POLICE STATE: Park Ranger Caught On Camera Pointing Pistol At Couple...

[paulitician]

Bottom line is, once more cops start getting arrested and prosecuted, they'll all begin to fall in line. Up till now, they have never felt any real threat of punishment. More doing hard prison time will change the behavior of others.

 

[Liminal]

Bottom line is, once more cops start getting arrested and prosecuted, they'll all begin to fall in line. Up till now, they have never felt any real threat of punishment. More doing hard prison time will change the behavior of others.

Again, you just repeat the same simple minded shit you heard without any actual thought of your own.

 

[paulitician]

Bottom line is, once more cops start getting arrested and prosecuted, they'll all begin to fall in line. Up till now, they have never felt any real threat of punishment. More doing hard prison time will change the behavior of others.

Again, you just repeat the same simple minded shit you heard without any actual thought of your own.

Yeah, you said that. We get it, you're a hateful Authority-Worshipper. Got anything else?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why are we giving so many thug bullies guns & badges? What's going on?


A Chesapeake park ranger was caught on camera pointing his pistol at a couple. It was a confrontation that started because the couple left a city park after closing time.

“I was hoping he wasn’t going to shoot at us,” says Dylan Newton, who recorded a 7-minute video of the ranger. “With all the things going on in the media with cops using excessive force and all these videos coming out like that’s the only thing running through my head like I’m going to be one of these people.”

Newton says it all happened Sunday night at the city’s Northwest River Park off Indian Creek Road.

Newton says he and his girlfriend had gone on a hike and were driving out a few minutes past the park’s 6:15 p.m. closing time when the ranger stopped them.

Newton says the ranger asked him three times to turn off his car and hand over his license and registration. He says he asked several times why he was being stopped and who the ranger was, but he got no answer.

“I turned off my car, my hands were in my lap, I proceeded to put my hands on the wheel and I saw him reach for his weapon,” he says. “So I turned my car on because I was genuinely terrified for my girlfriend and myself at that point.”...

Chesapeake park ranger caught on camera pointing pistol at couple leaving park past closing time

Well, if we go with the typical logic on this board the officer was right to draw down on him and as soon as the officer or the chief tells us why that was ok, I'll tell you why.

Putting hands on your lap could be aggressive.

Asking the cops questions is disrespectful.

Watch

 

[Liminal]

Bottom line is, once more cops start getting arrested and prosecuted, they'll all begin to fall in line. Up till now, they have never felt any real threat of punishment. More doing hard prison time will change the behavior of others.

Again, you just repeat the same simple minded shit you heard without any actual thought of your own.

Yeah, you said that. We get it, you're a hateful Authority-Worshipper. Got anything else?

I'll bet you live in a nice gated suburban community.......don't you.

 

[Liminal]

Why are we giving so many thug bullies guns & badges? What's going on?


A Chesapeake park ranger was caught on camera pointing his pistol at a couple. It was a confrontation that started because the couple left a city park after closing time.

“I was hoping he wasn’t going to shoot at us,” says Dylan Newton, who recorded a 7-minute video of the ranger. “With all the things going on in the media with cops using excessive force and all these videos coming out like that’s the only thing running through my head like I’m going to be one of these people.”

Newton says it all happened Sunday night at the city’s Northwest River Park off Indian Creek Road.

Newton says he and his girlfriend had gone on a hike and were driving out a few minutes past the park’s 6:15 p.m. closing time when the ranger stopped them.

Newton says the ranger asked him three times to turn off his car and hand over his license and registration. He says he asked several times why he was being stopped and who the ranger was, but he got no answer.

“I turned off my car, my hands were in my lap, I proceeded to put my hands on the wheel and I saw him reach for his weapon,” he says. “So I turned my car on because I was genuinely terrified for my girlfriend and myself at that point.”...

Chesapeake park ranger caught on camera pointing pistol at couple leaving park past closing time

Well, if we go with the typical logic on this board the officer was right to draw down on him and as soon as the officer or the chief tells us why that was ok, I'll tell you why.

Putting hands on your lap could be aggressive.

Asking the cops questions is disrespectful.

Watch

If you don't keep your hands on the steering wheel in a situation like that, then you're just plain stupid.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Good! There ya go...Complete compliance is suspicious

 

[dadsgm]

Why are we giving so many thug bullies guns & badges? What's going on?


A Chesapeake park ranger was caught on camera pointing his pistol at a couple. It was a confrontation that started because the couple left a city park after closing time.

