Ask a cop a question...

[geauxtohell]

You see I see it differently. I don't see him as being hostile at all. He eventually gets agitated, but the first thing he asks - in what I consider a reasonable tone - is "why was I stopped?". No cussing, no walking around macho, no attempt to run, no flipping the bird - nothing.

I didn't see the driver even being unruly until a few good minutes into the video, and the cop just constantly yelling at him.

I see Harper's behaviour as totally normal - in the beginning. he was not being unreasonable in any way, shape or form IMO...

In this country if you get stopped by a police car you stay in the car. You don't go outside, walking toward the police officer, demanding to know the reason for the stop.

If he tells you to get in the car, you get in. And if he tells you to get out of the car, you get out. And if he tells you to stand over here, you do it. And if he tells you to stand over there, you do it. And if he tells you to turn around, you do it. And if he tells you to put your hands on your head, you do it. And if he tells you to get on your knees, you do it. And so on.

There is a game that some people play called Bondage and Domination. One of the participants in this forum, Cecilie, can tell you all about it because she is a dominatrix, which is a woman whose definitive role is to dress in an authoritative costume (uniform) and impose her will on submissive men.

Dr. Erich Fromm has written a few extremely interesting chapters on the subject of emerging authoritarianism in American society in his classic, Escape From Freedom. In these chapters he explores the subliminal dynamic of Sado/Masochistic sexual activity and its relationship to real world behaviors in which dominance and submission are played out.

You might find Escape From Freedom interesting as well as educational. (Available from Amazon in paperback.)

Seriously. The psychobabble as applied to this scenario and posters commenting on it is pretty comical. Now you are going to go all Freud on us and say this all has to do with sex somehow? Get real.

I just see this logically. If this driver had sat in his car and the officer had gone up and started screaming at him and hassling him and told him to get out of the car and on his knees, it would be a completely different situation. There is nothing "submissive" about sitting in your care and waiting for a law enforcement officer to come up before you start questioning his authority.

You guys keep wanting to omit that Harper made a routine stop a tense situation where an officer had to draw his weapon.

That to me is the curious thing. I don't see Harper as a "civil libertarian". I suspect he acted the way he did because he had a shitty day at work or his girlfriend dumped him and he was at his wit's end or he has some sort of personality disorder/impulse control issue or a lawsuit was his intended outcome or he was trying to draw attention away from some other facet of his life or vehicle (though I am sure they searhed him and did all the labs).

I can't reconcile why Harper went fucking ballistic on the cop and I don't think it's because he is some sort of "I don't bow to authority crusader".

 

[geauxtohell]

And people wonder why crime rates are so high............

Ollie,

The U.S. has the highest per capita prison census in the world and we spend far more money on law enforcement than any other nation in the world. The problem is the bulk of those resources are diverted to the counterproductive purpose of fighting the failed War On Drugs.

Fully two thirds of our massive prison populations are there for drug-related offenses. As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, and as you'll see for yourself if you'll watch the COPS tv series, our police are preoccupied with making drug arrests (because of the federal subsidies) which undoubtedly was the motivation for the bullshit car-stop we're discussing. And as Quantum Windbag has correctly observed, the amount of resources wasted on such activities, which are considerable, could be devoted to lowering the real crime rate.

So I respectfully suggest that you're pointing your finger in the wrong direction.

I thought this was all about a crooked license plate.

 

[CMike]

I'll agree that you can get out, but the second a cop tells you to get back in, it's a lawful order.

So if he doesn't like the way you are walking down the street, or your clothes are too loud, or your mohawk haircut is an afront to civilisation, or he likes loud music, but just not your loud music? Where is the line drawn.

I have deliberately given examples that could set him off as opposed to ridiculous answers such as him not liking the colour of your car, or the fact you eat M&Ms....

Steps that help ensure the safety of the police officer.

 

[CMike]

Police can only give orders in very limited circumstances, this is not one of them.

and you base that on??

Police cannot order you to let them into your house.
Police cannot order you to talk to them without an lawyer.
Police cannot order you to let them search your car.

What makes you think police have broad powers to give orders?

