Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kikapu]

In the US constitution we have due process where every citizen is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. Unfortunately some of our friends here are all too willing to do the reverse and find the citizens guilty until proven innocent. Very disappointing actually.

Erol, in your above examples where ID and car and insurance documents are requested by the police as a first order of things is only true if the driver committed an infraction while driving or a fault with the car with a light out or some other bullshit excuse. In Brooks’s case that doesn’t even apply because he committed no such infraction. Sleeping in your car on private property is not a crime, therefore, Brooks didn’t have to give the officers any information whatsoever. Brooks falsely believed he can just talk his way out by being nice. Under such situations, you never ever talk to the police because you don’t have to or give them any documents, unless you are pulled over for an infraction and the cops need to tell you up front what that infraction was the reason why you were stopped and not because they felt like it. They are not even allowed to run your plates without a reason when they are driving behind you.

These cunts look for any little opening to stop you and then they want to rip your car apart looking for anything which may get you arrested and put away. At a traffic stop only give them your license and car documents as required by law and do not say anything else. No chit chat nothing. Take the ticket and go. If you think you were wrongly accused, challenge it in the traffic courts which does not require to have a lawyer. Nothing good comes out by talking to these cunts as they use any tactics to hang you with your own words by self incrimination.

Always video your interactions with the police.

[Maximus]

Erolz,

You should watch the police officers camera footage again,

Observations: Brooks was driving the car. The police officers found him passed out behind the wheel in the drive through lane at Wendy's with the engine still running..... He drove in to there and passed out. If he didnt pass out, he would have ordered food and probably continued to drive to his destination.

There was no probable cause and thus no means to arrest unless 2 and or 3 could be obtained by the officers. Brooks repeatedly claims that he was dropped off at the Wendy's by a different driver in a different car and that the rental car he was found sleeping in was already at the Wendys when he was dropped off. The police needed him to confess and submit to sobriety test in order for them to be able to arrest him and get their 'result' and that is what they were after.

Your take on it is fabricated.

So they need at least two of these three things you say?

1. Observation

As above.

2. confession of having consumed alcohol in the recent past.

Brooks confessed, then later contradicted himself. I did drink x amount, I didnt drink x amount. I drank this, no I didnt drink that.

3. documented test results

The officers asked brooks if it was OK to run a sobriety test, which he agreed to and the results came back negative.

Isn't this probable cause and a prerequisite for arrest? It sure does look like it but brooks chose to resist arrest, punch a police officer, steel a taser and try to run away.

He was innocent until proven guilty as Kiks says, so he should have cooperated and had his day in court. But you have managed to twist the leaning tower of pisa out of it.

[erolz66]

Erolz,

You should watch the police officers camera footage again,

Observations: Brooks was driving the car. The police officers found him passed out behind the wheel in the drive through lane at Wendy's with the engine still running..... He drove in to there and passed out. If he didnt pass out, he would have ordered food and probably continued to drive to his destination.

There was no probable cause and thus no means to arrest unless 2 and or 3 could be obtained by the officers. Brooks repeatedly claims that he was dropped off at the Wendy's by a different driver in a different car and that the rental car he was found sleeping in was already at the Wendys when he was dropped off. The police needed him to confess and submit to sobriety test in order for them to be able to arrest him and get their 'result' and that is what they were after.

Your take on it is fabricated.

So they need at least two of these three things you say?

1. Observation

As above.

2. confession of having consumed alcohol in the recent past.

Brooks confessed, then later contradicted himself. I did drink x amount, I didnt drink x amount. I drank this, no I didnt drink that.

3. documented test results

The officers asked brooks if it was OK to run a sobriety test, which he agreed to and the results came back negative.

Isn't this probable cause and a prerequisite for arrest? It sure does look like it but brooks chose to resist arrest, punch a police officer, steel a taser and try to run away.

He was innocent until proven guilty as Kiks says, so he should have cooperated and had his day in court. But you have managed to twist the leaning tower of pisa out of it.