“I was hoping he wasn’t going to shoot at us,” says Dylan Newton, who recorded a 7-minute video of the ranger. “With all the things going on in the media with cops using excessive force and all these videos coming out like that’s the only thing running through my head like I’m going to be one of these people.”

Newton says it all happened Sunday night at the city’s Northwest River Park off Indian Creek Road.

Newton says he and his girlfriend had gone on a hike and were driving out a few minutes past the park’s 6:15 p.m. closing time when the ranger stopped them.

Newton says the ranger asked him three times to turn off his car and hand over his license and registration. He says he asked several times why he was being stopped and who the ranger was, but he got no answer.

“I turned off my car, my hands were in my lap, I proceeded to put my hands on the wheel and I saw him reach for his weapon,” he says. “So I turned my car on because I was genuinely terrified for my girlfriend and myself at that point.”...

Chesapeake park ranger caught on camera pointing pistol at couple leaving park past closing time


[/QUOTE
You should have been scared because you were in the wrong. Wrong for not leaving prior to the scheduled time and wrong for not doing as you were asked. Comply and then ask questions as opposed to defiance and escalating the situation. I guess some people were just never taught how to respond to authority. Your statements about being worried you might get shot are a correct assumption but when your actions raise the tensions the possibility of corrective action by the officer increases.

 

[OKTexas]

They did the same thing as all of the others have done.
Did not obey the park rules and did not do what the park ranger asked him to do.

Asked?

That word implies politeness, which I strongly doubt was manifest in this example. I doubt it because this young man (the driver) doesn't seem the type who would behave rudely or contemptuously toward anyone who approached him politely, much less a uniformed officer.

Does it occur to you that this Ranger might initially have engaged that couple in an exaggeratedly authoritarian manner which was entirely inappropriate under the circumstances? After all, what offense did this couple commit? Being a few minutes over the visiting time limit? Does that justify a vehicle pursuit, a potentially destructive vehicular action-stop followed by a demonstrative threat of deadly force?

That couple's "offense" called for issuance of a summons and nothing more. If their vehicle failed to stop for the Ranger's signal its plate number could be used to issue a summons by mail. What this Ranger did was excessive under the circumstances and would be acceptable (and lawful) only under circumstances in which he had valid cause to suspect those people of some felonious offense.

There is a problem in that contemporary police, owing to a progression of increased police authority and aggressive procedures when making car-stops, have acquired the idea that their authority is omnipotent and that civilians may not under any circumstances disregard or disobey their commands. This exaggerated impression of their authority has led to an infuriated response by some cops when a civilian fails to behave submissively toward them.

It is important to understand that the extremely counterproductive War On Drugs is directly responsible for the rising conflict between the public and the police.

They were still in the Park when it closed.
The Park Rangers then have full authority to ask for ID, which he did not do.
If they had gotten out of the Park before it closed they would not have been stopped like that.
Did it ever occur to you that they could have been up to something?
That is the point of view from Park Rangers when someone does not follow park rules.
How do you know for certain how long it was. To them a few minutes could be anywhere from 10 to 15 minutes or even longer.
The direct conflict between the police and the public is directly due to Sharpton, Holder and Obama accusing them of being racists.

Sure, they could have been up to something. That is irrelevant though - we do not accost people because they might have been up to something. Had there been actual EVIDENCE that they were up toi something that would be different. As Mike stated - they could have simply sent a ticket to them for both being in the park late and driving off.

Right, he was probably driving daddies car, what ya going to do, send two tickets to the registered owner, the cop hadn't identified the two in the car, when they guy drove off all he had was a plate number.

And if you let your kids drive your car then you are culpable.

Real tough right? I guess it is better to just allow the cops to do anything they want so that we all have a security blanket that does not add any real security.

So I guess if you find yourself in deep shit, the last thing you'll do is call 911. LMAO

 

[MikeK]

[

Right, he was probably driving daddies car, what ya going to do, send two tickets to the registered owner, the cop hadn't identified the two in the car, when they guy drove off all he had was a plate number.

So rather than risk something as innocuous as as a misdirected summons for a minor offense it's best to emulate an SS trooper in the Warsaw Ghetto. Because that is exactly what some cops behave like.

 

[OKTexas]

[

Right, he was probably driving daddies car, what ya going to do, send two tickets to the registered owner, the cop hadn't identified the two in the car, when they guy drove off all he had was a plate number.

