I would have thought the sensible thing to do was not to inform him that he was under arrest, but to ask for his keys, given they'd got to the point of establishing he was over the limit.
The officers could have asked him if it was okay if they moved his car so he wasn't blocking traffic and so he could go back to peaceful sleep.
The penalty for the disruption he had caused would be having to reclaim his keys from the local police station once he'd sobered up and had been retested.
It would have taken up fewer resources, less taxpayers' money, resolved the current situation and inconvenienced Rayshard Brooks more than he had inconvenienced everyone else.
A good self-defence argument in some situations, but Rayshard Brooks was trying to escape by throwing the officers off and trying to escape by running away. It might be argued that the theft of the taser was about self-defence: George Floyd was murdered only three weeks ago, there have been protests ever since and it's still fresh in our minds.
No doubt it's freshest in the minds of black men in the US.
There were also two police officers, so one could cover the other. If Rayshard Brooks had somehow managed to tase one of the officers whilst running away, turned tail, advanced on the officer and reached for his gun, I'd accept your argument that shooting him dead in self-, r other-defence was justified.
What were you taught about being non-inflammatory in a situation like that, where a man, under the influence, asleep in his car needed to be moved on?
What were you taught about de-escalating a situation where a man resisted detention and wanted to run away?
You have reminded me of Dame Maggie Smith who plays the part of Lady Hester Random, in particular when she tells off their captors and gaolers for not behaving with appropriate social etiquette...and they acquiesce.
I think you have to take some credit for you exemplary management of this blog. It has been a very enjoyable one, thankyou.
I thought the whole idea of tasers was to save lives by incapacitating people without causing death.
Whether their efficacy is all it's cracked up to be is a matter for debate, but if that's the premiss for using them, that they subdue without being a threat to life, why all of a sudden is a man running away from police with a taser considered a threat to their lives?
On this side of the pond we'd call that 'moving the goal posts': the narrative surrounding the justification of taser usage by police does not justify shooting a man dead who is in possession of one, unless you change the narrative and hope that noone notices.
I think you can safely go ahead and be utterly disgusted, or outraged that inherent bias (it's safe if we use them, but a threat to our lives if you do) in the police force has resulted in yet another death of a member of the public.
Really, thirteen of them (at one point more I think it was said) snacking on stolen refreshments, sleeping and leaving the place in a mess to protect one office from being looted while businesses were actually in the process of being looted and damaged?
Instead of looting and leaving a mess themselves, wouldn't it have been more sensible to leave one, or two conscious officers guarding the treasures inside who could call for back up if necessary?
And, as if that isn't dull enough, I've just realised I messed up my 'anagramme' joke.
Sorry Itchy, I took on board the name thing, but forgot to reply to the other.
I can't find my post where I said I didn't want to derail your blog, but I think it was because yours sparked off a thought about monuments and maybe something else which I thought were better placed in Spitz's blog.
I got told off the other day by OldeGuy for twisting Does's blog to my own agenda when my thoughts ran away with me. I took on board that my musings might be misinterpreted as having a sinister motive and so me ran away with my thoughts and plonked them here.
If I have any agendas they are to do with social contact, amusing myself in my isolation, learning some stuff and trying not to piddle people off unnecessarily, although I do recognise that I do piddle people off quite a lot.
Talking of which, has anyone noticed how much effort I'm putting into not using profanity on Spitz's blog?
I paid my respects on the forum thread which her fella created.
I didn't know I had to pay my respects on every thread, or blog, or to you.
Maybe it's a cultural norm I picked up off my mother, like you don't give birthday cards in person, but only send cards in the post if you can't deliver the greetings in person. I still feel awkward when British people hand me a birthday card, so if you don't mind I'll stick to my way of doing things.
I don't think Bear would mind me musing over whether she knew, or had decided that it was time for her next journey. If she were logged in, I imagine we'd rattle through a handful of comments until we understood each other and then thank each other for each other's efforts.
You have said that he will be receiving over one million dollars.
(And it should be IF found guilty, not WHEN)
The headline...
...says he will be ELIGIBLE even IF convicted.
It doesn't say he will definitely be found guilty, nor does it say he will definitely receive over $1M.
The article you C&P'd suggests that he could start receiving payments when he's 50 (6 years time), but if he waits until he's 55 years old he could receive a yearly income in the order of $50K a year. To receive $1-1.5M he'd have to live another 20-30 years after commencement, so until the age of 75-85.
IF he gets convicted of second degree murder and given the maximum 40 year sentence before being eligible for parole (is that right?), he'll be 84 years old IF he lives that long.
I read the article as suggesting this is another area of the police department which needs reform, but I read your original statement as sensationalism.
It would be chucking petrol on the fire if Derek Chauvin gets a nice lump sum, or even a yearly income, particularly if he's not in gaol, but I think perhaps we have to be mindful of not using any accelerant prematurely.
Presumably he won't be able to spend it for quite a number of years, if ever, if he is found guilty. Unless he can spend it on appeals.
Will it go to his soon to be ex-wife? Does he have children who will need support and shouldn't have to suffer because of his actions?
Will it be used to pay reparations to George Floyd's child(ren) who shouldn't have to suffer any more than they already have as a consequence of his actions?
jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,988)
RE: The Atlanta shooting
Clearly you have no idea how the officers could have avoided escalating the situation, or how it could have been de-escalated once escalated.Is that because you weren't taught how to do that in police academy?