Cyprus-Forum.com

[Maximus]

just as if you were born a women you wouldn't be a man.

if he plowed in to and killed a family member of yours would you be saying this shit?

How does your opinion make communities safer by leaving drunk drivers to their own devices? It doesnt.

[erolz66]

:lol:

just as if you were born a women you wouldn't be a man.

if he plowed in to and killed a family member of yours would you be saying this shit?

How does your opinion make communities safer by leaving drunk drivers to their own devices?

I am not saying drunk drivers should be left to their own devices. At the point the officers arrived he was NOT drunk driving. Nor had they been called to the scene because he had been seen driving whilst drunk. They were called because his car was obstructing the drive thru. He was asleep in a car that had the engine turned off. They had strong cause to suspect that he had been drunk driving before their arrival but that is not the same as catching someone in the act. Nor did they have any reason to suspect that he had caused any injury to persons or property prior to having been found asleep in a parked car. They did not seek to protect and serve him, they sought to trick him in to incriminating himself and the consequences of them choosing to try and do this were fatal for him.

My opinion is that there was no need given the circumstances for the police to try and trick him in to incriminating himself. If they had had a report of a car having injured someone then it would be different and trying to get an admission for that after the fact would have been warranted to some degree imo but that was not the situation. The actual issue was the car blocking the drive thru. If he had in fact been driving drunk previously he had managed to do so without harming anyone or any property. The issue of the car obstructing the drive thru could have been resolved in minutes and no one would have needed to die. This could have been resolved in a satisfactory manner in minutes and the saved police time could have been used to try and tackle real criminal activity by real criminals that represent a real and present danger to the community at large.

The kind of policing that is focused on simply trying to create as many admissions of crime no matter how petty and outside of all context, from people who essentially are not criminals in the common sense of the word is exactly the kind of issue we should be sensibly discussing, even before this turned fatal and even before you ask the question if he had been white and behaved in the same way would he be dead, or if he had been in a rich neighbourhood and in an Mercedes or both.

[Maximus]

I agree, that this was most probably not a cause to use deadly force.

But I don't buy any excuses that Brooks is not responsible for his own actions.

He could have got a different outcome and he would be alive today.

That's it from me related to this.

[Kikapu]

I agree, that this was most probably not a cause to use deadly force.

But I don't buy any excuses that Brooks is not responsible for his own actions.

He could have got a different outcome and he would be alive today.

That's it from me related to this.

You cannot know Brooks’ state of mind, Max, whether his decision was rational or not. I don’t believe he knew either. It could have been a momentary impulsive act which posed no danger to anyone once he got away from the cops.

No matter what it was, being shot in the back and killed as he is running away from the officers where he is not posing and danger to them is totally unexceptionable considering Brooks’ only ‘crime’ was that he was sleeping in his car on private property posing no danger to anyone, other than creating some delay for those wanting to order some shit food from Wendy’s.

In my book, this killing deserve murder charges against just the one officer who shot and killed Brooks.

[Paphitis]

Actually, kiks,

He still could have just co-operated with the police and had his day in court.

A wendy's employee called the police because he was over the limit and driving. So what rights does he have? He has the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, blah blah blah....

Brook's acted like a first class muppet. Sorry to say.

This doesnt excuse the police officer that shot him. he was a muppet as well but Brooks wouldnt be dead if he wasnt driving drunk, didnt resist arrest, steal a taser, try to use it and try to flee from the scene.

He should have just co-operated. He would be alive today with what; maybe just a fine. I doubt he would have got any jail time.

He should have maintained his cordial demeanor, had a laugh and joke with them about it and just been cool to go with them. So yeah, im over the limit but im not driving officer. There is no need for those handcuffs sir, i want to eat my Wendy's in the back, let's go if you think its necessary. Are you hungry, do you want to get something first?

Yes, a person with the right frame of mind must always NOT resist arrest even if it’s an unlawful arrest as this one would have been. The police look for a reason to escalate the situation, especially once they put their gloves on. Brooks was not in the right frame of mind being over the limit and perhaps had some drugs in him also, therefore, what he did by trying to get away from the police was totally irrational when the police had his ID, car and most likely his house keys. How could he think he would not be caught few hours later? All the reason shooting him in the back was not necessary and totally irrational by the police officer. This is why 1st degree murder charges should be made against the officer as it is totally it is his choice to shoot or not shoot from someone running away from him. My guess is, Brooks did not trust the police and what could have happened to him just like Floyd and no doubt he must have had police encounter before, so from experience he did not trust the police.

