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

[laughing dog]

Why Mr. Brooks resisted arrest is irrelevant to the misuse of force against him.

 

[Derec]

But it could also be said that years and years of police often at least partially getting away with controversial actions could easily lead police to lower the threshold of their responses and their resorting to force (including deadly force) because of at least a reduced likelihood of very serious repercussions. A police or law and order or justice culture, at least in some or many forces or precincts, where it's relatively easy to shoot, abuse or brutalise people (of any skin colour or ethnicity) in other words.

Just because a shooting is "controversial" does not mean that the police did anything wrong. #BLM has a very poor track record regarding which cases they get outraged about.

Remember the shooting of Patrick "Pat Pat" Kimmons? It was as clear-cut as they come, and yet there was controversy and protests by the anti-police crowd in Portland.
Or remember the case of Keith Scott of Charlotte whose family insisted he had a book, not a gun in that ankle holster?

 

[Trausti]

Why Mr. Brooks resisted arrest is irrelevant to the misuse of force against him.

If you violently resist arrest, you get what’s coming to ya.

 

[Jokodo]

There are also some 2-shot models.


It cannot be claimed that he had only one shot then.

Also, tazers maximum range is ren feet.

Source? Also, how many is ren?

The guy running away was a lot further away than ten feet when he was shot. The cops were in absolutely no danger at that point.

He may not have posed an immediate threat, but he was a continued threat to others if he were to be allowed to escape. For example, he could have used the stolen taser to carjack somebody. He has, after all, shown willingness to use violence to get away.

Seriously? In a country where basically everyone can get a fucking *gun*, you're saying that the mere possibility of maybe sometime in the future using a stolen taser makes shooting a fleeting suspect justified?

 

[Derec]

I totally agree. I actually read about the man who was killed because I always wonder about the people who the victim left behind. This particular man had a wife and three little girls.

He was also in prison for cruelty to children among other things. But let that not detract from all the hagiographies ...

He was also helping raise his step son, had a full time job at a Mexican restaurant, where his coworkers loved him.

A regular humanitarian, according to the one-sided account pushed by the media who keep ignoring his extensive criminal record.

They said that he was always the first person to arrive at the start of the day and that he was a hard worker. His family and friends are devastated by what happened.

Afaik, he didn't have a criminal background.

Oh, he most definitely did! Search Clayton County court records if you don't believe me.

He appears to be a gentle person who did try to get along with the police when he was initially questioned.

He appeared cooperative (although he was confused as all hell!) until he realized he was not going to be able to weasel himself out of an arrest. Then he went berserk.

Here's what I think probably happened. When the cops tried to handcuff him, he probably had a fight or flight impulse after watching what happened to George Floyd, after he was handcuffed.

I think he just didn't want to go back to prison and that was his primary motivation for going berserk.
But let's say what you say played a role, which is possible. That just goes to show that the propaganda that inflates the risk of police interactions is actively harming black people. #BLM is not hurting the very people they purport to be helping!

So, he probably imagined himself being cuffed and helpless. Then he tried to flee, which I can certainly understand after seeing how many other young black men have been killed by over zealous police officers who have no impulse control.

In the US, police arrest over 10 million people per year. There are just about 1000 people killed by police. And most police killings are perfectly justified and involve the perp attacking police or threatening people or third parties, usually while being armed. The chances that Brooks would have gotten killed during a routine DUI arrest were infinitesimal. The chance that he would have been killed after punching a cop and stealing his taser is many orders of magnitude higher.

Sure, this sometimes happens to white people, but statistically, it s black folks, especially young black men who are the most often targeted by the police.

That is because young black men also commit more crimes on a per capita basis.

Nobody should be suspected of being dangerous or violent because of their skin color.

Very true! Brooks was not suspected of being dangerous or violent because of his skin color. He showed that he was dangerous and violent through his actions.

He shouldn't have been shot.

In an ideal world, no. But I can't fault police of making that split-second decision after being attacked by the perp like that.

The cops could have chased him, or since they knew who he was and had his car, they could have simply let him run and put out a warrant for his arrest. Considering how exhausted he was, I doubt he would have gotten very far.

Could've, should've. It's so much Monday-morning quarterbacking. The cop had to make a shoot-don't shoot decision in the moment, after just getting violently attacked and immediately after being shot at with a taser. He did not have the luxury of deliberation on the best course of action.

Those police didn't even have to handcuff Brooks.

He was being arrested for a DUI and handcuffs are SOP. Besides, his actions do prove that handcuffs were very much necessary!

He wasn't acting as if he was going to harm them.

Until he was.

There is no law in Georgia that says that a suspect for DUI should be hand cuffed.

There may not be a state law mandating it, but the ATLPD Standard Operating Procedures state clearly:

Handcuffs should be used whenever a suspect is physically arrested, both at the time of
arrest and during transport, regardless of the offense being charged. Handcuffs will be
applied before a person is searched and should be double locked, with the arrestee’s hands
placed behind the back. Arrestees should remain handcuffed until placed in the custody of
the appropriate detention facility personnel.

