to be arrested. And now we have several on DU who take themselves to the position that all have a right not to be arrested at the scene. The function of the police is to make sure that you get home safely and put you to bed, too.

When is that going to be the case in this country. Or any other.

[SlogginThroughIt]

102. I have a real problem with police discharging their weapons in pursuit

I have a real problem with police discharging their weapons in pursuit. It is extremely dangerous. It is VERY hard to hit your target while in pursuit. It is very difficult to hit your target even if you are not moving but the target is. This was EXTREMELY negligent. There are better ways to apprehend him other than shooting in a busy area. EXTREMELY NEGLIGENT! I mean seriously the reaction to go for the gun by these officers is insane. Do you know how easy it is to miss? Or even for a bullet to pass through flesh and continue on to hit something else? Ok he had a taser, it had been discharged.... According to what I have read the taser was then useless because the cartridge can only be fired once while shocks can be delivered multiple times. The taser was a NON-ISSUE.

I am sorry but it is absolutely unreal that we give cops leeway to fire their weapons so carelessly.


This doesn't happen with a white suspect. It just doesn't happen. At least not at the same rate that it happens to black people.

[treestar]

117. They are trained a certain way

If you want that changed, fine, but don't blame those who act as trained before that change is made.

Is is true there is case law that once someone runs away from an arrest, they have the absolute right to do that?

[Happy Hoosier]

140. Man, I hope you're not a cop. NT

[Goodheart]

10. And something else needs to be mentioned here

Mr. Brooks was not a mortal threat to anybody, but the police officer who fired his weapon within an urban setting was. Really impulsively. Who knows who could have been beyond Mr. Brooks and within range of getting hit.

[Evergreen Emerald]

15. Unfortunately, you do not know that. Those are assumptions.

He had shown himself to be dangerous. He ran with the stolen weapon. Other innocent citizens could have been harmed throughout the night.

He should not have been killed.

[Goodheart]

17. I didn't assume anything. I pointed out a fact and asked a question from it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

20. I am sorry, I misunderstood. Let's have a conversation.

What options could be available in a split second for law enforcement when this occurs to protect themselves, the community, and the driver, knowing what they know at the time of the contact.

This is one of the conversations we need to have.

The other is to discuss the actions of the driver--he created this situation. What can we do to stop this behavior? (drunk driving, resisting arrest, assaulting officers, stealing weapons).


Killing is not an option.

[Goodheart]

21. At the exact time of the shooting the policemen were NOT "protecting themselves."

Nor were they protecting anybody else. And that's the entire point.

[Evergreen Emerald]

22. Let's assume they were for the sake of argument.

A dangerous man with a stolen weapon was running from them, he turned once to shoot. The community was at risk of further dangerous actions.

[Goodheart]

24. Nah... it was a tazer, not lethal, that had already been discharged.

[treestar]

63. Suddenly the taser is OK

So we take back all the times we said the cops were wrong for using them. And they can kill. Sometimes they do, and then the cop is the one who was in the wrong then too.

I don't think society expects or wants them to let someone go. Only a very few people would agree he was "no threat" after taking the taser. No one expects DUI arrests to be put off because the person doesn't want to be arrested at this time.

[Ms. Toad]

33. Other actions

De-escalate, rather than escalate.

We are in agreement that the driver cannot be allowed to drive off (or use his own judgment as to when he is safe to drive).

There is little to be gained by slapping handcuffs on him and hauling him off to the police. Create a culture where the immediate goal is to disarm the driver (prevent access to his car until he has sobered up), and treat the underlying issue:

* First ascertain it really is incapacitation due to alcohol, rather than someting else. (Diabetes induced lethargy, narcolepsy, exhaustion, etc.)

* Once it is ascertained that it is alcohol have a series of options to (1) prevent further driving until unimpaired and (2) get the driver home safely ad (3) treat/impose punishment for alcohol abuse. This can include a number of options - booting the car in a way that it can only be released after the time required to get sober; taking possession of all keys to the vehicle; having uber or taxi vouchers to get drivers home safely (the payment for which is included in the fines imposed; facilitating calling friends or relatives who are allowed to take the driver home - but not to take the vehicle home; charging the driver with DUI (including imposing costs to get the driver home and lock the vehicle), using the equivalent of a drug diversion court to require treatment/community sanctions to remediate the problem.