You are missing my point entirely. It happens. My advise to you is be careful when dealing with Police on the assumption they have your interests at heart or in mind. They almost never do in 'low end' policing of every day citizens in every day situations but are in fact in the business of looking to find even the pettiest of excuses to label you a criminal whilst you gleefully aid them in this task by acceding to their requests that are beyond any legal obligation for you to comply with. If you are black this is even more the case. This needs to change. If it had changed I believe Brooks would still be alive today.

For the record he was not seen driving by the police on public roads. I believe that at the time he was found asleep in the drivers seat of the car the key was in the ignition and power was on but the engine was not running. Listen closely at point just before he does move the car and you can hear the engine being started, nor is their any visible exhaust when the first police officer approaches the car the first couple of time.

Anyway at least we are agreed that the Police should not have shot him dead in these circumstances.

Also for the record I do not disagree that Brooks' own action were complicit in how this all ended up. I just want lives to stop being wasted in such stupid ways and I do not think you can legislate for stupidity generally but I think you can legislate for how the Police behave, what they see their 'job' as and the like.

[Kikapu]

Erolz,

You should watch the police officers camera footage again,

Observations: Brooks was driving the car. The police officers found him passed out behind the wheel in the drive through lane at Wendy's with the engine still running..... He drove in to there and passed out. If he didnt pass out, he would have ordered food and probably continued to drive to his destination.

There was no probable cause and thus no means to arrest unless 2 and or 3 could be obtained by the officers. Brooks repeatedly claims that he was dropped off at the Wendy's by a different driver in a different car and that the rental car he was found sleeping in was already at the Wendys when he was dropped off. The police needed him to confess and submit to sobriety test in order for them to be able to arrest him and get their 'result' and that is what they were after.

Your take on it is fabricated.

So they need at least two of these three things you say?

1. Observation

As above.

2. confession of having consumed alcohol in the recent past.

Brooks confessed, then later contradicted himself. I did drink x amount, I didnt drink x amount. I drank this, no I didnt drink that.

3. documented test results

The officers asked brooks if it was OK to run a sobriety test, which he agreed to and the results came back negative.

Isn't this probable cause and a prerequisite for arrest? It sure does look like it but brooks chose to resist arrest, punch a police officer, steel a taser and try to run away.

He was innocent until proven guilty as Kiks says, so he should have cooperated and had his day in court. But you have managed to twist the leaning tower of pisa out of it.

Brooks by talking to the police hang himself and no one is contradicting that. What we are saying if I understand Erol's position, is that without Brooks' confession, the police had nothing to arrest him for. Had Brooks knew his rights, he could have tolds the cops to go fuck themselves because he didn't call them and that he didn't need any help. The cops at that point had nothing else to do there and would have left after awhile.

[erolz66]

Brooks by talking to the police hang himself and no one is contradicting that. What we are saying if I understand Erol's position, is that without Brooks' confession, the police had nothing to arrest him for. Had Brooks knew his rights, he could have tolds the cops to go fuck themselves because he didn't call them and that he didn't need any help. The cops at that point had nothing else to do there and would have left after awhile.

Exactly. We need to think and decided if what we want is Police that will systematically look to get 'easy' and trivial arrests of people that are not criminals in the common sense of the word just for the sake of it by essentially systematically exploiting the woeful knowledge amongst the general public of their actual rights or do we want something better than that ? I think something better than that would have almost certainly saved Brook's life that day.

[erolz66]

The kind of Policing at this level that I would like to dream of.

Single Police turns up, wakes up Brooks, gets him to move the 15 meters to the parking spot, solving the cause of the initial call out. Checks car reg , that it is not stolen etc , checks car that there is no sign of having been in a accident of any sort, checks Brooks ID for any warrants and previous convictions and the like and if these all check out OK, then the priority becomes getting Brooks safely back to his hotel.

