Ask a cop a question...

[oldsalt]

Because cops do not have the right to tell me what to do. Period.

Correct. One is only required to identify oneself.

Unless there is reasonable suspicion of a crime, the state should have no interaction with private citizens.

And this ‘traffic stop’ nonsense is the source for most of the problems. There’s no need to pull the citizen over. Simply check to see if there are any warrants and if clear send the motorist a citation in the mail.

I do not blame most cops for this, this is the way they are trained. That does not make them right.

Training is an issue, yes. However there are many attracted to law enforcement who have no business being in law enforcement.

That's bs. Look up the law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nope.

The idiot got out of his car when directed not to do so. He COULD have done something as simple and intelligent as listening and complying promptly AT ANY TIME prior to the taser finale.

Why should the cop NOT be allowed to direct an idiot driver to STAY in the car? It is not an arrest. It is not a threat of violence. It is not jackboots stomping on the Constitution. It is a simple, easy, rational SAFETY need for the cop. Experience teaches cops [and so does training which is informed by collective experience]. The idiot in the car has less opportunity to pull out a gun and level a clean shot at a wary cop. He has almost no chance of pulling a knife. And none of that will be necessary if he sits there like a good boy and waits to see if the cop is going to give him a ticket.

Once the guy got out and then refused to go back AND THEN refused every single direction to turn around, OF COURSE the cop resorted to his training. And if you or I had been trained as cops, we would have done likewise.

I like cops on balance. I detest the ones who cheat and lie. But the majority of them don't. They just go out and perform a sometimes very dangerous public duty. Some do it with more finesse and style and grace. Some with far too little. But I still think a guy that runs TOWARD gunfire -- when instinct tells the rest of us to GET AWAY -- deserves some consideration from the rest of us.

Because cops do not have the right to tell me what to do. Period.

Believe it or not, cops are actually in more danger if the driver stays in the car than if he gets out, so trying to argue that from a safety point means that you have to deal with the fact that the driver can run the cop down or shoot him. Once the driver gets out of the car the officer has a batter view of the driver and has a better chance of seeing potential danger. Police do not want you to stay in the car for their safety, they want you to stay in the car because it gives them a position of dominance by standing over you, and it also allows them to visually search your car. If they were honestly concerned about their safety they would want everyone to pull off the street and step away from their car.

I do not blame most cops for this, this is the way they are trained. That does not make them right.

Wrong.

Cops most assuredly DO have the right, the power and the valid Constitutionally based LEGAL authority under certain circumstances to tell you what to do and what to REFRAIN from doing.

The officer in the case we are discussing TOLD the dopey driver NOT to get out of the car. That SHOULD be the end ofthe discussion. It wasn't because the driver was a dick.

And it escalated when the aforesaid dick continued in many ways and innumerable times to refuse to do the things he was VALIDLY being told to do.

He -- not the cop -- was in the wrong.

That's where the period belongs.

Period.

They certainly have the power to do things under very limited circumstances. Driving down the street does not happen to be one of them. If it did the city would not have settled with the guy they tased.

 

[oldsalt]

because cops do not have the right to tell me what to do. Period.

Believe it or not, cops are actually in more danger if the driver stays in the car than if he gets out, so trying to argue that from a safety point means that you have to deal with the fact that the driver can run the cop down or shoot him. Once the driver gets out of the car the officer has a batter view of the driver and has a better chance of seeing potential danger. Police do not want you to stay in the car for their safety, they want you to stay in the car because it gives them a position of dominance by standing over you, and it also allows them to visually search your car. If they were honestly concerned about their safety they would want everyone to pull off the street and step away from their car.

I do not blame most cops for this, this is the way they are trained. That does not make them right.

wrong.

Cops most assuredly do have the right, the power and the valid constitutionally based legal authority under certain circumstances to tell you what to do and what to refrain from doing.

The officer in the case we are discussing told the dopey driver not to get out of the car. That should be the end ofthe discussion. It wasn't because the driver was a dick.

And it escalated when the aforesaid dick continued in many ways and innumerable times to refuse to do the things he was validly being told to do.

He -- not the cop -- was in the wrong.

that's where the period belongs.

Period.

they certainly have the power to do things under very limited circumstances. Driving down the street does not happen to be one of them. If it did the city would not have settled with the guy they tased.

bs

 

[Quantum Windbag]

wrong.

Cops most assuredly do have the right, the power and the valid constitutionally based legal authority under certain circumstances to tell you what to do and what to refrain from doing.

The officer in the case we are discussing told the dopey driver not to get out of the car. That should be the end ofthe discussion. It wasn't because the driver was a dick.

And it escalated when the aforesaid dick continued in many ways and innumerable times to refuse to do the things he was validly being told to do.

