Police shooting in Atlanta aka "Sir, this is a Wendy's drive-through"

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And the victim refused to press charges. That is different than a crime such as DUI.


Where does it say in the article that she tried to operate a motor vehicle?

having problems following orders, and smelled of alcohol. Merely one of these factors was adequate to reasonably be suspicious of drugs or alcohol, not to mention crimes such as disturbing the peace and other discretionary crimes police can charge a person with. Yet, no sobriety test.

Being drunk by itself is not a crime.

s someone who has gotten a DUI, I expect you to not be offended by my quoting a paragraph, but instead by the inconsistent actions of the executive branch of government, giving YOU a DUI charge, but not even testing this person for drugs or alcohol.

Two different governments, two different cities in two different counties. Rayshard Brooks was in Atlanta in Fulton County and this was in Norcross in Gwinnett County.

Also the details of the cases are quite different, but if White got preferential treatment it is far more likely to be for her being a woman than her being white.

So the conservative police treated her well to get bennies in the car but treat other men very poorly, like Brooks. Yes, this could be exactly how conservative police work. You even excused the cop who sexually assaulted 1000 women. What is your point?

 

[Derec]

So the conservative police treated her well to get bennies in the car but treat other men very poorly, like Brooks. Yes, this could be exactly how conservative police work.

- prefential treatment of women is not necessarily linked to a hope for "bennies".
- how do you know they were conservative?

You even excused the cop who sexually assaulted 1000 women.

I did not. I merely thought the punishment was excessive.

What is your point?

That it's idiotic to suggest that a drunk driver like Brooks should have been given a pass and a ride home.

 

[J842P]

What absurd point are you trying to make?

That is because almost everywhere in the USA a DUI will result in your arrest and booking in jail. Happened to me, happened to everyone I know who has gotten a DUI.

She was behaving erratically, violent to property, violent to persons, trying to operate a motor vehicle but failing, having problems following orders, and smelled of alcohol. Merely one of these factors was adequate to reasonably be suspicious of drugs or alcohol, not to mention crimes such as disturbing the peace and other discretionary crimes police can charge a person with. Yet, no sobriety test.

As someone who has gotten a DUI, I expect you to not be offended by my quoting a paragraph, but instead by the inconsistent actions of the executive branch of government, giving YOU a DUI charge, but not even testing this person for drugs or alcohol.

Don't shoot the messenger!

There's no inconsistency here. You are clearly ideologically possesed. One the one hand, you have a domestic disturbance situation, where no one decides to press charges. Being drunk at someones house isn't a crime. Perhaps she could have been charged with disturbing the peace, although that doesn't generally result in being arrested. On the other hand, you have a clear cut DUI case, which pretty much anywhere in the United States is going to end with you getting arrested and booked. And indeed, up until the point that Brooks decided to fight with the police, the interaction was pretty polite and matter of fact. About as good as you can expect.

Perhaps it doesn't make sense to necessarily arrest people for DUIs, I guess you can make that argument, but that isn't what we are arguing about here. Instead, you are trying to make some asinine point about how two completely different situations didn't end in arrest, even though in Brooks situation, anyone anywhere would be arrested.

Why are you trying to argue such a stupid point? Do you seriously believe this furthers any larger point about police brutality?

 

[J842P]

And the victim refused to press charges. That is different than a crime such as DUI.


Where does it say in the article that she tried to operate a motor vehicle?


Being drunk by itself is not a crime.

Two different governments, two different cities in two different counties. Rayshard Brooks was in Atlanta in Fulton County and this was in Norcross in Gwinnett County.

Also the details of the cases are quite different, but if White got preferential treatment it is far more likely to be for her being a woman than her being white.

So the conservative police treated her well to get bennies in the car but treat other men very poorly, like Brooks. Yes, this could be exactly how conservative police work. You even excused the cop who sexually assaulted 1000 women. What is your point?

Being arrested after your DUI isn't being treated poorly. That's just standard. And probably most people would agree that you should, even most people that have gotten DUIs.

