Wait, "right to work" laws don't apply to police officers? The rest of us can be fired at any time for any (non-discriminatory) reason.
Cop in America doing a bad job, again
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
Wait, "right to work" laws don't apply to police officers? The rest of us can be fired at any time for any (non-discriminatory) reason.
All the cops that think they're the shit should be made to watch the Brooks' family press conference just live on TV. Truly heartbreaking.
Too bad he did not apply this standard to his victim.
I know you guys and gals have a tough job. It's just..... death is final. I see this bullshit, I see the mass shootings in this country and I think our societal consciousness is now firmly (if it ever wasn't) in a place where life is no longer valued. How the hell do we fix this?
Holy shit, talk about a politicised conclusion.
You're going off on a tangent here so let me try and explain. In the UK if you're suspected of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle or of driving one (attempting to drive or have past or present) a requirement can be made to conduct a preliminary breath test. If that's positive you'll be arrested and placed on an evidential machine at the station. The police can also just arrest you without the preliminary test if they deem you to be unfit. There's always a necessity to arrest and you would never deal with this another way. I think the reasons why are pretty obvious to be honest.
Similar to the US, which we just recently went over in this thread. Any focus on the events prior to the arrest is missing the point, unless you advocate for more lenient drunk-driving laws.
Usually only probationary officers (1st 18 months) and some chiefs/assistant chiefs can be terminated at-will. Everyone else has civil service protection and have to go through due process to get terminated.
Last edited:
I expect it'll be politically expedient to throw him under the bus, so they will. The rights or wrongs of the situation dont seem taht relevant.
I understand current procedure. But the original initiation of contact happened not because he was swerving on the road, but because he was sleeping in his car in a Wendy's. If his car being in the lot was an issue then a tow truck could have been called. It didn't need to get to the level of questioning at the hands of the police.
It's this criminalization of normal acts that need to be changed.
Totally agree with you. US American cops seem to think of themselves as Judge Dredd, it's completely nuts.
Have you not watched the video? It’s posted a few pages back.
He was passed out in the drive way queue with his car on in the drivers seat and it was called in by a Wendy’s employee. I mean who else was the Wendy’s employee meant to call? I assume he was probably blocking people in.
Even if you want to change the scenario here and go with a hypothetical one where a man is asleep in his car in the back seat with the engine on. You would 100% still treat it as a drunk drive and arrest because that person is still in charge of the vehicle.
Drunk people sleep off in their cars and think in a few hours they’ll be fine. What happens is they get even drunker as the alcohol goes through them, they pop back into drive and they’re still drunk. If it went to court there’s a decentish chance that person could get off but at least nobody is driving drunk and that risk is completely eliminated. Taking keys away and telling someone to walk home is simply not sufficient action.
I watched everything. I know what the police are supposed to do, as per their rule book and manual. The strict following of those rules has resulted in a needless death. It has resulted in the needless deaths of many others. The rules, as well as the police who mindlessly follow them (cc Fela's "Zombie"), need to be revisited.
I'm saying that we probably shouldn't be calling the police when a car is blocking a driveway. When a car parks in front of my driveway I call the towing company (I've actually done this several times when some idiot parks in my parking space/driveway). And that given calling the police ends up in needless deaths like this, maybe we should restrict their roles (after we disband them of course).
The threat of him driving home is now completely eliminated. He's dead. Because of the eagerness to eliminate some level of unknown risk of him waking up drunk and driving home. I can't think of any other profession that does risk management in this sort of way, where risk mitigation is done at the expense of lives of citizens of the society. Not even the US military operate in this way, official rules of engagement prohibit behavior the police engage in every day. I still struggle with the idea that people see this as where everything is fine, until the shooting.
Except there was no D in the DUI. The guy was sleeping it off on the parking lot.
Yep - cops are too violent and a bunch of cowards. First they woke him up, then determined he was too drunk to drive and then proceeded to arrest him. I see no crime committed - sleeping while drunk??? - If he was so drunk, does it take two sober cops to bring him down... by shooting him? I thought fighting drunk people was easier.
No, they're just cowards, who panicked and resorted to the last resort (aka deadly force) as cowards would.
Last edited:
Am I to understand that being drunk in a car that's not moving is enough for a police officer to arrest me for drunk driving, without any actual evidence of me driving the car?