He -- not the cop -- was in the wrong.

that's where the period belongs.

Period.

they certainly have the power to do things under very limited circumstances. Driving down the street does not happen to be one of them. If it did the city would not have settled with the guy they tased.

bs

Great comeback.

 

[oldsalt]

they certainly have the power to do things under very limited circumstances. Driving down the street does not happen to be one of them. If it did the city would not have settled with the guy they tased.

bs

Great comeback.

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

 

[Tank]

That guy totally had it coming.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

bs

Great comeback.

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

How about facts?

The city has already settled the lawsuit.

 

[George Costanza]

Nope.

The idiot got out of his car when directed not to do so. He COULD have done something as simple and intelligent as listening and complying promptly AT ANY TIME prior to the taser finale.

Why should the cop NOT be allowed to direct an idiot driver to STAY in the car? It is not an arrest. It is not a threat of violence. It is not jackboots stomping on the Constitution. It is a simple, easy, rational SAFETY need for the cop. Experience teaches cops [and so does training which is informed by collective experience]. The idiot in the car has less opportunity to pull out a gun and level a clean shot at a wary cop. He has almost no chance of pulling a knife. And none of that will be necessary if he sits there like a good boy and waits to see if the cop is going to give him a ticket.

Once the guy got out and then refused to go back AND THEN refused every single direction to turn around, OF COURSE the cop resorted to his training. And if you or I had been trained as cops, we would have done likewise.

I like cops on balance. I detest the ones who cheat and lie. But the majority of them don't. They just go out and perform a sometimes very dangerous public duty. Some do it with more finesse and style and grace. Some with far too little. But I still think a guy that runs TOWARD gunfire -- when instinct tells the rest of us to GET AWAY -- deserves some consideration from the rest of us.

Because cops do not have the right to tell me what to do. Period.

Believe it or not, cops are actually in more danger if the driver stays in the car than if he gets out, so trying to argue that from a safety point means that you have to deal with the fact that the driver can run the cop down or shoot him. Once the driver gets out of the car the officer has a batter view of the driver and has a better chance of seeing potential danger. Police do not want you to stay in the car for their safety, they want you to stay in the car because it gives them a position of dominance by standing over you, and it also allows them to visually search your car. If they were honestly concerned about their safety they would want everyone to pull off the street and step away from their car.

I do not blame most cops for this, this is the way they are trained. That does not make them right.

Wrong.

Cops most assuredly DO have the right, the power and the valid Constitutionally based LEGAL authority under certain circumstances to tell you what to do and what to REFRAIN from doing.

The officer in the case we are discussing TOLD the dopey driver NOT to get out of the car. That SHOULD be the end ofthe discussion. It wasn't because the driver was a dick.

And it escalated when the aforesaid dick continued in many ways and innumerable times to refuse to do the things he was VALIDLY being told to do.

He -- not the cop -- was in the wrong.

That's where the period belongs.

Period.

Correctamundo.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

This is where we disagree, the use of a Taser is not reasonable.

Would that officer have been justified in using his weapon? If not, he is not justified in usung a Taser. A Taser is not a compliance device, it is a weapon. It should be subject to the exact same rules as using a firearm, and officers should be required to justify it every time they use one.

At leasst 400 people have been killed by Tasers in the US since 2001, a number that will only climb the more often the police use them. Unless those deaths were in defense of a life they are completely unjustified.

That makes that cop, and every police department in the country that issues Tasers, wrong. I can guarantee that if the BART police were not issued Tasers Oscar Grant would still be alive and Johannes Mehserle would not be a convicted felon.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

I won't be able to sleep 'til I get the smile off my face. Your 'victim' is Felony stupid and then he squeals like a little girl when he got what a sensible person knew what would happen.

Windbag, the cop was very patient, he was acting within his dept. policy and his training. Every cop has been trained and counseled that every traffic stop can go bad in a second. Do you know if the fool was armed? firearms today can be as small as cell phone or a pack of smokes, hidden in a belt buckle or a hat.

Did the officer know if the fool was alone in the car? was someone hidding in the vehicle with a firearm waiting for the officer to be distracted? Were the fools movements meant to distract the officer so an accomplish might get off a round or two?

 

[MikeK]

bs

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.

 

[MikeK]

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.

George,

Let's do a little moot court exercise:

You are defending, not prosecuting, the citizen. What is your summation?

 

[George Costanza]

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.

George,

Let's do a little moot court exercise:

You are defending, not prosecuting, the citizen. What is your summation?

That, at the time they tasered him, he was no longer a threat. I would encourage the jury to overlook his disobedience to the officer's orders prior to the tasering, and argue that this was merely an exercise in ego gratification by a frustrated officer who was fed up with someone not obeying his commands.

Good question.

