Ask a cop a question...

[geauxtohell]

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.

Screaming "are you going to shoot me" and "Fuck you!" at a guy with a weapon pointed at you is "normal"?

I am beginning to see the disconnect.

C'mon Geaux, I have never seen you as a cherrypicker...you have to take into consideration what happened before it got that far...

That would be like som guy sitting in a restaurant minding his own business when somebody starts bullying him. He ignores it for the first three or four minutes until the guy really gets in his face. The person being hassled, reacts and thumps the guy. When retelling his story to the cops, the bully starts recounting from the moment he got hit, all the while ignoring the rest of the incident. This is you are doing...

I am not cherry picking. It's a statement of fact. It's not really relevant how it got that far, it's just worth noting that most people don't taunt a person who is pointing a loaded weapon at them.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I have to leave this thread.

I have too much respect for the law and for police officers to sit back and listen to certain morons in here.

These people are out there risking their lives every day, not for a tour of duty in a war zone but every day year after year after year. And some of you asshats think it's cool to fuck with them.

Fuck you.

I hope you run into 6 officers who are having a really bad day......

 

[Dr Grump]

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".

See, you talk about psychobabble and then try to psychoanalyse Harper's behaviour. I see some dude, very calm, just hopping out of his car, walking slowly and non-threatening up the cop, and saying "what gives".

To be honest, I find the police officer's behaviour worrisome. He seems out of control, is screaming from the get go, his voice when calling for back up sounds highly strung and he sounds scared. And he has a gun in his hand.

Can you please point to where Harper went "fucking ballistic"? Strong words. I see his get a tad angry only after the cop rants on for a good two minutes. Up until that point the only person who seems to be acting in a calm , "what gives?" manner is Harper. We must be watching different videos..seriously.....

 

[Dr Grump]

I have to leave this thread.

I have too much respect for the law and for police officers to sit back and listen to certain morons in here.

These people are out there risking their lives every day, not for a tour of duty in a war zone but every day year after year after year. And some of you asshats think it's cool to fuck with them.

Fuck you.

I hope you run into 6 officers who are having a really bad day......

Doesn't make them exempt from being dickheads.

I don't think it cool to fuck with them, but I also don't think it cool to go around pointing guns at people for no good reason, when the situation doesn't warrant it....

 

[oldsalt]

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".

See, you talk about psychobabble and then try to psychoanalyse Harper's behaviour. I see some dude, very calm, just hopping out of his car, walking slowly and non-threatening up the cop, and saying "what gives".

To be honest, I find the police officer's behaviour worrisome. He seems out of control, is screaming from the get go, his voice when calling for back up sounds highly strung and he sounds scared. And he has a gun in his hand.

Can you please point to where Harper went "fucking ballistic"? Strong words. I see his get a tad angry only after the cop rants on for a good two minutes. Up until that point the only person who seems to be acting in a calm , "what gives?" manner is Harper. We must be watching different videos..seriously.....

You see what you want.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Screaming "are you going to shoot me" and "Fuck you!" at a guy with a weapon pointed at you is "normal"?

I am beginning to see the disconnect.

C'mon Geaux, I have never seen you as a cherrypicker...you have to take into consideration what happened before it got that far...

That would be like som guy sitting in a restaurant minding his own business when somebody starts bullying him. He ignores it for the first three or four minutes until the guy really gets in his face. The person being hassled, reacts and thumps the guy. When retelling his story to the cops, the bully starts recounting from the moment he got hit, all the while ignoring the rest of the incident. This is you are doing...

I am not cherry picking. It's a statement of fact. It's not really relevant how it got that far, it's just worth noting that most people don't taunt a person who is pointing a loaded weapon at them.

OK here we go why did the cop go to the final step when he did the traffic stop by pulling his sidearm? How many times have you been stopped and the cop pull his gun for no reason? Police officers are not trained to do that The cop over reacted and was looking for a fight. Another notch in his head beating stick

 

[geauxtohell]

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".

See, you talk about psychobabble and then try to psychoanalyse Harper's behaviour. I see some dude, very calm, just hopping out of his car, walking slowly and non-threatening up the cop, and saying "what gives".

