Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Which instruction was unecessary? I didn't hear one, I might have missed it I am slow at times.Read it again. I said, ". . . required and necessary instructions."U finally said it, as long as u comply with the officers instructions. Why is this so hard. I agree there r officers who deserve the title of "pig" but not every cop who uses force is wrong, come on people. I also agree it's human nature to want to rebel, but when I became a man I put away childish things.Most people do. But some cops find it hard to understand the extreme difference between a benign traffic offense and a serious felony.Like I said respect law enforcement n things like this will seldom happen
With the exception of servile authoritarian sycophants, no one likes being pulled over by a cop for speeding even though they know the practice is necessary to preserve the rules of order and safety. The situation is analogous to something I'm recalling from my grade-school days -- the hallway monitors.
I don't know if they had them in public schools but in the Catholic school I attended the nuns and brothers would appoint a student to act as monitor when they left the room or during movement in the corridors. The purpose of these monitors was to inform on students who misbehaved in the teacher's absence. Even though we knew these monitors served a necessary purpose most resented their authority and held them in quiet contempt. And while we would comply with a monitor's order to keep quiet or stop horsing around our disposition toward them was casually disrespectful.
Although very few are aware of it, except for the issuance of threats or personal insults there is no law against behaving disrespectfully toward a traffic cop. As long as one complies with the required and necessary instructions there is no existing protocol concerning one's verbal transaction with the officiating police officer. You produce your documentation, the cop does a computer run and issues a summons or a warning. That's it.
In this example, as in the Sandra Bland example, the cop stepped way over the line and tried to justify it with the usual contrived bullshit. But the video will sink him.
If a cop pulls you over for speeding and instructs you to drop your pants and prepare for a rectal cavity search (don't think it hasn't happened Video shows white cops performing roadside cavity search of black man ) what would you do?
Start with the fact that the reason for police involvement was a speeding offense. Not a felony. Not even a Class-D misdemeanor. Review the situation including the outcome and its potential consequences and it should occur to you -- just as by now it has occurred to the would-be Cossack who created it and undoubtedly has begun to seriously contemplate the value of discretion and reasoned judgment.Which instruction was unecessary? I didn't hear one, I might have missed it I am slow at times.
All I can do is keep telling you poor, pathetic, cop whores this...
WE ARE NOT THE SLAVES OF COPS.
We do NOT have to genuflect any time they demand we do so, just because they are cops. You morons do the same thing with the SCOTUS. Somewhere you've gotten the impression that they are our fucking masters, and there's nothing we can do except EXACTLY as they say, exactly when they say we should do it...and if we argue or fail or criticize, then it's okay for them to shoot us, beat us up, throw us in prison, take our property, whatever.
Wake the fuck up, you poor pathetic sheep.
Oh, an anarchist.
Bullshit. I BELIEVE in the law, as it is defined in the CONSTITUTION of this country, and cops are not abiding by it. And you morons who think that anything a cop does is *ok* cuz he's a cop, and who think it's okay for them to be FEDERALLY funded and militarized, are the ones who are spitting on the law. Not me.
Understanding one's rights and liberties does not make one an anarchist.All I can do is keep telling you poor, pathetic, cop whores this...
WE ARE NOT THE SLAVES OF COPS.
We do NOT have to genuflect any time they demand we do so, just because they are cops. You morons do the same thing with the SCOTUS. Somewhere you've gotten the impression that they are our fucking masters, and there's nothing we can do except EXACTLY as they say, exactly when they say we should do it...and if we argue or fail or criticize, then it's okay for them to shoot us, beat us up, throw us in prison, take our property, whatever.
Wake the fuck up, you poor pathetic sheep.
Oh, an anarchist.
Really?When, under the law, they ask you to do something for which their job allows them to do, you oppose it. That's because you're an anarchist that thinks you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, and no one should say a word to you.
[...]
This discussion is not about resistance to questioning. It's about resistance to being ordered to sit in a car with the door closed on a mid-July day in Texas when there is no sensible reason for it.When, under the law, they ask you to do something for which their job allows them to do, you oppose it. That's because you're an anarchist that thinks you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, and no one should say a word to you.
I believe that when a cop feels the need to ask you a question because he/she is doing their job, it really doesn't whether YOU like it or think it's OK.
This discussion is not about resistance to questioning. It's about resistance to being ordered to sit in a car with the door closed on a mid-July day in Texas when there is no sensible reason for it.When, under the law, they ask you to do something for which their job allows them to do, you oppose it. That's because you're an anarchist that thinks you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, and no one should say a word to you.
I believe that when a cop feels the need to ask you a question because he/she is doing their job, it really doesn't whether YOU like it or think it's OK.
If you watch the tv documentary series, COPS, you will find some cops really enjoy having people respond to their commands like trained dogs: "Sit down!, Stand up!, Turn around!, Lie face down!, Hands behind your head!, Walk backward!, Get on your knees!," and more. Sometimes there is a good reason for it, very often it is plainly excessive and unnecessary.
Really?When, under the law, they ask you to do something for which their job allows them to do, you oppose it. That's because you're an anarchist that thinks you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, and no one should say a word to you.
[...]
How about if a cop decides he wants to look up your asshole during a traffic stop. Would you obediently drop your pants and submit to that? (Don't think it hasn't happened!)