[Evergreen Emerald]

36. I like the idea of deescalation.

You suggest that there is little to be gained by slapping cuffs and hauling him off. However, once at the police station--most of those things you suggested begin. The arrest and DUI processing is the beginning of the process.

1. Prevent further driving: That is done by towing the vehicle once arrested; or by having a family member/friend take the vehicle.

2. Get driver home safely: Once the process is completed at the station, unless he had a prior DUI, he would have been sent home, or taken home.

3. Treat / impose punishment. There needs to be a conviction for DUI to require treatment. A conviction requires an investigation. Hence the arrest.

Most of these suggestions are currently in place. And it starts with arrest and completed DUI investigation, which occurs at the station that includes a breath or blood test.

So in this case they did not get the opportunity to initiate your suggestions because he fought.

[Ms. Toad]

40. I am suggesting skipping the station.

Slapping handcuffs on someone escalates the situation - especially for individuals who are black. They have (as we all have) seen what happens all too often for black individuals. They also likely have personal stories (or know those who do) of what happens after the handcuffs are on.

As long as charges can be filed (based on the breathalizer), dragging someone to the station only escalates the situation - and increases the risk of an event like this one.

The driver is (generally) no risk - aside from the risk that he will hop back into the car and drive away. Far better to give him a court date and address the remaining issues then. An custodial arrest is NOT required to file DUI charges. An investigation does not require a custodial arrest. Since custodial arrests are imposed far more on blacks than on whites - along with the potential for escalation and black deaths.

Any benefit simply does not justify the risk - and just becuase that is the process now does not make it the best process.

[Evergreen Emerald]

44. There would need to be changes to the law, and rules of evidence.

A DUI cannot be charged based on the breath test instrument used at the scene in most states. It is an investigative tool to establish cause to make an arrest. And a breath test given at the scene is insufficient for the proof in a criminal court without more evidence of dangerous driving. These are civil rights protections for citizens. I am not sure what the requirements would need to be met prior to towing a vehicle.

How about a mobile DUI processing unit? However, that would be very expensive if they have to travel to every DUI stop to complete the arrest procedure at the scene of the stop rather than at the station. Imagine if there are 50-100 DUI arrests a night in the state--that would be too expensive. Unless, I guess the driver would agree to pay for the additional cost of having it done at the scene rather than take a trip to the station.

However, lets look at the other side of the equation: For decades we have attempted to stop people from driving impaired. What more can be done? Education, criminalization, reduction of amount of alcohol consumed for a crime. I know in other countries, significant prison time is imposed for one DUI. Licenses are taken away forever. And they have few drunk drivers. Perhaps more draconian consequences are needed here too.

You suggest that a driver is not a risk except if he gets back in a vehicle. That is why they are arrested and prohibited from driving--to avoid that result.

You said black drivers are in fear of arrest--and that is why Mr. Brooks fought. Assuming you are correct, perhaps a citizen who watches the stop and arrest is included in the law enforcement team. An independent watcher who is present at the scene. I am not sure what authority they would have. If the reason the driver here fought was fear of arrest, perhaps knowing an independent watcher was present would put the driver at ease. Of course, that potentially puts the citizen in harms way if things go south.


"Dragging the driver to the station only escalates the situation." No. Taking the driver to the station allows law enforcement to complete the process and protect the community.

I am certain of we look at the whole of the circumstances, the current process in place, the decades long attempts to stop drunk driving, the safety of the community, we can address some of these issues. But, if we minimize the facts to support a certain position, it defeats the attempt to make meaningful changes.

[Ms. Toad]

50. I'm an attorney, and you are just flat out wrong as to the basis for charges

and admissibilty of breathalyzers - and of the need to take a person being charged with DUI to the station. I am not minimzing the facts to support a certain position. I just happen to know the law, and am not willing to tolerate "we have to do it this way," when those assertions are based on the assumtions that policies that are in place are necessary under the law.

