Shooting debrief discussion

[Treetop Flyer]

You know what I meant dude. I gave an honest answer. I was hoping you were willing to actually have a conversation. But I was wrong, you just wanted to be a dick.

You know as well as I do how much of an advantage that getting to choose the time and place for a battle is. You also know that screaming about black on white racism right now would at best be drown out and at worst fall only on deaf ears. That doesn't make it right, it's just how it is.

I get it, you don't think you're racist, it's not your fault the system is the way it is, and you're just trying to get by as best you can- just like everyone else.

We can't talk about everything at the same time. Right now, the national conversation is on something else.

I’m not trying to be a dick. I appreciate you actually responded, unlike most who read that post who will skip the uncomfortable subject entirely. Now is the time to talk about what’s actually happening.

I went to Texas A&M. The current controversy is agitators calling for the removal of the statue of Lawrence Sullivan Ross (they already vandalized it). He was a famous Texas Ranger (he led an expedition that freed slaves from Comanches), he was a Confederate brigadier general (one of the youngest at only 26 when the war ended), he was a farmer, rancher, sheriff, state senator, governor of Texas, and president of the Texas AMC, which is now A&M. He was an advocate for blacks in many ways that were very unpopular at the time and without him A&M and Prairie View A&M likely wouldn’t exist. But he has to go because he fought for his state like virtually everyone else did. His statue conspicuously in civilian dress is a symbol of systemic racism.

Meanwhile, in 2012 a student of a certain race was beaten to death by a mob of a different race at a McDonalds on University Avenue across the street from campus, purely because he had the wrong skin tone. No one was brought to justice, it received virtually no media attention, and there were no protests, riots, or looting. You can guess the race of the victim and the mob, but it doesn’t match the narrative of systemic racism. I imagine it would have been quite a story if the skin tones were reversed between the student and the attacking mob.

 

[mad dog]

Some should check out Donut Operator's video on this:

While hindsight is 20/20 and the guys history doesn't warrant a death penalty some interesting things are brought up that create context.

The guy originally ran because his was still on probation from a 7 year sentence for Battery, Domestic Violence, and Child Cruelty. Whats also pointed out in the video is the same DA that is trying to prosecute the officer that shot and killed the suspect also charged 6 officers around 3 weeks prior with Aggravated Assault. Georgia law states:



In this case, the 6 officers had deployed tasers to remove two college aged boys from a car that they refused to step out of, which is covered by Penn v. Mimms. The DA, through charging these officers, marked the Taser as a deadly weapon which could constitute deadly force as seen by case law. Talk is even the re-instatement of the officer if the case is marked as a "lawful use of deadly force".

So let me get this straight...the Fulton County DA P. Howard said the TASER is a deadly weapon in a previous case that involved Atlanta Police Officers using TASERS on college students...and now he says the TASER is not a deadly weapon in the case of R. Brooks who used a TASER on Atlanta Police Officers?

If so...and that’s the way it sounds to me...that is REALLY fucked up...unfucking believable.

WTFO?

?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

So let me get this straight...the Fulton County DA P. Howard said the TASER is a deadly weapon in a previous case that involved Atlanta Police Officers using TASERS on college students...and now he says the TASER is not a deadly weapon in the case of R. Brooks who used a TASER on Atlanta Police Officers?

If so...and that’s the way it sounds to me...that is REALLY fucked up...unfucking believable.

WTFO?

?

Very believable

 

[mad dog]

Very believable

Fuck it...I’m going to protest by building a Wendy’s...and a Dunkin’...and a Hooters...all at the same location.

 

[mad dog]

Fuck it...I’m going to protest by building a Wendy’s...and a Dunkin’...and a Hooters...all at the same location.

With a moat.

 

[taxi1]

The very first thing I thought when I saw the Wendy’s video was never bring a taser to a gun fight.

 

[PhrogLoop]

It's stupid to consider simply putting a drunk in an Uber or taxi for a ride home...The drunk can get out go back to his car and drive it...

Couldn’t you put a boot on the drunk’s car while they’re on their way home? And I’m sure that for the right price, plenty of taxi/ride share drivers would jump on a subsidized drunk ride home service.