 

[laughing dog]

Being drunk is not a crime per se. Unlike Brooks she wasn't found passed out behind the wheel of a car in a drive through lane.

Being passed out in a car is not a crime per se. Police are not mandated to arrest or charge someone if they are suspected of committing a crime.

Again, Brooks was strongly suspected of driving drunk. A field sobriety test and administering a breathalyzer is completely appropriate. Letting drunk drivers go is not.

Being drunk and disorderly is a crime and the suspect might be dangerous. Giving that person a ride home might be a good idea. Giving a suspected drunk a ride home might be a good idea.

She wasn't driving.

Immaterial

The implication is as clear as it is wrong. Rolfe should not have offered Brooks a ride home as drunk driving is a dangerous crime. Brooks could have killed somebody, especially if he had passed out before he reached the Wendy's.

Using that reasoning, Ms. White could have killed someone before she had been stopped.

It's amazing how people here (and elsewhere - for example CBS 46) downplay drunk driving as no big deal just because a drunk driver got shot.

It is less amazing than people here ( and elsewhere) who feign obtuseness so to defend the police killing a person, especially a black man.

Don's point is clear - the police had a choice in both situations. One ended up in a tragedy and one did not. Mr. Brooks' killing was avoidable both by his choices and by Mr. Rolfe's choices. Mr. Brooks' paid dearly for his poor choice. Mr. Rolfe should be held accountable for his poor choices.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Being passed out in a car is not a crime per se. Police are not mandated to arrest or charge someone if they are suspected of committing a crime.

Being drunk and disorderly is a crime and the suspect might be dangerous. Giving that person a ride home might be a good idea. Giving a suspected drunk a ride home might be a good idea.

She wasn't driving.

Immaterial

The implication is as clear as it is wrong. Rolfe should not have offered Brooks a ride home as drunk driving is a dangerous crime. Brooks could have killed somebody, especially if he had passed out before he reached the Wendy's.

Using that reasoning, Ms. White could have killed someone before she had been stopped.

It's amazing how people here (and elsewhere - for example CBS 46) downplay drunk driving as no big deal just because a drunk driver got shot.

It is less amazing than people here ( and elsewhere) who feign obtuseness so to defend the police killing a person, especially a black man.

Don's point is clear - the police had a choice in both situations. One ended up in a tragedy and one did not. Mr. Brooks' killing was avoidable both by his choices and by Mr. Rolfe's choices. Mr. Brooks' paid dearly for his poor choice. Mr. Rolfe should be held accountable for his poor choices.

It's amazing how you are bending over backwards to make a racial issue of something that isn't racial.

Drunk -- no wrongdoing. Drunk behind the wheel -- substantial wrongdoing, should be going to jail.

 

[laughing dog]

Being passed out in a car is not a crime per se. Police are not mandated to arrest or charge someone if they are suspected of committing a crime.

Being drunk and disorderly is a crime and the suspect might be dangerous. Giving that person a ride home might be a good idea. Giving a suspected drunk a ride home might be a good idea.

Immaterial

Using that reasoning, Ms. White could have killed someone before she had been stopped.

It's amazing how people here (and elsewhere - for example CBS 46) downplay drunk driving as no big deal just because a drunk driver got shot.

It is less amazing than people here ( and elsewhere) who feign obtuseness so to defend the police killing a person, especially a black man.

Don's point is clear - the police had a choice in both situations. One ended up in a tragedy and one did not. Mr. Brooks' killing was avoidable both by his choices and by Mr. Rolfe's choices. Mr. Brooks' paid dearly for his poor choice. Mr. Rolfe should be held accountable for his poor choices.

It's amazing how you are bending over backwards to make a racial issue of something that isn't racial.

No where did I bring up race in this particular discussion. Please actually read the responses instead of making assumptions.

Drunk -- no wrongdoing. Drunk behind the wheel -- substantial wrongdoing, should be going to jail.

Public drunkenness is wrong doing. Disorderly conduct is wrongdoing. Clearly you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Being passed out in a car is not a crime per se. Police are not mandated to arrest or charge someone if they are suspected of committing a crime.