That's because there are specific laws that don't allow this, i.e. search and seizure, 5th amendment, etc.

There is no protection against being ordered back into a car by a police officer.

 

[CMike]

I ask cops questions all the time... course thats in the court room. I dont think the judge would appreciate them tazing me.

That might depend on the judge

 

[CMike]

I see Harper's behaviour as totally normal - in the beginning. he was not being unreasonable in any way, shape or form IMO...

i think part of the problem is a function of custom. in this country, if i'm pulled over, i have to keep my hands visible and open the driver's side window. getting out of the car without being asked to is considered threatening behavior. in such an instance, the officer has the right to assume that he is in danger and can act accordingly.

in this case, it appears the person kept walking toward the officer despite being asked to stop. his hands were pocketed and could have concealed anything. the officer was entitled to act with reasonable force to protect himself...in this case using a taser and not deadly force.

Jillian his reaction is normal, at least with me it is. If I know that have have been wrongly stopped I will treat the cop like an ass.

That would be a really dumb thing to do. You are not going to win a power stuggle against a cop.

If you have a problem with a cop either

1) Ask for the supervisor

2) Go the next day and make a complaint with the supervisor

 

[CMike]

That's my point.

If it is not illegal to get out of a car during a traffic stop it is not lawful to order someone to get back into one.

I think it's lawful for a police officer to order someone back into a car.

Can you legally support your assertion?

I'll agree that you can get out, but the second a cop tells you to get back in, it's a lawful order.

Why wouldn't it be?

Because lawful orders can only be issued in a situation where what you are doing is endangering the public, interfering with a police investigation, or breaking a law. That means that, unless it is illegal to get out of a car, it is not lawful to order someone to get back into the car. He can be told to get out of the street, but not to get in the car.

Please quote the part of the statute that say this?

 

[CMike]

And people wonder why crime rates are so high............

Ollie,

The U.S. has the highest per capita prison census in the world and we spend far more money on law enforcement than any other nation in the world. The problem is the bulk of those resources are diverted to the counterproductive purpose of fighting the failed War On Drugs.

Fully two thirds of our massive prison populations are there for drug-related offenses. As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, and as you'll see for yourself if you'll watch the COPS tv series, our police are preoccupied with making drug arrests (because of the federal subsidies) which undoubtedly was the motivation for the bullshit car-stop we're discussing. And as Quantum Windbag has correctly observed, the amount of resources wasted on such activities, which are considerable, could be devoted to lowering the real crime rate.

So I respectfully suggest that you're pointing your finger in the wrong direction.

Crime is so high in the US mainly because of recidivism, repeat offenders.

If the US would lock up serious criminals and keep them there, there would be a lot less crime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Horse shit. Pure fucking horse shit. Please show us where cops are trained to yell out to protect them themselves from lawsuits.... Need a bridge?

Besides I'll never get hit with a taser, I actually have common sense and a respect for law enforcement.

Why do cops always yell "Stop resisting" when people are getting a bet down, or tasered, even when they are suffering from a concussion so severe they could not resist even if they wanted to?

I do not have to provide links to something that happens every single time cops get into a confrontation with a person. I have not demanded you provide links to police being trained to tell people to stay in their car, have I?

Translation: I was talking out my ass and have no real idea what cops are trained to do.

Can you explain why police always say that if they are not trained to say it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And people wonder why crime rates are so high............

The crime rates are going down.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No it's not fuck the police, it's fuck the 85% power hungry punks behind a little piece of metal.

85%? You guys act like you are the victims of consistent police discrimination. The best you can offer is being lawfully stopped by a cop for a traffic offense.

At least NWA had a point. You guys just sound like the typical crotchity white bastard who thinks the rules don't apply to him.

I actually think the rules apply to the police. My question is, why do you think they are exempt?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think it's lawful for a police officer to order someone back into a car.

Can you legally support your assertion?

I'll agree that you can get out, but the second a cop tells you to get back in, it's a lawful order.

Why wouldn't it be?

