|
Post by Born2BBruin on Jun 15, 2020 12:59:27 GMT -8
The issue isn't whether or not DUI should be against the law; or whether or not people should be arrested for DUI. I also think whether or not the shooting was justified is the issue, or the right question.
Brooks was not "exactly" DUI. He was asleep in his car, in the drive through lane at Wendy's. He also was compliant. He moved his car when the officers asked him to. He answered their questions.
Was he drunk? Apparently, yes, and very much so. Had he been driving? Yes, clearly.
But did he need to be arrested. No. The arrest was UNNECESSARY. The escalation was UNNECESSARY. The shooting was UNNECESSARY.
Was is legal? Probably. Was is justified? Possibly. Was it necessary? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
We won't solve this problem, until every single officer understands they have more tools than just their gun to manage their encounters with persons of color.
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Jun 15, 2020 13:00:14 GMT -8
As someone who has driven wayyyyyyyyy too drunk, wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too many times (not in a bout 20 years, though), I will say the police absolutely do need to enforce it. The penalties should be more stiff than they are. I think you misread the emphasis. What I meant was:
"I don't understand why the police should be the ones to enforce it as opposed to a non-police entity".
What I did *not* mean was:
I don't understand why the police bother to enforce it
I don't know what other agency would enforce DUI's. But, Peace!
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Jun 15, 2020 13:09:53 GMT -8
But did he need to be arrested. No. Wow. I'm glad that was not the policy when I got my DUI (back in the mid 80's). Getting a DUI made me a safer person. But, ya, I already posted - We should change our policing so that anyone who is to be arrested, who is not a threat to other people should be informed they are under arrest and asked politely if they would like to come to the police station for booking and possible incarceration until a bond is posted. If they decline, then it's "have a nice day, you're on your way." An arrest warrant is issued, not to be enforced. As an aside, I was listening to an interview of a former Canadian mayor. (Toronto, I think). He is now a police reform activist. I was surprised to hear him talking about the same issues we have in the U.S., like point by point. He said something quite pithy "there is an old saying 'police culture eats training for lunch.'"
|
|
|
Post by andyh64000 on Jun 15, 2020 13:27:02 GMT -8
But did he need to be arrested. No. Wow. I'm glad that was not the policy when I got my DUI (back in the mid 80's). Getting a DUI made me a safer person. But, ya, I already posted - We should change our policing so that anyone who is to be arrested, who is not a threat to other people should be informed they are under arrest and asked politely if they would like to come to the police station for booking and possible incarceration until a bond is posted. If they decline, then it's "have a nice day, you're on your way." An arrest warrant is issued, not to be enforced. As an aside, I was listening to an interview of a former Canadian mayor. (Toronto, I think). He is now a police reform activist. I was surprised to hear him talking about the same issues we have in the U.S., like point by point. He said something quite pithy "there is an old saying 'police culture eats training for lunch.'" I thought he was asleep in the passenger seat.
|
|
|
Post by blindness on Jun 15, 2020 13:29:02 GMT -8
I think you misread the emphasis. What I meant was:
"I don't understand why the police should be the ones to enforce it as opposed to a non-police entity".
What I did *not* mean was:
I don't understand why the police bother to enforce it
I don't know what other agency would enforce DUI's. We need to create it. Those are the kinds of arguments being made around the "Defund the Police" circles. The goal is to either create alternative agencies or strengthen them so that the police are not called in every domestic dispute, every traffic violation, every time there is a dog on the loose. Instead of feeding that money into the police, which adds to the cycle of violence funnel them back into these kinds of specialized services that either used to handle a bunch of these issues before the police budget got overbloated, sucking the funds away from them, or should have been there in the first place to handle things like traffic tickets.
|
|
|
Post by blindness on Jun 15, 2020 13:35:33 GMT -8
I thought he was asleep in the passenger seat. Nah he was at the driver's side. You can see it on the officer's body camera.
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Jun 15, 2020 13:38:53 GMT -8
To clarify, Brooks did not need to be taken into custody. They cops could've driven him home. They could've called him an uber. They could have called someone from home to come pick him up.
They could have issued him a citation, which is the same thing as an arrest, without taking him into custody.
DUI is a serious offense, and should be treated as such. And I'm glad yours made you a better person. I had my share of stupid drunk tricks that easily could have killed me or someone else. It was only luck that didn't happen, and I never got stopped. So, I empathize with your position.
