Is drunkenly sleeping in your car more of a crime than soberly sleeping?

Stop trying to excuse the inexcusable.

Absolutely, he didn't have to die but he brought it onto himself; and this is going back to what I mentioned before, namely accountability or the lack thereof.

Or maybe simply ignoring it as not in the least bit relevant. They shot an unarmed man him in the back while he was running away. Twice. There is no possible justification.

It's possibly made worse by their handling of the situation up until that point. If they really knew all about his criminal history they would, and maybe should anyway, have whacked the cuffs on straight away.

Like I said earlier, poor training seems to be close to the core of what went wrong, so the responsibility lies not just with the officer(s) involved, but the whole police system.

Yes, especially when you're blocking traffic and depending where you are, also if the key is in the ignition.

He wasn't unarmed. He had a taser, which he deployed forcing the one officer to take cover behind the red car.

I'd guess lost_inbroad is arguing that the police officer move was legal. It seems "legal" from the perspective that the drunk guy attacked the police, got hold of a weapon and represented a menace to the police. Like it or not, that's the current legal framework over there.

However, being "legal" doesn't imply it's not a failure to kill someone when the goal was arresting him for DUI. The guy was no saint. That's the very reason the police officers should have been extra careful when handling him. The video shows a botched handcuffing attempt followed by confrontation and finally the shooting.

Watch the video, or more precisely edited video because the whole thing is 40+ min long. It's really curious that the TSA or even mall cops make people lie on the floor for handcuffing while experienced police officers dealing with an individual under parole for violence were not prepared to deal with him. The police officers have searched him before, no weapons.

Curious detail is that the police officer shoot 3 times, 2 shots for the dead guy, 1 shot for a car with 3 people inside. It will be really interesting to hear the police officer defense how he used his gun to protect the public from a dangerous armed individual......by shooting in panic in a parking lot full of cars with people. It was random chance that the drunk guy is the only dead. One of Wendy's customers could have also get shot by a panicked cop.

His state of sobriety has no influence on the "offence" of blocking traffic, this is obvious if you consider it for more than a second.

According to the phone call from the Wendy's employee, he was "partially" blocking traffic, so presumably, awkward as it was, people could have driven around his car.

So we have a drunk man, asleep in his car in a car park, inadvertently making it awkward for other customers to pass. Clearly the only suitable punishment is death. Sigh.

He was unarmed before the police arrived. One criminally incompetent cop later, he's dead.

Whether this could be considered legal in the US is not really the issue; the fact that some are arguing that it could be is what I see as endemic of a twisted attitude to policing which allows these sorts of things to happen.

Are you sure that this is the full story and nothing essential is missing?

Good that you mention Wendy's' employees. They decided to keep the drivethru open even after two police officers were dealing with a suspect for more than half an hour. It will be very interesting to see any lawsuit for negligence and premise liability against Wendy's. Of course, employees are not supposed to think but ask for orders to a supervisor or follow a manual. Lawyers will ask if the employees did all they could do to protect their customers on their premises.

One could only speculate if the police officers would be less stressed and less panicked to use lethal force if there were no cars full of people passing behind them to buy food.

According to BBC reports this morning he was asleep. Woke up immediately and moved his car as directed. Hardly passed out drunk.

For the next 41 minutes he responded politely and calmly. WTF were the police doing for 41 minutes?

It was only when they tried to handcuff him did he respond aggressively. What crime had been committed that warranted handcuffing and arresting him. You cannot even claim DUI when the only actual driving they witnessed was him parking his car.

He was shot in the back at a distance of 5m as he was running away. Another bullet missed and hit another car narrowly missing a third party.

Once he was dying, not yet dead, the shooter claimed “Got him” and kicked him while he was down.

No attempt made by either cop to help him. Apparently the second cop stood on his shoulder for two minutes until he realised he was unresponsive.