In the vast majority of states, a breathalyzer test is presumptive proof of BAC. If challenged as to reliability, police have to be able to establish reliability and regular service, but is is very rare for an actual blood test to be required.

So no laws need to be changed to charge individuals with DUI based on breathalyzer results. In fact, although it is harder to establish, in many jurisdictions you don't even need a breathalyzer to charge with a DUI . Intoxication can be established based on the officer's observations and field sobriety tests.

Bringing additional police on the scene (a mobile unit) is both legally unnecessary - and escalates matters.

As for preventing him from driving - that is the point of confiscating keys or putting a locking device on the vehicle, both of which are far less likely to escalate the situation than hauling them off to the police station when it is not legally required.

[Evergreen Emerald]

52. Lol...it depends on the state, Ms. Attorney.

The state where I live does not allow a preliminary breath test as evidence in a criminal trial. It would not be sufficient alone to provide probable cause to arrest for DUI. That test, coupled with indications of impairment would be sufficient for arrest only. A breath test at the station, would be required for evidence in a criminal trial. A blood test is used if there is a breath test refusal at the station, or just because the officer prefers a blood test (warrant required) where I live. A preliminary breath test would not be sufficient for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They are not considered reliable under the rules of evidence.

Had you read my response you would have seen that I was not suggesting that "we have to do it this way," but certainly as an attorney you would realize that changing procedures does require a consideration of the current statutes and other legal authority currently in place.

I was not suggesting bringing additional police on scene. Had you thoroughly read my response, I was talking about an independent citizen who would be a monitor to perhaps put the mind of the driver at ease. Just a suggestion.

"Hauling them off" to the police station is required to complete the DUI process in most states. And, there are consequences to driving drunk. Arrest is a deterrent, provides an opportunity to gather the evidence needed to prosecute, and provides community safety while the drunk driver has time to sober up.

"I know you lawyers can, with ease, twist words and meanings as you please." ~ John Gay
Source: https://proverbicals.com/lawyers

Have a good day.

[Ms. Toad]

84. Careful reading is your friend.

In the vast majority of states, a breathalyzer test is presumptive proof of BAC. If challenged as to reliability, police have to be able to establish reliability and regular service, but is is very rare for an actual blood test to be required.

I did read your response - it was premised on assumptions that are not true in most states, and are not true in Georgia where this incident occurred: that a breathalyzer test is insufficient to charge an individual with a DUI, and that evidentiary rules would be changed to make it admissible. Georgia not only permits the use of breathalyzers, it is one of the states that permits conviction for DUI even without a breathalyzer, based on field sobriety tests or other evidence gathered by the police.

And if you intended to suggest that the mobile unit you wanted added to was civillian, you didn't say so. It certainly seemed you were suggesting something that would be part of the evidence collecting team - i.e. the police, since you are under the impression a breathalyzer is not good enough.

[treestar]

64. If that is an aspiration, fine, but

you can't expect present day cops to do all that and not arrest him right at the scene!

[Ms. Toad]

80. There are plenty of whites they don't arrest at the scene.

And, as long as we're talking about aspirational - isn't that part of the call for defunding the police? Finding better ways to handle situations that address real problems, without escalating the level of violence?

[SiliconValley_Dem]

112. you seem to be sympathizing a lot with white killer cops

[treestar]

62. His firing the taser wildly

and we have had arguments on DU about how bad the taser is. In fact, where cops use that, they are roundly vilified. Yet this civilian had a right to take one from a cop and wildly use it. He could have hit someone else too.

If they let him go away like he wanted to, they'd get a bunch of shit for that too.

Do we all have a right not to be arrested for DUI at the scene and to fight the cop if he/she dares to go ahead and arrest us? I think the courts would hold you can argue that in court, but you don't touch the cop. Just get booked and then at the trial, argue they had no right to arrest you there. That's what lawyers are for. Find the fourth or fifth amendment argument.

[SlogginThroughIt]

109. If the taser was fired and the cartridge did not hit

If the taser was fired and the cartridge did not hit then it is a useless object.