But Brooks wasn't driving at the time the officers encountered him. There was no immediate or urgent need to take him into custody. There were plenty of options available to handle the situation appropriately without setting it down the ultimate path to escalation and death. That is the issue.
Otherwise, the DUI is a red herring.
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Jun 15, 2020 13:41:39 GMT -8
I don't know what other agency would enforce DUI's. We need to create it. Those are the kinds of arguments being made around the "Defund the Police" circles. The goal is to either create alternative agencies or strengthen them so that the police are not called in every domestic dispute, every traffic violation, every time there is a dog on the loose. Instead of feeding that money into the police, which adds to the cycle of violence funnel them back into these kinds of specialized services that either used to handle a bunch of these issues before the police budget got overbloated, sucking the funds away from them, or should have been there in the first place to handle things like traffic tickets.
Of course, and absolutely. I take issue with the idea that driving while intoxicated is not a serious offense.
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Jun 15, 2020 13:44:41 GMT -8
To clarify, Brooks did not need to be taken into custody. They cops could've driven him home. They could've called him an uber. They could have called someone from home to come pick him up. They could have issued him a citation, which is the same thing as an arrest, without taking him into custody. DUI is a serious offense, and should be treated as such. And I'm glad yours made you a better person. I had my share of stupid drunk tricks that easily could have killed me or someone else. It was only luck that didn't happen, and I never got stopped. So, I empathize with your position. But Brooks wasn't driving at the time the officers encountered him. There was no immediate or urgent need to take him into custody. There were plenty of options available to handle the situation appropriately without setting it down the ultimate path to escalation and death. That is the issue. Otherwise, the DUI is a red herring. DUI is not a red herring, a blue herring, or a fish of any color. Yes, I think I've said that several times now. "Would you like to come in for booking?" "No" "Ok, have a nice day." I don't know how much more clear I can make it. My issue with Blindness is that yes, I think that driving while intoxicated should be a police matter.
|
|
|
Post by blindness on Jun 15, 2020 13:58:30 GMT -8
We need to create it. Those are the kinds of arguments being made around the "Defund the Police" circles. The goal is to either create alternative agencies or strengthen them so that the police are not called in every domestic dispute, every traffic violation, every time there is a dog on the loose. Instead of feeding that money into the police, which adds to the cycle of violence funnel them back into these kinds of specialized services that either used to handle a bunch of these issues before the police budget got overbloated, sucking the funds away from them, or should have been there in the first place to handle things like traffic tickets.
Of course, and absolutely. I take issue with the idea that driving while intoxicated is not a serious offense. It is a very serious offense with and enormous consequences and we should absolutely treat it as such. I just don't having the police handle such cases is the only way to show we take the offense seriously.
Maybe having a specialized agency handle such cases would also give us the resources we need to make sure that we follow up on the individual and there are no additional domestic or alcoholism issues lurking underneath the drunk driving. It might even be better, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Jun 15, 2020 14:09:46 GMT -8
Of course, and absolutely. I take issue with the idea that driving while intoxicated is not a serious offense. It is a very serious offense with and enormous consequences and we should absolutely treat it as such. I just don't having the police handle such cases is the only way to show we take the offense seriously.
Maybe having a specialized agency handle such cases would also give us the resources we need to make sure that we follow up on the individual and there are no additional domestic or alcoholism issues lurking underneath the drunk driving. It might even be better, IMO.
I'm with you regarding mental health issues, cops being dog catchers, dealing with the homeless, that stuff. But, to me, DUI is a criminal offense.
|
|
|
Post by northbruin40 on Jun 15, 2020 15:42:21 GMT -8
To clarify, Brooks did not need to be taken into custody. They cops could've driven him home. They could've called him an uber. They could have called someone from home to come pick him up. They could have issued him a citation, which is the same thing as an arrest, without taking him into custody. DUI is a serious offense, and should be treated as such. And I'm glad yours made you a better person. I had my share of stupid drunk tricks that easily could have killed me or someone else. It was only luck that didn't happen, and I never got stopped. So, I empathize with your position. But Brooks wasn't driving at the time the officers encountered him. There was no immediate or urgent need to take him into custody. There were plenty of options available to handle the situation appropriately without setting it down the ultimate path to escalation and death. That is the issue. Otherwise, the DUI is a red herring. Except if you are in favor of defund-the-police, if we divide police patrol duties into separate units (the drunk unit, the speeding unit, the dangerous crimes unit, ...) it will probably cost more
|
|