So they might say something to him along the lines of , I am concerned about you and do not believe you to be in fit state to drive. I suspect you have already driven under the influence but I have no cause to arrest you for that unless you tell me you have done so and you do have the right to respectfully decline to answer such questions, which may well be in your best interests to do. So here is the deal. Let's get you home. You hotel is 5 mins away, I'll drop you off if you like. I'll even let Wendys know your car will be here overnight and try and square that with them. Or if you prefer I'll wait while you call a uber or a cab or friend to get you back to your Hotel. However if you attempt to drive away yourself I will arrest you. So what do you say Mr Brooks ?

-------------

Basically I want a Police force that treats and considers Brooks first and foremost as a citizen, because he is, and that seeks to protect and serve him as equally as anyone else, from himself even and his lack of knowledge of his rights if necessary and does not seek every opportunity to simply class him as a criminal by cynically exploiting his lack of knowledge as to his rights, when in reality all there is a possibility but not certainty that he drove drunk on public roads, without harming anyone or causing any damage. Brooks was not imo a criminal like a mugger is a criminal, a thief, a rapist an arsonist.


-----------

Understand this is in addition to wanting a police force where the police do not shoot and kill a man for fleeing from arrest over a possible dui offence and who is not himself lethally armed.

[Maximus]

Erolz,

You should watch the police officers camera footage again,

Observations: Brooks was driving the car. The police officers found him passed out behind the wheel in the drive through lane at Wendy's with the engine still running..... He drove in to there and passed out. If he didnt pass out, he would have ordered food and probably continued to drive to his destination.

There was no probable cause and thus no means to arrest unless 2 and or 3 could be obtained by the officers. Brooks repeatedly claims that he was dropped off at the Wendy's by a different driver in a different car and that the rental car he was found sleeping in was already at the Wendys when he was dropped off. The police needed him to confess and submit to sobriety test in order for them to be able to arrest him and get their 'result' and that is what they were after.

Your take on it is fabricated.

So they need at least two of these three things you say?

1. Observation

As above.

2. confession of having consumed alcohol in the recent past.

Brooks confessed, then later contradicted himself. I did drink x amount, I didnt drink x amount. I drank this, no I didnt drink that.

3. documented test results

The officers asked brooks if it was OK to run a sobriety test, which he agreed to and the results came back negative.

Isn't this probable cause and a prerequisite for arrest? It sure does look like it but brooks chose to resist arrest, punch a police officer, steel a taser and try to run away.

He was innocent until proven guilty as Kiks says, so he should have cooperated and had his day in court. But you have managed to twist the leaning tower of pisa out of it.

Brooks by talking to the police hang himself and no one is contradicting that. What we are saying if I understand Erol's position, is that without Brooks' confession, the police had nothing to arrest him for. Had Brooks knew his rights, he could have tolds the cops to go fuck themselves because he didn't call them and that he didn't need any help. The cops at that point had nothing else to do there and would have left after awhile.

unfortunately, no.

What you are saying here is that someone can commit a crime and stay quite and because of this, the police have nothing to arrest you for. All you need to do is tell the cops to FO because you didnt call them and dont need there help resolving your crime.

It doesnt work like that does it?

Erolz position is based on his take on the situation and that is mostly fabricated and opinionated stuff. He has managed to twist the leaning tower of pisa out of. it is how he would like it to be instead of what was and is and his conclusions stem from that.

What I have posted above, is factual within the framework of the three prerequisites that he posted. There is nothing opinionated about it.

The police officers had at least 2 out of the three points as a prerequisite to arrest him. I would say, all three.

Nothing opinionated about it up to here.

The only opinion based and debatable part is whether the police officer should have used lethal force or not or handled it in another way. Not that brooks shouldnt have been arrested.

[Maximus]

The kind of Policing at this level that I would like to dream of.

Single Police turns up, wakes up Brooks, gets him to move the 15 meters to the parking spot, solving the cause of the initial call out. Checks car reg , that it is not stolen etc , checks car that there is no sign of having been in a accident of any sort, checks Brooks ID for any warrants and previous convictions and the like and if these all check out OK, then the priority becomes getting Brooks safely back to his hotel.