For example: Me and three friends are out drinking. We have a designated driver who's sober. We park at a restaurant and the DD goes into the restaurant to get food for all of us. Can a police officer just walk past the car and arrest us all for drunk driving, despite none of us being in the driver's seat? Doesn't there have to be some evidence of a person actually driving the car for an arrest to be made? I realise that he was alone in the car which makes this different, but could that seriously happen?
(Genuine question)
Yes. Being drunk, in or near the car with the keys is enough for them to charge you. I've even heard a story of a person being charged with DUI for sitting drunk in the passenger seat of their car listening to music in their own driveway.
Yeah. In the UK you can be arrested for being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle.
I mean in that situation I'm sure you'd shout your buddy over and that would be that.The offence is designed to prevent people from driving and having charge over the vehicle whilst they are drunk. Having the keys on you or accessible etc
This isn’t a simple case of somebody blocking a drive way and you know that. He was blocking a driveway to a fast food restaurant with active customers trying to get food. There were numerous people around, a queue would have built up, they couldn’t rouse him and so they called police.
Why would you call a towing company when someone is unresponsive in a car. Come on man, what human being out there in that situation would call anyone but the police.
999,999 out of 1,000,000 a drink drive arrest will pass by without incident. That is not the reason the bloke was shot dead. You can’t say it should no longer be treated as a criminal act because on this one occasion an officer made a catastrophically bad decision (which was the shooting) This isn’t someone stealing a candy bar from a shop. This is a very serious offence, an offence that can have you banned from travelling to certain countries. People die and get seriously injured as a result of drunk driving, you can’t just bosh it off.
I really don’t know how someone can watch that video and come up with what you posted in that last paragraph.
The incident was going completely smooth, both the police and the driver were talking on a level. Nobody was goading anyone or being overly eager. He was asking standard questions to ask when a person is caught red handed drink driving.
I get it, you don’t like the idea of policing, you want it all shutdown and restarted etc. But you’re wrong here and I think even people generally anti police would not entertain the sort of thinking you’re expressing in this particular case when given all the facts.
The “strict following of those rules” don’t end up with needless deaths. This is very much an outlier in the thousands of Dui investigations throughout the country in any given night. It seems like you don’t think police should respond to any call unless it’s a violent one in progress. I can respect that opinion even though I disagree. But for every person who shares your view that a DUI (or DUI after the fact) isn’t that serious or dangerous to warrant a police contact/enforcement, there are even more people who do think otherwise, that it’s dangerous and offenders should be punished and arrested. Powerful lobbying groups like MADD(mothers against drunk driving) have been around for a while and are surely a huge part in legislation and DUI laws we have in place.
the reason why DUIs and domestic violence are mandatory arrests (Misdemeanor but no officer discretion) is because there’s more liability (compared to other misdemeanors) if the suspect is “let go” and continues to drive, or get hurt walking into the street in a drunken state. Or in a DV incident if there’s no visible injuries, we still have to arrest the aggressor because if we just leave because they’ve cooled off, and the man continues to beat or kill his girl, then the department is responsible and fecked with liability.
That bold part there seems to be the problem. That's for the courts, not the cops.
Based on the officers‘ investigation there was enough evidence that the crime had occurred, and arrest was then appropriate and necessary.
if you watched the video the primary officer mentions to his partner that he told Brooks to move his car from the drive thru to a nearby parking spot. And Brooks failed driving Into that parking spot showing his impairment.
All the passengers could be detained to conduct a DUI investigation, but if you have a designated driver I don’t see why an officer wouldn’t let you go on your way.
Correct
Some states charge one with DUI for just being inside a vehicle with keys when intoxicated above legal limit.
Not sure if it's been debated in here yet but why the hell are police discharging a weapon with other persons in close proximity? It's the same kind of madness that we saw in NYC a while back and recently in that freeway shoot out with police using humans inside cars as shields. Fortunately, no bystanders were shot in this scenario unlike the two examples provided.
What crime, sleeping? The guy needed an Uber not gunned down.
Protect and serve my ass.
Cops are a fecking liability.
It was fecking speeding, ticket and done. The fact that the copper keeps calling him "bro" and "dude" tells me he's not mature enough to be in the position he is.
