Cop in America doing a bad job, again

[WI_Red]

https://www.nber.org/papers/w22399

Based on data from NY. No difference between races regarding lethal use of force from the police, but Afro-Americans and Hispanics more likely to be put in handcuffs or walled without an arrest being made.

I think there is no actual data to support that American cops are more likely to kill a black man compared to a white man. So, on average I think the police killings are not in themselves racially motivated. What they are, are symptoms of an incompetent/untrained police and a "terror balance" with a high density of weapons in the population due to lax weapon regulations.

What can be said is a symptom of racism, is the use of non-lethal force. Here, there is data to support a claim of racism/racial bias.

I remember the furor when this paper came out a few years ago.

Taking a quick look at the paper I am struck by a few things.

-The paper is completely reliant on police reports with no interviews of witnesses. Considering the documented examples of police "exaggerating" reports to frame a narrative, I am suspect of reliability of the data,
-The CI bars on the lethal use of force graph (figure 4) are huge meaning there is large variability in the sample data set. This data is also only from one city, Houston.
-The data for the rest of the paper is from only 10 cities in 3 states. This is not necessarily a representative data set.
-The basis of their lethal use of force analysis is if the victim was carrying a weapon, which ignores the face that the issue we are discussing is the shooting of UNARMED black men.
-The paper also only looks at police interactions, it does not investigate the frequency of interactions by race, nor the cause of the interaction to begin with.
-My above observations are based on a 5 min skimming of the article, so please take them with all the grains of salt.

Also, this is the first part of the papers conclusion. I am just going to leave this here:

"The importance of our results for racial inequality in America is unclear. It is plausible that racial differences in lower level uses of force are simply a distraction and movements such as Black Lives Matter should seek solutions within their own communities rather than changing the behaviors of police and other external forces."

p.s.: The author of this paper was placed on a two year suspension from Harvard for sexual harassment. Tenure is a "wonderful" thing.

 

[WI_Red]

Does the use of lethal force data take severity of the alleged crime into account?

For the analysis of the lethal force in houston they do a random sampling of specific crime classifications (assaulting officer, brandishing weapon, etc.).

 

[adexkola]

I'm sure the suggestion was he'd drove there in that state so he'd already been drink driving no? In any sense he was drunk in charge of the vehicle.

Having seen many people's lives ruined by those who choose to drink drive I don't think it's fair to now criticise the cops for actually doing the right thing.

As I said previously the issue is they shot the guy dead. Let's to start trying to find fault with everything else as for me there's no need to.

Cops are not supposed to act as jury and executioner. If there is evidence of a crime issue a summons and book the suspect for a court date. Emotions of seeing people's lives ruined shouldn't come into it.

If he was caught actively driving on the road then sure bring him in. He's sleeping in a car. At the moment he poses no threat to public safety.

Again, if the current system mandates that a sleeping man in his car be goaded like this in the interest of "public safety", you see why many municipalities are now slashing police budgets or deliberating a complete disbandment.

I know you want to limit the discussion to the gunshot pretending as if everything captured in this encounter was fine. It wasn't.

 

[adexkola]

"The importance of our results for racial inequality in America is unclear. It is plausible that racial differences in lower level uses of force are simply a distraction and movements such as Black Lives Matter should seek solutions within their own communities rather than changing the behaviors of police and other external forces."

p.s.: The author of this paper was placed on a two year suspension from Harvard for sexual harassment. Tenure is a "wonderful" thing.

No agenda there chief. Move along, nothing to see here. Just telling these uppity negroes to behave better, pull their pants up and "sir yes sir" their way into better conditions with the police.

 

[WI_Red]

No agenda there chief. Move along, nothing to see here. Just telling these uppity negroes to behave better, pull their pants up and "sir yes sir" their way into better conditions with the police.

Yep.