I looked and couldn't even find a law that demands that a DUI suspect must be arrested and taken to police headquarters.

I have never heard of somebody not getting arrested for a DUI.

If there is, it need to be overturned. The man wasn't even driving when they arrested him.

He just magicked the car into the drive through lane, did he?

He was asleep in his car. Why didn't the police just ask him if he was okay and then told him to pull over to a parking spot.

The first officer on the scene did both those things. Then he called for a DUI certified officer because he suspected a DUI.

He asked if he could simply walk home.

Doesn't mean the cops should have let him go.

His sobriety test was barely above the legal level.

.108% when he was tested is well above .08%. And significant time passed before they got him to blow, so his BAC when he first passed out in that drive through lane was even higher.

He may have been exhausted from working a long shift.

More like exhausted from drinking all those daiquiris and margaritas with his girlfriend. Note, the man is married.

The police who shot him totally over reacted to the situation and he should be prosecuted for what he did. His life wasn't in danger. Brooks was no threat to the community. What happened was outrageous, and we've seen this story before. It has to stop.

I think he has shown himself to be a threat to the community.

Yes. I'm angry about what the police in my country are doing. From the looks of it, we are becoming a police state.

More like an anti-police state, given what mayors like Keisha Bottoms are doing.
Also given what media are doing when they actively hide the violent criminal record of people like Brooks.

 

[Derec]

Seriously? In a country where basically everyone can get a fucking *gun*, you're saying that the mere possibility of maybe sometime in the future using a stolen taser makes shooting a fleeting suspect justified?

An easy way to get a fucking gun is to take it off a cop you just incapacitated with a fucking taser.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Seriously? In a country where basically everyone can get a fucking *gun*, you're saying that the mere possibility of maybe sometime in the future using a stolen taser makes shooting a fleeting suspect justified?

An easy way to get a fucking gun is to take it off a cop you just incapacitated with a fucking taser.

Not possible to do when you are running away but you already knew that, didn't you?

 

[barbos]

Meanwhile in Russia: Traffic police stops Mercedes-Benz GL500, driver and passenger beat up policemen, then one suspect leaves the the scene on Maserati, another one is apprehended. Public is outraged because police has not shot these assholes instead.

 

[Derec]

No, police officers can consider the danger inherent in allowing a violent perp to escape. They had direct knowledge of him being violent.

No, they had direct knowledge that he tried to resist arrest and run away, perhaps while he was intoxicated.

He also punched one cop and stole a taser (technically a robbery). So they had direct knowledge of Brooks being violent.

This is not grounds to summarily execute someone.

He wasn't summarily executed. Had they apprehended him and killed him, that would have been an execution.

Thats the fucking point you don't get, because you don't see black people as human.

Bull-fucking-shit!
I think YOU don't see black people as fully human, as you want to make excuses when they act violently against police, as if they were a cornered animal with no faculties for rational thought.

If this had been a white woman stopped for DUI who had been shot in back by police for trying to evade arrest, you would likely have been singing a different tune.

If she had punched a police officer, stolen the taser, and then shot the taser, I would sing the same tune.
But there probably would not even be a thread. Certainly Keisha Bottoms would not have called it murder. And the Wendy's would still be intact and open.
That's the fucking point you don't get about double standards here.

 

[Jokodo]

Seriously? In a country where basically everyone can get a fucking *gun*, you're saying that the mere possibility of maybe sometime in the future using a stolen taser makes shooting a fleeting suspect justified?

An easy way to get a fucking gun is to take it off a cop you just incapacitated with a fucking taser.

He was running away. You literally insisted that having a taser was sufficient to legitimize shooting him in the back as a form of avoiding serious harm to self or others because of what he might possibly be doing with the taser at some unspecified point in the future - let me quote your words back to you: "He may not have posed an immediate threat, but he was a continued threat to others if he were to be allowed to escape. For example, he could have used the stolen taser to carjack somebody."

With that logic, you can shoot a literally anybody in the back and claim it's to avoid serious harm to oneself or others - after all, there might be an iron bar lying around 200 metres down the road which the fugitive could pick up to crush someone's skull, right?

 

[Jayjay]

Watched the body cam, dash cam and Wendy's security cam footage. Seems like mr Brooks was drunk as a skunk, and being on parole knew he didn't want to get arrested. His reaction to fight the cops and flee was stupid though, but that doesn't mean the cops were right to shoot him. Also, it seems a bit odd that the cop just tells him to put his hands behind his back as he puts the cuffs on... nothing about him being arrested or that he has to take him in. I suppose that's safe because people can get mad when they are told they'll be going back to jail, but until that point the whole interaction was just polite conversation and I don't see why they could not just tell him that they have to take him in for a DUI.

Avoidable shit show. But even in best case scenario Brooks would have ended up in jail and not see his daughter the following day. Moral of the story: don't fucking drink, and if you do drink don't drive, and if you do drink and drive and get busted don't resist the arrest.