To be honest, I find the police officer's behaviour worrisome. He seems out of control, is screaming from the get go, his voice when calling for back up sounds highly strung and he sounds scared. And he has a gun in his hand.

Can you please point to where Harper went "fucking ballistic"? Strong words. I see his get a tad angry only after the cop rants on for a good two minutes. Up until that point the only person who seems to be acting in a calm , "what gives?" manner is Harper. We must be watching different videos..seriously.....

I figured I was going to get called on that. For the record, I don't know what Harper's mental status is. I was just speculating. However, the psychiatric conditions I threw out actually exist and are in the DSM IV, as opposed to whatever the hell is getting tossed out here, so I've got that going for me.

I think the cop was scared. Did you watch the other video? The video that is used across the country in police academies to train officers? I could see that weighing heavily on an officer's mind. Whether right or wrong, it's not natural in this country to jump out of your car and approach a cop.

I'd call "ballistic" when Harper is screaming "fuck you" to the cop and asking "What, are you going to shoot me?"

 

[geauxtohell]

C'mon Geaux, I have never seen you as a cherrypicker...you have to take into consideration what happened before it got that far...

That would be like som guy sitting in a restaurant minding his own business when somebody starts bullying him. He ignores it for the first three or four minutes until the guy really gets in his face. The person being hassled, reacts and thumps the guy. When retelling his story to the cops, the bully starts recounting from the moment he got hit, all the while ignoring the rest of the incident. This is you are doing...

I am not cherry picking. It's a statement of fact. It's not really relevant how it got that far, it's just worth noting that most people don't taunt a person who is pointing a loaded weapon at them.

OK here we go why did the cop go to the final step when he did the traffic stop by pulling his sidearm? How many times have you been stopped and the cop pull his gun for no reason? Police officers are not trained to do that The cop over reacted and was looking for a fight. Another notch in his head beating stick

I am not sure, as the cop is out of view, but I think he pulled his gun when Harper approached him with his hands in his pocket. That was when he called for back up.

If the cop wanted to beat Harper, he would have done so without calling for backup.

As for the "how many times have you had a weapon pulled on you", I believe the answer to that is obvious.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have to leave this thread.

I have too much respect for the law and for police officers to sit back and listen to certain morons in here.

These people are out there risking their lives every day, not for a tour of duty in a war zone but every day year after year after year. And some of you asshats think it's cool to fuck with them.

Fuck you.

I hope you run into 6 officers who are having a really bad day......

I respect some of them the good ones some are even good friends of mine we go to the range. It's the other 85% they are the dirt bags.
You see I know a few stories on some cops that would have sex in their patrol cars while at work, or do a traffic stop of teenagers take their drugs and resale them. Cops who would have a beer while on duty. Cops who would stop a car just because it was driven by a black person. I know cops who would stop a female just to get her address.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am not cherry picking. It's a statement of fact. It's not really relevant how it got that far, it's just worth noting that most people don't taunt a person who is pointing a loaded weapon at them.

OK here we go why did the cop go to the final step when he did the traffic stop by pulling his sidearm? How many times have you been stopped and the cop pull his gun for no reason? Police officers are not trained to do that The cop over reacted and was looking for a fight. Another notch in his head beating stick

I am not sure, as the cop is out of view, but I think he pulled his gun when Harper approached him with his hands in his pocket. That was when he called for back up.

If the cop wanted to beat Harper, he would have done so without calling for backup.

As for the "how many times have you had a weapon pulled on you", I believe the answer to that is obvious.

He over reacted because Harperhad nothing in his hand that present any danger to the officer.

As for the "how many times have you had a weapon pulled on you", I believe the answer to that is obvious

Ask me how many times did I pull my service revolver? Hint it comes before 1

 

[MikeK]

I am not cherry picking. It's a statement of fact. It's not really relevant how it got that far, it's just worth noting that most people don't taunt a person who is pointing a loaded weapon at them.

Most people don't but some people do and that is the point. When you pull somebody over for virtual nothing you should be prepared to deal with the untypical response. Pointing your gun and shouting repetitious commands at a young man who has done nothing wrong and is prepared to challenge you is unwisely provocative. Think of what would have happened to that cop if he'd pulled the trigger and you'll understand the situation more clearly. An unarmed corpse who had broken no laws, not even a traffic law. Imagine the news headlines.

