F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

[PhDeac]

I don’t think it matters but I would assume most wouldn’t put their car in park while in a drive thru line since they have to constantly move up in line.



You seem to be arguing on this thread that people shouldn’t receive citations or be arrested. Is it really that hard to understand why people disagree with that approach? You’re a sociology professor and you need others to explain that some people think that punishment may be a better deterrent? I’m not totally in that corner but it’s not hard at all to understand why people think that.



This is bullshit. The cops showing up in itself did not make it worse. They were preventing him from putting himself and others in more danger. He made it worse by 1) resisting arrest, 2) assaulting a police officer, 3) stealing a police officer’s taser, 4) fleeing from the police, and 5) firing the taser at a police officer. There can be a debate about whether that justifies the use of lethal force. Many would say it does. I’m not sure I do.

You can still have sympathy with the ultimate outcome while believing the above.

I already explained when arrest is necessary. You’re just ignoring what I’m saying to try to make your point make more sense.

Explain how a man who was passed out was a danger to others. Give him a wellness check and let him walk to his sister’s house or just give him a ride there.

“Hello?”
“Good evening, ma’am. This is officer Garrett Rolfe from the Atlanta Police Department. We are talking to a man named Rayshard Brooks. He says that you are his sister.”
“Yes that’s right. Is he OK?”
“He’s fine. We found him passed out in his car in the drive thru at the Wendy’s on 125 University Avenue. He said that is near your house. Is that true?”
“Yes. It’s a few minutes away.”
“OK. We are going to let him sober up a bit and drop him off at your house. Is that OK?”
“Yes. Thank you so much. Here’s my address.”

What’s so wrong with that?

 

[SCDeac13]

I already explained when arrest is necessary. You’re just ignoring what I’m saying to try to make your point make more sense.

Explain how a man who was passed out was a danger to others. Give him a wellness check and let him walk to his sister’s house or just give him a ride there.

“Hello?”
“Good evening, ma’am. This is officer Garrett Rolfe from the Atlanta Police Department. We are talking to a man named Rayshard Brooks. He says that you are his sister.”
“Yes that’s right. Is he OK?”
“He’s fine. We found him passed out in his car in the drive thru at the Wendy’s on 125 University Avenue. He said that is near your house. Is that true?”
“Yes. It’s a few minutes away.”
“OK. We are going to let him sober up a bit and drop him off at your house. Is that OK?”
“Yes. Thank you so much. Here’s my address.”

What’s so wrong with that?

I must have missed where you said when arrests are needed. I’ve skimmed over some of the thread.

A drunk person behind the wheel of a car poses a danger to himself and others. He was in the middle of a drive thru, so he clearly drove there, was driving through to get his food, and was going to drive off after getting his food. He had already posed a threat, and there was no reason to think he wouldn’t have posed a threat again when he woke up. There may have also been a threat when he was asleep since the car may not have been in park and his foot could slip off the brake. Like I mentioned earlier, it can be debated if he was asleep in a parking lot and didn’t intend to actually drive, but he was going through a Wendy’s drive thru.

And I think most people would argue that your potential resolution is not a strong enough deterrent and that arrests/citations result in fewer drunk drivers on the road, saving lives.

 

[Les Grossman]

I already explained when arrest is necessary. You’re just ignoring what I’m saying to try to make your point make more sense.

Explain how a man who was passed out was a danger to others. Give him a wellness check and let him walk to his sister’s house or just give him a ride there.

“Hello?”
“Good evening, ma’am. This is officer Garrett Rolfe from the Atlanta Police Department. We are talking to a man named Rayshard Brooks. He says that you are his sister.”
“Yes that’s right. Is he OK?”
“He’s fine. We found him passed out in his car in the drive thru at the Wendy’s on 125 University Avenue. He said that is near your house. Is that true?”
“Yes. It’s a few minutes away.”
“OK. We are going to let him sober up a bit and drop him off at your house. Is that OK?”
“Yes. Thank you so much. Here’s my address.”

What’s so wrong with that?

Because criminalizing drinking and driving has led to a decrease in people getting killed from others who drink and drive. Society is better off when people get arrested for getting behind the wheel drunk. It not only discourages that person from driving drunk again, but it sends a message to many others to think twice about doing it themselves.

 

[PhDeac]

Here you go SDDeacs13. I laid it out plainly.

They should arrest people who are a threat to public safety. Help people who are a threat to themselves.

Again. The threat was neutralized by the driver and a tow truck.

As far as deterrent, getting off with a warning and a ride home is presumably enough to discourage white people. Why not do the same for black people?

Plus you all must not have a sister and a wife. Man gets dropped off by the cop at his sister's house and has to let his wife know what happened. They'd never let him hear the end of it.