 

[ruby sparks]

That is one moral of the story, yes.

 

[Treedbear]

There is only one model of tazer that has three shots. It's unknown if those police were using that model.

Also, tazers maximum range is ren feet. The guy running away was a lot further away than ten feet when he was shot. The cops were in absolutely no danger at that point.

From a discussion elsewhere they carry the two-shot version.

And police tasers can have ranges up to 35 feet. Civilian units are limited to 15 feet.

Tasers shoot two probes attached to the gun by wires that can be up to ~25 feet long. The length of the wire doesn't determine the effective range. To effectively incapacitate the target they need to strike at least 1 foot apart. That distance is determined by the angle between the probe's paths as determined by the particular cartridge type, and the distance to the target. The farther apart the better, but that makes it less likely that both probes will make impact. The angle is in the vertical direction so that a standing person presents a larger target. Holding it sideways typically decreases the effective range when the target is standing or running. There are cartridges designed with 3.5 degree angles for longer range but police tasers are usually designed for close range use and have a 7 or 8 degree angle because police will usually need to use them within 6 feet or so. So it's extremely unlikely these officers were in any danger (or reasonably would have felt they were in imminent danger) from the fleeing suspect unless he tried to approach them with the taser drawn. The officer who killed the man either acted emotionally and therefore irrationally and so shouldn't have a gun, or else he intentionally decided to take the person's life as a way of subduing him which was an unjustified use of force due to personal prejudice and/or the systemic abuse of power or racism. There is zero possibility that the perp could have used the taser to incapacitate either of the officers while the other one was present and armed with a pistol.

The notion that any and all situations where a law-breaker possesses a taser or any object that might be used as a weapon or holds the slightest possibility of being a weapon justifies police to use lethal force is inviting abuse of power. They might as well have shot him for having a pen knife. For years there has been no way to gauge the reactions of police in situations like this. Only statistics. But now we have videos everywhere and the truth behind what happens is becoming painfully apparent. And so finally the average citizen has a way to judge whether police are performing within acceptable standards. So they need to change their practices in a hurry. Deal with it, or deal with the protests and rioting and destruction of private property that is inevitable. A free society cannot exist if it allows that kind of oppression.

 

[laughing dog]

Seriously? In a country where basically everyone can get a fucking *gun*, you're saying that the mere possibility of maybe sometime in the future using a stolen taser makes shooting a fleeting suspect justified?

An easy way to get a fucking gun is to take it off a cop you just incapacitated with a fucking taser.

That is hard to do when one is running away from the police. Or did you mean that later on Mr. Brooks would have surprised some unsuspecting police officer tased him, taken his fire arm and then shot him? Frankly, both scenarios are ridiculous.

 

[TSwizzle]

Two cops can't wrangle a drunk in to a cruiser ? That should be enough to get them fired in the first place. But shooting the drunk dead as he tried to run away ? Get them charged, idiots.

 

[Rhea]

Why Mr. Brooks resisted arrest is irrelevant to the misuse of force against him.

If you violently resist arrest, you get what’s coming to ya.

Death is not “what’s coming to ya” for resisting arrest. What a horrible dystopia that would be.

 

[Trausti]

Why Mr. Brooks resisted arrest is irrelevant to the misuse of force against him.

If you violently resist arrest, you get what’s coming to ya.

Death is not “what’s coming to ya” for resisting arrest. What a horrible dystopia that would be.

So how many of these media frenzy cases involve folks who didn’t resist? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Two cops can't wrangle a drunk in to a cruiser ? That should be enough to get them fired in the first place. But shooting the drunk dead as he tried to run away ? Get them charged, idiots.

We are on the same page, but it isn't all about the physical incompetence, it's also about the lack of de-escalation and other options utilized. As I wrote before, if he's that drunk, they should have been able to successfully manipulate him into the cruiser...like tell him he's going on a trip to see hookers at a Brazilian carnival...I mean, drunk people are easy to manipulate...they even like being funny and being the object of pranks and butts of jokes, to an extent.

 

[Rhea]

Some people keep posting lists of past actions that try to paint a picture of someone who is okay to shoot dead while running away. But the truth is that not one of those things makes it appropriate - even if the cops knew about it - to be judge, jury and executioner.

Not one of those past activities makes it okay to shoot a person dead.

And that’s the dividing line, I guess, you have to think of this man as a person in order to apply the law that we don’t shoot people (or kill them in any other way) for resisting arrest. A DUI arrest doesn’t have a death penalty.

He was a person. And it was criminally wrong to shoot him dead as he ran away.



And the fact that there are people who will argue that they want to live in a world where it is okay to shoot people dead and find your excuse later makes my skin crawl.

 

[Treedbear]

Death is not “what’s coming to ya” for resisting arrest. What a horrible dystopia that would be.

So how many of these media frenzy cases involve folks who didn’t resist? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Unlike the media and those folks, the police work for us. We shouldn't be paying for stupid.