Cyprus-Forum.com

[Maximus]

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?

[Maximus]

Just realised, the plonker was in the drive through lane after falling asleep at the wheel of the car.....so drunk, he fell asleep at the wheel.

so he was driving under the influence when the cops caught him.

What if he killed someone?

[Paphitis]

Sorry guys but your simplistic lambasting is largely just nonsense.

If you want to start for the basis that really there is nothing wrong, no problems at all that have persisted for generations through left wing and right wing administrations, that have led to more people ending up dead when that should have been avoidable, then ok. However I think there is real evidence that a vast number , probably a majority of people do not share this view. I think large numbers think that something needs to really change. Change in a way that outcomes change, like those seen with Floyd George and so many others just stop happening over and over with the frequency that they have been happening.

So if you think no change is necessary then little point going forward with the discussion. If however you accept some effort should be made to seek change that leads to a material beneficial change in outcomes then let's have that discussion.

The range of necessary social functions that police today have to deal with is vast. From hard core violent criminals all the way through to public order through to acting as unofficial safety net for mental health issues to policing domestic disputes to policing traffic through to emergency response to accident and disaster. It is a vast gammut or social functions being placed on an ever over burdened and under funded set of people. If we are looking for change and improvement we need to start, I think, with understanding this. Of course if all we are looking to do is make political capital for one 'side' or the other then all of this is unnecessary.

This is an article from the telegraph, hardly a bastion of new age left wing utopian thought, from 2019 so pre all the current BLM protesting, pre corona virus and is reporting the Police federation Chief in the UK.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... incidents/

Police are spending at least 40 per cent of their time dealing with people with mental ill health rather than fighting crime, the Police Federation has warned. John Apter, the Federation’s chairman, said police were now devoting 80 per cent of their time to non-crime related incidents, the “lion’s share” of which were because of a mental health crisis.

I suggest if you are serious about being worried you or your loved ones or those in your community 'robbed, assaulted or threatened' then you should be concerned about what the Police federation Chief is saying. If it is true that 80% of police time is spent on non crime related incidents, then changing this should matter to you. Of course if all you are really after is political capital of 'my side is right yours is wrong' then none of this matters to you and it is just business as usual that has allowed these problems to continue.

Take the valid and necessary social function of policing public order for example. Does this have to be done by the same people that are also at the same time trying to protect you from being "robbed, assaulted or threatened" ? Or is the some better way of meeting this real social function that does not become a zero sum game against protecting you from being robbed ? Something more local, more consensual, more community drive perhaps that meets the social needs as well as currently or even better whilst at the same time freeing those trying to meet the different and separate social function of protecting you from being violently mugged ? Could a group of people made up more of people like Patrick Hutchinson (https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/14/uk/l ... index.html) then Chauvin not handle some of the social functions currently placed on Police better. Policing of day to day 'public order' but not violent criminals, which would be left to a different group, that is more known and respected members of a community policing their own community on things like loutish behaviour, kids hanging around in groups, petty vandalism, neighbours arguing, people with mental health issues and other things ?

I think we need to stop the political propaganda and start looking properly for real possible solutions that have a chance of real material change of outcomes. For the sake of victims like Floyd George, for the sake of ourselves and our communities and for the sake of the majority of police that take on these dangerous and difficult and necessary jobs that are not like Chauvin and his ilk. I think this is needed. I doubt this place here is where it could or will happen to any degree but there may be a window of opportunity that has opened as a result of the recent events in which such change might be sought and found. If it is not then we will sooner or later just be back here again and again until change is found or we accept happily living in dystopian police state.

...well said.

...a guy cooperates with the Police, takes twenty minutes to do sobriety tests successfully, but is slightly over the limit; all this from the offending policeman's bodycam. Then, the incident happens; it is there on YouTube if you want to judge for yourself: FOX News had good coverage, they too like the bystanders that can be heard in the background calling out the cop after shooting, think it's wrong. A regular traffic violation, yes actually, even if the outcome ended in death. I have to ask how many different ways could this have ended, if that Police person was unarmed, and trained differently, or if common sense was used, instead of unqualified force.

Unarmed police in the States isn’t feasible. No one would be stupid enough to do that job without guns in a society where every household has them.

The only thing that will happen is that there will be at least one officer shot dead every day. Probably more...

Police in Australia carry guns. It’s standard issue here, along with tasers. I think there is more of a reason for cops in America to carry them.

They don’t seem to use them as much in Australia. Maybe there is better training in Australia. Their guns are a last resort. Or maybe there is less of a need to use them than in America. Or maybe a combination of these factors.

Police in Australia however have used their guns, albeit it’s a rare occurrence. And there were instances where they were about to use them such as when this lunatic went crazy and was running pedestrians over. They rammed his car and there were 3 cop cars surrounding him and about 10 officers with their guns drawn. I actually thought he was going to get shot.

In America, that guy would probably definitely get shot. And I would lack any sympathy for him since he killed about 10 people. Pulling the trigger would have been tempting for Aussie police as well who had to deal with the aftermath including a dead baby and toddlers that were mmmm were bowled over like dolls.

[repulsewarrior]

[repulsewarrior]

[repulsewarrior]

[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.

[Maximus]

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.

[Kikapu]

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.

[erolz66]

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

Just as if the Police officers had behaved differently he would still be alive. It is clear to me from the video that the Police sought to trick him in to incriminating himself. If for example they had made it clear that should he test positive they would then arrest him and take him to the station, then I believe none of this would have happened. They did not make this clear because they knew it would reduce the chance of Brook's incriminating himself and that is what they wanted. I do not consider these actions to be motivated by a desire to 'protect and serve' the community. I see people in the 'business' of crime looking to get a 'result' in much the same way an unscrupulous sales person might seek to get a sale and I think this is a widespread systemic problem with much policing today across the globe. Police not seeking to serve but seeking to manufacture as much criminality as they can. I do not see how this kind of behaviour even before they shot Brooks dead in the back helps protect you or anyone else from the genuine violent crime you profess to be so concerned about ?