A messy circumstance: A deadly Drive-Thru

Yet another Monday went by, yet another black man in America dies from a police shooting. As the world saw their eyes open from the sadistic killing of George Floyd, people mobilized and hit the streets to protest. That too during a pandemic unlike any the world had ever seen. One could do well to understand the gravitas of the situation, the frustration of the people down on the streets, the fact that they choose to contract a deadly disease than to continue to suffer under a systemic abuse of their rights not just as a citizen but as a human being.

As the story has been seen, Rayshard Brooks, a black man from Atlanta, was shot dead near a drive thru at a local Wendy’s. The man was probably inebriated when he came by to the drive-thru and subsequently fell asleep. The other customers simply drove past him to place their orders as they weren’t really bothered by a man sleeping in his car. Soon a Wendy’s employee calls the police on Brooks. The police came, took him out of the car and talked to him. In the video, Rayshard can clearly be seen drunk, but still being respectful to the cops, and for a change the cops to were respectful of him and talking courteously. This went on for about 30 mins or so and it seemed it would have a normal ending and not result in the death of another black man. However, what happened next ensured that this was going to be yet another story with an abnormal ending that has become too common place when we see a black man interacting with the police. The police suddenly move to arrest him, and tase him. Rayshard slips from their grip, takes their taser and tries to run away. One of the officers shoots him not once, not twice but thrice and Brooks dies. At this point I guess everyone moves to their battle stations, the right portraying this as a black man being a criminal, and the left showing an innocent man dying at the hands of the police. But that is not the case, the story is messy. The fact that they talked to him for so long and things seemed so calm – he seemed respectful and cooperative, doing everything he could to be reasonable – he probably felt safe and that things would ride out okay.  Then suddenly they’re breaking this rapport they’ve built with him, doing a 180 and putting him under arrest.  He was drunk, and it upended how he thought things were going – fight or flight kicked in and he panicked.  It wasn’t the right thing to do, but I do think it was understandable.  The officer was unable to retain control of his Taser, but the ability of Rayshard to hurt anyone at that point was pretty minimal.  He was running away.  Lethal force ultimately didn’t belong anywhere in that equation. It was much more complicated than just a cop killing another black man; however, it was also more than just a case of a man breaking the law, threatening a cop, and dying for it. A situation like this requires close attention to detail and logical deduction to figure out if the actions were justified. In my opinion, this situation was not a hate crime, but a failure of our system to properly train cops to handle scenarios like this one. I ask that people on either side of this argument challenge what I am about to say. Rayshard Brooks broke the law by driving drunk. He resisted arrest, stole a cop’s taser and pointed it at them as he tried to escape. We can all agree that he should not have done this and should have been arrested. But was shooting him really the proper way to handle the situation? To answer this, the details need to be analysed and certain questions need to be addressed: Should the cop have really feared for his life when Brooks pointed a taser at him? How does a drunk man not only escape from the custody of two cops, but also take one of their tasers? What is the worst-case scenario if Brooks escapes? And does tasing a cop warrant a death sentence? I would answer these by saying that shooting Rayshard Brooks was not the proper way to handle the situation. The officer was not in a life-threatening situation and if you are going to shoot and kill somebody, it should only be as a last resort because of a real threat. In regards to his escape, I wonder how two trained officers failed to properly detain a drunk man and allow him to take one of their weapons. And in situations like this, why is the first option to shoot someone? Worst case scenario is he gets away with a taser. Shouldn’t they chase him down, call for backup, or at the very worst shoot him once and not three times? Seriously think about that, why do cops have to instantly shoot someone who is breaking the law? Doesn’t there have to be a trial with a judge and jury to determine if someone’s actions warrant a death sentence? Why do cops get to make this decision on impulse? And why do they need qualified immunity for when they do kill someone? If you are in real danger and need your gun, you don’t worry about the trouble you get in for using your weapon because it is either your life or theirs. If you have to question whether using your weapon is justified, then you probably don’t need to use your weapon.

Now this may have been swept under the rug under normal circumstances, but due to the current scenario it seems vital that this be thought about.

What happens next is for all of us to see.