The police did not see Brooks drive on the street drunk. The only time they saw him drive drunk was when they woke him up at the drive -thru and told him to park in the normal park space few meters away. That driving took on private property and the police had no cause to conduct a traffic stop right there. Therefore, what the police did from that moment on would have been wrong and violated Brooks rights, except Brooks went along with it until cops had enough information from him, perhaps admitting he drove from A-B which then Brooks incriminated himself by admitting he was driving under the influence. What Brooks should have done was to remain silent knowing he has been drinking and left the car in the drive -thru lane and not say a word to the police and also refuse to take the field sobriety test.If the police unlawfully arrested him, then he had a case to not only to walk free from the jail few hours later, but also sue the police for illegal arrest. For all the police knew, Brooks could have been drinking in his car at Wendy’s parking lot, or another person drove the car to Wendy’s and left him there in the car. There could be many scenarios.

Where are you getting that from.

Refusing a breathalyzer test in Australia gives the police the right to detain you. If you resist that, they can then arrest you for resisting.

All positive readings are actually detained so that an alcohol unit comes to do a blood test. It's only after you are processed when they release you on bond to appear before court.

Nothing unlawful about it.

BTW, never seen a police officer in Australia not wear gloves when they stop you for testing even before Chy-na virus. They usually wear blue plastic disposable surgical gloves.

Shooting him was not totally irrational either. he took their tazer and at one point, turned to tazer one of the police. Tazers, are generally not lethal most of the time, but they have killed people. If you have a bad heart, or elderly, well it's quite possible.

Shooting the guy was probably not the right thing to do. I can't say yet. But the guy did turn around with tazer in hand. Doing that dramatically increases his chances of getting shot because maybe the police could not be sure it was the tazer and that he had a concealed weapon. I bet you this is going to be the defence argument. A valid defence argument imo.

The police were not provoking him or being arseholes. They wanted to get him out of the drive through and then test him. They gave him the sobriety test and then one of the officers told him that he was under the influence and to put his hands on this head to arrest him. That is when all the shit broke loose when he struggled and successful freed himself and stole a tazer.

Police did not instigate any of it. Maybe he should not be shot but they didn't instigate anything.

[Paphitis]

The police were called because he was drunk driving. This is a given. How else did he manage to fall asleep in the drive through lane? Beyond reasonable doubt, he was driving under the influence. The caller to 911 is witness and evidence of that.

Up to the point before being shot, he was also an armed felon and threatening police because he stole a taser which is classified as a fire-arm.

I am pleased that we agree that he would be alive if he behaved differently.

No Max, the police were called because Brooks was asleep in his car blocking traffic in the drive-thru and not because he was seen driving his car drunk. Had Brooks not given any information to the police, there wasn’t anything they could have done about it because he was on private property and not on the street, and if they had arrested him, it would have been an unlawful arrest because he had not committed a crime at that point.

Sleeping in your car drunk or otherwise on private property is not a crime until if and when the property owner trespasses him and he refuses to leave. How Brooks car got to the drive - thru is immaterial. The police cannot reach a conclusion that he drove there. All the police would have done is arrest him if Brooks was trespassed by Wendy’s and he refused to leave. He could have left the car right where it was and just walk away and have Wendy’s have the car towed away.

Of course, knowing these cops, they would have arrested him once he left the property on foot by being drunk and disorderly in public place on the sidewalk. Best Brooks could have done was to call for a cab if the police allowed him that courtesy, which I doubt as he already asked the police to let him sleep it off in his car. This was a moment for the cops to be good cops and help this guy out, but there never is a good cop, as they want to make an arrest whenever they can or issue a ticket.

How did the car get into that drive through?

Also, every drive through I know of has CCTV.

[Paphitis]

:lol:

just as if you were born a women you wouldn't be a man.

if he plowed in to and killed a family member of yours would you be saying this shit?

How does your opinion make communities safer by leaving drunk drivers to their own devices?

I am not saying drunk drivers should be left to their own devices. At the point the officers arrived he was NOT drunk driving. Nor had they been called to the scene because he had been seen driving whilst drunk. They were called because his car was obstructing the drive thru. He was asleep in a car that had the engine turned off. They had strong cause to suspect that he had been drunk driving before their arrival but that is not the same as catching someone in the act. Nor did they have any reason to suspect that he had caused any injury to persons or property prior to having been found asleep in a parked car. They did not seek to protect and serve him, they sought to trick him in to incriminating himself and the consequences of them choosing to try and do this were fatal for him.

My opinion is that there was no need given the circumstances for the police to try and trick him in to incriminating himself. If they had had a report of a car having injured someone then it would be different and trying to get an admission for that after the fact would have been warranted to some degree imo but that was not the situation. The actual issue was the car blocking the drive thru. If he had in fact been driving drunk previously he had managed to do so without harming anyone or any property. The issue of the car obstructing the drive thru could have been resolved in minutes and no one would have needed to die. This could have been resolved in a satisfactory manner in minutes and the saved police time could have been used to try and tackle real criminal activity by real criminals that represent a real and present danger to the community at large.