Being drunk and disorderly is a crime and the suspect might be dangerous. Giving that person a ride home might be a good idea. Giving a suspected drunk a ride home might be a good idea.

Immaterial

Using that reasoning, Ms. White could have killed someone before she had been stopped.

It's amazing how people here (and elsewhere - for example CBS 46) downplay drunk driving as no big deal just because a drunk driver got shot.

It is less amazing than people here ( and elsewhere) who feign obtuseness so to defend the police killing a person, especially a black man.

Don's point is clear - the police had a choice in both situations. One ended up in a tragedy and one did not. Mr. Brooks' killing was avoidable both by his choices and by Mr. Rolfe's choices. Mr. Brooks' paid dearly for his poor choice. Mr. Rolfe should be held accountable for his poor choices.

It's amazing how you are bending over backwards to make a racial issue of something that isn't racial.

Drunk -- no wrongdoing. Drunk behind the wheel -- substantial wrongdoing, should be going to jail.

No, that's bullshit and you know it. When a black man--Henry Louis Gates--was arrested on his front porch for disorderly conduct you were all for it. I remember the apologetics. In this case, she not only was disorderly, but also attempted to operate a vehicle, assaulted someone, and damaged property, and could have been a danger to herself. There are a lot of illegal things she could have been held for.

In Rayshard Brooks case, he said he was waiting on her and she was driving, at least according to Derec--that's what Derec said. So, he wasn't actually driving a vehicle either, until police told him to move the vehicle. Which after 30 minutes of him saying he'd like to just walk home is Entrapment. But let's ignore all that. Let's ignore that it may have been this problem white girlfriend continually drinking and driving and then later setting fire to Wendy's. Let's just say he drank and drove and she wasn't really going back with him from a birthday party.

So, even if we assume it was Rayshard, she still has all these criminal charges that could have been made.

And she still got a ride home from the White Men in Charge.

Still.

Finally, while I am not sure of a lot of things here--like if the girlfriend was present in the second incident and how drunk she was in the first incident--the real reason I posted that was because I noticed Derec cherry-picked what he wanted from the article and just posted stuff to prove his point. I don't really have a lot of strong opinions on things, I wanted to point out how Derec posted just what he wanted and not the parts that he disagreed with. I mean, if you think an author is reliable and their work is reliable, then you don't just pick and choose stuff you agree with and hide the rest. So, I posted the part that was hidden behind the link.

For whatever reason, that upset people. I didn't even comment on it. I just posted directly what was there. Suddenly, ANGST! Truly bizarre.

 

[Derec]

No, that's bullshit and you know it. When a black man--Henry Louis Gates--was arrested on his front porch for disorderly conduct you were all for it. I remember the apologetics. In this case, she not only was disorderly, but also attempted to operate a vehicle, assaulted someone, and damaged property, and could have been a danger to herself. There are a lot of illegal things she could have been held for.

She could have, but the guy refused to press charges.

In Rayshard Brooks case, he said he was waiting on her and she was driving, at least according to Derec--that's what Derec said.

He did say his girlfriend dropped him off. Dropped him off how exactly if he was passed out in the driver seat. He also said he was on Old Dixie Hwy. in Forest Park, which is ~10 miles away.

So, he wasn't actually driving a vehicle either, until police told him to move the vehicle.

He was behind the wheel of a car, passed out. And the story that the girlfriend dropped him off and then disappeared is a load of bullshit, and you know it.

Which after 30 minutes of him saying he'd like to just walk home is Entrapment.

He was told to move his vehicle out of the drive through lane immediately after he was woken from his stupor, not after 30 minutes. And that wasn't even needed to establish DUI, so no entrapment.

And she still got a ride home from the White Men in Charge.

Where does it say that they were white? And why should their race matter?

Finally, while I am not sure of a lot of things here--like if the girlfriend was present in the second incident and how drunk she was in the first incident--the real reason I posted that was because I noticed Derec cherry-picked what he wanted from the article and just posted stuff to prove his point.

