more bad cops,,

[progressive hunter]

 

[AZrailwhale]

“Innocent passenger”? Even without the rest of the video for context, he is guilty of obstruction and resisting arrest.

 

[progressive hunter]

“Innocent passenger”? Even without the rest of the video for context, he is guilty of obstruction and resisting arrest.

he committed no crime to be arrested so obstructed nothing,,

our rights matter or they dont,,

 

[AZrailwhale]

he committed no crime to be arrested so obstructed nothing,,

our rights matter or they dont,,

He was refusing to identify himself and refusing to exit the car. Both are crimes. There is a SCOTUS case on mandatory exiting of a car during a traffic stop.

 

[progressive hunter]

He was refusing to identify himself and refusing to exit the car. Both are crimes. There is a SCOTUS case on mandatory exiting of a car during a traffic stop.

what crime did he commit to justify him giving up his 4th amendment rights??

yes if the officer fears for his safety he can ask someone to exit the car,,

its clear he wasnt threatened and the reason he was asked to exit is officer ego,,

SCOTUS also said the passenger in a traffic stop can not be confronted unless they committed a crime themselves,,

do you hate our bill of rights or are you just ignorant about them??

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[AZrailwhale]

what crime did he commit to justify him giving up his 4th amendment rights??

yes if the officer fears for his safety he can ask someone to exit the car,,

its clear he wasnt threatened and the reason he was asked to exit is officer ego,,

SCOTUS also said the passenger in a traffic stop can not be confronted unless they committed a crime themselves,,

do you hate our bill of rights or are you just ignorant about them??

The SCOTUS decision is that the officer can ORDER, order, not ask, the passenger(s) to exit the car. Refusing that order is a misdemeanor and the passenger then becomes liable for arrest for obstruction.

 

[progressive hunter]

The SCOTUS decision is that the officer can ORDER, order, not ask, the passenger(s) to exit the car. Refusing that order is a misdemeanor and the passenger then becomes liable for arrest for obstruction.

only if officer safety is the concern and can be articulated,, it was clear this was cops ego not an officer safety issue,,

SCOTUS also said exercising a constitutionally protected right can not be used for suspicion or means for retaliation,,

so he was protected by the constitution and had no lawful obligation to get out of the car,,

you do know what R.A.S is dont you??

and again do you hate the bill of rights or are you just ignorant of them??

 

[AZrailwhale]

only if officer safety is the concern and can be articulated,, it was clear this was cops ego not an officer safety issue,,

SCOTUS also said exercising a constitutionally protected right can not be used for suspicion or means for retaliation,,

so he was protected by the constitution and had no lawful obligation to get out of the car,,

you do know what R.A.S is dont you??

and again do you hate the bill of rights or are you just ignorant of them??

Why are you wrong on every issue you support?

 

[progressive hunter]

Why are you wrong on every issue you support?

what did I get wrong??

I gave detailed facts from the same scotus case to show youre wrong,,

why do you hate our bill of rights??

 

[progressive hunter]

Why are you wrong on every issue you support?

do you know what R.A.S. is??

I ask because its a large and very important part of the case you referenced,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Why are you wrong on every issue you support?

I actually hoped I would wake up this morning and find you gave me detailed facts about how am wrong like I did with you,,
but alas like most leftist you just yell I am wrong and run away like a little *****,,

but lets try again just for the fun of it

do you know what R.A.S. is??

I ask because its a large and very important part of the case you referenced,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Why are you wrong on every issue you support?

heres one for you,,
the cop was able to articulate reasonable suspicion and asked him out of the car so he could search it and even though the guy immediately complied and the cop attacked and arrested him for no reason other than his feelings got hurt,,

now we the tax payers have to pay him 500K because this prick cop got his feelings hurt

 

[progressive hunter]

Why are you wrong on every issue you support?

heres another one that cost us tax payers 10 million dollars because a cop doesnt "like you" respect his oath of office and protect our rights,,

 

[AZrailwhale]

I actually hoped I would wake up this morning and find you gave me detailed facts about how am wrong like I did with you,,
but alas like most leftist you just yell I am wrong and run away like a little *****,,

but lets try again just for the fun of it

do you know what R.A.S. is??