So rather than risk something as innocuous as as a misdirected summons for a minor offense it's best to emulate an SS trooper in the Warsaw Ghetto. Because that is exactly what some cops behave like.

Why are you ignoring the FACTS, that wasn't the case here. The dumbass kid restarted his car and drove away, that is felony evading and the subsequent felony stop was justified. The cop followed the rules, the kid didn't.

 

[MikeK]

So I guess if you find yourself in deep shit, the last thing you'll do is call 911. LMAO

I am seventy-nine years old. I was born and raised on the Brooklyn Waterfront (see the movie) at the peak of the Great Depression. Neither me nor any member of my family has ever needed to call the police to protect them. I don't know anyone who has ever needed to call the police to protect them.

All I need to protect myself is a firearm. But here in Jersey a CCW is virtually impossible to get and if one carries a gun for self-defense without a permit any cop will eagerly arrest him.

What I need from cops is to keep an eye on my property when I'm away. That's it. If a cop observes some overt criminal activity he should act, but this "Reasonable Suspicion" bullshit must be eliminated -- because it means an end to the atmosphere of liberty Americans enjoyed until the War on Drugs was commenced. So the ability of any cop to stop, question and search anyone because of some bullshit "suspicion" he chooses to fabricate must be ended.

 

[OKTexas]

So I guess if you find yourself in deep shit, the last thing you'll do is call 911. LMAO

I am seventy-nine years old. I was born and raised on the Brooklyn Waterfront (see the movie) at the peak of the Great Depression. Neither me nor any member of my family has ever needed to call the police to protect them. I don't know anyone who has ever needed to call the police to protect them.

All I need to protect myself is a firearm. But here in Jersey a CCW is virtually impossible to get and if one carries a gun for self-defense without a permit any cop will eagerly arrest him.

What I need from cops is to keep an eye on my property when I'm away. That's it. If a cop observes some overt criminal activity he should act, but this "Reasonable Suspicion" bullshit must be eliminated -- because it means an end to the atmosphere of liberty Americans enjoyed until the War on Drugs was commenced. The ability of any cop to stop, question and search anyone because of some bullshit "suspicion" he chooses to fabricate must be ended.

Deflection doesn't become you, stop ignoring the facts of this particular case.

 

[MikeK]

Why are you ignoring the FACTS, that wasn't the case here. The dumbass kid restarted his car and drove away, that is felony evading and the subsequent felony stop was justified. The cop followed the rules, the kid didn't.

I'm not ignoring those "facts." But those "facts" are held to be facts only because their essence is rarely challenged.

(Excerpt)

Police officers need no justification to stop someone on a public street and ask questions, and individuals are completely entitled to refuse to answer any such questions and to go about their business. However, a police officer may only search people and places when the officer has probable cause or reasonable suspicion to suspect criminal activity.

"Probable cause" means that the officer must possess sufficiently trustworthy facts to believe that a crime has been committed. In some cases, an officer may need only a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a limited search. Reasonable suspicion means that the officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand.

Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion

(Close)

Your facts exist as you and most other cops have been led by common practice and observation to believe are cut and dried. But when a citizen who is subjected to excessive imposition of police authority, such as the Newton kid in the topic example obviously has been, and the circumstances are adequately challenged in a superior court, these secondary charges, e.g., the "felony evading" bullshit are promptly dismissed -- and I have personally seen this happen numerous times. The problem is we don't read or hear about these interpretive challenges often enough to understand how our rights are being tampered with.

The real fact, as I am led to understand by the report we've both read, is the Newton kid was guilty of nothing but violating a reverse curfew, which is at most a summons offense.

When Newton was signaled by the Ranger, he did stop. But Newton has explained that the Ranger's conduct under the circumstances seemed sufficiently excessive to cause him to fear for his and his companion's safety. And being confident that he'd done nothing to justify the direction this traffic stop was moving in he was motivated to get away.

 

[OKTexas]

Why are you ignoring the FACTS, that wasn't the case here. The dumbass kid restarted his car and drove away, that is felony evading and the subsequent felony stop was justified. The cop followed the rules, the kid didn't.

I'm not ignoring those "facts." But those "facts" are held to be facts only because their essence is rarely challenged.

(Excerpt)

Police officers need no justification to stop someone on a public street and ask questions, and individuals are completely entitled to refuse to answer any such questions and to go about their business. However, a police officer may only search people and places when the officer has probable cause or reasonable suspicion to suspect criminal activity.

