Ask a cop a question...

[Sunshine]

"Can't we all just get along?"

 

[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.

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.

The cop could have easily explained the situation to him, if the driver wouldn't have given the cop reason to be alarmed for his safety (i.e. putting his hands in his pocket).

I am not sure the legalities of the situation, but it's generally known that you don't get out of your car and advance towards a police officer during a traffic stop. The police officer gave the guy multiple opportunities to comply and he refused. The police officer warned the driver that he would be tazed, he refused to listen.

I fail to see how the police officer did something wrong. I guess that makes me a "statist".

I think it's bullshit they handed this guy a nickle in settlement money.

 

[MikeK]

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.

You are (surprisingly) ignoring the fact that at one point the subject did indeed comply with the officer's commands to turn around, then to put hands on head. He did those things, which to any reasoning mind ensured the officer's safety. It was the third command, to get on his knees, which caused him to disobey -- at which point he was subjected to, in his case, a wholly unnecessary degree of force.

When he was tasered, then tackled and thrown forcefully to the ground, there were three police officers there, at least one of whom had a pistol aimed at him, he was unarmed and passive. At that time that situation could have been resolved verbally. The only perceptible reason for using that degree of force was to affirm the power of police authority. It was a statement: "You will obey -- or else!"

If you are comfortable with that you are indeed a Type A.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

That's incorrect. A taser can be lethal, but it is still considered a "non-lethal" weapon. Under the logic of proportional force, the officer was justified in tazing this guy. They didn't do it for convenience, they did it because they had reason to believe this person was a threat. If a taser and a gun were the same thing, why even bother with carrying a taser? This nimbwit is lucky that the "same rules" don't apply to tasers and guns. He'd probably be dead right now.

I think it's easy to imagine yourself in this situation as the driver and assume that your mindset is the same as this guys. That's not a logical assumption. For all this cop knew, this guy could be intoxicated on PCP (he certainly acted like it) and there is no telling what he would do.

I agree with the earlier sentiment, this cop only screwed up because he allowed the driver to take control of the situation. He should have tased him immediately. I wonder if he had the taser on him though as he had his weapon drawn and had to call for back up and the other officer is the one that tased him.

 

[geauxtohell]

[...]

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.

The point of the stop, and the validity of the stop, became moot when this driver decided to act in a hostile manner to a police officer.

 

[MikeK]

[...]I am not sure the legalities of the situation, but it's generally known that you don't get out of your car and advance towards a police officer during a traffic stop.[...]

But the legalities are the pivotal factor, which is why the subject prevailed in a federal court. There is no such law and we cannot be sure that the procedure, which might be taken for granted by most Americans, is generally known.

 

[geauxtohell]

The situation quickly became an oppressive I'm a police officer and you're going to do what I tell you! scenario, which is okay for someone who has done something that calls for it. And it went from "Turn around! to "Hands on your head" to "Get on your knees!" And if the fellow had complied the next command would have been "Get on the ground, face down!" And if he'd complied with that the final insult would be a knee on his neck. All for a crooked front license plate -- and officer safety.

First he told him to stay in his car, genius.

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.

If you believe compliance with the commands of a police officer under the circumstances we've seen is perfectly acceptable, as some here have indicated, and you cannot understand the subject driver's resistance to such forceful authority, you are Type A.

But don't be offended by that categorization because most Americans are Type A. It is characteristic of our exceptionally militarized culture. They are innately responsive to uniforms and badges.

Psychobabble doesn't change the fundamental issue here. There was no reason for the motorist to get out of the car, approach the cop with his hands in his pocket, and then start screaming into the barrel of a loaded gun.

If he was truly interested in having a debate over the merits of the stop with the cop, that could have been better accomplished by not escalating the situation. Can any of you guys say with an honest face that the way this motorist acted was conducive towards a quiet resolution?

The driver behaved erratically. I'd be less worried about his personality type and more worried about his underlying psychiatric condition to include what foreign substances he had in his body at the time or what body he had in his trunk at the time.

The police shouldn't be able to bully average citizens, this guy wasn't an average citizen. However, the police shouldn't be required to assume undo risk to allow every bullshit "civil libertarian" to turn every traffic stop into a constitutional debate.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Incorrect. At the point that he provided the cop with probable cause to suspect he was violating the law, he was being detained.

I am sure the cop would have been able to explain that to him if he would have not acted in a manner that was suspicious/threatening.

 

[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.

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

I didn't even know you could get a ticket for it. My guess is it was an excuse to stop him and find out if the car was stolen.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

No, the reason behind the stop became moot when the officer was put in a position to suspect that this driver could be a threat to his safety.

Just as the reason for the stop would have become moot if the cop saw a dead hooker in his backseat.

This isn't about the justification for the stop, this is about what happened after the stop.

 

[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.

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.

Wouldn't it have been safer not to stop the guy in the first place? Hos is shooting anyone with a weapon "safe?"

Believe it or not, like it or not, police do not have the right to order you to your knees just because they feel like it. SCOTUS has given them the right to lightly pat down the outside of your clothing if they feel threatened, not shoot you. This was completely inappropriate and was clearly excessive use of force.

 

[geauxtohell]

You are (surprisingly) ignoring the fact that at one point the subject did indeed comply with the officer's commands to turn around, then to put hands on head. He did those things, which to any reasoning mind ensured the officer's safety. It was the third command, to get on his knees, which caused him to disobey -- at which point he was subjected to, in his case, a wholly unnecessary degree of force.

At which point he did not return to the standing, hands on the head position, he turned around and proceeded to approach the police again and we were basically back where we started.