Because lawful orders can only be issued in a situation where what you are doing is endangering the public, interfering with a police investigation, or breaking a law. That means that, unless it is illegal to get out of a car, it is not lawful to order someone to get back into the car. He can be told to get out of the street, but not to get in the car.

It is perfectly legal for a police officer to give order that secure the safety of the officer and the citizen. You keep making these blanket statements that can't be found anywhere in the code book.

Even if "get back in your car" isn't "lawful" or proper (debatable), every other command he gave was.

If the driver wouldn't have acted erractically, the situation would never have been tense and there would have been no need to draw his weapon or to tell him to put his hands on his head. This officer, who was working on his own and without a partner, was basically left to try and figure out how to make a potentially dangerous situation safer and prevent this guy from getting inadvertantly shot (refer to previous video where the officer would be alive today if he shot the guy (as opposed to pulling out his baton) he pulled over the first time he charged him and put his hands on him.

The driver decided to act like an asshole and, not surprisingly, the situation got out of hand. Then the fuck-stick got a paycheck because his sorry ass got "over tased" when he was on the ground.

The officer that pulled him over wasn't running the taser. I really fail to see how he did anything wrong except try and control the situation.

I am not the one making statements that cannot be found in the law, I am demanding that you prove that your claim is actually in the law. You just assume that what you believe to be true is true. Unless you provide some sort of proof that a person is required to remain in the car ordering them back into the car is not a legal order. The reason police want people to remain in the car is that it gives them an excuse to visually search the car, that makes an order to get in the car the legal equivalent of them ordering you to let them search your car without a warrant.

As for the rest of what he said, a traffic stop does not give police the right to put someone on their knees. They only have that right if they are arresting someone who is actively offering resistance to that arrest. Police are supposed to be trained to handle people who are erratic or mentally deranged. Do you think they should shoot people just because they are crazy?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What? You have to place someone under arrest before you can taze them? That makes no sense.

I did not say that. I said you cannot be resisting arrest unless someone is trying to arrest you. Did you see any evidence of them trying to arrest this guy before they tazed him? Did you hear any of them saying anything about him being under arrest?

I believe the resisting charge stemmed from when they were actually arresting him. No, at no point prior to being tased did someone inform him that he was "under arrest".

I agree that it's silly to charge someone with resisting when they are being hit by a taser. Most likely why they lost on that charge.

Thank you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

it is constitutionally reasonable for officers to order a passenger in lawfully stopped automobile to remain inside the automobile or to reenter the automobile

Traffic Stops and Control of Passengers

That only applies in the 8th, and I disagree with it. If I am a passenger in a car that is stopped for a traffic violation, and I decide to get out and start walking, the police are fucked if they think they can detain me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was asked how I figure that police do not have unlimited power to issue orders, I answered. They might have special trust and duties, but they cannot issue orders unless they have a legitimate reason. Even then, they have to explain why they are issuing said orders and justify the situation and orders.

That's all good and fine, but it is speculatory on your part. We've cited the reasonable statute and there is no indication that any of the things you've reference are not "lawful orders".

Obviously we could come up with examples, but all the commands given to this driver were in the interest of public safety and directly relevant to the stop. I would imagine, if there is a statute on this, that would be the requirement.

As for justification, officers are under no obligation to justify their orders to an un-ruly and uncooperative individual. As we have a courst system for legal recourse (as noted by the state of Indiana), there is a proper venue to challenge and question that. It is not during the stop.

To repeat my point.

Police do not have unlimited authority to issue orders. Why do you keep talking about something that is totally irrelevant to what I am saying?

 

[Intense]

get tazed.

YouTube - ‪Federal Lawsuit after Guy Tasered 6 Times for not Complying after Routine Traffic Stop‬‏

Watch the statists line up to justify this get getting tazed for not following orders.

Guess what, police do not have the power to give orders, all they have the power to do is make requests.

Some back story and thoughtful commentary is found here.

Simple Justice: The First Rule of Policing: A Demonstration

I tend to agree with the idea that the police need to protect themselves first, but this had obviously reached the point where the guy was not a danger to anyone, and there was no need to use force to walk away from the encounter safely. The cop could simply have explained to the otherwise law abiding citizen that he was pulled over because his front license was crooked. Instead he shot him with a deadly weapon.