Dude, you are the one cherry-picking. Like pretending that a DUI was the same as a domestic disturbance just because they both involved alcohol. Or that police departments in two different cities in two different counties will necessarily behave the same.

I don't really have a lot of strong opinions on things,

Yet you keep posting about it. About how RB should have been given a ride to his hotel room (whereever that actually was, since he had no idea where he was to begin with!) or that he wasn't really

One thing about the Norcross Natalie White incident. At one point she said that they approached her to be on Married at First Sight. LMAO! Talk about an averted train wreck!

 

[Derec]

Being passed out in a car is not a crime per se.

Actually it is. He was behind he wheel and therefore in physical control of the vehicle. He was also in the middle of a drive through lane and therefore drove himself there. Had Brooks allowed himself to be arrested it would have been a slam dunk DUI. And a probation violation for his previous felony conviction. Which is why he resisted and attacked the police officers in the first place - he did not want to go back to the big house.

Police are not mandated to arrest or charge someone if they are suspected of committing a crime.

They are if they do their jobs.

Being drunk and disorderly is a crime and the suspect might be dangerous. Giving that person a ride home might be a good idea. Giving a suspected drunk a ride home might be a good idea.

Can we agree though that DUI and drunk and disorderly are not close to being the same thing? And that thus saying that because Natalie White was given a ride home in Norcross, Rayshard Brooks should have been given a ride home in Atlanta?

Immaterial

Of course it's material. One is a DUI the other is not.
Do I need to explain it to you like you're five?

It is less amazing than people here ( and elsewhere) who feign obtuseness so to defend the police killing a person, especially a black man.

This part of the discussion wasn't about the shooting but about the idea that RB should not have been arrested for drunk driving and even given a ride home.

Don's point is clear - the police had a choice in both situations. One ended up in a tragedy and one did not.

The tragedy is entirely of Brooks' making. Had he not attacked police officers, stolen their taser and then shot the taser at the pursuing officer, nothing would have happened to him.
You seem to suggest police should be letting suspects go to avoid the possibility of a "tragedy" if the suspect decides to go berserk on them.

Mr. Brooks' killing was avoidable both by his choices and by Mr. Rolfe's choices. Mr. Brooks' paid dearly for his poor choice. Mr. Rolfe should be held accountable for his poor choices.

His choice to arrest Brooks was entirely correct. Do you want to fault police officers now when they arrest suspects.
And after being himself a victim of assault and battery and seeing another officers be the same, and then seeing the suspect shooting a taser at him, it is perfectly normal and justifiable for Rolfe to use deadly force to defend himself.

 

[laughing dog]

They are if they do their jobs.

Wrong. All the time, police make choices to either arrest people or cite them or let them go. It is ridiculous to claim they are not doing their jobs unless they arrest someone who is a suspect.

Can we agree though that DUI and drunk and disorderly are not close to being the same thing? And that thus saying that because Natalie White was given a ride home in Norcross, Rayshard Brooks should have been given a ride home in Atlanta?

I never said anything about what the police should do. I defended Don's point that they have a choice in both cases and they choose differently. Mr. Rolfe had many choices in his interaction with Mr. Brooks.

This part of the discussion wasn't about the shooting but about the idea that RB should not have been arrested for drunk driving and even given a ride home.

I did not make any claim about the police should have done. I was defending Don's point as not insane.

The tragedy is entirely of Brooks' making. Had he not attacked police officers, stolen their taser and then shot the taser at the pursuing officer, nothing would have happened to him.

No one forced Mr. Rolfe to shoot Mr. Brooks in the back as he was fleeing. It is delusional to claim otherwise.

You seem to suggest police should be letting suspects go to avoid the possibility of a "tragedy" if the suspect decides to go berserk on them.

No, I am suggesting that a different approach might have avoided the suspect going "berserk" on them.

His choice to arrest Brooks was entirely correct. Do you want to fault police officers now when they arrest suspects.
And after being himself a victim of assault and battery and seeing another officers be the same, and then seeing the suspect shooting a taser at him, it is perfectly normal and justifiable for Rolfe to use deadly force to defend himself.

