It’s true there are many traffic offenses, which are considered relatively minor. Is your position drunk driving should be treated the same as going 5mph over the speed limit? Is your position cops should be issuing warnings for DUIs instead of arresting drunk drivers?
According to https://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/can-i-get-a-dui-for-sitting-in-a-parked-car-while-drunk.html , this DUI edge case can be fuzzy (and variable by state), but if you want to sleep off drunkenness in your car, better to do it in the back seat with the car turned off and the key not in the ignition lock (but that still may not be a foolproof way to avoid a DUI in the eyes of police or courts).
This isn’t an edge case. He drove drunk to get to the Wendy’s drive-thru. The alternative, he was completely sober when he decided to park his car in the Wendy’s drive-thru and drink till he had a 0.108 BAC is ridiculous.
If the keys are in the ignition it is generally considered to constitute “control of” or “operating” the vehicle. It was a DUI, pending field sobriety/breathalyzer testing, before he moved his car into a parking space.
I definitely think there is room to argue that he should not have been shot, that the officers did not conduct their duty well. I think things were bungled badly in several ways. Different approaches could have been taken. Nobody needed to shoot, nobody needed to die.
I don’t, however, understand trying to argue that Brooks shouldn’t have been charged with DUI. It would have been up to the court to have found him guilty but this was definitely a chargeable situation, IMO.
Is that what you meant, @Knowsstuff ?
I feel like it’s fairly common to read about cops firing off 30 bullets and the suspect getting hit 10 times. Made up numbers of course, but that general accuracy rate is what I‘ve seen when reading about shootings.
Ah, found an article on the subject for NYPD:
“In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent“
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html
And another one about Dallas PD:
“…in the 134 cases where researchers could establish that figure, they calculated the hit rate, “incredibly,” at merely 35 percent. “
Another question - they had apparently already patted him down before the kerfluffle and knew he had no other weapon other than the taser. So why did the officer pull out his service revolver when the foot chase began? Is that normal protocol?
According to Georgia law the definition of a “Firearm” includes any handgun, rifle, shotgun, stun gun, taser, or other weapon which will or can be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or electrical charge.
The Georgia Supreme Court has recognized that stun guns and Tasers may be considered offensive weapons that are likely to result in serious bodily injury, depending on how they’re used (Harwell v. State, 512 S.E.2d 892 (Ga. Sup. Ct. 1999)).
This was a suspect running from officers trying to arrest him. If he’d been stopped on a highway and run away, should the officers not have chased him? If he was in a school parking lot and ran, should officers not chase him?
Police chase people who are running away after an arrest. That’s what they are trained to do. If they need to to catch the suspect, they shoot. That’s what they are trained to do. If you don’t want them to shoot, don’t give them guns.
The last link recommends things like:
Police do not unconditionally chase or unconditionally shoot while chasing. They make judgment calls (which may be guided by department policy) based on the danger level of the suspect, the likelihood of making a later arrest, and the risk to officers and bystanders of chasing and/or shooting. Note that only about a quarter of officers fire guns on duty (outside of training and practice) during their entire careers.
Of course, whether the judgment call is ultimately the correct one may not necessarily be known in advance. But there have been police chase policy controversies when car chases have resulted in crashes that killed or seriously injured bystanders.
No, that is not what they are trained to do – they are only allowed to use deadly force in certain circumstances.
Here is what Georgia law says:
quote Sheriffs and peace officers who are appointed or employed in conformity with Chapter 8 of Title 35 may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Nothing in this Code section shall be construed so as to restrict such sheriffs or peace officers from the use of such reasonable nondeadly force as may be necessary to apprehend and arrest a suspected felon or misdemeanant.
[/quote]
Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-17/chapter-4/article-2/17-4-20/
I’d add that there are also restrictions on when an officer can use a taser – I don’t know specifically what those are in Georgia, but there were several officers charged criminally for use of excessive force for tasing protesters during protests over Memorial Day weekend. See https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/2-more-atlanta-police-officers-fired-over-use-force-during-n1229656 (includes video). So it’s possible that part of equation may be that the officers overstepped their bounds by using a taser in the first place, thereby creating a situation where Brooks could wrest control of the taser away from them.
People need to prepare themselves for the possibility that the officer involved may be adjudicated not guilty in the death of Mr. Brooks.
Officers responded to a person allegedly asleep at the wheel of their vehicle in a Wendy’s drive-thru line.
The officers initiated a misdemeanor DUI investigation of Mr. Brooks after determining there was a reasonable suspicion he was under the influence.
After performing field sobriety tests, and registering .108 on the breathalyzer test(GA legal limit: .08), the officers made the determination to arrest Mr. Brooks. (misdemeanor)
Mr. Brooks resisted when the officers attempted to handcuff him. (misdemeanor)
The officers struggled to subdue Mr. Brooks and all three fell to the ground.
One officer drew his taser and announced three times that Mr. Brooks would be tased before unsuccessfully administering a contact deployment of the taser on Mr. Brooks’ leg.
Mr. Brooks, during the continued struggle(aggravated misdemeanor), disarms the officer by wrestling the taser away, taking illegal possession of a peace officers “firearm,” as defined by GA law, that can be used in an offensive manner to inflict serious bodily injury, according to the GA Supreme Court. (felony)
As Mr. Brooks gets to his feet he appears to punch at the head of one of the arresting officers. (felony)
Mr. Brooks successfully escapes custody and flees(aggravated misdemeanor), an officer fires his taser in an attempt to re-subdue Mr. Brooks.
One officer is still on the ground when the other officer begins to chase Mr. Brooks.
While fleeing police Mr. Brooks turns, points a “firearm” at the pursuing officer and discharges it. (felony)
The pursuing officer discharges his duty weapon in response, resulting in the death of Mr. Brooks.
Th U.S. Supreme Court, in Tennessee v. Garner (1985), established the “fleeing felon rule.” The ruling held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."
The actions of Mr. Brooks elevated his simple misdemeanor charge to multiple felonies, including multiple aggravated assaults on a police officer.
The officer was pursuing a fleeing felon in possession of a stolen police firearm with a demonstrated propensity to commit aggravated assault on a police officer to escape arrest.
In the dispassionate eyes of the law, was the officer justified in discharging his duty weapon at a fleeing felon when confronted with a situation where the accused turns, points and discharges an offensive weapon that is likely to result in serious bodily injury to the officer?
It’s an interesting question.
I don’t know much about tasers. Could a taser result in serious bodily injury? And what is considered “serious” bodily injury?
I know it can temporarily incapacitate someone, but is that considered serious bodily injury?
911 call has been released. Wendy’s employee did attempt to wake Mr. Brooks before calling police.
In 2012, the ACLU claimed tasers were responsible for 500 deaths since 2001 at the hands of law enforcement.
Tasers can be deadly. Death would seem to meet any reasonable definition of serious bodily injury.
So the Wendy’s employees went above and beyond what they could reasonably be expected to do, and the place still got torched.
It’s easy to think of Wendy’s as a big corporate behemoth, but 95% of Wendy’s restaurants are franchised, so these are small businesses. The owners were probably already suffering with COVID-19, and now this. And as Mayor Bottoms said, this area was a food desert, with this being one of the few restaurants around.
So a guy who had been jailed on domestic violence (including against children) charges, but had been released because of Covid-19 shows his newfound maturity by passing out drunk in the Wendy’s drive-thru, resisting arrest, and trying to run off with a taser. Nope, no chance anything could have gone wrong with any of that.
I do think the mayor and DA have made a major mistake in not communicating honestly with the public on this. The chances of an indictment look slim, conviction chances slimmer.