 

[WakeForestRanger]

 

[forensicdeac]

Related to DUI: DUI laws are interesting bc there is often an argument made that a person should not be arrested if they haven't hurt anyone (ie wreck). However, in every state there is a per se law that states it is unlawful to drive while having a BAC of 0.08% or higher. It does not state it is against the law only if you hit someone. It is a public safety issue. Reaction time decreases as alcohol level increases. The law is in place to prevent harm to others, not punish people after they have hurt someone else. The 0.08% level was arrived at after studies, like the Grand Rapids Study, that show the risk of major injury or death in a traffic crash increases exponentially after 0.08%.

As it relates to this case: The offense of DUI was already committed. There is court precedent defining driving as it pertains to DUI. Now, could the officers have decided to not arrest or charge with something like public drunkeness instead of DUI? probably so. Car still gets towed. The suspect could learn a lesson and not drive drunk again. Maybe not. I worked in a state (SC) that almost 1/3 of traffic fatalities were alcohol related in 2018 (2nd worst in nation) and over 40% in 2015. I saw the overall legal system be very lax on DUI for various reasons... look where there are.

All that being said, there is NOTHING that justifies that man being shot in my eyes.

 

[SCDeac13]

Here you go SDDeacs13. I laid it out plainly.



Again. The threat was neutralized by the driver and a tow truck.

As far as deterrent, getting off with a warning and a ride home is presumably enough to discourage white people. Why not do the same for black people?

Plus you all must not have a sister and a wife. Man gets dropped off by the cop at his sister's house and has to let his wife know what happened. They'd never let him hear the end of it.

A drunk driver poses a threat. Period.

A warning is not a strong enough deterrent for drunk driving. Like other posters mentioned, criminalizing drinking and driving saves lives.

I never said whites should get off with a warning and blacks shouldn’t. They should both be treated equally.

 

[Les Grossman]

Over 80% of DUI arrests are of white people.

 

[thatguy2016]

in ph's world, because he wasn't driving at the moment they found him, there's no reason to arrest him for DUI.

I mean, by this standard we should never arrest anyone for DUI. By the time you administer the field sobriety test, the driver is out of the car. Threat neutralized! Call him an Uber and tow the car!

 

[PhDeac]

I mean, by this standard we should never arrest anyone for DUI. By the time you administer the field sobriety test, the driver is out of the car. Threat neutralized! Call him an Uber and tow the car!

There’s a big difference between arresting a driver who is putting lives in danger and one who is passed out in parked car.

I only have to keep repeating that because some people here just want to see more people “in the system.”

Funny how no one has answered the question I posed to Diggler.

 

[Tobacco Road]

This is awesome.

 

[Arsene Wenger]

A cop approaches a passed out driver at a Wendy’s drive thru. The keys are in the ignition and the car is in park. Legally it’s easy to pop the driver for a DUI. The law supports it in every state. Does a small town mayor’s wife get a DUI in that scenario or a “courtesy” ride home? Probably depends on the cop; they have a lot of discretion in the field. The well connected local doctor may get a “courtesy“ ride from some cops; some cops would get off on bagging a doctor for DUI. The poor inner city black guy probably doesn’t get that “courtesy” ride.

 

[PhDeac]

Right. Is the purpose to boost arrest stats or protect and serve? The purpose should always be the latter. If arresting someone helps protect and serve, that’s fine.

 

[thatguy2016]

There’s a big difference between arresting a driver who is putting lives in danger and one who is passed out in parked car.

I only have to keep repeating that because some people here just want to see more people “in the system.”

Funny how no one has answered the question I posed to Diggler.

I want to see fewer people die from fucking drunk drivers

And if you’re behind the wheel of a running car while drunk, you’re a drunk driver

By the way Milhouse answered your “question”

 

[Les Grossman]

Funny how no one has answered the question I posed to Diggler.

Why? It had nothing to do with the dangers of drinking and driving and everything to do with whether you’re a snitch. Even if my friend told me he robbed a bank, I’m not calling the cops on him.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

There’s a big difference between arresting a driver who is putting lives in danger and one who is passed out in parked car.

I only have to keep repeating that because some people here just want to see more people “in the system.”

Funny how no one has answered the question I posed to Diggler.

Not playing devils advocate here - I think a lot of people believe the DUI arrest is a necessary deterent for drunk driving, where just a ride home and a court summons would be too light a punishment. So the actual good faith debate on this topic is how to best police drunk driving while remaining just

 

[dartsndeacs]

Right. Is the purpose to boost arrest stats or protect and serve? The purpose should always be the latter. If arresting someone helps protect and serve, that’s fine.

To put your argument in perspective, I agree with you that we shouldn't arrest people for passing out in a car. Drunk driving can be fun.

 

[PhDeac]

Other shitty cop info:

 

[Kory]

 

[Arsene Wenger]

Other shitty cop info:

There’s a lot of asshole cops. You don’t advance your argument by shifting to that point.