Ask a cop a question...

[Sunshine]

If you were keeping score at home, and want the answer to how many times that driver failed to comply with the police officer's perfectly clear directions, then you probably lost count.

Cops can be wrong, too. But that driver brought this shit down on his own dumb ass.

Cops have EVERY right to want to make it home at the end of their tour of duty each work day, and when they make ANY traffic stop, it could be their last. This leads to a very simple rule. Pull the fuck over. Turn on the inside dome light. Put your hands ON the wheel so the cop can SEE them. Let the police officer feel perfectly safe and do and say whatever he needs to do and say. (What's the fuckin' big deal? You're gonna get a damn ticket you can fight in Court? Give me a break. Just take the fuckin' ticket and suck it up.)

That driver COULD have and should have stayed in the car and, going out on a wild limb here, complied with the officer's perfectly reasonable directions. He wouldn't have gotten tazed. End of story.

The cop could easily have explained why he stopped him and simply written a ticket. Instead he chose to escalate the situation, call in backup, and deliver a potentially lethal shock to someone simply because he was annoyed.

I agree. When I see these, I put myself in the scenario. As a young person, I was taught to always get out of the car if stopped so the police would know they had nothing to fear. Now, I sometimes use a cane, and I have to wonder if it could be mistaken through the windshield for a rifle and get me shot on sight. Also, I have two knee replacements. There is no way I could get down on my knees.

Thank God she wasn't tasered, but a few years back my 72 year old SIL crossed a line, was stopped by the police, and thrown up against the car. We are entering a time when much of our population is going to be elderly. Things are going to happen, but it does not seem that the authorities are being given any specialized training.

 

[Sunshine]

Great comeback.

Prove me wrong. The video clearly shows a guy in the wrong. illustrate your position with law.

The video shows a citizen who has committed no crime and is demanding to know why he was stopped by a police officer. It further shows him complying with an order to turn around. It further shows him complying with an order to place his hands on his head. At that point the police officer's safety was sufficiently assured. The citizen was facing away from the officer with hands on his head. The officer was aiming a handgun at the citizen and police assistance was on the way.

The pivotal factor in this scenario was the third plainly redundant command to, "Get on your knees!" At that point the citizen chose to exercise what he believed to be his right to refuse. Evidently the court agreed with him because, as I am told, he has been absolved and awarded damages. What I am mainly curious about is the willingness of so many here to completely disregard the the right of an innocent citizen to refuse to get on his knees when there is no demanding or expedient need to do so. And with regard to this specific incident, I really don't want to hear the standard routine that the reason for this oppressive command is the interest of "officer safety." That extreme level of "Procedure" is okay when an officer has cause to know a subject is dangerous. But in this instance the officer's safety was assured when the man turned his back and placed his hands on his head. It should have ended right there.

Correct. He was not under arrest and was free to leave at any point during this stop.

 

[Sunshine]

Guys, guys, guys . . . .

It is called the Police Power. It is meant both literally and figuratively. Police officers have every right to order citizens to do or not do certain things, within reason, in certain situations, within reason.

Can a police officer walk into a super market and order a woman to undress in one of the aisles? Obviously not. That would not be reasonable - not even close. Can the officer order a driver back into his car during a traffic stop? Of course. Perfectly reasonable. If the driver refuses to obey, can the officer take stronger measures? Of course, provided they are also reasonable.

This officer gave this moron EVERY CHANCE IN THE WORLD AND THEN SOME to comply with his orders. Stronger measures were called for and used. They didn't shoot him. That would have been unreasonable under the circumstances. Taser? I think it was justified. Why? The officer did not know what they guy might have had in his pocket or stuck in his waist band. Notice that nothing had been done to determine that. The guy was clearly not complying with any orders.

You guys know me - I am far from being a police apologist. In fact, I make my living in large part challenging police action. I think this was justified.

Guys, guys, guys....