I ask because its a large and very important part of the case you referenced,,

First, if you look at my posts I am about as far from a leftist as there is. Second, I know very well was a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion is and one is not needed to instruct passengers to disembark from a stopped vehicle. All that is needed is a reasonable perception of danger to an officer's safety. IF an officer has the driver out of the vehicle, he can't supervise the passenger if he is IN the vehicle. Ordering the passenger to disembark is both legal and smart. Here is an explanation of the case law to prove you are wrong as usual:
"
The US Supreme Court started giving guidance on this issue in Maryland v. Wilson, 519 US 408 (1997). This case is the sister case to Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 US 106 (1977). The Court in the Mimms case held that an officer can order the driver out of his vehicle for officer safety reasons. The Wilson case gave the officer equal control over the passenger. The passenger can be ordered from the vehicle and kept out until the completion of the traffic stop. The Court recognized that passengers in a vehicle stopped on traffic increases the danger to the officer. For safety reasons the officer is allowed to control the movement of the passengers. A passenger is already seized for 4th Amendment purposes because of the traffic stop. The controlling of movement by ordering the passenger back into the vehicle, or out of the vehicle, or to sit on the curb are all minimal additional intrusions. Weighing this against the officer’s safety, the Court held that the intrusion was reasonable. If the passenger is already seized by virtue of the traffic stop, the officer does not need further reasonable suspicion under Terry to control the movement of that person. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held in the Oklahoma case of US v. Barnes, 156 F.3d 1244 (1998) that a passenger in a vehicle can be detained, ordered from the vehicle, and made to stand by a fence for the officer's safety, the passenger's safety, and to minimize distraction to the dog during a sniff of the vehicle. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held in US v. Williams, 419 F.3d 1029 (2005) that the officer can order a passenger in a vehicle, who was trying to exit and leave a traffic stop, back into the vehicle. “Allowing a passenger, or passengers, to wander freely about while a lone officer conducts a traffic stop presents a dangerous situation by splitting the officer’s attention between two or more individuals, and enabling the driver and/or the passenger(s) to take advantage of a distracted officer.” The need for the officer’s safety and ability to exercise control over the occupants in a vehicle stopped on traffic outweigh the minimal intrusion into the passenger’s liberty. Finally, in Arizona V. Johnson, 000 US 07–1122 (2009), the United States Supreme Court held that, ""A reasonable passenger would understand that during the time a car is lawfully stopped, he or she is not free to terminate the encounter with the police and move about at will."

Police officers have the authority during lawful traffic stops to control all occupants of the vehicle. The officer can prevent passengers from exiting and leaving the scene. The officer can make a passenger get out of the vehicle, sit on the curb, stand by a fence, or follow any other reasonable request to ensure the officer's and passenger's safety. The officer's authority to control the occupants of a stopped vehicle ends when the officer no longer needs to control the scene and advises the occupants they are free to leave."
So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[AZrailwhale]

heres one for you,,
the cop was able to articulate reasonable suspicion and asked him out of the car so he could search it and even though the guy immediately complied and the cop attacked and arrested him for no reason other than his feelings got hurt,,

now we the tax payers have to pay him 500K because this prick cop got his feelings hurt

Where is a link to a successful lawsuit?

 

[progressive hunter]

First, if you look at my posts I am about as far from a leftist as there is. Second, I know very well was a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion is and one is not needed to instruct passengers to disembark from a stopped vehicle. All that is needed is a reasonable perception of danger to an officer's safety. IF an officer has the driver out of the vehicle, he can't supervise the passenger if he is IN the vehicle. Ordering the passenger to disembark is both legal and smart. Here is an explanation of the case law to prove you are wrong as usual:
"
The US Supreme Court started giving guidance on this issue in Maryland v. Wilson, 519 US 408 (1997). This case is the sister case to Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 US 106 (1977). The Court in the Mimms case held that an officer can order the driver out of his vehicle for officer safety reasons. The Wilson case gave the officer equal control over the passenger. The passenger can be ordered from the vehicle and kept out until the completion of the traffic stop. The Court recognized that passengers in a vehicle stopped on traffic increases the danger to the officer. For safety reasons the officer is allowed to control the movement of the passengers. A passenger is already seized for 4th Amendment purposes because of the traffic stop. The controlling of movement by ordering the passenger back into the vehicle, or out of the vehicle, or to sit on the curb are all minimal additional intrusions. Weighing this against the officer’s safety, the Court held that the intrusion was reasonable. If the passenger is already seized by virtue of the traffic stop, the officer does not need further reasonable suspicion under Terry to control the movement of that person. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held in the Oklahoma case of US v. Barnes, 156 F.3d 1244 (1998) that a passenger in a vehicle can be detained, ordered from the vehicle, and made to stand by a fence for the officer's safety, the passenger's safety, and to minimize distraction to the dog during a sniff of the vehicle. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held in US v. Williams, 419 F.3d 1029 (2005) that the officer can order a passenger in a vehicle, who was trying to exit and leave a traffic stop, back into the vehicle. “Allowing a passenger, or passengers, to wander freely about while a lone officer conducts a traffic stop presents a dangerous situation by splitting the officer’s attention between two or more individuals, and enabling the driver and/or the passenger(s) to take advantage of a distracted officer.” The need for the officer’s safety and ability to exercise control over the occupants in a vehicle stopped on traffic outweigh the minimal intrusion into the passenger’s liberty. Finally, in Arizona V. Johnson, 000 US 07–1122 (2009), the United States Supreme Court held that, ""A reasonable passenger would understand that during the time a car is lawfully stopped, he or she is not free to terminate the encounter with the police and move about at will."