As a scientist this type of thing drives me crazy. You can literally fail to disprove any null hypothesis (in this case that there is no racial bias in police use of lethal force) by cherry picking your data. I am not saying this is what was done here, but the variability I see in the graphs, coupled with the LACK of variability in the composition of the data set is frustrating. Good data can lead to bad conclusions based on poor analysis design.

 

[MadDogg]

For those that think that a guy who is sleeping intoxicated in his car is a risk and should be arrested (or even shot dead). How about this, wake him up, breathalyse him, upon finding out he is too drunk to be driving but finding out that he had possibly chosen to sleep it off (as can happen).

How about this:

Have a word with him, write it up and take his keys (or some variations of that),
Sort it out with him once he comes to pick up his keys and is in a more coherent state.

At least one less death by cop.

If there was reasonable doubt about whether he'd been driving or whether he'd gotten in his parked car and was sleeping it off, I'd agree with you. But the fact that the car was parked across a drive-through (some have said the motor was still running as well, but I haven't read confirmation of that) means it's pretty much certain that he had been driving while he was drunk. Which is very dangerous for the public and is apparently a guaranteed arrest with no room for the police to make a judgement call.

Was the guy drunk and stupid. Yes. Should he have gone to prison for striking the police officer and taking his taser? Yes. Should he have been shot in the back while running away? If your answer is yes I worry about you.

Finally, I think someone made a point up top that "you think a taser is not a lethal weapon?". Remember this next time someone dies from being tased and the outcry is "What a horrible accident, this is a non-lethal tool!".

He wasn't just running away though was he? As he was running away he turned and attempted to shoot the police officer with the taser. That's what makes this one a difficult one. If he hadn't done that I (and I presume most) would consider this a straight up murder. But then, if he hadn't done that then it's very unlikely that the cop would have shot him (from what we've seen in the videos the cop didn't seem to be an over-the-top prick who was eager to put the black man down). Once he does turn and start to use the taser it stops being a black and white case and goes into the grey where there is no obvious answer. I tend to think the cop still shouldn't have shot him but I also think this isn't anywhere near as bad as all these other instances we're seeing, and doesn't deserve to be in the same discussion as them.

On the other hand I don't completely blame the victim either. With everything that is going on in the USA (both throughout his entire life but especially at the moment with it coming to a head) he was scared and panicked, and proceeded to make a stupid decision.

 

[choiboyx012]

I think he might be lucky to avoid a prison sentence, really can't see that happening.

Not completely sure how it works, but he does have a strong case to sue. He was terminated overnight, which means his Peace Officer Bill is Rights and due process was definitely violated. No internal investigation or interrogation lasts just a couple hours.

The chief also resigned but is still “employed by the city” in some official non-police capacity. my guess is she’s trying to Michael Jackson her way out of the spotlight and shitstorm but still get paid handsomely either through retirement or whatever position she’s holding now.

 

[adexkola]

If there was reasonable doubt about whether he'd been driving or whether he'd gotten in his parked car and was sleeping it off, I'd agree with you. But the fact that the car was parked across a drive-through (some have said the motor was still running as well, but I haven't read confirmation of that) means it's pretty much certain that he had been driving while he was drunk. Which is very dangerous for the public and is apparently a guaranteed arrest with no room for the police to make a judgement call.

That's a problem. "No room for judgement call" has ended with a death. And it ends with many more needless interactions between unarmed civilians and armed police.

He wasn't just running away though was he? As he was running away he turned and attempted to shoot the police officer with the taser. That's what makes this one a difficult one. If he hadn't done that I (and I presume most) would consider this a straight up murder. But then, if he hadn't done that then it's very unlikely that the cop would have shot him (from what we've seen in the videos the cop didn't seem to be an over-the-top prick who was eager to put the black man down). Once he does turn and start to use the taser it stops being a black and white case and goes into the grey where there is no obvious answer. I tend to think the cop still shouldn't have shot him but I also think this isn't anywhere near as bad as all these other instances we're seeing, and doesn't deserve to be in the same discussion as them.