By the way, Dr. Go To Hell, you recently mentioned your current "rotation." I'm recalling the med student my oldest dated some years back. He was a nice young man who became an intern and used to fall asleep on our living room sofa a lot. They stopped dating because he never had enough time to even go to a movie, no less dancing. So I was wondering how you manage spending more time on the Internet than I do -- and I'm retired. Have the demands on med students' and interns' time changed since the 70s? If so, how does that affect the quality of a contemporary medical education?

 

[MikeK]

I have to leave this thread.

I have too much respect for the law and for police officers to sit back and listen to certain morons in here.

These people are out there risking their lives every day, not for a tour of duty in a war zone but every day year after year after year. And some of you asshats think it's cool to fuck with them.

In the situation we are discussing it is them fucking with others. And you should keep in mind that there are much safer occupations and nobody gets drafted into policework. So the hero routine just doesn't work in this example.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

A police officer can visually (meaning they can look for anything they can see) search your car without a warrant or you being in the car as it stands. If you leave a bag of cocaine on the front seat in full view, that gives them probable cause to search the rest of it.

So ordering people back into a car has nothing to do with facilitating an unlawful search and seizure.

In some states, officers can search your car, glovebox and everywhere you have access to while you drive without a warrant or your permission.

All of my statements about lawful orders come from the previous statute. I have no reason to believe that an officer any of the orders, to include "get back in the car" were unlawful.



Not a normal traffic stop. When a person is acting in a manner that the officer perceives to be threatening to his or the driver's safety, he has the right to stand someone down. I think the officer was trying to put Harper in a position he could be controlled with by one officer as he was alone. His next move very well could have been to place Harper under arrest or detain him. We'll never know, because when he gave that order, Harper went frigging ballistic and it was back to square one.

Unreasonable to take a peaceful driver how is not suspected to be dangerous and is behaving and put them on their knees? Absolutely. I would expect a cop to be sanctioned for crap like that. However, you guys keep acting like Harper was being perfectly appropriate. He most certainly was not.



I suspect you are speculating again. An officer doesn't have to say "you are under arrest" first before putting someone on their knees or on the ground. I would expect an arrest to follow that, but I have my doubts that there is a pre-requisite.

Police are supposed to be trained to handle people who are erratic or mentally deranged.

Have you ever tried to reason with a psychotic person? All the training in the world is only going to get you so far. I don't expect cops to be mental health professionals, and ask a psychiatrist to tell you some war stories one day. They are constantly being assaulted by the patient population they have spent 8 years (at a minimum) being trained to handle and treat. On my Psych rotation, one of the Psychiatrists had recently had a mug broken across his face by a psychotic patient.

I expect police to be equipped to spot mentally ill people and take proper precautions and get the proper people involved.

I don't expect them to start administering haldol to them.

Do you think they should shoot people just because they are crazy?

Of course not. Don't be absurd. Is Harper mentally ill? His cognition seems fine to me and he certainly didn't seem delusional. He might be manic, but that still doesn't give him a free pass.

And whatever/wherever your psych rotation was, you surely noticed that the police often do not work well with the mental health system OR its patients. I think Nashville has largely become the exception to this. There the mental health laws were rewritten, they have a special just who hears cases of the mentally ill, and there have been multiple multiple classes and training courses for the police. It's not that way everywhere. but as may mentally ill as we have out in the world today due to the deinstitutionalization of our state hospital, there needs to be a LOT more training going on. This cop was a dilettante.

 

[geauxtohell]

By the way, Dr. Go To Hell, you recently mentioned your current "rotation." I'm recalling the med student my oldest dated some years back. He was a nice young man who became an intern and used to fall asleep on our living room sofa a lot. They stopped dating because he never had enough time to even go to a movie, no less dancing. So I was wondering how you manage spending more time on the Internet than I do -- and I'm retired. Have the demands on med students' and interns' time changed since the 70s? If so, how does that affect the quality of a contemporary medical education?

I am not a Dr.

I'd be happy to explain where I am at in my education process if I thought you really gave a fuck and weren't in it for a cheap shot.

