Death of Rayshard Brooks (White: lawyers, lawsuit, manufactured)

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

If you refuse the breathalyzer by an administering officer on the field, you're taken into custody for an in-station breathalyzer, or blood / urine test of which you cannot refuse. You can refuse the one on field by an officer on the field but not one administered at a station. Georgia has what is called 'implied consent'.

In short even if he had said no to the breathalyzer, he likely still would have been arrested.

The problem is, people are making accusations at the police but they do not fully know the law or what it entails and by the book the cops were within their legal duty to arrest him. There was nothing outstanding about that.

Understood - but he was asked in the field, he said “I don’t want to refuse”. He was then asked “yes or no”. That was his time to say “no”. He had been arrested for DUI before as well as knew the process, so he could have known what was coming. And at a .108 he shouldn’t have been that drunk.

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

It doesn't work in Georgia. You can't get let off the hook for DUI. If you pass the breathalyzer, the Officer sends you on your way but if you fail it you're going to jail. They do not allow a friend or someone to pick you up.

They can’t use the fact that you refused a breathalyzer in court against you though.

https://www.wtoc.com/2019/02/21/ga-s...anges-dui-law/

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by markjames68

Understood - but he was asked in the field, he said “I don’t want to refuse”. He was then asked “yes or no”. That was his time to say “no”. He had been arrested for DUI before as well as knew the process, so he could have known what was coming. And at a .108 he shouldn’t have been that drunk.

Well, I can't say 100% with certainty what the officers would have did if he had said no but I imagine given his history of being found asleep in a vehicle and not knowing where he was when he woke up and even admitting to having a drink, they most definitely would have taken him in for a test - especially if there was a DUI on his record prior and they found him in this state. I doubt he had any chance of just getting out of the car and going home at that point.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by markjames68

They can’t use the fact that you refused a breathalyzer in court against you though.

https://www.wtoc.com/2019/02/21/ga-s...anges-dui-law/

I'm mainly stating by the grounds of his initial arrest and his resisting to it that his initial arrest was most likely unavoidable had he consented to the breathalyzer or not. After court and charges I'm sure there are other loopholes and ways out but thats down the road, well after the point of his resistance.

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Well, I can't say 100% with certainty what the officers would have did if he had said no but I imagine given his history of being found asleep in a vehicle and not knowing where he was when he woke up and even admitting to having a drink, they most definitely would have taken him in for a test - especially if there was a DUI on his record prior and they found him in this state. I doubt he had any chance of just getting out of the car and going home at that point.

His chance likely ended after Rolfe was called in. Had he not passed out again after the first request he would have likely not have been arrested. And would have lived.

[CleverOne]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

I could buy this 'IF' Brooks didn't first assault the officer, steal his taser, and resist arrest. The problem is regardless of who pointed what weapon first, Brooks assaulted an officer, stole a weapon, and attempted to flee. The assault of an officer is within just cause to suspect reasonable threat to an officer or civilians. It is not like this guy was peacefully abiding by the police and in turn got shot such as what happened to Floyd.

A person of any ethnicity doing similarly likely would have met the same fate, that just isn't something you do and expect it to go over well in the end.

So fleeing implies that a person should be shot in the back and that its justification that the officer indeed had every right to be vindictive while firing even though it was clear his life was not in danger. Just because you can doesnt mean you should for the very reason that justified or not you will be in deep crap.
This is eactly what I mean. Whether Rolfe is convicted or not the lack of a rule or a vague rule isone of many reason so much of the public mistrust the police. Had thois officer had better training ,this would not have happen.
If indeed this does turn out in Rolfes favor,I fear what will happen in this city if the police dont show when the inevitable rioting does happen.
Policing needs to be reformed an quick. This is a situation that either way,no one was gonna agree.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Yes, however; that is required by Georgia Law. Georgia Law mandates anyone caught over 0.08% or greater BAC behind the wheel of a vehicle be arrested for DUI. The absolute minimum sentence is 24 Hours but can range up to 12 months depending on severity, and first / second / or more offenses. The police incurred no error in arresting him, that was protocol.

And they were going to let him go if he didn't fall asleep again.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by CleverOne

So fleeing implies that a person should be shot in the back and that its justification that the officer indeed had every right to be vindictive while firing even though it was clear his life was not in danger. Just because you can doesnt mean you should for the very reason that justified or not you will be in deep crap.
This is eactly what I mean. Whether Rolfe is convicted or not the lack of a rule or a vague rule isone of many reason so much of the public mistrust the police. Had thois officer had better training ,this would not have happen.
If indeed this does turn out in Rolfes favor,I fear what will happen in this city if the police dont show when the inevitable rioting does happen.
Policing needs to be reformed an quick. This is a situation that either way,no one was gonna agree.

By law cops are allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect if they have reasonable cause to feel that suspect can inflict reasonable harm to themselves or civilians. Given he assaulted the cops and stole a weapon, he gave them reasonable cause.

Shooting Brooks 3 times was Brash I will admit but Brooks did himself no favors in provoking them. Throughout the entire situation they were very patient and did everything by the book. Brooks is the one who objected and put up a struggle, and stole a weapon. Had he not have done that he would still be alive. I could see it if the cops were mistreating Brooks or harassing him or threatening him in some way but Brooks gave them a reason to use force against him by resisting and stealing a weapon. Maybe adrenaline did get in the way but when you play with fire you get burned.

[architect77]

Originally Posted by CleverOne

So fleeing implies that a person should be shot in the back and that its justification that the officer indeed had every right to be vindictive while firing even though it was clear his life was not in danger. Just because you can doesnt mean you should for the very reason that justified or not you will be in deep crap.
This is eactly what I mean. Whether Rolfe is convicted or not the lack of a rule or a vague rule isone of many reason so much of the public mistrust the police. Had thois officer had better training ,this would not have happen.
If indeed this does turn out in Rolfes favor,I fear what will happen in this city if the police dont show when the inevitable rioting does happen.
Policing needs to be reformed an quick. This is a situation that either way,no one was gonna agree.

I thought that why cops had guns to use against anyone who doesn’t obey their orders we as a society have charged them with keeping the peace and have given them weapons to enforce that peace.

I agree their scope needs to be narrowed and they not be called for every issue under the sun to take care of.

It seems like demands have been made for changes from every group except one. That’s what’s holding back progress.

The hated police’s presence is keeping every neighborhood safe at an equal amount. Without them everyone’s belongings would be taken every night and total anarchy would be the reality.

A few evil cops doesn’t cancel out their protection for all of us.

[CleverOne]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

By law cops are allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect if they have reasonable cause to feel that suspect can inflict reasonable harm to themselves or civilians. Given he assaulted the cops and stole a weapon, he gave them reasonable cause.

Shooting Brooks 3 times was Brash I will admit but Brooks did himself no favors in provoking them. Throughout the entire situation they were very patient and did everything by the book. Brooks is the one who objected and put up a struggle, and stole a weapon. Had he not have done that he would still be alive. I could see it if the cops were mistreating Brooks or harassing him or threatening him in some way but Brooks gave them a reason to use force against him by resisting and stealing a weapon. Maybe adrenaline did get in the way but when you play with fire you get burned.

You keep saying reasonable cause but it wasnt. I cant keep repeating myself and you have'nt addressed what I said about what was clear in the video.
Why was it necessary even after he was shot did Rolfe had to kick Brooks and was heard saying "I got him".