The Hunt is ON!!!
>Then the police show up. First, the officer gets him disoriented by lying to him about where he thought he was. No bridge. No Dixie Highway. No Clayton County.
That was a dick move by the officer.
I didn't realize that at first, but that was definitely a dick move, which easily slips by anyone not familiar with that area.
I've been trying to be as neutral about this, but have sided with the officers on a number of things. Having said that, you do make numerous good points. Having said that, there were mistakes made by Brooks in that field sobriety test, besides the sublte sway. For instance, lift one leg and count to ten, Brooks counted to 15, which does count as a "fail". It's common for drunks to be braggadocious about how not drunk they think they are. So, if an officer says count to ten while standing on one leg, they think counting to 20 will show just how not drunk they are. The only problem is, the instruction said count to ten. Translating into a driving scenario, if that same drunk were to see a yellow light, they might think they have time to beat that light, and speed up, rather than stop safely.
Having said all that, most field sobriety tests can be brutal even if no alcohol or drugs are present in one's system. Especially, if there was an exhaustive day prior to getting in the vehicle to drive home or wherever. Personally, I've had 3 field sobriety tests in my life. Two resulted in DUI's. Even though technically I "passed" both of those field sobriety tests. Ultimately I was "convicted" under "zero tolerance" laws, which have permanently affected more than a decade and a half of my life, and still counting. That alone should tell people how much these encounters can result in "life or death" scenarios for people. Especially, if that person has a child. Which may or may not result in additional charges of child support is failed to be met To which I empathize with Brooks's "Fight or Flight" response. Anyway, what I didn't mention was that the one field sobriety test which I "failed" (quite miserably, I might add) was when I was stone cold sober. And after having drove 6 hours to Illinois to watch my friend graduate from the Navy. Why I got pulled over was because we got a bit lost in a neighborhood trying to find the on-ramp to take us into the city. While driving through the neighborhood, a cop decided to start following, which made me nervous, even though nothing I did was illegal or wrong. Unfortunately, I was driving a boat of a car, and clipped a curb while making a right turn, which triggered the cop pulling me over. To top it off, I wear contacts and my eyes were red as devil shit. Thankfully, I was not ticketed or charged charged with anything. But the cop did fuck with me quite a bit, and even admitted doing so in the end. I was asking right away to take a breathalyzer test the moment he accused me of being drunk, just because I knew it would exonerate me of that particular charge.
>it was Brooks who was in fear of his life.
That I can see from the take of "Fight or Flight".
However, it was the actions Brooks took to meet his demise.
It ROYALLY sucks that the officer shot him.
But that would've never happened if Brooks let himself get handcuffed and arrested for the night…
Having said that, this conversation needs to be more about the "justice" system, not just police interactions with citizens or criminals. The officers are typically following procedures. For an officer to let Brooks go, should Brooks have wound up killing someone after the initial encounter the cop would technically be held liable for releasing him into the wild. That is an extreme circumstance. But keep in mind, each officer is now forced to wear body cams, which also prevents them from making those decisions themselves. Back in the day, an officer would follow behind the vehicle, to make sure they reach their destination safely, if a person was not shit-faced, but had a little too much to drink. Now-a-days, DUI's have become a cash-cow for prosecutors, and they tend to extort all the money they can out of an individual, while leveraging their ability to drive, which restricts their ability of earning a decent wage, to say the least. Believe me, after 15 years of bull shit, I know all too well.
Bottom line, the effects of alcohol have been known A LOT longer than we've had vehicles. Sadly, people now are forced to take the responsibility for other people's actions. This goes beyond just alcohol, btw. On of the biggest offenders of alcohol abuse is actually the state. They are the entity who collects money to proper "regulate" the industry. However, they have not yet come up with a formidable solution to consumption of alcohol. Rather they happily allow all who wish to partake the ability to do so, only to use this as a mean for the state to "generate revenue" off their citizens, at the further expense of other citizens