Until then, you can join the ranks of every other "you can't be in med school, you post here too much!" asshole. You number about three posters. You can also take the Alliebaba challenge and give me your address and I'll mail you a graduation invite next May. Until that time, I'll tell you what I tell the other two: I don't give a fuck if you believe me or not.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

A police officer can visually (meaning they can look for anything they can see) search your car without a warrant or you being in the car as it stands. If you leave a bag of cocaine on the front seat in full view, that gives them probable cause to search the rest of it.

So ordering people back into a car has nothing to do with facilitating an unlawful search and seizure.

In some states, officers can search your car, glovebox and everywhere you have access to while you drive without a warrant or your permission.

All of my statements about lawful orders come from the previous statute. I have no reason to believe that an officer any of the orders, to include "get back in the car" were unlawful.



Not a normal traffic stop. When a person is acting in a manner that the officer perceives to be threatening to his or the driver's safety, he has the right to stand someone down. I think the officer was trying to put Harper in a position he could be controlled with by one officer as he was alone. His next move very well could have been to place Harper under arrest or detain him. We'll never know, because when he gave that order, Harper went frigging ballistic and it was back to square one.

Unreasonable to take a peaceful driver how is not suspected to be dangerous and is behaving and put them on their knees? Absolutely. I would expect a cop to be sanctioned for crap like that. However, you guys keep acting like Harper was being perfectly appropriate. He most certainly was not.



I suspect you are speculating again. An officer doesn't have to say "you are under arrest" first before putting someone on their knees or on the ground. I would expect an arrest to follow that, but I have my doubts that there is a pre-requisite.



Have you ever tried to reason with a psychotic person? All the training in the world is only going to get you so far. I don't expect cops to be mental health professionals, and ask a psychiatrist to tell you some war stories one day. They are constantly being assaulted by the patient population they have spent 8 years (at a minimum) being trained to handle and treat. On my Psych rotation, one of the Psychiatrists had recently had a mug broken across his face by a psychotic patient.

I expect police to be equipped to spot mentally ill people and take proper precautions and get the proper people involved.

I don't expect them to start administering haldol to them.

Do you think they should shoot people just because they are crazy?

Of course not. Don't be absurd. Is Harper mentally ill? His cognition seems fine to me and he certainly didn't seem delusional. He might be manic, but that still doesn't give him a free pass.

And whatever/wherever your psych rotation was, you surely noticed that the police often do not work well with the mental health system OR its patients. I think Nashville has largely become the exception to this. There the mental health laws were rewritten, they have a special just who hears cases of the mentally ill, and there have been multiple multiple classes and training courses for the police. It's not that way everywhere. but as may mentally ill as we have out in the world today due to the deinstitutionalization of our state hospital, there needs to be a LOT more training going on. This cop was a dilettante.

I agree with your statement up until the last sentence. We don't know Harper was mentally ill.

 

[Sunshine]

A police officer can visually (meaning they can look for anything they can see) search your car without a warrant or you being in the car as it stands. If you leave a bag of cocaine on the front seat in full view, that gives them probable cause to search the rest of it.

So ordering people back into a car has nothing to do with facilitating an unlawful search and seizure.

In some states, officers can search your car, glovebox and everywhere you have access to while you drive without a warrant or your permission.

All of my statements about lawful orders come from the previous statute. I have no reason to believe that an officer any of the orders, to include "get back in the car" were unlawful.



Not a normal traffic stop. When a person is acting in a manner that the officer perceives to be threatening to his or the driver's safety, he has the right to stand someone down. I think the officer was trying to put Harper in a position he could be controlled with by one officer as he was alone. His next move very well could have been to place Harper under arrest or detain him. We'll never know, because when he gave that order, Harper went frigging ballistic and it was back to square one.

Unreasonable to take a peaceful driver how is not suspected to be dangerous and is behaving and put them on their knees? Absolutely. I would expect a cop to be sanctioned for crap like that. However, you guys keep acting like Harper was being perfectly appropriate. He most certainly was not.



I suspect you are speculating again. An officer doesn't have to say "you are under arrest" first before putting someone on their knees or on the ground. I would expect an arrest to follow that, but I have my doubts that there is a pre-requisite.