[cayugafalls]

25. I'm heartbroken here. He was such a good guy.

Why didn't they offer him a ride home? He would be alive today.

Yes, he was drunk. But he was being so good. After a few questions they could have made the call and saved his life.

Instead they kept on and now he is dead. All they had to do is offer to take him home. Leave your car and lets take you home.

[Evergreen Emerald]

26. Are you suggesting that drunk drivers should not be arrested?

[oasis]

31. Drunk while parked on private property? Brooks offered to walk home

but cops just had to score their precious DWI to pad their quota.

[Evergreen Emerald]

37. No, he was passed out in the drive thru

He drove there. He passed out in the drive thru. And, very likely would have continued driving after receiving his food. Minimizing drunk driving is not a way to assess the changes that are needed to avoid these results.

He should not have been killed.

[oasis]

42. Brooks told the cops that his girlfriend met him at Wendy's. She drove

to the place where they had drinks, she dropped him back to his (parked) car and headed back to wherever she was staying. Brook wanted something to eat and entered the drive thru where he fell asleep.

Bottom line: cops were going to slam Brooks with a DWI, but he was only (sleeping)in his car.

They tried their hardest to make the charge stick by having him jump through all kind of hoops. Brooks wasn't having it's he resisted, did a runner, and was shot in the back

[treestar]

65. Sleeping in your car

means you are impaired, even if not drunk.

He got there, so there was good cause to believe he was drunk before he got into the line.

Let's not go ridiculously far in the quest to find every cop in the wrong every time. It's not either or. We can admit when a case is not a good example of police bruality.

[oasis]

71. He told the cops his girlfriend drove him there. They never saw

him driving except when he was ordered to drive from the drive up window to the parking space. No witnesses to him driving. Get it?

What's "ridiculous" is the automatic assumption that Brook's is lying about 2 cars being involved.

[treestar]

74. Why is he asleep at the wheel?

He was in the passenger seat?

I worked on DUI cases and if you are parked and drunk enough it is enough to arrest you for it. Argue it at trial, but it is circumstantial evidence of driving drunk. And that is enough for a conviction. Get it?

[oasis]

76. What don't you get about 2(cars) being involved? Brook's date

met him at Wendy's in HER car she drove HER car to the place where they had the drinks. She drove the both of them back to Wendy's in HER car. Brooks was hungry, got in HIS car, and drove to the drive thru where he fell asleep. Never left the parking lot. Cops didn't witness a damn thing. It's explained in the video.

[treestar]

92. So the girlfriend has nothing to do with it then.

So that evidence could be used to show that he only drove drunk in the parking lot. They could still arrest him. Then if the law of that state says drunk driving is not illegal in parking lots or on private property, argue that in court. The police are not the jury to decide about the girlfriend's story being true. Cross examination of her does not take place on the scene.

[oasis]

96. The girlfriend will have plenty "to do with it" when she gives her

testimony in court. Charges are about to be brought against the ex-cop who killed Brooks. We'll see how it all shakes out in the months to come.

[StarfishSaver]

110. People going through this much trouble trying to justify the police shooting of an unarmed black man

is a sight to behold.

Even the Atlanta PD isn't jumping through the hoops you're diving through so eagerly. They fired the guy almost on the spot, so obviously the people most familiar with the facts, circumstances, laws, and procedures have determined the shooting wasn't justified. Yet here you, are doubling and tripling down trying to defend this man's killing with arguments that even the cop's defense attorneys would be too embarrassed to make because they're so desperate and absurd.

But it's good for people to see what black people in this country are up against. It's hard enough trying to stop the people who are trying to destroy us without also having to constantly fight off some of our own allies' efforts to defend and protect our tormentors while they do it.

[sir pball]

88. Yeah, that is probable cause for a DUI. Your Law and Order holds there

Can you think of a reason this case turned into one where lethal force was justified?

One can think a DUI charge was appropriate but multiple shots to the back weren't.

[treestar]

93. Resisting arrest

causes problems. Not the DUI charge. That was a major factor which you are overlooking. He was not shot for a DUI. He was shot in the melee caused by resisting arrest. Why do people defend that? It's a major problem and causes split second decisions to have to be made. And then everyone thinks they would do better!

