Retired_Doc wrote:Pointgod wrote:Jkam31 wrote:
When you fail a breathalyzer or field test you are placed under arrest and are taken to jail, 6 hours later you’re released. You sleep and chill in the in jail with the other drunk guys not in your car, comical for someone to say let him sleep it off in his car. That **** doesn’t even happen in movies let alone real life
You and I know both know that cops have a wide discretion with what they could have done. I never once said to have him sleep in the car. However the man wasn’t acting belligerent, he didn’t pose a danger to himself or the officer before they attempted to arrest him. So they could have taken his keys and let him walk to his sisters place. If they were worried he’d have a spare set, then tow the car and provide a citation the following morning when he picks up his vehicle. I know you’re not naive enough to believe that police always follow the letter of the law.
Sorry, I disagree. As soon as the cops tried to put the cuffs on Mr. Brooks' wrist and he subsequently not only resisted, but actually attacked the officers, then fired that laser gun at them, Mr. Brooks deserved everything that came to him.
We live in a land of law and order. If you don't follow police instructions and you fire a gun at a cop (Laser or otherwise) you are risking your life. He risked his and paid the ultimate price.
When the police arrest you, you follow their orders. Period. And when you're drunk you have no business sitting behind the wheel of an automobile.
And this incident had nothing to do with racism. It was a criminal against the law. In no way does this incident rival the George Floyd incident. Floyd wasn't fighting the cops. Brooks was.
We live in a land of law and order. If you don't follow police instructions and you fire a gun at a cop (Laser or otherwise) you are risking your life. He risked his and paid the ultimate price.
Any gun? What about a water gun? A Nerf gun? What about the use of a non-lethal tool calls for a lethal response?
Why do we think it's a non-lethal tool? Because the police were using it to try to subdue an unarmed man.
So you're stuck in a logic of, either (1) police used a lethal response against a non-lethal tool, or, (2) police used a lethal weapon against an unarmed man. They both sound pretty bad.
No where in the developed world does "law and order" mean "kill unarmed people that disobey".























) there’s no reason that any unarmed person needs to be killed by police.