"Probable cause" means that the officer must possess sufficiently trustworthy facts to believe that a crime has been committed. In some cases, an officer may need only a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a limited search. Reasonable suspicion means that the officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand.

Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion

(Close)

Your facts exist as you and most other cops have been led by common practice and observation to believe are cut and dried. But when a citizen who is subjected to excessive imposition of police authority, such as the Newton kid in the topic example obviously has been, and the circumstances are adequately challenged in a superior court, these secondary charges, e.g., the "felony evading" bullshit are promptly dismissed -- and I have personally seen this happen numerous times. The problem is we don't read or hear about these interpretive challenges often enough to understand how our rights are being tampered with.

The real fact, as I am led to understand by the report we've both read, is the Newton kid was guilty of nothing but violating a reverse curfew, which is at most a summons offense.

When Newton was signaled by the Ranger, he did stop. But Newton has explained that the Ranger's conduct under the circumstances seemed sufficiently excessive to cause him to fear for his and his companion's safety. And being confident that he'd done nothing to justify the direction this traffic stop was moving in he was motivated to get away.

If in fact[/i] Newton and his companion were doing or had done anything illegal, then his action could reasonably be considered as "evasion." And I am quite certain that he will describe that Ranger's behavior toward him and his companion as being excessively aggressive, which gave rise to fear. And because his lawyer will be able to present numerous recent examples of excessive police conduct Newton's position will be supported.

So it remains to be seen whether or not your "facts" hold up in court.

The cop had probable cause to stop them, they were coming out of a closed park. The cop had every right to ask for the kids license, registration, insurance and for the kid to turn the car off while they were talking, he was driving on a public road. The kid failed to comply with 3 request for the documents, he did finally turn the car off after the 3rd request. So you tell me, who was being uncooperative?

All this sideline BS has no bearing on this case, nothing you've said alters the facts, the cop conducted himself properly, the kid didn't. They cut the kid a break by not charging him with felony evading, he should be grateful, pay his fines and STFU. There was nothing to prove the cop acted in an unprofessional manner.

 

[FA_Q2]

They did the same thing as all of the others have done.
Did not obey the park rules and did not do what the park ranger asked him to do.

Asked?

That word implies politeness, which I strongly doubt was manifest in this example. I doubt it because this young man (the driver) doesn't seem the type who would behave rudely or contemptuously toward anyone who approached him politely, much less a uniformed officer.

Does it occur to you that this Ranger might initially have engaged that couple in an exaggeratedly authoritarian manner which was entirely inappropriate under the circumstances? After all, what offense did this couple commit? Being a few minutes over the visiting time limit? Does that justify a vehicle pursuit, a potentially destructive vehicular action-stop followed by a demonstrative threat of deadly force?

That couple's "offense" called for issuance of a summons and nothing more. If their vehicle failed to stop for the Ranger's signal its plate number could be used to issue a summons by mail. What this Ranger did was excessive under the circumstances and would be acceptable (and lawful) only under circumstances in which he had valid cause to suspect those people of some felonious offense.

There is a problem in that contemporary police, owing to a progression of increased police authority and aggressive procedures when making car-stops, have acquired the idea that their authority is omnipotent and that civilians may not under any circumstances disregard or disobey their commands. This exaggerated impression of their authority has led to an infuriated response by some cops when a civilian fails to behave submissively toward them.

It is important to understand that the extremely counterproductive War On Drugs is directly responsible for the rising conflict between the public and the police.

They were still in the Park when it closed.
The Park Rangers then have full authority to ask for ID, which he did not do.
If they had gotten out of the Park before it closed they would not have been stopped like that.
Did it ever occur to you that they could have been up to something?
That is the point of view from Park Rangers when someone does not follow park rules.
How do you know for certain how long it was. To them a few minutes could be anywhere from 10 to 15 minutes or even longer.
The direct conflict between the police and the public is directly due to Sharpton, Holder and Obama accusing them of being racists.

Sure, they could have been up to something. That is irrelevant though - we do not accost people because they might have been up to something. Had there been actual EVIDENCE that they were up toi something that would be different. As Mike stated - they could have simply sent a ticket to them for both being in the park late and driving off.

They were not accosted. They refused to do what was asked of them. Then they become suspects.
If you have done nothing wrong you do what was asked in the 1st place.
You disobey the laws there are consequences. Period.

Your statement is 100 percent against the constitution.

