Josh Brent wasn't Drinking

HungryLion · Jul 14, 2019

rags747 said:
Cops stated he smelled of alcohol, do we even know how that is possible if he was not drinking? Send the man his $$. You cannot just make up Fake News and attempt to destroy someone’s reputation. This is like that rogue redneck cop that planted drugs in over 200 roadside stops. How could they even make a statement like that?

I am not anti cop at all. Most of them are good people.

That being said, there are of course dirty cops or ones that are willing to break the rules. The old “I smelled alcohol” or “I smelled marijuana” is a great excuse if you want to search somebody or arrest them without a warrant, because it’s almost impossible to prove they didn’t think they smelled it, in court.

superonyx · Jul 14, 2019

Reid1boys said:
I said i had no problem with how they handed him. My problem was with the ridiculous charges. And the fact the da dropped all charges shows they were ridiculous, especially when they habe time to sit, reflect, and then charge or not charge.

Unfortunately it seems that the police are trained to cover their butts anytime a situation requires even the slightest bit of force. They could have known in 5 minutes that he wasn’t drinking and really should have never reported that he was. The charges against him were more to cover their butts than what’s right.

Police have a very difficult job. But it doesn’t send a good message to the people you are serving to see this handled in this way. They did what they needed to taking him into custody. There was no need releasing information that was not accurate about him while in custody. Anything that calls the polices ethics into question is not good for them or the public.

superonyx · Jul 14, 2019

DakPresgoat said:
I am not anti cop at all. Most of them are good people.

That being said, there are of course dirty cops or ones that are willing to break the rules. The old “I smelled alcohol” or “I smelled marijuana” is a great excuse if you want to search somebody or arrest them without a warrant, because it’s almost impossible to prove they didn’t think they smelled it, in court.

The amount of alcohol one needs to drink to “smell like alcohol” is a lot. So to have him not have an a ounce in his system is troubling. It makes it look like they abused this line just to cover their butts on how this went down.

Dodger12 · Jul 14, 2019

superonyx said:
They could have known in 5 minutes that he wasn’t drinking and really should have never reported that he was.

Serious question....how could they have known in 5 minutes?

superonyx said:
But it doesn’t send a good message to the people you are serving to see this handled in this way.

I saw the way it was handled on the body cam and I thought it was very professional. These guys tried hard to diffuse the situation, get answers (from Brent) and do their jobs.

superonyx said:
There was no need releasing information that was not accurate about him while in custody.

Police don't have a choice on what is released. In many, if not most, departments, anytime someone is taken into custody the media has access to that information. The alternative is to take someone into custody and not release any information which goes against the idea of a free and open society. When Brent was charged with violating his probation, that information was available to the public. When those charges were dropped, that information was also available.

Dodger12 · Jul 14, 2019

Reid1boys said:
My problem was with the ridiculous charges. And the fact the da dropped all charges shows they were ridiculous,

Violating his probation wasn't a ridiculous charge. Had he not had a mental issue, he would have violated his probation by resisting arrest but that's another discussion. Once the analysis came in, the charge was dropped. You can assess someone's blood/alcohol quicker than you can someone's mental capacity and they had to wait for the results of the tests. Or do the authorities just arbitrarily say someone has mental issues without a proper professional medical assessment?

Most folks look at the video and and think drugs and/or alcohol first, other issues (mental) second or a combination of both.

Reid1boys · Jul 14, 2019

Dodger12 said:
Violating his probation wasn't a ridiculous charge. Had he not had a mental issue, he would have violated his probation by resisting arrest but that's another discussion. Once the analysis came in, the charge was dropped. You can assess someone's blood/alcohol quicker than you can someone's mental capacity and they had to wait for the results of the tests. Or do the authorities just arbitrarily say someone has mental issues without a proper professional medical assessment?

Most folks look at the video and and think drugs and/or alcohol first, other issues (mental) second or a combination of both.

But they arbitrarily said alcohol. You keep saying, "If." If this, if that. Use the facts. He did not violate probation, he was not drunk, he really didn't resist arrest, because an arrest must be lawful. So what was the underlying reason he was arrested for? Alcohol on breath so assuming drunk in public,......obviously that was not the case. Tgats,like saying I suspect you burglarized that house, you are under arrest.....uhm, nah.

Cowfan75 · Jul 14, 2019

Reid1boys said:
Cops don't protect you. They show up after the fact. Not their fault, they can't know a crime is about to take place. But you know not what you speak of. There is a reason a 9mm is with me at almost all times, and it isn't too call police to protect me.

Lol...cops don't protect me? Man, that's breaking news!! Astonishing. So, if you call a cop on a prowler, and they show up and arrest the guy before he breaks in, they aren't protecting you? Or if cops arrest a drunk driver who might have been minutes from crashing into an SUV and killing a family, that isn't protecting people? Fascinating.
I do hope you got that safety on that 9mm. I'd be a little nervous you might blow a couple toes off or something.

superonyx · Jul 14, 2019

Dodger12 said:
Serious question....how could they have known in 5 minutes?