On the other hand I don't completely blame the victim either. With everything that is going on in the USA (both throughout his entire life but especially at the moment with it coming to a head) he was scared and panicked, and proceeded to make a stupid decision.

It's a taser. Some police cadets get shocked with tasers as part of training.

https://www.caller.com/story/news/l...ing-tased-during-training-exercise/983141001/

If it's a lethal weapon, why are police allowed to use it on civilians to subdue them? If it's not, then this is asinine as justifying a shooting because the suspect was about to turn around with a stick in his hand. We all make stupid decisions. None deserve death unless those decisions immediately threaten to take the life of someone else, who then defends him/herself with lethal force.

As for the bolded, this may seem to be less blatant but it's all part of the same tree of an overreach of police authority, disproportionate towards black people. It fits. A black person doesn't need to be perfect to be treated much better.

 

[adexkola]

Not completely sure how it works, but he does have a strong case to sue. He was terminated overnight, which means his Peace Officer Bill is Rights and due process was definitely violated. No internal investigation or interrogation lasts just a couple hours.

The chief also resigned but is still “employed by the city” in some official non-police capacity. my guess is she’s trying to Michael Jackson her way out of the spotlight and shitstorm but still get paid handsomely either through retirement or whatever position she’s holding now.

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.

 

[RedPed]

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.

 

[WI_Red]

Not completely sure how it works, but he does have a strong case to sue. He was terminated overnight, which means his Peace Officer Bill is Rights and due process was definitely violated. No internal investigation or interrogation lasts just a couple hours.

The chief also resigned but is still “employed by the city” in some official non-police capacity. my guess is she’s trying to Michael Jackson her way out of the spotlight and shitstorm but still get paid handsomely either through retirement or whatever position she’s holding now.

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?

 

[Maagge]

I remember the furor when this paper came out a few years ago.

Taking a quick look at the paper I am struck by a few things.

-The paper is completely reliant on police reports with no interviews of witnesses. Considering the documented examples of police "exaggerating" reports to frame a narrative, I am suspect of reliability of the data,
-The CI bars on the lethal use of force graph (figure 4) are huge meaning there is large variability in the sample data set. This data is also only from one city, Houston.
-The data for the rest of the paper is from only 10 cities in 3 states. This is not necessarily a representative data set.
-The basis of their lethal use of force analysis is if the victim was carrying a weapon, which ignores the face that the issue we are discussing is the shooting of UNARMED black men.
-The paper also only looks at police interactions, it does not investigate the frequency of interactions by race, nor the cause of the interaction to begin with.
-My above observations are based on a 5 min skimming of the article, so please take them with all the grains of salt.

Also, this is the first part of the papers conclusion. I am just going to leave this here:

"The importance of our results for racial inequality in America is unclear. It is plausible that racial differences in lower level uses of force are simply a distraction and movements such as Black Lives Matter should seek solutions within their own communities rather than changing the behaviors of police and other external forces."

p.s.: The author of this paper was placed on a two year suspension from Harvard for sexual harassment. Tenure is a "wonderful" thing.

Holy shit, talk about a politicised conclusion.

 

[TheReligion]

Cops are not supposed to act as jury and executioner. If there is evidence of a crime issue a summons and book the suspect for a court date. Emotions of seeing people's lives ruined shouldn't come into it.

If he was caught actively driving on the road then sure bring him in. He's sleeping in a car. At the moment he poses no threat to public safety.

Again, if the current system mandates that a sleeping man in his car be goaded like this in the interest of "public safety", you see why many municipalities are now slashing police budgets or deliberating a complete disbandment.

I know you want to limit the discussion to the gunshot pretending as if everything captured in this encounter was fine. It wasn't.

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.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

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.

 

[choiboyx012]

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.

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.

 

[caid]

Not completely sure how it works, but he does have a strong case to sue. He was terminated overnight, which means his Peace Officer Bill is Rights and due process was definitely violated. No internal investigation or interrogation lasts just a couple hours.