[sir pball]

94. You say you've worked DUI cases

So I'm assuming you're a sworn law enforcement officer, with all the knowledge, and weapons handling "skill" (snort) that entails.

I carried a sidearm for about 15 years, across various states with various regulations, and made sure I was very competent with it. I cannot see this in any way as a reason to draw let alone fire. Perhaps you'd care to elucidate?

[cayugafalls]

32. Nope. Just sharing my experience as a white guy.

I've been driven home before and I've also been let go to walk home.

I'm just saying they could have done something different.

Training and compassion saves lives.

[Evergreen Emerald]

38. Perhaps if you were charged the first time

There would not have been a second incident of drunk driving.


Drunk driving does not save lives.


He should not have been killed.

[cayugafalls]

41. Perhaps, but I am not a saint. Made lots of mistakes.

Thank you for your concern, it has been noted.

[Evergreen Emerald]

45. I am sorry I was snarky.

I truly apologize.

[cayugafalls]

49. It's OK. Thank you.

These are tough times and we are having tough conversations.

Sometimes they get personal and we all, myself included, need to remember to love each other. I love everyone at DU.

Thanks again for your sincere apology, it made my day!

[treestar]

66. By cops? Where?

Where is this jurisdiction in the US where the community is that blase about DUI?

MADD would have a fit and that will be stopped shortly.

[cayugafalls]

77. That was 40 years ago.

Thank you for your concern.

I'm not trying to excuse my behavior, just citing an instance of privilege.

I will just chose to let it end here. Hope you can do the same.

[treestar]

125. MADD was founded 40 years ago

I'm guessing it's not like that any more.

[Alex4Martinez]

85. Strict liability, if he was driven home and took a different car out...

.. he could do harm.

I know of no state in this union where police would be permitted to not arrest a DUI suspect.

They go to jail, they sleep it off and are not released until sober, in an abundance of caution, that is the right thing to do.

I agree, he seemed like a good guy who freaked at the moment a handcuff was applied.

I did the same thing once with a security guard at an apartment complex, ended up pinning him until the police came.

I was arrested for fighting in a public place, security guy was local, I was not. San Diego. I took a plea.

[cayugafalls]

91. OK. I'm tired. He did not deserve to be shot in the back.

That is all. I agree he probably should not have run or struggled.

But he did not need to die. They did not even try. They just shot him dead.

It was an abuse of power, in my opinion. We can agree to disagree.

"I know of no state in this union where police would be permitted to not arrest a DUI suspect."

Unless of course you are a Chief of Police for Moss Point...

Dude was "jacked up" (drunk) driving 109 mph when pulled over.

They drove him home. I know, I know, he did not fight or resist and grab the taser, he complied and sat in back like a good boy. But he got to go home while hammered out of his skull.

https://www.sunherald.com/news/local/counties/jackson-county/article98850282.html

In my opinion, getting slack has to do with who you are and who you know. Probably with how much money you have as well and what neighborhood you live in. I could be wrong. Probably am. Like I said, I am tired. Been a long day.

[Alex4Martinez]

95. I posted the first OP to DU about this, trust me, I'm pissed off as can be.

To be safe, no exceptions should be made. Of course exceptions are made for friends of cops, etc.

But the first DU heard of this was when I saw it on Twitter and brought it here.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213587561

[kentuck]

39. Do you think the guy may also have had some mental issues?

That he may have needed some sort of medical help?

[Evergreen Emerald]

46. That is possible.

That would have been ferreted out at the station.

[Thrill]

43. Shot in the back. No excuse for it

[Evergreen Emerald]

48. Agreed

[treestar]

67. It's not the old Wild West

This is about protecting the community, not the fairness between two fighters.

[Thrill]

72. You already patted him down. So you know he doesn't have a gun

And you also already have his ID with an address. There is no excuse for killing him.

[treestar]

73. He has a taser

And he's drunk. And it's in a split second. I don't think it's that easy.

[Thrill]

79. Again you know who he is

Was the chase even necessary?