I saw the way it was handled on the body cam and I thought it was very professional. These guys tried hard to diffuse the situation, get answers (from Brent) and do their jobs.

Police don't have a choice on what is released. In many, if not most, departments, anytime someone is taken into custody the media has access to that information. The alternative is to take someone into custody and not release any information which goes against the idea of a free and open society. When Brent was charged with violating his probation, that information was available to the public. When those charges were dropped, that information was also available.

Breathalyzers give instant results.

They should not have booked him on public intoxication charges when he had zero alcohol in his blood. They don’t have to use this charge. They can take someone into custody as part of a wellness check and for their own protection.
He wouldn’t have been charged with probation violation if they didn’t charge a man who had zero alcohol in his blood with Public intoxication.

kskboys · Jul 14, 2019

superonyx said:
Breathalyzers give instant results.

They should not have booked him on public intoxication charges when he had zero alcohol in his blood. They don’t have to use this charge. They can take someone into custody as part of a wellness check and for their own protection.
He wouldn’t have been charged with probation violation if they didn’t charge a man who had zero alcohol in his blood with Public intoxication.

The guy said he was drunk. You take him in and check it out, to prevent him from injuring himself and others.

If he didn't want to be taken in, he shouldn't have stated he was drunk.

The breathalyzer can be legally refused.

The only issue I have w/ this incident is the cops claiming they smelled alcohol. It's time for that statement to be done away w/, as it's being used by cops as a catchall.

superonyx · Jul 14, 2019

kskboys said:
The guy said he was drunk. You take him in and check it out, to prevent him from injuring himself and others.

If he didn't want to be taken in, he shouldn't have stated he was drunk.

The breathalyzer can be legally refused.

The only issue I have w/ this incident is the cops claiming they smelled alcohol. It's time for that statement to be done away w/, as it's being used by cops as a catchall.

The problem wasn’t that he was taken in. The problem is the police jumped to a public intoxication charge without evidence of him even having an ounce to drink.
I’d just prefer they take him in, let him get an evaluation which included a test and then decide if any charges are warranted. There is no rush to charge someone.

Dodger12 · Jul 14, 2019

superonyx said:
Breathalyzers give instant results.

How do you propose they give an uncooperative and non-compliant individual a breathalyzer?

superonyx said:
They should not have booked him on public intoxication charges when he had zero alcohol in his blood. They don’t have to use this charge. They can take someone into custody as part of a wellness check and for their own protection.
He wouldn’t have been charged with probation violation if they didn’t charge a man who had zero alcohol in his blood with Public intoxication.

Different reports state that Brent admitted to smoking THC and no one knows if he was tested for that which would explain a lot.

https://starlocalmedia.com/coppellg...cle_0bd3d1a4-a40c-11e9-88ff-8b4728f4ef62.html

Either way, I do believe that Brent admitted as much to police which would lead to the charges. In other words, Brent's incoherent and uncooperative actions, coupled with his statements, would lead police to think he was intoxicated.

In any event, once someone starts fighting and needs to be tazed, he'll get a welfare check from prison.

kskboys · Jul 14, 2019

superonyx said:
The problem wasn’t that he was taken in. The problem is the police jumped to a public intoxication charge without evidence of him even having an ounce to drink.
I’d just prefer they take him in, let him get an evaluation which included a test and then decide if any charges are warranted. There is no rush to charge someone.

Public intoxication includes other drugs also. It would take a comprehensive blood test to figure it out. Did they test for other drugs?

Brent's actions suggest some sort of drugs in his system. I don't know the details, but he should've been tested, no doubt.

Dodger12 · Jul 14, 2019

Reid1boys said:
But they arbitrarily said alcohol. You keep saying, "If." If this, if that. Use the facts. He did not violate probation, he was not drunk, he really didn't resist arrest, because an arrest must be lawful. So what was the underlying reason he was arrested for? Alcohol on breath so assuming drunk in public,......obviously that was not the case. Tgats,like saying I suspect you burglarized that house, you are under arrest.....uhm, nah.

Take that Sovereign Citizen stuff elsewhere. By your barometer, everyone that feels they shouldn't be arrested can fight with police because they feel the arrest is unlawful and that makes it OK. It doesn't. Brent acted like a loon and wanted to be uncooperative and non-compliant. This is what happens under those scenarios, mental illness or not.

nightrain · Jul 14, 2019

I didn't really follow this story, but how did the media's portrayal of the incident fit the now known facts?

CWR · Jul 14, 2019

TheCount said:
Go for it, I've got time. I'd really love to see my hypocrisy pointed out.

So you don't see the hypocrisy in sarcastically commenting about how you would have "definitely tased him and threw him to the ground?"

Then you comment later that you "dont fault the way they handled it."

Cmon man, you're talking out both sides of your mouth. I asked you multiple times how you think things should have been handled and you have offered no solutions only sarcasm. Just stop already.