Have you ever tried to reason with a psychotic person? All the training in the world is only going to get you so far. I don't expect cops to be mental health professionals, and ask a psychiatrist to tell you some war stories one day. They are constantly being assaulted by the patient population they have spent 8 years (at a minimum) being trained to handle and treat. On my Psych rotation, one of the Psychiatrists had recently had a mug broken across his face by a psychotic patient.

I expect police to be equipped to spot mentally ill people and take proper precautions and get the proper people involved.

I don't expect them to start administering haldol to them.



Of course not. Don't be absurd. Is Harper mentally ill? His cognition seems fine to me and he certainly didn't seem delusional. He might be manic, but that still doesn't give him a free pass.

And whatever/wherever your psych rotation was, you surely noticed that the police often do not work well with the mental health system OR its patients. I think Nashville has largely become the exception to this. There the mental health laws were rewritten, they have a special just who hears cases of the mentally ill, and there have been multiple multiple classes and training courses for the police. It's not that way everywhere. but as may mentally ill as we have out in the world today due to the deinstitutionalization of our state hospital, there needs to be a LOT more training going on. This cop was a dilettante.

I agree with your statement up until the last sentence. We don't know Harper was mentally ill.

You are correct as to diagnostics. However, his behavior was not rational. Sometimes you have to deal with the behavior first and give the diagnosis later.

 

[CMike]

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?

First, in many states it is not illegal to disobey a police officer if he tells you to do something, which is why the guy in the OP was never charged with disobeying a lawful order. That charge does not exist in Utah, or Texas, which is the state in which I best understand the law.

Second, even in states that have that law, it is not unlimited in scope. If it were it would be facially unconstitutional because it is overly broad. Police cannot order anyone to do something that is illegal, something I am sure everyone would agree with. They can only issue orders that are directly related to their duties.

They cannot order me to walk on one side of the street and not the other unless there is something that is going on that would endanger me, or someone else, or if there happens to be a huge crime scene and they have one side of the street taped off.

I am completely unwilling to go through every states law and find all the codes that apply in order to prove this. If you choose to take that as me being full of hot air and completely wrong, feel free. It is just common sense though, we do not live in a police state. Yet.

Let me point out that, if police could simply order anyone to do anything that was legal, the Arizona immigration would never have been an issue because police would be able to demand ID from anyone they wanted for no reason at all. Even ICE cannot do that, and they actually have the authority to demand that anyone within 25 miles of a US border declare their citizenship status.

I quoted the Utah statute. It is illegal to disobey a order given by a police officer.

Courts generally uphold orders that cops give to ensure their safety.

From the link that was already posted on traffice stops.

The Eighth Circuit noted that, while the United States Supreme Court has not specifically addressed this issue, they have addressed situations that offer guidance on this topic. First, as noted above, Maryland v. Wilson stands for the proposition that officers may order a passenger in a lawfully stopped vehicle to exit the vehicle during the traffic stop. The Supreme Court reasoned that “officer safety” is a “weighty interest” on a traffic stop given the number of assaults that occur on officers during traffic stops.iv The presence of passengers only increases the risk to officers further justifying the need of officer control over the situation.v

Second, in Brendlin v. California, the Supreme Court held that, when police stop a car, the passengers in the car, in addition to the driver, are seized because a reasonable passenger would not believe himself free to leave.vi Specifically, the court said “a sensible person would not expect a police officer to allow people to come and go freely from the physical focal point of an investigation into faulty behavior or wrongdoing... even when the wrongdoing is only bad driving, the passenger will expect to be subject to some scrutiny, and his attempt to leave the scene would be so obviously likely to prompt an objection from the officer that no passenger would feel free to leave in the first place.”vii

Next, the court considered Michigan v. Summers, where the Supreme Court held that officers could order a person leaving a house to reenter the house and remain there while officers executed a search warrant.viii In fact, when the Supreme Court decided Maryland v. Wilson, they cited Summers and stated that “the risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation.”ix

 

[CMike]

A police officer can visually (meaning they can look for anything they can see) search your car without a warrant or you being in the car as it stands. If you leave a bag of cocaine on the front seat in full view, that gives them probable cause to search the rest of it.

So ordering people back into a car has nothing to do with facilitating an unlawful search and seizure.

In some states, officers can search your car, glovebox and everywhere you have access to while you drive without a warrant or your permission.