It's called the 4th Amendment. Citizens have rights.

 

[Tank]

As a young person, I was taught to always get out of the car if stopped so the police would know they had nothing to fear.

Even if the cop is telling you to stay in you're car?

 

[Tank]

Yes. He did issue that command, repeatedly, along with other commands. But to be law-abiding does not mean being innately submissive to authority.

There are two distinctly different personality types participating in this thread. Type A is the Authoritarian/Submissive type. Type B is not. Whether you would comply with the command to "Stay in your car!" is one thing. How you feel about it is quite another.

"Type B" sure was submissive when he got that taser in his ass

"Type B" broke the law.

 

[Colin]

Aww, did da widdle grwump git negged? Stop posting bs, you won't.

Nah. He isn't complaining. Just laughing at the the one who negged him a massive 3 points!

Where in his post was he laughing? You're an idiot. How many times have you been tazed?

So you don't understand plain English? You're beginning to sound like someone else the way you call everyone an idiot. Ever considered taking a step back and looking at yourself?

 

[Sunshine]

Is OS a sock puppet...

And I was what I said I was...long time ago...

BS, show us. You're a fraud.

he doesn't have to "show" you anything. you're a sockpuppet hack troll.

he's been one of my closest friends for 8 years. and he is exactly what he says.

and you're a loser.... who just got negged.

Make that a double~

 

[Sunshine]

As a young person, I was taught to always get out of the car if stopped so the police would know they had nothing to fear.

Even if the cop is telling you to stay in you're car?

I grew up in the 50s and 60s, we were taught that the cops were there to protect and serve. The older I get, and given the law I learned over the last decade, I have come to disbelieve that. These things have nothing to do with law enforcement. They are all about oppression.

Opposite scenario: (I will try to find a link, but can't promise as I believe this was a local case.) Handicapped man was ordered OUT of the car. He was crippled and couldn't stand. Cop goes to the car, drags him out and almost drags the man's kneecaps off on the pavement. Law enforcement? NOT! He got a nice settlement as well.

I have worked in psychiatry for 22 years. Bottom line, people are going to challenge you when you are in a position of authority. No two people are alike, and no two will respond to the same 'commands.' It is the responsibility of the professional and his agency to make sure he/she can handle all kinds of situations. This was a buzzard fuck. I hope the officer got his ass nailed to an oak tree.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes. He did issue that command, repeatedly, along with other commands. But to be law-abiding does not mean being innately submissive to authority.

There are two distinctly different personality types participating in this thread. Type A is the Authoritarian/Submissive type. Type B is not. Whether you would comply with the command to "Stay in your car!" is one thing. How you feel about it is quite another.

"Type B" sure was submissive when he got that taser in his ass

"Type B" broke the law.

Type B was never charged with anything but having a crooked front license plate, and won his lawsuit.

 

[Tank]

Yes. He did issue that command, repeatedly, along with other commands. But to be law-abiding does not mean being innately submissive to authority.

There are two distinctly different personality types participating in this thread. Type A is the Authoritarian/Submissive type. Type B is not. Whether you would comply with the command to "Stay in your car!" is one thing. How you feel about it is quite another.

"Type B" sure was submissive when he got that taser in his ass

"Type B" broke the law.

Type B was never charged with anything but having a crooked front license plate, and won his lawsuit.

Link?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Type B" sure was submissive when he got that taser in his ass

"Type B" broke the law.

Type B was never charged with anything but having a crooked front license plate, and won his lawsuit.

Link?

Read the OP, I provided it then. Of you actually read the stuff instead of just watching the video you would not look like an idiot about this.

 

[MikeK]

"Type B" sure was submissive when he got that taser in his ass

"Type B" broke the law.

Type B was never charged with anything but having a crooked front license plate, and won his lawsuit.

Link?