TheCount · Jul 14, 2019

CowboysWillRise said:
So you don't see the hypocrisy in sarcastically commenting about how you would have "definitely tased him and threw him to the ground?"

Then you comment later that you "dont fault the way they handled it."

Cmon man, you're talking out both sides of your mouth. I asked you multiple times how you think things should have been handled and you have offered no solutions only sarcasm. Just stop already.

Let me make sure I even understand your point.

You're saying that my belief that I don't fault them for handling it the way they handled it knowing what they knew, while also believing they could have handled it better if they had better training, is me talking about both sides of my mouth?

Asking me what I would have done is pointless. The fact that I have an internet connection and a keyboard doesn't mean I have to put my stupid opinion out there as fact, all I'm saying is ideally you don't tase a guy having a mental breakdown because you assumed he's drunk.

It's not a controversial point of view just because you disagree.

CWR · Jul 14, 2019

TheCount said:
Let me make sure I even understand your point.

You're saying that my belief that I don't fault them for handling it the way they handled it knowing what they knew, while also believing they could have handled it better if they had better training, is me talking about both sides of my mouth?

Asking me what I would have done is pointless. The fact that I have an internet connection and a keyboard doesn't mean I have to put my stupid opinion out there as fact, all I'm saying is ideally you don't tase a guy having a mental breakdown because you assumed he's drunk.

It's not a controversial point of view just because you disagree.

No not at all, I read your initial posts as a complete lack of agreement for how pd handled the incident. Your first few responses to me came off very sarcastic and disapproving.

I tried to explain the burden that was placed on pd the moment they were dispatched to Brent. I honestly did not think you appreciated the dilemma they faced.

As our exchanges progressed you then seemed to become agreeable with pd and only wished they had more training to deal with such incidents.

Maybe you meant to convey that message all along and either didn't express it or I simply didn't take the time to try and understand your point.

Fwiw, I think we agree for the most part in that, Pd should be trained for such situations. While it may or not have helped on this call, Im hard pressed to believe more training would be a bad thing. I only asked what you would have done because your initial replies I read as quite critical of how this was managed. You are right it doesn't matter what you would've done because you weren't there. I only wanted to know how this could have been avoided. I think you've answered that regardless.

Melonfeud · Jul 14, 2019

superonyx said:
Breathalyzers give instant results.

They should not have booked him on public intoxication charges when he had zero alcohol in his blood. They don’t have to use this charge. They can take someone into custody as part of a wellness check and for their own protection.
He wouldn’t have been charged with probation violation if they didn’t charge a man who had zero alcohol in his blood with Public intoxication.

Yes,the breathalyzer machine definitely makes quick work between fact& fantasy.
( without going into a long winded "self account of a "this happened to me" ,,,I'd gotten hauled down to county by a state trooper to 'blow'( I'd wrecked my motorcycle),,,,well, I thought I'd out snooker them & only "act" like I was giving a forceful heave from the bellows on that white colored tube attached to a green colored metal machine
(it was about the size of an early commercially available kitchen microwave oven),,, those cops became irate & pulled out their billy-clubs and started closing the distance in order to make me comply,,, so,,,I blew so hard I cracked out with a foghorn raspy fart,,,they started busting up laughing,,,and that's the straight up truth

Reid1boys · Jul 14, 2019

Dodger12 said:
Take that Sovereign Citizen stuff elsewhere. By your barometer, everyone that feels they shouldn't be arrested can fight with police because they feel the arrest is unlawful and that makes it OK. It doesn't. Brent acted like a loon and wanted to be uncooperative and non-compliant. This is what happens under those scenarios, mental illness or not.

I'm not a sovereign citizen......you just do as you've stated....comply to your masters. It's all good, after all, they always say, just comply and nothing will go wrong. Tell that to the guy that was blasted in front of his girlfriend and she live streamed it on facebook.

Reid1boys · Jul 14, 2019

Cowfan75 said:
Lol...cops don't protect me? Man, that's breaking news!! Astonishing. So, if you call a cop on a prowler, and they show up and arrest the guy before he breaks in, they aren't protecting you? Or if cops arrest a drunk driver who might have been minutes from crashing into an SUV and killing a family, that isn't protecting people? Fascinating.
I do hope you got that safety on that 9mm. I'd be a little nervous you might blow a couple toes off or something.

I'm pretty sure my time in the marine corps and the 6 months on the gulf war taught me a little about weapons. But go ahead, wait for the police to fill out that report after you've been burglarized. I'm sure they will be right over. By the way, I personally split police into two categories. 1 is when policecrespond to a call for service. In that case, they are probably outstanding 99% of the time. The second is when they initiate contact via traffic stops. I'd say they are far below outstanding in those situations 50% of the time. Obviously, that's a guess, but in my own experience, those numbers are acurate.

Josh Brent wasn't Drinking

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Since 1971

Well-Known Member

Pixel Pusher

Well-Known Member

I Copy!,,, er,,,I guess,,,ah,,,maybe.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member