No excuses here. The cops did bad. A man died for no reason.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53084232

Come on, people gotta eat! Police shooting a black guy is passe, everyone's seen it all before, no need to stop what you're doing.

He wasn't unarmed.

Tom

Yes, actually you can in the State of Georgia and in many other states. He failed the breathalyzer test which meant his blood alcohol level was over the legal limit. He clearly had been the one to drive to the restaurant, i.e. in control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

Here's the relevant part of the Georgia statutes, my emphasis added:
Brooks met both of those conditions for DUI. However I was probably incorrect that it was a felony DUI. The statute says the first 3 DUIs are misdemeanors and it's only from the 4th that it's a felony.

Based on the list LiB provided up-thread, Brooks had not been convicted of DUI before. Still, an arrest for anything is generally a violation of probation. Even drunk, Brooks knew he was probably going back to prison. Probation in some ways is worse than parole.

Again though, he should not have wound up dead.

Have heard one line in a movie and it stuck to my memory "The system makes it sure you go back."

C'mon, probation or not, chances he went back were really high. I don't even know why the complicate things with probation.

In the end I think these disgusting events should be treated as industrial/transport accidents. An accident investigation that looks for the most probable causes to prevent future events instead on determining liability. What were the circumstances that contributed to the to the catastrophic outcome?

I think the people that used the word "systemic" may be onto something. If the cops would have requested the restaurant to close while they deal with the suspect in a more controlled environment, the next morning the Wendy's franchise owner would be calling the police to demand a compensation for lost income. And the owner may not get money but put enough pressure on the police department to not interfere with business operation during arrests. That's how things work over there.

Too much attention has been focused on determining liability in the past, cops have gone to trail and some of them end in jail. But this has not solved anything. Maybe it's time to ask why cops fail to do their job properly.

That was actually just from the offenses in 2013. He did have a DUI prior to the latest incident and after he was out on parole.

Maybe the drunk driving while on parole / resisting arrest / attacking police officers / firing a taser at them also played a part?

It is sad that Brooks lost his life, but the fact is, he lost his life due to the consequences of his own actions. Something I also find unfortunate is that Officer Rolfe would not be in the position he is in now (facing murder charges) if Brooks hadn't violently resisted arrest and tried to taser him, causing Officer Rolfe to react defensively (Rolfe hadn't even drawn his gun until Brooks tried to taser him). I'm not saying that Rolfe shooting Brooks was wise, but I also realize that Rolfe didn't have time to stop and assess the situation. He clearly felt the need to defend himself (that's why he jumped behind the red car). I think Brooks caught both officers completely off-guard, because Brooks was acting very calm and understanding right up until he was about to be handcuffed and realized he was being arrested. Then boom, he suddenly acted like an entirely different person.

I think what bothers me most about this situation is that soo many people, including the media, seem to be putting all the focus on the cop's behavior, and meanwhile are not putting any focus on the behavior of Brooks himself, whose behavior is responsible for this chain of events. If Brooks hadn't violently resisted arrest, he would be alive today. I also find it odd that some people think that a guy who is passed out in his car in a drive-thru lane, with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit, should have been let go rather than being arrested. He wasn't even able to park his car correctly (he had driven up onto the curb).

So what happens now? Do people in the US think it's okay to violently resist arrest when they're being arrested for a DUI or anything else? Is it okay to steal a cop's taser and use it on a cop because the cop isn't legally allowed to defend himself?

And shooting him in the back, while almost injuring an innocent bystander, kicking him when he was dying and standing on his shoulder were all acceptable police tactics.

Why couldn’t the police have simply given him a summons to appear the next day?

I think they were justified in shooting him as he attacked them and fired a taser at them. Tragic but not unexpected. The kicking and standing on him allegations have been denied as far as I'm aware.

Because he was breaking the law while he was on parole and his drunk driving was putting other people in danger and they decided to arrest him for it - you don't get to pick and choose if you feel like being arrested or not.