EXCLUSIVE: Bountiful City settles taser lawsuit - ABC 4.com - Salt Lake City, Utah News

 

[Sunshine]

Yes. He did issue that command, repeatedly, along with other commands. But to be law-abiding does not mean being innately submissive to authority.

There are two distinctly different personality types participating in this thread. Type A is the Authoritarian/Submissive type. Type B is not. Whether you would comply with the command to "Stay in your car!" is one thing. How you feel about it is quite another.

"Type B" sure was submissive when he got that taser in his ass

"Type B" broke the law.

Type B was never charged with anything but having a crooked front license plate, and won his lawsuit.

So it is a crime for your license plate to be crooked?

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

You won't find me defending police brutality, police paramilitary (swat) teams, or police abuse of search and seizure.

That being said, I don't find this to be "excessive force". I think the officer acted in a manner that was prudent for his safety and the safety of the individual involved. The guy got out of the car with his hands in his pocket and walked towards the police officer and then ignored his commands to turn around and put his hands on his heads for 3 solid minutes. The driver provoked this situation, not the cop.

 

[oldsalt]

Yes. He did issue that command, repeatedly, along with other commands. But to be law-abiding does not mean being innately submissive to authority.

There are two distinctly different personality types participating in this thread. Type A is the Authoritarian/Submissive type. Type B is not. Whether you would comply with the command to "Stay in your car!" is one thing. How you feel about it is quite another.

"Type B" sure was submissive when he got that taser in his ass

"Type B" broke the law.

 

[oldsalt]

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.

You won't find me defending police brutality, police paramilitary (swat) teams, or police abuse of search and seizure.

That being said, I don't find this to be "excessive force". I think the officer acted in a manner that was prudent for his safety and the safety of the individual involved. The guy got out of the car with his hands in his pocket and walked towards the police officer and then ignored his commands to turn around and put his hands on his heads for 3 solid minutes. The driver provoked this situation, not the cop.

Bingo.

 

[oldsalt]

Nah. He isn't complaining. Just laughing at the the one who negged him a massive 3 points!

Where in his post was he laughing? You're an idiot. How many times have you been tazed?

So you don't understand plain English? You're beginning to sound like someone else the way you call everyone an idiot. Ever considered taking a step back and looking at yourself?

apparently, you can't read. Try again.

 

[geauxtohell]

Now this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjM2d20He2Q&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - ‪Minneapolis Cop Tasers Man With Hands On Squad Car‬‏[/ame]

Is fucking police brutality.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Read the OP, I provided it then. Of you actually read the stuff instead of just watching the video you would not look like an idiot about this.

Or anything else, for that matter.

That being said, I don't find this to be "excessive force". I think the officer acted in a manner that was prudent for his safety and the safety of the individual involved. The guy got out of the car with his hands in his pocket and walked towards the police officer and then ignored his commands to turn around and put his hands on his heads for 3 solid minutes. The driver provoked this situation, not the cop.

Consider this not being the issue, rather the needless stop itself. Making the question of ‘excessive force’ or who provoked whom moot.

 

[geauxtohell]

If you were keeping score at home, and want the answer to how many times that driver failed to comply with the police officer's perfectly clear directions, then you probably lost count.

Cops can be wrong, too. But that driver brought this shit down on his own dumb ass.

Cops have EVERY right to want to make it home at the end of their tour of duty each work day, and when they make ANY traffic stop, it could be their last. This leads to a very simple rule. Pull the fuck over. Turn on the inside dome light. Put your hands ON the wheel so the cop can SEE them. Let the police officer feel perfectly safe and do and say whatever he needs to do and say. (What's the fuckin' big deal? You're gonna get a damn ticket you can fight in Court? Give me a break. Just take the fuckin' ticket and suck it up.)

That driver COULD have and should have stayed in the car and, going out on a wild limb here, complied with the officer's perfectly reasonable directions. He wouldn't have gotten tazed. End of story.

I almost wonder if the driver provoked this situation simply to sue.