 

[Tank]

If anything, the cops were too nice.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Windbag, the cop was very patient, he was acting within his dept. policy and his training. Every cop has been trained and counseled that every traffic stop can go bad in a second. Do you know if the fool was armed? firearms today can be as small as cell phone or a pack of smokes, hidden in a belt buckle or a hat.

Did the officer know if the fool was alone in the car? was someone hidding in the vehicle with a firearm waiting for the officer to be distracted? Were the fools movements meant to distract the officer so an accomplish might get off a round or two?

While I must agree that a night-time traffic stop is especially dangerous for all the reasons you've indicated, let's keep in mind the fact that this particular stop was effected for the closest reason to no reason at all that I can think of -- a crooked front license plate! Considering the danger of making a night-time stop is it reasonable to assume doing so should be avoided when there is no significant reason for it?

The victim in this case, and he is a victim of police stupidity, arrogance and excess, is by all indications a law-abiding citizen who had done absolutely nothing wrong. He wasn't speeding, nor did his driving or his vehicle represent any danger to life or property. Briefly stated, that police officer chose to stop him for what is a redundantly stupid and petty reason -- considering the danger factor you have cited.

I've been driving since 1954 and I've had driver licenses in New York, New Jersey and North Carolina. I have never been officially instructed on how to behave if I'm stopped by police while driving, so I cannot assume the driver in this example is aware of any of the things you've mentioned above. Based on what I saw in the video I can assume the driver was aware that he wasn't speeding nor had he done anything unlawful and therefore had a right to demand to know why he was being stopped. Unfortunately for him he was not present in the same class as was the police officer who was instructed as to "Procedure" and his supreme authority during traffic stops.

So in my opinion the bottom line in this situation is unnecessary danger should be avoided rather than pursued, as in making a night-time traffic stop for no better reason than a crooked front plate. Because, as we've learned, there are decent, law-abiding citizens who simply are neither submissive by nature nor willing to play the game called "Procedure" in accordance with rules invented by some supervisory level cop.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I won't be able to sleep 'til I get the smile off my face. Your 'victim' is Felony stupid and then he squeals like a little girl when he got what a sensible person knew what would happen.

Windbag, the cop was very patient, he was acting within his dept. policy and his training. Every cop has been trained and counseled that every traffic stop can go bad in a second. Do you know if the fool was armed? firearms today can be as small as cell phone or a pack of smokes, hidden in a belt buckle or a hat.

Did the officer know if the fool was alone in the car? was someone hidding in the vehicle with a firearm waiting for the officer to be distracted? Were the fools movements meant to distract the officer so an accomplish might get off a round or two?

"Sensible" people used to know that anyone who crossed a cop would get a public beat down with a nightstick and a trip to the hospital. Ever wonder why that doesn't still happen? Because idiots like me make a lot of noise about the abuse of power and got the rules changed. The department polict and training is wrong. All he had to do was answer one question and then, if the guy would not cooperate, he might be justified in escalating the situation. As it was he was flat out wrong.

If my choice is between being sensible and living in a police state and being an idiot and free, I will be an idiot. the only thing about it that pisses me off is that you get the benefit of the idiocy when the police straighten their act out.

By the way, thanks for disproving George's assumption that it is the right wing that is authoritarian.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Everyone that thinks this was about the officer's safety, answer one question.

Why not eliminate traffic stops entirely, have the police make a note of the infraction and date/time, and mail the owner of the vehicle a citation? That would free officers up to actually be looking for dangerous people rather than spending half their shift doing traffic stops for minor infractions and risking their lives in those stops.

 

[Liability]

Everyone that thinks this was about the officer's safety, answer one question.

Why not eliminate traffic stops entirely, have the police make a note of the infraction and date/time, and mail the owner of the vehicle a citation? That would free officers up to actually be looking for dangerous people rather than spending half their shift doing traffic stops for minor infractions and risking their lives in those stops.

We want for our cops to be able to engage in traffic stops.

We don't want for those incidents of cops doing a basic duty to be permitted to turn into life threatening situations.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Everyone that thinks this was about the officer's safety, answer one question.

Why not eliminate traffic stops entirely, have the police make a note of the infraction and date/time, and mail the owner of the vehicle a citation? That would free officers up to actually be looking for dangerous people rather than spending half their shift doing traffic stops for minor infractions and risking their lives in those stops.

We want for our cops to be able to engage in traffic stops.

We don't want for those incidents of cops doing a basic duty to be permitted to turn into life threatening situations.

Why not just have them shoot anyone who they stop for traffic violations then? It would eliminate all danger to police.

This is one of those times where the issue is not what you say it is. If it were about safety you would advocate them not making the potentially lethal stops and let them mail citations. Police cars are equipped with cameras, just use them to make a record of the violation and let the owner argue it in court. The police will be much safer.