[uponit7771]

100. They won't answer that question on any threads

[uponit7771]

99. Yes it is, this is not a good argument any longer

[Sneederbunk]

51. Knowing what police do, why would you resist arrest?

[treestar]

68. I know. If a person is afraid of the cops

take the case to court. Someone who starts a physical fight with one is not afraid of them.

[StarfishSaver]

111. Seriously?

[treestar]

113. Some people who are not afraid of them

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=695870007915620&ref=watch_permalink

[StarfishSaver]

119. What's your point?

What does the fact that some random black guy in Delaware isn't afraid of some cops - at least when dealing with them during a protest march in broad daylight surrounded by allies with numerous witnesses looking on - have to do with whether Rayshard Brooks had reason to be afraid of the two cops who tried to arrest and handcuff him in the dark of night in an Atlanta parking lot?

What's the connection between the two, other than the fact they're both black?

[treestar]

128. Your original post made no point.

So I don't know what you meant.

If you are afraid of someone, you attack them? That's a normal reaction?

Trying to arrest and handcuff someone is wrong? Police officers should never do that?

Plenty of those people in the video were not black, so why did you bring that up?

None of them were so scared they didn't go within 2 feet of them and taunt them, insult them, and accuse them.

[StarfishSaver]

130. Given your utter lack of empathy or interest in even understanding what it's like to be a black man

in this country, you are in no position to judge what is a "normal reaction" by a black man confronted by the police.

Yet, you are piping up all over DU carrying on about how black people should behave because some other black people behave a certain way And even though you don't seem to realize it, you're actually performing a service by giving everyone in real time a perfect example of what we have to deal with in this country and one need not be a hood-wearing, n-word-spitting yahoos to be an antagonist.

[oasis]

131. THIS

^^^^^^^

[treestar]

134. My point was about how one behaves when one is afraid of someone

You are adding all kinds of extra stuff about. I have to believe every case the way you direct, or I'm some sort of racist. You have to deal with me not agreeing with you is such a hardship.

But it is OK to prejudge police officers. Some of us have police officers that are part of our lives. They are human beings and most of them do good. You find a few who do wrong and it's OK to judge all of them. Why are you so much better than anyone else?

I can judge a normal reaction of a human being as well as you can.

[StarfishSaver]

135. If you think it's not normal for a frightened person to fight back, you aren't very good at judging

normal reactions of human beings.

But you've consistently made yourself clear - on this issue and others. We can see what side you're on.

[treestar]

53. It's not a capital offense

but it is an offense. And it's very dangerous.

What's the solution? Just let people go and then go find them later. That'll have its problems too.

Fight it in court. Not with the cops on the street. That's what courts are for.

[Polybius]

86. This is a tough case

I don't think the cop should have shot him, but as a black man I also don't think race has anything to do with this. The cop was super-respectful the whole time, up until the point where he resisted arrest. Again, it was a bad option to take, but he probably panicked when his taser was stolen.

[Goodheart]

89. I'd call it manslaughter by angered panic.

[uponit7771]

101. The cops knew who Brooks was and could have just let him run ... Brooks posed

... no more threat to the community after his car was separated from him.

At the most it was public intoxication after he ran from the police

Pay ticket him later find him chill the body cam there's really no defense in court

shooting Brooks in the back because of a taser gun got pointing at them is really bad policing that was a bad shooting

[Happy Hoosier]

141. I think cops are just too willing to use their firearms.

I think instilling police with the "warrior mindset" is leading to too many cops willing to shoot whenever they feel the least bit threatened.

[SlogginThroughIt]

97. Why the question about the money?

Black people no allowed ot have money?

[SlogginThroughIt]

98. Field sobriety tests are worthless.

On the one where he lifted his leg up and counted the cop knocked him for swaying.... Gimme a break.

[uponit7771]

136. +1, the cop wanted to get him on something. It's like they get paid by the arrest, they could've let

... him go and kept his car.

I do understand some being pissed at drunk driving though but in today's context punish the guy with a ticket and suspension not arrest and death.

[oasis]

137. 6/17 press conference has revealed additional information. Understanding

is a wonderful thing.