 

[taxi1]

And I’m sure that for the right price, plenty of taxi/ride share drivers would jump on a subsidized drunk ride home service.

I've got a friend, retired, who does Uber basically to get out of the house and make some beer money. He doesn't even "go to work" until around 2200. Bar to pancake shop to home is the standard triangle route. Like four hours of watching Drunk History, he says.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Couldn’t you put a boot on the drunk’s car while they’re on their way home? And I’m sure that for the right price, plenty of taxi/ride share drivers would jump on a subsidized drunk ride home service.

How do you know they don't have access to another car at home?

 

[PhrogLoop]

How do you know they don't have access to another car at home?

I don’t. Speaking from personal experience of my energy level after the Uber driver wakes me up at my front door. I’m willing to bet that on balance, an approach like this (get the drunk home with a summons in their pocket & email) would reduce/defray other community costs (violent police interactions, nights in jail, opportunity cost of police man-hours during arrests/processing, etc).

 

[wink]

Couldn’t you put a boot on the drunk’s car while they’re on their way home? And I’m sure that for the right price, plenty of taxi/ride share drivers would jump on a subsidized drunk ride home service.

Or you could tow it. That is just one problem. First, it is a serious crime. That you catch the guy before he has an accident is great, but too many accidents, fatalities, happen because of DWI. Any drunk driver caught by police are actually killers with fortunate timing. They have been saved a worse fate then arrest by the police. Society has lately been demanding arrest and severe penalties to send a message and discourage drunk driving. Taking the Brooks incident as a jumping off point in a discussion about how to treat DWI is not a good idea. Let's start with whether DWI remains a major problem, and are current law and policies deterring DWI. The goal is to have the DWI laws obeyed, not find ways to make life easy on any given citizen who had too much. Maybe he has too much every day after work and drives drunk home every day. How do you decide who gets the break?

Consider this. Most states have laws that leave cops no discretion when it comes to domestic violence calls. If there has been any physical conduct, sometimes even something like throwing a beer can at the other, that person is going to jail. The spouse can cry all they want, not wanting their abusive partner going to jail, but it matters not. These sort of laws and policies are because society has determined that DV is a major problem that can't be left to an officer's discretion. Drive the guy to a hotel for the night, he may return and beat his spouse to a pulp. It has happened.

 

[PhrogLoop]

Good points by wink

I’m thinking about this from a behavioral economics perspective. Humans (most especially drunk ones) are predictably irrational. I believe that laws and law enforcement, while necessary, do very little to discourage/deter bad behavior.
I did lots of research on this when I was the Change the Culture guy. If training, education, and holding people accountable were effective in themselves, then the Navy would have seen declining DUI/Sexual Assault/Domestic Violence rates (per capita) over the last several years as we tripled the GMT requirements and vowed to punish evildoers. Didn’t happen. That’s a signal to me that tripling down on law and order for crime reduction may not be the way, either. Not saying I have the solution. This is just food for thought while we’re having serious conversations about rethinking policing in our country.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

I’m willing to bet that on balance, an approach like this (get the drunk home with a summons in their pocket & email) would reduce/defray other community costs (violent police interactions, nights in jail, opportunity cost of police man-hours during arrests/processing, etc).

How about the millions of dollars the city/county/state is going to have to pay out on a civil case when said individual significantly destroys something or kills someone later that day or night?

 

[PhrogLoop]

How about the millions of dollars the city/county/state is going to have to pay out on a civil case when said individual significantly destroys something or kills someone later that day or night?

First, I will admit I don’t have the data. But I suspect that risk is overblown. I believe that if a DUI/DWI suspect got handed a bottle of water from a friendly cop just as a free Uber showed up to drive them home, they would more likely be in a state of mind and body to sleep it off rather than set off toward further mayhem.

 

[Hair Warrior]

What are you talking about? Has DUI been suddenly decriminalized?

The police don’t make the laws, they enforce the laws, and courts interpret the laws. Do you want police to have even more latitude and autonomy to act like their own judge and jury in the field, or do you want your police force to be professionalized and apply standard procedure to every crime?