The kind of policing that is focused on simply trying to create as many admissions of crime no matter how petty and outside of all context, from people who essentially are not criminals in the common sense of the word is exactly the kind of issue we should be sensibly discussing, even before this turned fatal and even before you ask the question if he had been white and behaved in the same way would he be dead, or if he had been in a rich neighbourhood and in an Mercedes or both.

Of course the police were called because he was obstructing the drive through.

How would the Wendies customer service assistant possibly know if the driver was drunk? Not their job or place.

[Kikapu]

Actually, kiks,

He still could have just co-operated with the police and had his day in court.

A wendy's employee called the police because he was over the limit and driving. So what rights does he have? He has the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, blah blah blah....

Brook's acted like a first class muppet. Sorry to say.

This doesnt excuse the police officer that shot him. he was a muppet as well but Brooks wouldnt be dead if he wasnt driving drunk, didnt resist arrest, steal a taser, try to use it and try to flee from the scene.

He should have just co-operated. He would be alive today with what; maybe just a fine. I doubt he would have got any jail time.

He should have maintained his cordial demeanor, had a laugh and joke with them about it and just been cool to go with them. So yeah, im over the limit but im not driving officer. There is no need for those handcuffs sir, i want to eat my Wendy's in the back, let's go if you think its necessary. Are you hungry, do you want to get something first?

Yes, a person with the right frame of mind must always NOT resist arrest even if it’s an unlawful arrest as this one would have been. The police look for a reason to escalate the situation, especially once they put their gloves on. Brooks was not in the right frame of mind being over the limit and perhaps had some drugs in him also, therefore, what he did by trying to get away from the police was totally irrational when the police had his ID, car and most likely his house keys. How could he think he would not be caught few hours later? All the reason shooting him in the back was not necessary and totally irrational by the police officer. This is why 1st degree murder charges should be made against the officer as it is totally it is his choice to shoot or not shoot from someone running away from him. My guess is, Brooks did not trust the police and what could have happened to him just like Floyd and no doubt he must have had police encounter before, so from experience he did not trust the police.

The police did not see Brooks drive on the street drunk. The only time they saw him drive drunk was when they woke him up at the drive -thru and told him to park in the normal park space few meters away. That driving took on private property and the police had no cause to conduct a traffic stop right there. Therefore, what the police did from that moment on would have been wrong and violated Brooks rights, except Brooks went along with it until cops had enough information from him, perhaps admitting he drove from A-B which then Brooks incriminated himself by admitting he was driving under the influence. What Brooks should have done was to remain silent knowing he has been drinking and left the car in the drive -thru lane and not say a word to the police and also refuse to take the field sobriety test.If the police unlawfully arrested him, then he had a case to not only to walk free from the jail few hours later, but also sue the police for illegal arrest. For all the police knew, Brooks could have been drinking in his car at Wendy’s parking lot, or another person drove the car to Wendy’s and left him there in the car. There could be many scenarios.

Where are you getting that from.

Refusing a breathalyzer test in Australia gives the police the right to detain you. If you resist that, they can then arrest you for resisting.

All positive readings are actually detained so that an alcohol unit comes to do a blood test. It's only after you are processed when they release you on bond to appear before court.

Nothing unlawful about it.

BTW, never seen a police officer in Australia not wear gloves when they stop you for testing even before Chy-na virus. They usually wear blue plastic disposable surgical gloves.

Shooting him was not totally irrational either. he took their tazer and at one point, turned to tazer one of the police. Tazers, are generally not lethal most of the time, but they have killed people. If you have a bad heart, or elderly, well it's quite possible.

Shooting the guy was probably not the right thing to do. I can't say yet. But the guy did turn around with tazer in hand. Doing that dramatically increases his chances of getting shot because maybe the police could not be sure it was the tazer and that he had a concealed weapon. I bet you this is going to be the defence argument. A valid defence argument imo.

The police were not provoking him or being arseholes. They wanted to get him out of the drive through and then test him. They gave him the sobriety test and then one of the officers told him that he was under the influence and to put his hands on this head to arrest him. That is when all the shit broke loose when he struggled and successful freed himself and stole a tazer.

Police did not instigate any of it. Maybe he should not be shot but they didn't instigate anything.

You have missed most of the important information I have written, Paphitis.

I suggest read the post again so that you put things in context.

Police black leather gloves are for taking someone down and not the blue ones for washing dishes in your kitchen.

[Paphitis]

I agree, that this was most probably not a cause to use deadly force.

But I don't buy any excuses that Brooks is not responsible for his own actions.

He could have got a different outcome and he would be alive today.

That's it from me related to this.

Chances are that this police officer does have a defence. he won't be going to jail. If he does, it will only be for 3 to 6 months on watered down charges.

As opposed to the Floyd killer. That guy is in a lot of trouble.

[Paphitis]

Actually, kiks,

He still could have just co-operated with the police and had his day in court.