Perhaps it was perfectly normal for a sociopath or someone who does not care about human life but it is not morally justifiable.

 

[Rhea]

I’m still astounded that those two cops made the incredibly stupid and risky choice to tell Brooks to move his car. They thought he was drunk and they told him to start the car and drive it. What if he had driven off to avoid arrest? Dumb dumb dumb. Would have been better to move the car themselves, or if that is not prudent (I can see why they would not) then to call a tow truck.

So just satarting things off, we know the cops had a reaction that contradicts their story that he’s way too drunk to be driving.

 

[Jayjay]

I’m still astounded that those two cops made the incredibly stupid and risky choice to tell Brooks to move his car. They thought he was drunk and they told him to start the car and drive it. What if he had driven off to avoid arrest? Dumb dumb dumb. Would have been better to move the car themselves, or if that is not prudent (I can see why they would not) then to call a tow truck.

So just satarting things off, we know the cops had a reaction that contradicts their story that he’s way too drunk to be driving.

At that point, it was just the one cop. Rolfe showed up later, and if I understood right Rolfe was the one who was DUI qualified. So the first cop didn't really know he was drunk from the start, just that he was sleeping and didn't wake up at first. I think it became obvious though when Brooks hit the curb when parking.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's amazing how you are bending over backwards to make a racial issue of something that isn't racial.

Drunk -- no wrongdoing. Drunk behind the wheel -- substantial wrongdoing, should be going to jail.

No, that's bullshit and you know it. When a black man--Henry Louis Gates--was arrested on his front porch for disorderly conduct you were all for it. I remember the apologetics.

Because he played the DYKWIA card rather than being reasonable about the situation.

In this case, she not only was disorderly, but also attempted to operate a vehicle, assaulted someone, and damaged property, and could have been a danger to herself. There are a lot of illegal things she could have been held for.

I don't know enough details.

In Rayshard Brooks case, he said he was waiting on her and she was driving, at least according to Derec--that's what Derec said. So, he wasn't actually driving a vehicle either, until police told him to move the vehicle. Which after 30 minutes of him saying he'd like to just walk home is Entrapment. But let's ignore all that. Let's ignore that it may have been this problem white girlfriend continually drinking and driving and then later setting fire to Wendy's. Let's just say he drank and drove and she wasn't really going back with him from a birthday party.

He was obviously the one driving.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I’m still astounded that those two cops made the incredibly stupid and risky choice to tell Brooks to move his car. They thought he was drunk and they told him to start the car and drive it. What if he had driven off to avoid arrest? Dumb dumb dumb. Would have been better to move the car themselves, or if that is not prudent (I can see why they would not) then to call a tow truck.

So just satarting things off, we know the cops had a reaction that contradicts their story that he’s way too drunk to be driving.

At that point, it was just the one cop. Rolfe showed up later, and if I understood right Rolfe was the one who was DUI qualified. So the first cop didn't really know he was drunk from the start, just that he was sleeping and didn't wake up at first. I think it became obvious though when Brooks hit the curb when parking.

Yeah, I'm not one bit impressed with the performance of the officers here.

 

[Derec]

I’m still astounded that those two cops made the incredibly stupid and risky choice to tell Brooks to move his car.

There was only one cop there at that time, and he might not have suspected him of DUI yet.

They thought he was drunk and they told him to start the car and drive it.

Again not they, and the car was in the middle of a drive through lane and had to be moved.

So just satarting things off, we know the cops had a reaction that contradicts their story that he’s way too drunk to be driving.

They did not know that until Rolfe administered a field sobriety test and a breathalyzer. And he wasn't even there when Brooks moved the car.
And btw, Brooks was definitely too drunk to drive. He blew .108%.

 

[Derec]

Wrong. All the time, police make choices to either arrest people or cite them or let them go. It is ridiculous to claim they are not doing their jobs unless they arrest someone who is a suspect.

For minor stuff yes, but it would be a dereliction of duty to let a DUI suspect go.