No they cannot. They used to be able to search the entire vehicle if they arrested you while you were in control of the car, which is why lawyers advised people to step out of the car, lock it, and put the keys on the roof, it severely limits the police in their ability to find incriminating evidence. More recent court decisions have limited what they can search to what is in arms reach of the driver, which only includes the glove box if it is not locked.

That applies in every single state. In other words, you are mistaken in your belief that police can search any part of your car without your permission. They can only do so if they arrest you.

All of my statements about lawful orders come from the previous statute. I have no reason to believe that an officer any of the orders, to include "get back in the car" were unlawful.

That statute applied to directing traffic. Unless you can show me how you can stretch this to cover a situation like that in the video I do not agree.



What you keep forgetting is that you are not a police officer. Police are supposed to be trained to handle people that react badly to being stopped, and should defuse the situation. I have never defended Harper's reaction to the stop, just his right to ask why he is being stopped.

Unless Harper actually presented a danger to the officer, which he did not, even if you, personally, would have felt threatened in that situation. Police are trained to handle potentially dangerous situations and defuse them. That did not happen here.



No, we keep insisting that the police were wrong, there is a difference.



You do not believe that police have to tell you that you are under arrest? Since when?

Regardless, putting someone on the ground is if that person is an imminent threat. There were 4 cops there, he was not a threat to anyone.



I used to live with one, I know just how hard it is to reason with them. That does not mean I had the right to use force if she did not comply with a request that I felt was reasonable, nor does it mean the police have the right to do so either. They have a right to defend themselves, but not to initiate the use of force in an attempt to preemptively defend themselves from something that might happen.

I expect police to be equipped to spot mentally ill people and take proper precautions and get the proper people involved.

I don't expect them to start administering haldol to them.

Neither do I. Can you point out where this officer made any attempt to make sure that Harper was not mentally ill? Why are you assuming that he was when you continually point out that he was acting irrationally?

Of course not. Don't be absurd. Is Harper mentally ill? His cognition seems fine to me and he certainly didn't seem delusional. He might be manic, but that still doesn't give him a free pass.

If you did I psych rotation you are perfectly aware that psychotic people can appear reasonable. I have seen people who were caught up in the delusions that were so ridiculous that it makes no sense.

Police are trained to get control first. Once, they have control they can proceed.

They don't have to play nice nice with a guy coming over to them with his hands near his pockets demanding answers.

And they handled it very well. They gave the perp numerous changes to comply. They told him they would tazer him. By not complying they went to the next level of force.

The perp was handled well.

I also have issues if he should have been tazed so many times. I think that was wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A police officer can visually (meaning they can look for anything they can see) search your car without a warrant or you being in the car as it stands. If you leave a bag of cocaine on the front seat in full view, that gives them probable cause to search the rest of it.

So ordering people back into a car has nothing to do with facilitating an unlawful search and seizure.

In some states, officers can search your car, glovebox and everywhere you have access to while you drive without a warrant or your permission.

All of my statements about lawful orders come from the previous statute. I have no reason to believe that an officer any of the orders, to include "get back in the car" were unlawful.



Not a normal traffic stop. When a person is acting in a manner that the officer perceives to be threatening to his or the driver's safety, he has the right to stand someone down. I think the officer was trying to put Harper in a position he could be controlled with by one officer as he was alone. His next move very well could have been to place Harper under arrest or detain him. We'll never know, because when he gave that order, Harper went frigging ballistic and it was back to square one.

Unreasonable to take a peaceful driver how is not suspected to be dangerous and is behaving and put them on their knees? Absolutely. I would expect a cop to be sanctioned for crap like that. However, you guys keep acting like Harper was being perfectly appropriate. He most certainly was not.



I suspect you are speculating again. An officer doesn't have to say "you are under arrest" first before putting someone on their knees or on the ground. I would expect an arrest to follow that, but I have my doubts that there is a pre-requisite.



Have you ever tried to reason with a psychotic person? All the training in the world is only going to get you so far. I don't expect cops to be mental health professionals, and ask a psychiatrist to tell you some war stories one day. They are constantly being assaulted by the patient population they have spent 8 years (at a minimum) being trained to handle and treat. On my Psych rotation, one of the Psychiatrists had recently had a mug broken across his face by a psychotic patient.