Raw: SC Police Conduct Casual Roadside Exam of Man’s Rectum, Mistakes Hemorrhoid for Drugs - Occupy the Media
The War on Drugs is transforming American police into something resembling the old KGB -- and that's no exaggeration.
We will just have to disagree on this one. Placing no blame on this women is just plain n simple wrong.Start with the fact that the reason for police involvement was a speeding offense. Not a felony. Not even a Class-D misdemeanor. Review the situation including the outcome and its potential consequences and it should occur to you -- just as by now it has occurred to the would-be Cossack who created it and undoubtedly has begun to seriously contemplate the value of discretion and reasoned judgment.Which instruction was unecessary? I didn't hear one, I might have missed it I am slow at times.
No, it is AGAINST THE LAW to pursue people who don't pull over, unless they have warrants for them or they pose an IMMINENT THREAT (as in, they were just engaged in a shootout).If she did in fact commit the offense of running from him, then it's time for him to pursue and arrest her -- not before she commits the offense. He has no business detaining people on the basis of his presumptive suspicions. Just because a lot of cops are exceeding their authority and getting away with it doesn't mean it's legal.I can understand his suspicion that she might try and make a run for it.
[...]
I suspect that depends on geography.No, it is AGAINST THE LAW to pursue people who don't pull over, unless they have warrants for them or they pose an IMMINENT THREAT (as in, they were just engaged in a shootout).If she did in fact commit the offense of running from him, then it's time for him to pursue and arrest her -- not before she commits the offense. He has no business detaining people on the basis of his presumptive suspicions. Just because a lot of cops are exceeding their authority and getting away with it doesn't mean it's legal.I can understand his suspicion that she might try and make a run for it.
[...]
I said "run" from him, not drive fast from him. So if she did take off running while he was writing a summons he would have lawful authority to pursue.No, it is AGAINST THE LAW to pursue people who don't pull over, unless they have warrants for them or they pose an IMMINENT THREAT (as in, they were just engaged in a shootout).If she did in fact commit the offense of running from him, then it's time for him to pursue and arrest her -- not before she commits the offense. He has no business detaining people on the basis of his presumptive suspicions. Just because a lot of cops are exceeding their authority and getting away with it doesn't mean it's legal.I can understand his suspicion that she might try and make a run for it.
[...]
Where is it against the law for police to pursue a motorist who does not stop when signaled to do so -- regardless of absence of warrants or threatening circumstances? Because I see that done all the time in just about every jurisdiction in the U.S.No, it is AGAINST THE LAW to pursue people who don't pull over, unless they have warrants for them or they pose an IMMINENT THREAT (as in, they were just engaged in a shootout).
The woman was being a pain in the ass. Still, it is up to the cop to be professional.We will just have to disagree on this one. Placing no blame on this women is just plain n simple wrong.Start with the fact that the reason for police involvement was a speeding offense. Not a felony. Not even a Class-D misdemeanor. Review the situation including the outcome and its potential consequences and it should occur to you -- just as by now it has occurred to the would-be Cossack who created it and undoubtedly has begun to seriously contemplate the value of discretion and reasoned judgment.Which instruction was unecessary? I didn't hear one, I might have missed it I am slow at times.
There have been innocent people killed as a result of police high speed chases. Some jurisdictions have debated about when cops should not pursue due to safety reasons.Where is it against the law for police to pursue a motorist who does not stop when signaled to do so -- regardless of absence of warrants or threatening circumstances? Because I see that done all the time in just about every jurisdiction in the U.S.No, it is AGAINST THE LAW to pursue people who don't pull over, unless they have warrants for them or they pose an IMMINENT THREAT (as in, they were just engaged in a shootout).
If what you've said is true it is news to me. And if you can provide a credible link to the specifics I will be very grateful.
He had her freakin' ID.I said "run" from him, not drive fast from him. So if she did take off running while he was writing a summons he would have lawful authority to pursue.No, it is AGAINST THE LAW to pursue people who don't pull over, unless they have warrants for them or they pose an IMMINENT THREAT (as in, they were just engaged in a shootout).If she did in fact commit the offense of running from him, then it's time for him to pursue and arrest her -- not before she commits the offense. He has no business detaining people on the basis of his presumptive suspicions. Just because a lot of cops are exceeding their authority and getting away with it doesn't mean it's legal.I can understand his suspicion that she might try and make a run for it.
[...]
A sensible cop would have weighed the circumstances, ignored King's comments, told her to wait until he ran her license, issued a summons and said goodbye. This guy chose to follow his authority fantasies and created a major incident that will be costing the Austin taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.The woman was being a pain in the ass. Still, it is up to the cop to be professional.
" Almost all U.S. law enforcement agencies have adopted a restrictive pursuit policy, according to the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). Much to the dismay of TV executives, most cops will no longer conduct long chases that start when the officer tries to pull a motorist over for a broken taillight (though cops still chase suspected felons and other serious bad guys.)"Where is it against the law for police to pursue a motorist who does not stop when signaled to do so -- regardless of absence of warrants or threatening circumstances? Because I see that done all the time in just about every jurisdiction in the U.S.No, it is AGAINST THE LAW to pursue people who don't pull over, unless they have warrants for them or they pose an IMMINENT THREAT (as in, they were just engaged in a shootout).
If what you've said is true it is news to me. And if you can provide a credible link to the specifics I will be very grateful.
