Sorry Gilligan ! All I was stating was not every DUI stop ends with an arrest . Which was what several posts were implying.
So another POS criminal cant' behave himself and Atlanta burns...
- Thread starter Kyle
- Start date
itsbob
I bowl overhand
One point over what?? .06?? .11?? .2?
If it was .06, why ruin somebody's life over it.. A single beer, maybe two, will put you at or over .05.. (Driving Under the Influence).. but a night and day difference from .10 (Driving While Intoxicated).. Though I don't buy the DWI laws, don't agree it's unsafe to drive at .08.. or .05.. and PROBABLY not at .1.. they're all numbers that somebody thought would be good numbers to judge people by, but not based on statistics, or actual data.
Have they reported what the Wendy's sleeper was at?
I think he also had previous arrests for DUI, but now he's a Saint.
Nancy will honor his family with a flag, just like she will all the others.
FB discussion on this, white woman says, "I got in trouble with the police, this officer apparently didn't like getting clap back...."
I'm thinking, you wonder why they get a little testy with you when you are in their face, challenging their authority.
One thing to plead you case, it's another to tell them how to do their job.
That's what the courts are for.
Cops used to do that. Thank the ambulance chasing shysters that this changed. In the 90s there were a number of expensive liability suits around this issue and releasing a DWI driver with access to his car was found to be 'wanton reckless conduct' by the police.
Doesn't mean the cops arrest 100% of DUI suspects. In places where the jail is a 3hr round trip for the officer (rural plains states, islands), they may still make alternate arrangements and just issue a citation.
"Why, in my little podunk town of Doohicky, WV the town constable would give me a ride home if I drank too much. Why can't they do that in Atlanta or NYC or Chicago?"
... Or they could just let them lock themselves up like Otis did in Mayberry!"Why, in my little podunk town of Doohicky, WV the town constable would give me a ride home if I drank too much. Why can't they do that in Atlanta or NYC or Chicago?"
I just want to point out the sequence of events. The guy passes out in the drive thru and police are called. The first officer responds and wakes him up. The officer seemingly is going to allow him to pull over and sleep, however after the officer goes back to his patrol car, the man falls asleep again. The officer again wakes the man up and he gets him to move his car into a parking spot. The officer observes the man pull into the parking spot, jump a curb and then back up. The officer makes contact with the driver again and then requests a "dui" officer. The officer arrives and does field sobriety tests, which evidently the man fails. The driver, does not know where he is located. He believes he is in a county outside of Atlanta. The two polite officers then go to arrest the man and he physically assaults them. The man takes the officers taser and later can be seen punching the officer in the face. The man runs and as the officer is chasing him, turns to seemingly fire the taser at the officer and the officer draws his firearm and shoots.
You say the dude was on foot. EVERY person arrested for dui is on foot prior to their arrest. I am not finding your thought process logical. Gurps say let the man walk away. When is it appropriate for police officers to arrest someone who comits a crime?
That situation is completely different than Mr. Brooks situation. Mr. Brooks was so drunk that he did not know which county he was in, fell asleep at the wheel while in a drive-thru to a restaurant, and believed he was on a completely different street where he was located. I'll ask the same question I already asked. At what point is it okay for a police officer to make a decision to enforce a law which has been broken? If you disagree with the law, write the legislature, not the cop. If you think a police officer should take everyone or no one, write the legislature and have discretion taken away from the police. If you watched this video, I think the officers in this were amazingly courteous right up until the time they were assaulted by Mr. Brooks.
Nice try kiddo , when the officer had HIM MOVE the car the point that you are trying to make went out the window . Police don't have the suspect move the vehicle when the suspect is so obviously impaired . Unless the officer is out of their mind . So which is it ?
I agree. I think the officer at first was going to allow the guy to move over to a parking spot, but then, when the driver hit the curb and had to back up into the spot, the officer realized the guy was much more impaired than he first thought. I agree that I thought when I watched the entire video that it was a mistake fo the officer to let the guy drive his vehicle at all. I am not sure where you think I am trying to have it both ways. The officers observations about how drunk the guy was came after field sobriety tests.
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
(a) Stipulated.
(b) Unless they get back in their car and (attempt to) drive away.
(c) Right back atya. I've never said it wasn't appropriate to arrest (or try to arrest) Brooks. It was. But officers are given (at least, they should be given) latitude in the conduct of their duties. So I'll leave it up to the discretion of the POs here in this case or any PO to arrest or not. Speaking of discretion, given that these are interesting times (to riff off of Charles Dickens) maybe when Brooks broke contact it MIGHT have been better not to pursue? As I noted, I'm WONDERING if calling it in (i.e., Brooks fleeing) and getting guidance MIGHT been the better alternative. Why am I wondering this?
Because Instead of two white cops "killing" Brooks "on their own" (how it's being portrayed), calling it in and getting guidance could have led ATL down a different events path. We don't know what would have happened had they not pursued, but we do know what happened as a result of their pursuit.
Perhaps the officers would have been in trouble for not arresting/pursuing Brooks. But I don't know that either. Hence, why I want to know what the SOP & ROE was for the ATL PD and why I want someone from the ATL PD to address this.
I wonder what Sgt. Phil Esterhaus would say about this....
--- End of line (MCP)
So that means the cop screwed up twice . Once when he had him move the car . Second when he shot him in the back .
You expect a police officer who has just been assaulted, and had their taser stolen from you not to pursue the suspect? So at any time a person punches a police officer, are you saying it's better for the police officer to allow the person to just run away and get a summons for them at a later date? How many police officers do you think will continue to be police officers if they follow your thought process?
Yes, he screwed up twice. First when he applied and accepted a position with the the Atlanta Police Department, and second when he allowed Mr. Brooks to drive his vehicle while impaired.
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
I am not saying anything of the sort. So please don't reduce what I am saying/trying to say down to such a simplistic take; real life is far more complicated and nuanced.
What I am saying is that situational awareness is of paramount importance.
Why, from my background, "commander's intent" was added to the (5 paragraph) field order.
--- End of line (MCP)
This is what you said, "maybe when Brooks broke contact it MIGHT have been better not to pursue?" Certainly in your question you are suggesting "it might have been better not to pursue" Mr. Brooks who had assaulted both police officers and stole one of their tasers. At what point do you think a police officer should pursue a person who has assaulted them and stolen property?
"Let's be careful out there."
They could do what the Portland police do, and go "Dang, that's some sh!t," and tweet about it.