The car didn't drive itself to Wendy's and block the parking lot.
I won't lie listening to you guys (police) is depressing as feck. It's like you just don't get it and never will...
You've repeated your nonsense a couple times now. Go read @Organic Potatoes post earlier in this thread about how DUIs in the US actually work. Regardless of race.
I’m in this line. All this talk about the intricacies. of DUI laws misses the fact that SOMEONE IS DEAD.
I’ll say it again, the callousness of the pro police on this site makes me wonder if you have lost your regard for the value of human life. I don’t care if it is an officer gunning a civilian down or vice verse. This needs to end, and it is incumbent on the police, those literally paid to protect us, to make the first step and stop the excuses. The “thin blue line” is turning into a canyon that separates us from you. It is YOUR job to build the bridge. Or quit. Pick one.
No, DUI
Mate, if the guys on here are representative, there's no chance it'll come from withing. I'm starting to come around to all this talk of disbanding police and rehiring (which I initially didn't understand). Needs a property cleanout...
Maybe when someone in their family ends up being collateral damage to "cops following procedure" they'll start asking the right questions like "is there a better way?" - It's like there's no room for autonomy or critical thought. Followers follow orders... No leaders here.
Kinda thought @choiboyx012 was coming around but that was a long time ago and I guess the voices from redcafe no longer matter...
Ah you can get out with that rubbish. Not one person I've seen has defended the shooting so the usual Caf rent a mob have decided to start trying to re-invent what the offence of drink driving is as if the guy fell asleep and was magically transported to the passenger seat of his car blocking the drive through at Wendy's. Not only that the cops should apologise for distributing him and order him a cab home. What planet some of you on I'll never know.
I know at the moment on the Caf you seemingly have to be "with us or against us" but the guy had been drink driving and was rightly arrested. He then resisted arrest using a taser and was shot in the back whilst trying to escape. It doesn't make the shooting right at all but that's the facts of what happened so why are people desperately looking for an argument that doesn't exist. Jesus wept this place is exhausting.
I'm telling how it see it, I don't care if that gets you in your feelings.
You guys don't even really engage no more, you just argue, defend, explain away, and ignore... You're here to talk not to listen. It is what it is... I'm wasting my time.
And you can gtfoh with that persecution complex
boo hoo. As someone said earlier "You bring it on yourselves"From what I recall @choiboyx012 and @Leroy The Red didn't start talking about the drink drive law until other people brought it up. They were both critical of the shooting.
It's those who have issue with the police who decided to start going into the law on drink drive for some reason.
Nice way to avoid any of what I posted. As you know what I said was correct.
And is it any wonder no one wants to engage? Really?
That isn’t fair to the LEO and others involved in this discussion. Most of us have just been trying to explain the facts about what happened leading up to the attempted arrest and how that works in US law. Defending the shooting in the back isn’t something we have even been talking about much in recent pages.
Some want to keep going back to the DUI, which is completely missing the crux of the matter. Explaining the intricacies of US policing does not equal defending lethal force in this specific case.
Did you engage with what I said? Do you ever? You get what you give...
Don't get me mixed up with other people we all have our own thoughts we aren't one hive mind in here. Read my posts and then respond to them. You're replying to me like any of what you said was relevant to me or my point.
And that's nothing to do with me as I never disputed any of it. My point is that procedure be damned, someone has lost his life and it never had to happen. But nobody is really talking about how it could have been avoided, just that it was inevitable, had to happen, etc....
So excuse me if I'm a bit pissed off right now.
Last edited:
This right here is the problem. I'm not saying it's the polices fault, per se, just that this is where we are. One side is enraged by a history of brutality and violence done against them for centuries. The other side feels disrespected and underappreciated. The problem is that we are headed for, or have passed, the point at which these two roads can NEVER meet except through violence. To fix this one side has to humble themselves and submit to the other. In my view this needs to be the side empowered and paid, by us, to provide a service. Maybe you disagree, but can we agree that if nothing changes we are headed for a place that no one wants to go? When you see police gassing and clubbing protesters are you proud or angry? When you see unarmed black men shot are you enraged? I hope so, because we should all be. To not feel anger at what we see on TV, even if it is a small minority of interaction between police and civilians, is to admit we have lost our humanity.
Thank you!