Whether it was reasonable to put the motorist on his knees or not is debatable. However, the driver provoked this situation and it doesn't give him carte blanche to ignore the commands of a police officer who had just pulled him over.

When he was tasered, then tackled and thrown forcefully to the ground, there were three police officers there, at least one of whom had a pistol aimed at him, he was unarmed and passive. At that time that situation could have been resolved verbally. The only perceptible reason for using that degree of force was to affirm the power of police authority. It was a statement: "You will obey -- or else!"

If you are comfortable with that you are indeed a Type A.

Type A/Type B.... It's all bullshit. Are you going to tell me that you act exactly like this motorist in every stop? Are you going to tell me that the new expected standard for citizens is to act this way?

That's absurd.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

So what if he did? Does that make the cop right?

 

[geauxtohell]

[...]I am not sure the legalities of the situation, but it's generally known that you don't get out of your car and advance towards a police officer during a traffic stop.[...]

But the legalities are the pivotal factor, which is why the subject prevailed in a federal court. There is no such law and we cannot be sure that the procedure, which might be taken for granted by most Americans, is generally known.

Speaking of legalities, a settlement =/= prevailing in federal court. The matter apparently didn't make it to court. Furthermore:

While Bountiful has settled with Harper, Davis County has not. It's also named in the lawsuit. Harper's attorney says the two sides now appear headed for trial.

 

[Tank]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hFOvCrIrHg]YouTube - ‪Cop gets shot‬‏[/ame]

 

[MikeK]

The point of the stop, and the validity of the stop, became moot when this driver decided to act in a hostile manner to a police officer.

First, being stopped by police while driving is an aggressive action which must be justified. Do you think a crooked front license plate, which poses no threat to life or property, is sufficient cause for a police officer working alone to stop a car on a quiet road at night?

Next, what is hostile about demanding to know why a police officer has taken the aggressive action of stopping you? Hostile is a flexible word. It does not presumptively suggest menace or threat, whereas drawing and aiming a pistol is distinctly menacing and threatening as well as extremely hostile.

 

[geauxtohell]

Wouldn't it have been safer not to stop the guy in the first place? Hos is shooting anyone with a weapon "safe?"

Safer for the motorist? Sure. Safer for the public? No. By your logic, it is "safer" for police officers to never make a motor vehicle stop. That means it is safer to simply allow intoxicated/impaired drivers to stay on the street, because if they are stopped the cops might beat on them.

I also never said shooting someone with a tazer is "safe". I said it is considered a non-lethal means of force and is justified. Ironically, tazers keep morons like this from getting killed and in the end it bites the cops in the ass because they used "excessive force".

Believe it or not, like it or not, police do not have the right to order you to your knees just because they feel like it.

I believe that. Don't try and claim that this officer ordered some random stranger to get on his knees without cause or consideration. We both know that is bullshit. This motorist gave this officer reason to believe that he had to take extra precautions when dealing with that.

It could have been walking into the barrel of a loaded gun and yelling "are you going to shoot me????".

SCOTUS has given them the right to lightly pat down the outside of your clothing if they feel threatened, not shoot you. This was completely inappropriate and was clearly excessive use of force.

The right to self defense is inherent. Any officer has the right to deal with persons they suspect are dangerous in a manner the ensures their safety. That has nothing to do with excessive force.

 

[Tank]

Just stay in you're car dumbshit, what the big deal?

 

[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.

That's incorrect. A taser can be lethal, but it is still considered a "non-lethal" weapon. Under the logic of proportional force, the officer was justified in tazing this guy. They didn't do it for convenience, they did it because they had reason to believe this person was a threat. If a taser and a gun were the same thing, why even bother with carrying a taser? This nimbwit is lucky that the "same rules" don't apply to tasers and guns. He'd probably be dead right now.

I think it's easy to imagine yourself in this situation as the driver and assume that your mindset is the same as this guys. That's not a logical assumption. For all this cop knew, this guy could be intoxicated on PCP (he certainly acted like it) and there is no telling what he would do.

I agree with the earlier sentiment, this cop only screwed up because he allowed the driver to take control of the situation. He should have tased him immediately. I wonder if he had the taser on him though as he had his weapon drawn and had to call for back up and the other officer is the one that tased him.

How is it incorrect?

In order to be non-lethal you have to prove that it never kills anyone. That is demonstrably not the case with Tasers, which is why the military classifies them as less lethal. The only people that call them non lethal are the companies that make them, and that is false advertising that would not work for any other product in the United States.

How does the logic of proportional force, whatever that actually is, apply in a situation where one side is not using force? How did this guy represent a threat? The officers could clearly see his hands, and there were more than enough of them there to control him if he had attacked them, something which he had shown no sign of doing.

The fact that you think it is justifiable to use violence to control someone who is not a threat Indicates that you are authoritarian because you believe that someone should be punished for questioning a police officer. The fact that you are willing to misclassify something as non lethal that has been proven to kill people in order to justify police using it saddens me. The implication that you would have had no problem with them using firearms in this situation outrages me.

We have had disagreements before, but this is the first time you ever ignored the truth in order to justify your position. I hope that me pointing out the facts causes you to reexamine your position

 

[geauxtohell]

YouTube - ‪Cop gets shot‬‏

Yeah, read some of the "fuck the police" comments on youtube for a flavor of the mentality of some people.

I am not a big fan of the cops, but they have a job to do and it's dangerous. Police officers shouldn't have to operate under the assumption that every person they pull over has good intentions. Obviously some reason and logic is involved, but acting like this motorists is some sort of constitutional matyr is absurd.

Kyle Dinkheller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia