So another POS criminal cant' behave himself and Atlanta burns...

[Yooper]

Once things progressed past conversation to the scuffle and the taser being taken I would guess we're now in a whole new ball game. So I want to know what the ATL PD SOP says about an escalating scuffle, having a PO's taser taken, & having that taser discharged back at the police officer.

I want to know about the SOP b/c my first inclination was "just let the guy go," call it in, & get further guidance. The PD had the auto, knew who he was, & once the taser was discharged it was no longer useful (or is it?). If the officer is hit by the taser, then I can see the second officer shooting (b/c we don't want the "now perp" getting the service gun of the down-by-taser PO). But the officer wasn't hit by the taser so what is the justification for shooting? That's why I want to see the SOP and/or ROE.

Anyway, maybe letting the guy go wouldn't be SOP in "normal times" (though why couldn't it be?), but it certainly might be good ROE during these more tense times.

Until I know more, shame on the mayor (who, btw, just disqualified herself from the Biden VP sweepstakes) for the firing of the PO, the DA for suggesting murder charges, & every other c_cksucker in the MSM & c_cksucker politician who continue to stoke the fires. One doesn't correct a possible case of "not following due process" by engaging in another one!

(Speaking of the MSM, I was more than a bit glad to read the CNN crew got jumped at the Wendy's.)

I also want to know the specifics of the Police Chief resignation.

If I understand what most policing pundits are saying correctly the shooting was a legitimate one. OK, but still....

Finally, I saw this some time back, but it was reposted recently. I thought it quite good:


--- End of line (MCP)

 

[glhs837]

And...the ATF classifies that type of taser a "firearm". Not just a weapon...

Yep. "less lethal" not "non-lethal".

 

[Bann]

When he started fighting them, did we expect the cops to just shrug their shoulders and say 'ah, we'll just mail him a summons' ?
Enforcement of DUI laws is not optional. This was not some 'you crossed the solid line' fishing expedition. The guy was out at the controls of his car !

Right?

Besides which, he was evading the answers the police officer was asking about how much alcohol he had consumed. A man his size doesn't pass out cold drunk from 1-1/2 drinks. Sorry, that's not even remotely believeable. He was way more intoxicated than he let on. OR he was on something else. OR both. Given his poor judgment, and beligerant behavior - I'm guessing both. He had some wildly powerful actions for someone who was only intoxicated and passed out drunk barely 30 minutes before.

 

[vraiblonde]

Well, ffs, how drunk does one have to be to pass out stone cold in the drive through of a fast food restaurant?

 

[vraiblonde]

Anyway, maybe letting the guy go wouldn't be SOP in "normal times" (though why couldn't it be?), but it certainly might be good ROE during these more tense times.

So the guy goes off and kills someone because he's drunk driving, and the cop gets in chit for letting him go.

Cops in these nasty places can't win. They should all quit and find jobs somewhere nice.

 

[BernieP]

Yep. "less lethal" not "non-lethal".

Well the district attorney charged the cops who used their tasers with use of deadly force.
Going to be funny to watch them arrest these cops for shooting a guy who fired a taser at them.
Not to mention that taser is still a stun gun if he gets close enough.
Oh, and what happens if he does get close and stuns the cop, then takes his sidearm.
Reading a lot of liberal ass whining.
Who demanded the stricter drunk driving laws? MADD
What these asswipes are saying is, go ahead, break the law, there won't be consequences unless you agree.
Cops should send a note to Wendy's HQ. Don't call us to move a drunk out of your drive thru.
They be your problem from now own.
Drunk's out taking a crap on your lawn, peeing on your shrubs, don't call the cops, and certainly don't touch the poor soul.

 

[Yooper]

(a) So the guy goes off and kills someone because he's drunk driving, and the cop gets in chit for letting him go.

(b) Cops in these nasty places can't win. They should all quit and find jobs somewhere nice.

(a) My point (I guess I should have been clearer) was that the dude was now on foot and not in his car. But also, that's why I want to know the SOP/ROE: I'm not a cop so I can't say I understand the ins & outs of police logic. I say this because I do know military/intel stuff and there are often cases where the logic wouldn't be clear to "outsiders" (but it's there).

(b) Absolutely agree.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[BernieP]

(a) My point (I guess I should have been clearer) was that the dude was now on foot and not in his car. But also, that's why I want to know the SOP/ROE: I'm not a cop so I can't say I understand the ins & outs of police logic. I say this because I do know military/intel stuff and there are often cases where the logic wouldn't be clear to "outsiders" (but it's there).

(b) Absolutely agree.

--- End of line (MCP)

He was found out behind the wheel of the car, in the drive thru lane.
They woke him, had him move the car
Then gave him a field sobriety test, which he failed.
At that point he was going to the station to be booked for DUI.
Those are the rules, those are the laws people demanded to curtail drunk driving.
Had he gone peacefully, he probably would have been booked and then released, RoR. Assuming her had a ride.
It's no longer a ticket and go home. It's certainly not a ticket and go home when you fight with the arresting officers.
When you take a taser, they can't let him go, what would have happened had he tased one of the cops and was able to grab their weapon?
The cops can't let him walk away with the taser, particularly if he's drunk.
What happens if he steps out into traffic and is injured or killed?
Sue the police department for allowing him to run free, both his family and the motorist who struck and killed him?
The bottom line, no what if's, they don't know what he's going to do with that stun gun. They have no idea what he will do drunk.
They just know they will be held responsible.

 

[herb749]

He was found out behind the wheel of the car, in the drive thru lane.
They woke him, had him move the car
Then gave him a field sobriety test, which he failed.
At that point he was going to the station to be booked for DUI.
Those are the rules, those are the laws people demanded to curtail drunk driving.
Had he gone peacefully, he probably would have been booked and then released, RoR. Assuming her had a ride.
It's no longer a ticket and go home. It's certainly not a ticket and go home when you fight with the arresting officers.
When you take a taser, they can't let him go, what would have happened had he tased one of the cops and was able to grab their weapon?
The cops can't let him walk away with the taser, particularly if he's drunk.
What happens if he steps out into traffic and is injured or killed?
Sue the police department for allowing him to run free, both his family and the motorist who struck and killed him?
The bottom line, no what if's, they don't know what he's going to do with that stun gun. They have no idea what he will do drunk.
They just know they will be held responsible.

According to his police record someone posted he was released from jail early because of covid-19. Once he heard we are placing you under arrest he knew he was going back to jail to stay, so he freaked out. It cost him his life.

 

[GURPS]

Once things progressed past conversation to the scuffle and the taser being taken I would guess we're now in a whole new ball game. So I want to know what the ATL PD SOP says about an escalating scuffle, having a PO's taser taken, & having that taser discharged back at the police officer.

All Well said

 

[Bann]

Once things progressed past conversation to the scuffle and the taser being taken I would guess we're now in a whole new ball game. So I want to know what the ATL PD SOP says about an escalating scuffle, having a PO's taser taken, & having that taser discharged back at the police officer.

All Well said

I don't disagree with Yooper's overall point above. It's always necessary to assess what happened, so you can know how to proceed in the future and possibly find ways to improve and adjust methods of operation. What's a real shame is that the police officer was fired before any internal investigation was even started. This automatically gives the appearance that the police officer was wrong.

I'm pretty certain that PD SOPs regarding any situation AFTER a service weapon been taken does not included "de-escalating" methods. Once you have taken the police offier's weapon, that's a completely different situation.

The de-escalation methods were utilized by the police officer BEFORE he did the breathalizer test and before the handcuffs were going on. He did a great job and exhibited a lot of restraint with this man.

 

[officeguy]

Right?

Besides which, he was evading the answers the police officer was asking about how much alcohol he had consumed.

The pathologic lying is just par for the course. That's normal, it's rare that the cops encounter a drunk driver who just admits how much he had to drink.

 

[Scat]

What's a real shame is that the police officer was fired before any internal investigation was even started.

Guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.

 

[phreddyp]

Only two things wrong with all of this .
1. The cop had HIM drive out of the drive thru and park , which from the video he did without any problem .
Obviously the cop did not think that he was too drunk to drive.

2. The cop shot him as he was running away IN THE BACK the cop was not being attacked at that time , no reason to shoot at that time .

The bottom line for years cops have had their word about what happened at the scene taken as gospel . No more ! Cameras are everywhere and they are showing some of them running amok and being criminals themselves and folks get used to it you are going to see it time and time again .

If a cop turns off their body camera they should be immediately discharged as there is no compelling reason to do it except to hide something.