The chief also resigned but is still “employed by the city” in some official non-police capacity. my guess is she’s trying to Michael Jackson her way out of the spotlight and shitstorm but still get paid handsomely either through retirement or whatever position she’s holding now.

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.

 

[adexkola]

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.

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.

 

[NoLogo]

It's a non-lethal weapon. Resisting arrest should not automatically result in a death sentence. I don't know how it is in your country, but in order for a police officer to justify using deadly force against a fleeing suspect, they must have reason to believe the suspect would pose a threat to the public. I don't believe that threshold was met. I believe the cop got scared and lost control of the situation, chose the worst possible decision and resulted in a needless loss of life.

Totally agree with you. US American cops seem to think of themselves as Judge Dredd, it's completely nuts.

 

[Ludens the Red]

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.

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.

 

[adexkola]

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.

 

[Suedesi]

There was no incentive, it’s just that DUIs are one of the few misdemeanors (not committed in an officers presence) that you must arrest for, along with domestic violence (w/no visible injuries). Even if they wanted to let him go with a warning they weren’t allowed to once they had evidence he was under the influence.
these types of DUIs are actually quite common. It just requires a bit more on the report to articulate why you believe defendant had been driving under the influence. Obviously it’s not a clear-cut DUI, so it might not even get filed by the DA or get plea bargained down to a “wet-reckless” driving charge. But officers are still obligated to go through with the arrest.

Except there was no D in the DUI. The guy was sleeping it off on the parking lot.

 

[Suedesi]

That's a problem. "No room for judgement call" has ended with a death. And it ends with many more needless interactions between unarmed civilians and armed police.



It's a taser. Some police cadets get shocked with tasers as part of training.

https://www.caller.com/story/news/l...ing-tased-during-training-exercise/983141001/

If it's a lethal weapon, why are police allowed to use it on civilians to subdue them? If it's not, then this is asinine as justifying a shooting because the suspect was about to turn around with a stick in his hand. We all make stupid decisions. None deserve death unless those decisions immediately threaten to take the life of someone else, who then defends him/herself with lethal force.

As for the bolded, this may seem to be less blatant but it's all part of the same tree of an overreach of police authority, disproportionate towards black people. It fits. A black person doesn't need to be perfect to be treated much better.

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.

 

[Anustart89]

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.

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)

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

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.

 

[TheReligion]

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)

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

 

[Ludens the Red]

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.

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.

 

[choiboyx012]

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.

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.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

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.

 

[choiboyx012]

Except there was no D in the DUI. The guy was sleeping it off on the parking lot.

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.

 

[choiboyx012]

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)

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.

 

[choiboyx012]

That bold part there seems to be the problem. That's for the courts, not the cops.

Correct

 

[MrMarcello]

Except there was no D in the DUI. The guy was sleeping it off on the parking lot.

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.

 

[Suedesi]

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.

What crime, sleeping? The guy needed an Uber not gunned down.

Protect and serve my ass.

Cops are a fecking liability.

 

[GiddyUp]

The guy should've just gotten out of his car, allowed the cop to run his plates, taken the ticket and then driven off. Instead he tried to become a social media hero by attempting to vlog himself out of routine stop, and in the process probably got arrested. Some people are really dumb.

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.

 

[TheReligion]

What crime, sleeping? The guy needed an Uber not gunned down.

Protect and serve my ass.

Cops are a fecking liability.

The car didn't drive itself to Wendy's and block the parking lot.

 

[afrocentricity]

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...

 

[Man of Leisure]

What crime, sleeping? The guy needed an Uber not gunned down.

Protect and serve my ass.

Cops are a fecking liability.

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.

 

[WI_Red]

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...

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.

 

[choiboyx012]

What crime, sleeping? The guy needed an Uber not gunned down.

Protect and serve my ass.

Cops are a fecking liability.

No, DUI

 

[afrocentricity]

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.

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...