So they might say something to him along the lines of , I am concerned about you and do not believe you to be in fit state to drive. I suspect you have already driven under the influence but I have no cause to arrest you for that unless you tell me you have done so and you do have the right to respectfully decline to answer such questions, which may well be in your best interests to do. So here is the deal. Let's get you home. You hotel is 5 mins away, I'll drop you off if you like. I'll even let Wendys know your car will be here overnight and try and square that with them. Or if you prefer I'll wait while you call a uber or a cab or friend to get you back to your Hotel. However if you attempt to drive away yourself I will arrest you. So what do you say Mr Brooks ?

-------------

Basically I want a Police force that treats and considers Brooks first and foremost as a citizen, because he is, and that seeks to protect and serve him as equally as anyone else, from himself even and his lack of knowledge of his rights if necessary and does not seek every opportunity to simply class him as a criminal by cynically exploiting his lack of knowledge as to his rights, when in reality all there is a possibility but not certainty that he drove drunk on public roads, without harming anyone or causing any damage. Brooks was not imo a criminal like a mugger is a criminal, a thief, a rapist an arsonist.


-----------

Understand this is in addition to wanting a police force where the police do not shoot and kill a man for fleeing from arrest over a possible dui offence and who is not himself lethally armed.

Police that dont enforce the law.

You basically want nannies to run around wiping peoples arses or sweeping their shit under the carpet until someone gets run over and killed by a drunk driver.

Then they can be prosecuted.

[erolz66]

The kind of Policing at this level that I would like to dream of.

Single Police turns up, wakes up Brooks, gets him to move the 15 meters to the parking spot, solving the cause of the initial call out. Checks car reg , that it is not stolen etc , checks car that there is no sign of having been in a accident of any sort, checks Brooks ID for any warrants and previous convictions and the like and if these all check out OK, then the priority becomes getting Brooks safely back to his hotel.

So they might say something to him along the lines of , I am concerned about you and do not believe you to be in fit state to drive. I suspect you have already driven under the influence but I have no cause to arrest you for that unless you tell me you have done so and you do have the right to respectfully decline to answer such questions, which may well be in your best interests to do. So here is the deal. Let's get you home. You hotel is 5 mins away, I'll drop you off if you like. I'll even let Wendys know your car will be here overnight and try and square that with them. Or if you prefer I'll wait while you call a uber or a cab or friend to get you back to your Hotel. However if you attempt to drive away yourself I will arrest you. So what do you say Mr Brooks ?

-------------

Basically I want a Police force that treats and considers Brooks first and foremost as a citizen, because he is, and that seeks to protect and serve him as equally as anyone else, from himself even and his lack of knowledge of his rights if necessary and does not seek every opportunity to simply class him as a criminal by cynically exploiting his lack of knowledge as to his rights, when in reality all there is a possibility but not certainty that he drove drunk on public roads, without harming anyone or causing any damage. Brooks was not imo a criminal like a mugger is a criminal, a thief, a rapist an arsonist.


-----------

Understand this is in addition to wanting a police force where the police do not shoot and kill a man for fleeing from arrest over a possible dui offence and who is not himself lethally armed.

Police that dont enforce the law.

You basically want nannies to run around wiping peoples arses or sweeping their shit under the carpet until someone gets run over and killed by a drunk driver.

Then they can be prosecuted.

You are just twisting what I am saying.

The fact is the only things known for sure was that Brooks drove the car the short distance from the queue to the parking space and probably earlier from a parking space to the queue and that no one or no property was damaged or hurt whilst he was driving. It is speculation that he drove TO the Wendys drunk. Thus the only way the Police could get probable cause was to exploit Brooks lack of knowledge as to his legal rights and his naivety in think by giving the Police what they asked for it would help him rather than disadvantage him. This is what they did and this is what they routinely do. I have no doubt that this 'standard procedure' played a part in why Brooks ends up trying to escape having been so so operative up until that point.

I want policing that is proportionate and police that are and see themselves as part of the communities they serve not separate from and above them or above sections of them. Police that do not look to make as many people criminals when they are not. Police who's concern is what is best for the community and not what is best for the police. Police that can use common sense based on those principals.

Do you know how many DUI's arrests there were in 2010 in US ? 1.4 million do you know how many people who reported DUI that were not arrested. 112 million https://www.bactrack.com/blogs/expert-c ... statistics. So what do you say Maximus ? Lock them all up ? Just what % of the population do you want needlessly criminalised ? Just how many police officer do you want just to handle DUIs and just how para military do you want them to have to be just to deal with day to day stuiff given you have criminalised 1/3rd of your entire population. Is that really what you want Police time spent on even when it is not even clear they person did DUI on public highway and you know they had not hurt anyone or damaged anything ? In the video you can here a third party shouting to the Police for help on some other matter and the officer replied 'I am busy - call it in'. That may have been a real crime committed by a real criminal but no the officer was too busy trying to secure an unnecessary arrest for a possible suspected and essentially irrelevant DUI. We can not go on this way. Things have to change. That is why the vast majority of ordinary people from the US to UK to Australia and many other places besides support protests and why you are ion the minority on this because you can not see it.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/06 ... -movement/

Kiks gets it. RW gets it. I get it. The majority gets it. There is a difference between real criminals and people like Brooks. Seeing Brooks as no difference than real criminals, the kind we all want stopped, is the problem, weather you see him as such because of alleged DUI offences or because of the colour of his skin or both it is still the problem. Go looking from criminality everywhere you can possibly find it and especially everywhere you can find it based on prejudice and you end up where we are today. In a fucking mess.

imo

[Maximus]

It is speculation that he drove TO the Wendys drunk. Thus the only way the Police could get probable cause was to exploit Brooks lack of knowledge as to his legal rights and his naivety in think by giving the Police what they asked for it would help him rather than disadvantage him.

No, you are speculating because you are under some impression that he was dropped off there. Like what sober person parks their car in the middle of the drive through lane and leaves it there to go somewhere else when there are obvious parking bays marked out. Why didnt he get dropped off straight at his sisters?

NO, that is not what happened,

He wasnt just sleeping in the car park at wendy's. he passed out in the drive through lane at wendy's. He went there to get something to eat, thats what he said.

He also said that he was dropped off there but doesnt remember being woken up 2 minutes ago passed out behind the wheel of the car in the drive through lane. No he was in the parking bay the whole time he said. His propensity to lie and contradict himself is quite obvious but you have to watch the video to realize that he is not telling a straight story.

He drove there,

It was obvious that he was drunk when the police woke him, because they had to ask him twice to move out of the drive through lane and park up. After the first request, he went back to sleep. On the officers second request, he moved the car and overshot the parking bay and the car went in to the curb. How creative do you have to be to think that a sober and rational person wouldn't observe a drunk man behind the wheel of the car. and he could smell the alcohol when they opened the door. The officer informed the back up of this, you can hear it

The officer obviously was going to ask, how much have you had to drink tonight? How creative do you have to be to think that the police were trying to trick and trap him to get the result they were looking for? Obviously, they wanted to exploit his lack of knowledge about his rights. He dindu nuffin

I want policing that is proportionate and police that are and see themselves as part of the communities they serve not separate from and above them or above sections of them. Police that do not look to make as many people criminals when they are not.

You are under the misguided believe that they made a criminal out of him, but it was a misdemeanor, a proportional punishment would probably have been a fine...

Brooks told the police that he just wanted to get something to eat and go on his way. This is when the police officers asked him to take the sobriety test to make sure that he was ok to drive, and he agreed..He was planning to drive away drunk.

You really need to watch the video to know Erolz and it is clear that you dont.