The Cop was in the Right.
It is dark, it is remote, the Subject was instructed what to do and totally ignored instruction. He should not even have left his vehicle. He remains a total idiot. The Cop does have the Right to Order You.
That said, the Cop was an Asshole, and handled the situation poorly. There were 4 Cops there. They could have easily approached the Subject, spread him out against the car or ground, Frisked him and cuffed him if needed without the tazer. Repeating something that is clearly not working a hundred times is past lame.

 

[MikeK]

it is constitutionally reasonable for officers to order a passenger in lawfully stopped automobile to remain inside the automobile or to reenter the automobile

Traffic Stops and Control of Passengers

(Excerpt)

In conclusion, the rule we can take from Sanders is that it is constitutionally reasonable for officers to order a passenger in lawfully stopped automobile to remain inside the automobile or to reenter the automobile.xii It is important to note that the rule of this case is only binding in the Eighth Circuit, although other Circuits have reached similar results.xiii Other circuits or states may reach a different conclusion.

(Close)

Utah is a Tenth Circuit jurisdiction. So in view of the outcome of the civil litigation the Eighth Circuit rulings evidently do not also apply in Utah.

Even if they did, the essential argument in this discussion is the increasingly extreme nature and gratuitous exercise of police authority, not whether police safety is the supreme concern in all matters. Thus the pivotal question is whether conduct and judgment of the police are what led to the avoidable conclusion.

Consider the fact that the reason for stopping that car on a quiet road at night could not be less significant. Knowing that he has the right to take aggressive action if the driver reacts angrily to being stopped, which is a real possibility, should the officer have weighed that possibility against the relative importance of making the stop? Did he have cause to believe that something he observed about the car or the driving represented a threat to life or property? Is stopping a car on a quiet road at night for a crooked front plate worth the inherent risk?

In the simplest terms, the cop was looking for trouble and he found it. That situation was readily avoidable.

 

[MikeK]

The Cop was in the Right.
It is dark, it is remote, the Subject was instructed what to do and totally ignored instruction. He should not even have left his vehicle. He remains a total idiot. The Cop does have the Right to Order You.
That said, the Cop was an Asshole, and handled the situation poorly. There were 4 Cops there. They could have easily approached the Subject, spread him out against the car or ground, Frisked him and cuffed him if needed without the tazer. Repeating something that is clearly not working a hundred times is past lame.

The voice of the Type-A personality in all its glory.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and you base that on??

Police cannot order you to let them into your house.
Police cannot order you to talk to them without an lawyer.
Police cannot order you to let them search your car.

What makes you think police have broad powers to give orders?

That's because there are specific laws that don't allow this, i.e. search and seizure, 5th amendment, etc.

There is no protection against being ordered back into a car by a police officer.

Those laws also apply to vehicles.

 

[Intense]

The Cop was in the Right.
It is dark, it is remote, the Subject was instructed what to do and totally ignored instruction. He should not even have left his vehicle. He remains a total idiot. The Cop does have the Right to Order You.
That said, the Cop was an Asshole, and handled the situation poorly. There were 4 Cops there. They could have easily approached the Subject, spread him out against the car or ground, Frisked him and cuffed him if needed without the tazer. Repeating something that is clearly not working a hundred times is past lame.

The voice of the Type-A personality in all its glory.

Mike, I've been pulled over many times. I've even had guns pointed against the back of my head. Within reason, you do what you are told, if there is abuse, you fight it out in Court, or at the least in front of Witnesses.

If the Cop pulled him over because his License Plate was crooked, and was planning to ticket him, he is an ass. There are many assholes out there ticketing their Cities out of the red into the green. Yes it sucks.

That said, the last thing one needs to do when pulled over is excite an unknown, armed, and with the Authority to incarcerate you. It truly is not a good idea.

I probably am an A Type, most of us are, until it gets beaten out of you. Still has nothing to do with my perspective. Consider the fact that a Subject could end up incarcerated for doing nothing wrong at all, and end up never living to see the light of day again, because of what goes down on the inside.