I never said anything about what the police should do. I defended Don's point that they have a choice in both cases and they choose differently. Mr. Rolfe had many choices in his interaction with Mr. Brooks.

Letting him go or even giving him a ride to his hotel (which may have been as far away as Forest Park) weren't real choices.

I did not make any claim about the police should have done. I was defending Don's point as not insane.

Not very well.

No one forced Mr. Rolfe to shoot Mr. Brooks in the back as he was fleeing. It is delusional to claim otherwise.

It is delusional to think that Brooks was merely fleeing, as if he didn't just assault and batter police officers and shot a taser at Rolfe.

No, I am suggesting that a different approach might have avoided the suspect going "berserk" on them.

What approach do you suggest? Letting the suspect go? That's not practical.

Perhaps it was perfectly normal for a sociopath or someone who does not care about human life but it is not morally justifiable.

Caring about human life includes his own. Had Brooks not attacked the police officers, he'd have been fine. In Fulton County Jail, but fine.

 

[laughing dog]

Letting him go or even giving him a ride to his hotel (which may have been as far away as Forest Park) weren't real choices.

Your disapproval does not make those choices unreal. Mr. Brooks offered to walk home.

It is delusional to think that Brooks was merely fleeing, as if he didn't just assault and batter police officers and shot a taser at Rolfe.

Mr. Brooks was fleeing. There is no evidence to suggest any other motive.

What approach do you suggest? Letting the suspect go? That's not practical.

Your disapproval does not make it impractical. Hell, the first officer wanted Mr. Brooks to move his car - a clear indication someone did not think he was too intoxicated.

Caring about human life includes his own. Had Brooks not attacked the police officers, he'd have been fine. In Fulton County Jail, but fine.

Actually, we don't know if he would have been fine or not. Of course, if Mr Rolfe had not chosen to shoot at him (and miss at least once, possibly endangering others) and shoot in him the back, Mr. Rolfe would still have his job and not be facing criminal charges.

 

[Derec]

Your disapproval does not make those choices unreal. Mr. Brooks offered to walk home.

Oh the suspect offered to be let go! Well, that changes everything. I wonder why all the other people getting arrested haven't thought about that!

Mr. Brooks was fleeing. There is no evidence to suggest any other motive.

He also assaulted and battered police officers and robbed them of a taser. Not to mention that you do not have the right to flee an arrest.

Your disapproval does not make it impractical. Hell, the first officer wanted Mr. Brooks to move his car - a clear indication someone did not think he was too intoxicated.

Your and Don's approval does not make it practical. The first officer did not initially think he was drunk maybe. But he later did which is why he called Rolfe (a DUI certified officer) who then established that Brooks was in fact too drunk to drive. Which means that he should have been arrested for DUI.

Actually, we don't know if he would have been fine or not.

There is no reason to think he would not be. Remember, it was he who initiated violence.

Of course, if Mr Rolfe had not chosen to shoot at him (and miss at least once, possibly endangering others) and shoot in him the back, Mr. Rolfe would still have his job and not be facing criminal charges.

He is only facing criminal charges because of rotten Atlanta politics. Paul Howard is facing his own investigation and is in a tough primary - he finished second in June, but there is still a runoff. So he is giving red meat to his base.

 

[Derec]

Meanwhile, an 8 year old girl was killed by armed thugs (probably the same people who were blockading University Ave. days ago).
Police: 8-year-old girl shot, killed in Atlanta

The girl was riding in a car with her mother and an adult friend on I-75/85 when they exited onto University Avenue, Chafee said.The driver tried to turn into a parking lot in the 1200 block of Pryor Road but was confronted by a “group of armed individuals who had blocked the entrance,” Chafee said. “At some point, someone in that group opened fire on the vehicle, striking it multiple times and striking the child who was inside,” he said.The driver took the child to Atlanta Medical Center, Chafee said. The child did not survive her injuries, he said. Homicide investigators are working to learn more. An investigation is ongoing. The scene of the shooting is less than a mile from the University Avenue Wendy’s restaurant where Rayshard Brooks was killed by an Atlanta police officer last month.