A wendy's employee called the police because he was over the limit and driving. So what rights does he have? He has the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, blah blah blah....

Brook's acted like a first class muppet. Sorry to say.

This doesnt excuse the police officer that shot him. he was a muppet as well but Brooks wouldnt be dead if he wasnt driving drunk, didnt resist arrest, steal a taser, try to use it and try to flee from the scene.

He should have just co-operated. He would be alive today with what; maybe just a fine. I doubt he would have got any jail time.

He should have maintained his cordial demeanor, had a laugh and joke with them about it and just been cool to go with them. So yeah, im over the limit but im not driving officer. There is no need for those handcuffs sir, i want to eat my Wendy's in the back, let's go if you think its necessary. Are you hungry, do you want to get something first?

Yes, a person with the right frame of mind must always NOT resist arrest even if it’s an unlawful arrest as this one would have been. The police look for a reason to escalate the situation, especially once they put their gloves on. Brooks was not in the right frame of mind being over the limit and perhaps had some drugs in him also, therefore, what he did by trying to get away from the police was totally irrational when the police had his ID, car and most likely his house keys. How could he think he would not be caught few hours later? All the reason shooting him in the back was not necessary and totally irrational by the police officer. This is why 1st degree murder charges should be made against the officer as it is totally it is his choice to shoot or not shoot from someone running away from him. My guess is, Brooks did not trust the police and what could have happened to him just like Floyd and no doubt he must have had police encounter before, so from experience he did not trust the police.

The police did not see Brooks drive on the street drunk. The only time they saw him drive drunk was when they woke him up at the drive -thru and told him to park in the normal park space few meters away. That driving took on private property and the police had no cause to conduct a traffic stop right there. Therefore, what the police did from that moment on would have been wrong and violated Brooks rights, except Brooks went along with it until cops had enough information from him, perhaps admitting he drove from A-B which then Brooks incriminated himself by admitting he was driving under the influence. What Brooks should have done was to remain silent knowing he has been drinking and left the car in the drive -thru lane and not say a word to the police and also refuse to take the field sobriety test.If the police unlawfully arrested him, then he had a case to not only to walk free from the jail few hours later, but also sue the police for illegal arrest. For all the police knew, Brooks could have been drinking in his car at Wendy’s parking lot, or another person drove the car to Wendy’s and left him there in the car. There could be many scenarios.

Where are you getting that from.

Refusing a breathalyzer test in Australia gives the police the right to detain you. If you resist that, they can then arrest you for resisting.

All positive readings are actually detained so that an alcohol unit comes to do a blood test. It's only after you are processed when they release you on bond to appear before court.

Nothing unlawful about it.

BTW, never seen a police officer in Australia not wear gloves when they stop you for testing even before Chy-na virus. They usually wear blue plastic disposable surgical gloves.

Shooting him was not totally irrational either. he took their tazer and at one point, turned to tazer one of the police. Tazers, are generally not lethal most of the time, but they have killed people. If you have a bad heart, or elderly, well it's quite possible.

Shooting the guy was probably not the right thing to do. I can't say yet. But the guy did turn around with tazer in hand. Doing that dramatically increases his chances of getting shot because maybe the police could not be sure it was the tazer and that he had a concealed weapon. I bet you this is going to be the defence argument. A valid defence argument imo.

The police were not provoking him or being arseholes. They wanted to get him out of the drive through and then test him. They gave him the sobriety test and then one of the officers told him that he was under the influence and to put his hands on this head to arrest him. That is when all the shit broke loose when he struggled and successful freed himself and stole a tazer.

Police did not instigate any of it. Maybe he should not be shot but they didn't instigate anything.

You have missed most of the important information I have written, Paphitis.

I suggest read the post again so that you put things in context.

Police black leather gloves are for taking someone down and not the blue ones for washing dishes in your kitchen.

I have seen them use the blue gloves when arresting people.

And ever breathalizer that is positive results in your detention. If you resist, then it also means they will manhandle you and cuff you.

The reason for that is that in order for a drink driving conviction to stick, police have to follow a procedure. The first test is blowing into a Breath Analysis machine. If you get a positive reading over 0.05, you are detained so that an Alcohol Testing Unit arrives. They give you another go on a more sophisticated machine, which is the one that will count in court, and they take a blood sample to send to a lab.

If you fail the tests, you are arrested but released instantly as long as you have someone pick you up. They will not let you get back into your car.

If you don't have anyone, then you will stay in a cell overnight and then be released on a bond to appear in court.

It's not a straight forward process.

Brooks, was clearly at the point of being arrested. Still not a serious charge by any means. he would have been taken to the station, given another test, probably be given a cell for the night, and released in the morning. he would have gone to court and got a $500 odd dollar fine. Maybe lost his license for a couple of months.

What he did was stupid.