Police officers have the authority during lawful traffic stops to control all occupants of the vehicle. The officer can prevent passengers from exiting and leaving the scene. The officer can make a passenger get out of the vehicle, sit on the curb, stand by a fence, or follow any other reasonable request to ensure the officer's and passenger's safety. The officer's authority to control the occupants of a stopped vehicle ends when the officer no longer needs to control the scene and advises the occupants they are free to leave."
So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

youre so dense you dont realize what you just posted prove you wrong,,

there has to be a clear articulable safety issue for them to remove you from the car,, feelings are not a justification,,

cant help but notice you dont care about the violence the cops used for people that committed no crime,,

sure sounds to me like you dont support the rights protected in the constitution,,

 

[Anathema]

I dont know how cops expect us to even consider trusting or liking them when they do shit like this,,,

we need good cops out there,, what we dont need is these bullies in uniform,,

I trust the police far more than I have ever or likely will ever trust some random person in the street.

 

[AZrailwhale]

youre so dense you dont realize what you just posted prove you wrong,,

there has to be a clear articulable safety issue for them to remove you from the car,, feelings are not a justification,,

cant help but notice you dont care about the violence the cops used for people that committed no crime,,

sure sounds to me like you dont support the rights protected in the constitution,,

You are wrong again see the excerpt below:
"...The Wilson case gave the officer equal control over the passenger. The passenger can be ordered from the vehicle and kept out until the completion of the traffic stop. The Court recognized that passengers in a vehicle stopped on traffic increases the danger to the officer. For safety reasons the officer is allowed to control the movement of the passengers. A passenger is already seized for 4th Amendment purposes because of the traffic stop. The controlling of movement by ordering the passenger back into the vehicle, or out of the vehicle, or to sit on the curb are all minimal additional intrusions. Weighing this against the officer’s safety, the Court held that the intrusion was reasonable. If the passenger is already seized by virtue of the traffic stop, the officer does not need further reasonable suspicion under Terry to control the movement of that person. ..."

 

[progressive hunter]

You are wrong again see the excerpt below:
"...The Wilson case gave the officer equal control over the passenger. The passenger can be ordered from the vehicle and kept out until the completion of the traffic stop. The Court recognized that passengers in a vehicle stopped on traffic increases the danger to the officer. For safety reasons the officer is allowed to control the movement of the passengers. A passenger is already seized for 4th Amendment purposes because of the traffic stop. The controlling of movement by ordering the passenger back into the vehicle, or out of the vehicle, or to sit on the curb are all minimal additional intrusions. Weighing this against the officer’s safety, the Court held that the intrusion was reasonable. If the passenger is already seized by virtue of the traffic stop, the officer does not need further reasonable suspicion under Terry to control the movement of that person. ..."

youre so dense,,

it clearly says for safety issues not hurt feelings,,
and the ones I posted are clearly for hurt feelings and bruised egos,,

and again you dont seem to be disturbed from the violence against innocent people that presented no threat,, or how these cops went straight to violence instead of honoring their sworn oaths,,

one I posted you can see the cop got offended and started beating tasing and pepper spraying the guy just because he said jail doesnt scare me..

why is it all you leftist hate our bill of rights??