Cyprus-Forum.com

[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.

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.

Max, you are so wrong, you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

May ask you, are you an American citizen?

So tell us Max, what was Brooks crime that the officers knew to warrant them to arrest him before Brooks opened his mouth to incriminate himself?

[Maximus]

So tell us Max, what was Brooks crime that the officers knew to warrant them to arrest him before Brooks opened his mouth to incriminate himself?

He was driving under the influence of alcohol.

The officer knew because he smelt it wafting out of the car when he opened the door to wake him up. The wendy's employee also informed the emergency service when she called.

This is what he told the officer that came to back him up. Seems that it was obvious to those that where there. I dont think he needed to open his mouth to incriminate himself.

you can read some of my other reply in a previous post.

[Kikapu]

So tell us Max, what was Brooks crime that the officers knew to warrant them to arrest him before Brooks opened his mouth to incriminate himself?

He was driving under the influence of alcohol.

The officer knew because he smelt it wafting out of the car when he opened the door to wake him up.

This is what he told the officer that came to back him up.

you can read some of my other reply in a previous post.

No max, that is not correct, the officers did not know he was driving under the influence before they arrived.

When the officers arrived, Brooks was sleeping in his car. Not a crime.

If alcohol was detected in his breath, so what, as he was not driving at the time and it cannot be determined when he was over the limit. For all the officers knew, he was drinking at the private property of Wendy’s. Where is the proof he was under the influence before he got to Wendy’s? If Brooks kept his mouth shut he would be alive today, and if he was arrested just because these cops were cunts, it would have been unlawful arrest, and not only the DA was not going to press charges, but Brooks was going to sue the city for unlawful arrest. These are financial cost to the city whenever cunt officers violate citizens constitutional rights, even though often these cunts get away with a slap on the wrist , if that. Well, this time, the cunt who shot Brooks in the back is now facing felony murder which is worse than the cunt officer’s charges who murdered Floyd. I told you this cunt should be given 1st degree murder and basically that’s what he is charged with. He will get life to death penalty if and when found guilty in the court of law. His partner will turn state witness against the back shooting cunt. Good ridden to these cunts. They can no longer hide from prosecution for killing citizens. The killing party is over for these motherfuckers.

[Maximus]

so this car just appeared in the drive through lane at Wendys with a drunk man asleep at the wheel?

[erolz66]

sorry gonna change topic away from Brooks for a bit but not from the topic of the thread.

Just came across this. Not much these days fucks with my head but this did. Big time. It is a from a documentary made in 1970 called 'now'. This teacher first did this experiment the day after Martin Luther King was shot and killed.



If you have never really understood what the term 'white privilege' means and the mechanics of how it works , then now maybe you have a better idea because I know I do. This is education. I am 55 years old and this educated me. This program made in 1970 in as part of a series called 'NOW'. If that does not send a shiver down your spine to some degree then are you even human ? NOW in 1970. NOW in 2020.

[erolz66]

so this car just appeared in the drive through lane at Wendys with a drunk man asleep at the wheel?

Innocent until proven guilty. Probable cause. Constitutional rights. These are not just empty words to use when suits and ignore when it does not, or at least they should not be.

[Maximus]

so this car just appeared in the drive through lane at Wendys with a drunk man asleep at the wheel?

Innocent until proven guilty. Probable cause. Constitutional rights. These are not just empty words to use when suits and ignore when it does not, or at least they should not be.

This is a deflection and it doesnt answer the question.

[Kikapu]

so this car just appeared in the drive through lane at Wendys with a drunk man asleep at the wheel?

Max, you cannot reach a legal conclusion without evidence and neither would the courts.

“If a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one there to hear it, did it make a noise?”.

It doesn’t make a difference what you think it’s obvious to you, where is your evidence to prove your case?

So no, the car didn’t just appear there, but how do you know the driver was under the influence before it got at Wendy’s lot?

Stop reaching for conclusions but instead give us your evidence if you have some, because the cops did not have anything, but got what they didn’t have voluntarily from Brooks trying to be a cooperative citizen. Big mistake. If Brooks kept his mouth shut, the cops would have NOTHING, period!

[Maximus]

so this car just appeared in the drive through lane at Wendys with a drunk man asleep at the wheel?

Max, you cannot reach a legal conclusion without evidence and neither would the courts.

“If a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one there to hear it, did it make a noise?”.

It doesn’t make a difference what you think it’s obvious to you, where is your evidence to prove your case?

So no, the car didn’t just appear there, but how do you know the driver was under the influence before it got at Wendy’s lot?

Stop reaching for conclusions but instead give us your evidence if you have some, because the cops did not have anything, but got what they didn’t have voluntarily from Brooks trying to be a cooperative citizen. Big mistake. If Brooks kept his mouth shut, the cops would have NOTHING, period!

The answer is yes, it did make a noise. that no one was there to hear it doesnt mean it didnt make a noise. it absolutely made a noise.

So the car didnt just appear there, it was driven there. It had to be because one moment there wasnt a bottleneck in the drive through and then there was.

What other evidence do you need? The man took a sobriety test and he was way over the limit.

He could have kept his mouth shut but you are assuming that that would have been enough for the police to not realize that he was drunk.

I doubt that would have saved him from being arrested.

[erolz66]

so this car just appeared in the drive through lane at Wendys with a drunk man asleep at the wheel?

Innocent until proven guilty. Probable cause. Constitutional rights. These are not just empty words to use when suits and ignore when it does not, or at least they should not be.

This is a deflection and it doesnt answer the question.

Look the most likely answer to this is that Brooks drove it from a parking spot to the queue , the same 15 meters that he is filmed by the police driving back when he is woken up. All on private property. None of it proof that Brooks drove TO the Wendys under the influence. So what ? Are you saying that probability changes the law or removes his constitutional rights or renders innocent until proven guilty in applicable?

If you want Police wasting their time on such nonsense for things that do not really matter and that can only lead to ever greater division between police and those they should be serving not trying to unnecessarily criminalise that can only lead to ever less effectiveness in tackling REAL crime to such a degree that you will defend such even when it leads to costing a mans life, so be it Max. Some of us, many, want more and better than this. Call us anarchist intent on destroying civilisation as we know it it makes you feel better. It will not make the claim any more true.