I expect police to be equipped to spot mentally ill people and take proper precautions and get the proper people involved.

I don't expect them to start administering haldol to them.



Of course not. Don't be absurd. Is Harper mentally ill? His cognition seems fine to me and he certainly didn't seem delusional. He might be manic, but that still doesn't give him a free pass.

And whatever/wherever your psych rotation was, you surely noticed that the police often do not work well with the mental health system OR its patients. I think Nashville has largely become the exception to this. There the mental health laws were rewritten, they have a special just who hears cases of the mentally ill, and there have been multiple multiple classes and training courses for the police. It's not that way everywhere. but as may mentally ill as we have out in the world today due to the deinstitutionalization of our state hospital, there needs to be a LOT more training going on. This cop was a dilettante.

I agree with your statement up until the last sentence. We don't know Harper was mentally ill.

You keep saying his behavior is irrational. If your assessment is correct the police should treat him as if he is mentally ill first, then treat him as a criminal. This does not mean they let down their guard because, as you have pointed out, the mentally ill are potentially dangerous. It does mena they should not tase him for not obeying an order.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please quote the part of the statute that say this?

First, in many states it is not illegal to disobey a police officer if he tells you to do something, which is why the guy in the OP was never charged with disobeying a lawful order. That charge does not exist in Utah, or Texas, which is the state in which I best understand the law.

Second, even in states that have that law, it is not unlimited in scope. If it were it would be facially unconstitutional because it is overly broad. Police cannot order anyone to do something that is illegal, something I am sure everyone would agree with. They can only issue orders that are directly related to their duties.

They cannot order me to walk on one side of the street and not the other unless there is something that is going on that would endanger me, or someone else, or if there happens to be a huge crime scene and they have one side of the street taped off.

I am completely unwilling to go through every states law and find all the codes that apply in order to prove this. If you choose to take that as me being full of hot air and completely wrong, feel free. It is just common sense though, we do not live in a police state. Yet.

Let me point out that, if police could simply order anyone to do anything that was legal, the Arizona immigration would never have been an issue because police would be able to demand ID from anyone they wanted for no reason at all. Even ICE cannot do that, and they actually have the authority to demand that anyone within 25 miles of a US border declare their citizenship status.

I quoted the Utah statute. It is illegal to disobey a order given by a police officer.

Courts generally uphold orders that cops give to ensure their safety.

From the link that was already posted on traffice stops.

The Eighth Circuit noted that, while the United States Supreme Court has not specifically addressed this issue, they have addressed situations that offer guidance on this topic. First, as noted above, Maryland v. Wilson stands for the proposition that officers may order a passenger in a lawfully stopped vehicle to exit the vehicle during the traffic stop. The Supreme Court reasoned that “officer safety” is a “weighty interest” on a traffic stop given the number of assaults that occur on officers during traffic stops.iv The presence of passengers only increases the risk to officers further justifying the need of officer control over the situation.v

Second, in Brendlin v. California, the Supreme Court held that, when police stop a car, the passengers in the car, in addition to the driver, are seized because a reasonable passenger would not believe himself free to leave.vi Specifically, the court said “a sensible person would not expect a police officer to allow people to come and go freely from the physical focal point of an investigation into faulty behavior or wrongdoing... even when the wrongdoing is only bad driving, the passenger will expect to be subject to some scrutiny, and his attempt to leave the scene would be so obviously likely to prompt an objection from the officer that no passenger would feel free to leave in the first place.”vii

Next, the court considered Michigan v. Summers, where the Supreme Court held that officers could order a person leaving a house to reenter the house and remain there while officers executed a search warrant.viii In fact, when the Supreme Court decided Maryland v. Wilson, they cited Summers and stated that “the risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation.”ix

As I pointed out, that law applies to someone who who does not follow the directions of an officer directing traffic.

As for the decision you site, it does not apply in Utah because it is from another circuit. In addition, I fail to see how ordering a person out of a car for the officer's safety is the same as ordering a person into a car for an officer's safety. The argument about getting someone away from the controls of a potentially lethal weapon makes sense, how does putting them back in control of that weapon make anyone safer?