Law enforcement is going to be scrutinized like never before brace yourselves

 

[Gilligan]

Only two things wrong with all of this .
1. The cop had HIM drive out of the drive thru and park , which from the video he did without any problem .
Obviously the cop did not think that he was too drunk to drive.

2. The cop shot him as he was running away IN THE BACK the cop was not being attacked at that time , no reason to shoot at that time .

The bottom line for years cops have had their word about what happened at the scene taken as gospel . No more ! Cameras are everywhere and they are showing some of them running amok and being criminals themselves and folks get used to it you are going to see it time and time again .

If a cop turns off their body camera they should be immediately discharged as there is no compelling reason to do it except to hide something.

Law enforcement is going to be scrutinized like never before brace yourselves

After the driver failed to move the car after first couple of attempts to prod him to do so, the officer requested the assistance of a DUI unit. He and certainly did not consider that drunk ok to drive. He wanted him to just move his car forward a short distance to clear the drive through.

 

[Scat]

After the driver failed to move the car after first couple of attempts to prod him to do so, the officer requested the assistance of a DUI unit. He and certainly did not consider that drunk ok to drive. He wanted him to just move his car forward a short distance to clear the drive through.

I dont think it would have been “wrong” for the officer to send the guy home in a cab. Wonder what their rules are for that?

 

[Gilligan]

I dont think it would have been “wrong” for the officer to send the guy home in a cab. Wonder what their rules are for that?

That ancient courtesy went out the window a long time ago. Nowadays you get the full DUI charges if found sleeping in your vehicle in a parking lot while intoxicated.

 

[GURPS]

I don't think it would have been “wrong” for the officer to send the guy home in a cab. Wonder what their rules are for that?

Was the Shooting of Rayshard Brooks 'Lawful but Awful'?


"All right, you good?" Officer Devin Brosnan inquires after waking Brooks up at 10:42 p.m. He asks Brooks to move his car to a nearby parking space, initially suggesting that he take a nap there. Seven minutes after arriving, Brosnan calls for another officer.

After Rolfe arrives at 10:56 p.m., he consults with Brosnan. Rolfe asks Brooks to get out of the car and asks if he has any weapons. Brooks says he does not and consents to a pat-down. Rolfe performs a seven-minute field sobriety test.

Brooks is "compliant and friendly with the officers throughout this time," the Times notes. He admits that he has been drinking but says he is not too intoxicated to drive. Brooks suggests that the officers allow him to lock up his car and walk to his sister's house, which is nearby. "I can just go home," he says.

Rolfe is not keen on that idea. "Why would you walk home?" he asks. "I just don't want to be in violation of anybody," Brooks replies. "Do you think that you would be in violation of something if you were to drive your vehicle?" Rolfe wonders.

[clip]

Criminal charges aside, it seems clear that something went horribly wrong the night that Rayshard Brooks fell asleep in his car outside a fast-food restaurant. The incident highlights that fact that every encounter with armed agents of the state has the potential to end tragically, which is a good reason to minimize such encounters, to weigh their risks against their benefits, and to avoid escalation whenever possible.

In this case, the tenor of Brooks' interaction with the officers changed dramatically when the handcuffs came out. Yet his alleged offense is a misdemeanor that is typically handled with sanctions such as fines, probation, community service, and license suspension (although it theoretically can be punished by up to 10 days in jail). It seems like the sort of offense that could be handled by a citation, along with precautions aimed at ensuring that an intoxicated driver does not get back behind the wheel.

Under Georgia law, however, arrests are authorized for most moving violations—not just driving under the influence, but routine offenses like speeding. Such overcriminalization is a standing invitation to hostile encounters that may lead to violence, as happened in this case. The value of enforcing the DUI law, and especially the added value of routinely enforcing it with custodial arrests, cannot possibly justify the loss of a man's life. And while that outcome is far from typical, it is the sort of danger that legislators should consider whenever they authorize police officers to use force.

 

[stgislander]

The value of enforcing the DUI law, and especially the added value of routinely enforcing it with custodial arrests, cannot possibly justify the loss of a man's life. And while that outcome is far from typical, it is the sort of danger that legislators should consider whenever they authorize police officers to use force.

What state legislature wants to go up against MADD?

 

[GURPS]

What state legislature wants to go up against MADD?

IKR