Posted on 06/21/2020 6:44:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In a rush for Fulton County district attorney Paul Howard to distract from the investigation of his own wrongdoings regarding a missing $140,000, Howard quickly charged former police officer Garrett Rolfe with eleven felonies before an investigation could be properly done into a police shooting. Not only is Howard under investigation, but he is in a hotly contested primary in August. Howard did not take the case to the Grand Jury and, in an apparent political move, immediately charged Rolfe.
On June 12, 2020, Rayshard Brooks, 27, fought with two police officers and grabbed one of their taser guns. As he ran away, he turned to try to shoot Rolfe, and Rolfe shot him in self-defense. Brooks had, among other things, four previous charges of obstructing a police officer, cruelty to children, and domestic violence.
It made no sense why Brooks would fight the police until you look at his criminal history. The following are interactions he had with law enforcement.
On 08/22/2016, he was sentenced to twelve months in jail and to three years' probation on each of the five felony counts, which were to be served concurrently. On 12/20/2018, an arrest warrant was issued for him regarding his last arrest.
The police were called when Brooks was drunk and fell asleep in his car, blocking traffic at a drive-through restaurant. Being drunk would have been another probation violation. If he had been arrested, he could have been sent back to jail. The following are all recorded in Georgia courts.
10/22/2010 Obstruction of Officer
10/10/2010 Obstruction of Officer
01/19/2011 Battery Family Violence
03/15/2011 Battery Family Violence
11/18/2011 Receiving Stolen Property
01/12/2012 Possession of Marijuana
01/12/2012 Possession of Marijuana
01/12/2012 Weapon Possession
04/12/2012 Possession of Marijuana
03/02/2013 Receiving Stolen Property
03/02/2013 Criminal Interference with Govt. Property
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
There is a critical mistake made by the police that has not been discussed.
...........
When the police ran his ID they should have seen his incarceration record and, most importantly, that he was on parole/probation.
...........
Any experienced cop should know that any arrest will “violate” him and send him back to prison, likely for many years.
...........
Certainly, the perp knew this, that’s why he fought.
...........
Before announcing an arrest, the police should have called for backup. They dealt with him for 40+ minutes, there was plenty of time.
..........
One more officer on scene would likely have safely taken him into custody.
All valid points for sure although hindsight is indeed 20/20.
Big government Demo-rats need to protect their criminal street thug army. They are part of the same “team”. That’s why the charges against the cops.
As long as the headline discussion is about one-sided rules of engagement, the details don’t matter. The easiest way to avoid getting shot by a cop is to not get into a situation where you can get shot by a cop. That would require a reduction in the use of alcohol, drugs, or criminal behavior before an arrest, and not using attitude as the primary behavior during an arrest. Nobody is promoting rules like that, or writing new regulations or laws about it.
One Freeper got flamed when he said that we should start showing shootings of white perps by the police. But really, sunlight is the best disinfectant. And if the statistics are right, which I have no doubt they are, the number of high profile white killings will more than balance out the black.
As many confrontations black have with cops, they appear to show unusual restraint. I still support the police and law and order. But the truth need to be shown.
“Before announcing an arrest, the police should have called for backup. They dealt with him for 40+ minutes, there was plenty of time.”
Is it typical for cops to spend 40 min di*king around with a suspected drunk driver? First they ran him through all the standard subjective sobriety tests (which he failed), then FINALLY gave him a breathalyzer (which he also failed). If they started with the breathalyzer they could have been done in 15 min.
Initially there was only one officer there, getting Brooks out of the drive-through and into a parking spot and doing an interview, etc.
...........
That officer decided on a field sobriety test which requires another officer as a witness.
........
Response time and doing the field test took time.
..........
Once Brooks failed all the sobriety tests and the officers chose to arrest, they should have called in backup.
..........
The suspect was drunk, not thinking clearly, going back to prison, yup, the likelihood for resistance was high, get backup.
The result of the field breathalyzer is not admissible in court.
“Once Brooks failed all the sobriety tests and the officers chose to arrest, they should have called in backup.”
Yeah but he had them conned into thinking he would be reasonable and cooperative instead of going berserk.
“As many confrontations black have with cops, they appear to show unusual restraint.”
You can say that again. I watched all 45+ minutes of the Brooks encounter. If I were a cop I woulda had that fool cuffed within 5 minutes.
Both cops had to ask the same simple questions & repeat the same simple instructions over & over & over.
Drunk & claiming he’d lost his license was sufficient reason to impound the car & haul him in.
“The result of the field breathalyzer is not admissible in court.”
Didn’t know that. Thanks.
From now on, backup should be called for any traffic stop of a male black, and no personal contact made until backup arrives. Unfair to innocent blacks who simply violated a traffic rule, but necessary to render it less necessary to kill those who behave as Brooks did.
Are drunks aware of that?
Most drunks are not. Most drunks are also not aware that they can refuse to take the field sobriety tests. Most drunks are also not aware that they should never, ever admit to having had anything to drink. (Once you admit to having even one drink, the cop has probable cause to arrest.)
In New Jersey it is not a good move. If you refuse to submit to a breath test, you will not avoid penalties. Instead, New Jersey law has separate penalties for Breathalyzer refusal. If you are a first-time offender, you could face: License suspension of seven months to a year.
I think every state now has implied consent so that you will lose your license for a period of time if you refuse the official breathalyzer at the station.
That is not the case for the tests in the field, (balancing tests, eye test, breathalyzer, etc.) which are the tests that you can and should refuse unless you are absolutely sure you are under the limit. All of the field tests are designed for the taker to fail. There is no down side to refusing the field tests. The only potential upside to taking the tests is that if you are clearly under the limit the cop may not force you to go to the station for an official breathalyzer. Make no mistake about it - the cop wants to arrest you for DUI. Everything he does and asks you after the stop is intended to be used against you. Don't help him. (I am a lawyer.)
file:///storage/emulated/0/Download/9594598.jpg
If that isn’t visible then here:
https://all-livesmatter.weebly.com/publications.html
Of course, from the FBI, so no one really trusts their numbers or performance any more...
The result of the field breathalyzer is not admissible in court.””’
Since when?
Why NOT???
Since forever. They are not accurate and only give the officer a general idea what the BAC is. Only the results of the breathalyzer at the station are admissible because they are far more accurate and are calibrated often. And even the results of the station tests can be successfully challenged by a good attorney.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.