Cops are not gestapos. They are under a rather strict set of rules that governments their conduct and that INCLUDES my RIGHTS. You are not required to simply comply with whatever the agents of the state demand.

 

[FA_Q2]

It shouldn't take being told three times when a person of authority in a uniform is confronting you. It's called appearing to be resisting, duh. Same scenario would be a game warden having to ask a hunter three times to see his license. The guy, in my opinion, was asking for it. We cruise on open water a lot and from time to time see the Coast Guard. They have more authority than the military in that they can board your vessel WITHOUT provocation with weapons drawn. You'd better believe it wouldn't take three requests for me to show my papers or anything else they wanted to see. Complying is the prudent thing to do rather than having my boat literally taken apart, which they are well within their rights to do, or ending up dead. People just have no respect anymore. Wise up.

The question you need to ask yourself is whether or not this Ranger's actions were grossly out of proportion with the circumstances. What did he believe this young couple had done to justify his action.

When the Probable Cause requirement was in effect no sensible cop would have behaved this way -- because nothing was done to justify such an out of proportion response. Those people had done absolutely nothing to warrant the threat of deadly force. If anything, their license plate number could have been used to issue a summons by mail. And if they didn't appear an arrest warrant could then be issued for contempt of court.

But in case you haven't noticed, a substantial percentage of Americans who, unlike you, do not worship authority in any form, are fed up with the excessive actions of far too many cops who seem to believe their badge places them above the Common Law.

But in advance of your reply let me say I do not expect you to agree because I am quite familiar with the authoritarian personality syndrome in all its aspects.

Society becoming more evil and disrespectful has caused the shift in how cops treat these sorts of situations. We can only guess what the officer actually encountered and what he determined the threat to actually be. We can speculate endlessly. What we do know, however, is folks no longer respect authority of any kind. Kids don't respect their parents and certainly don't respect their elders. Adults no longer respect anyone over them be it bosses in the workplace, state and local officials, anyone. No wonder we have the mess we have today. No wonder cops have felt forced to become militarized in their approach. It's gotten absolutely nuts.

Most cops have never been held accountable for their crimes. Until the recent advent of the cell phone camera, most Americans were completely clueless about what cops routinely get away with. And even when recorded breaking the law, most cops only lose their jobs. They're rarely arrested & prosecuted.

It's time for Police to be held to the same legal standards average Citizens are. If they break the law, thay have to be arrested and prosecuted. Losing their job isn't good enough.

Higher.

The whole with great power dig. Officers of the law are given special powers over our rights and abilities and as such should be held to a higher standard. There is little worse than abuse of that power.

I can tell you what's much worse than abusing power: Making simple minded characterizations to fit your one dimensional narrative.

Then stop demanding that the police are simply correct in whatever they demand. If those simply one dimensional narratives are so upsetting to you then I do not understand why you want to stick with one...

 

[FA_Q2]

Asked?

That word implies politeness, which I strongly doubt was manifest in this example. I doubt it because this young man (the driver) doesn't seem the type who would behave rudely or contemptuously toward anyone who approached him politely, much less a uniformed officer.

Does it occur to you that this Ranger might initially have engaged that couple in an exaggeratedly authoritarian manner which was entirely inappropriate under the circumstances? After all, what offense did this couple commit? Being a few minutes over the visiting time limit? Does that justify a vehicle pursuit, a potentially destructive vehicular action-stop followed by a demonstrative threat of deadly force?

That couple's "offense" called for issuance of a summons and nothing more. If their vehicle failed to stop for the Ranger's signal its plate number could be used to issue a summons by mail. What this Ranger did was excessive under the circumstances and would be acceptable (and lawful) only under circumstances in which he had valid cause to suspect those people of some felonious offense.

There is a problem in that contemporary police, owing to a progression of increased police authority and aggressive procedures when making car-stops, have acquired the idea that their authority is omnipotent and that civilians may not under any circumstances disregard or disobey their commands. This exaggerated impression of their authority has led to an infuriated response by some cops when a civilian fails to behave submissively toward them.

It is important to understand that the extremely counterproductive War On Drugs is directly responsible for the rising conflict between the public and the police.

They were still in the Park when it closed.
The Park Rangers then have full authority to ask for ID, which he did not do.
If they had gotten out of the Park before it closed they would not have been stopped like that.
Did it ever occur to you that they could have been up to something?
That is the point of view from Park Rangers when someone does not follow park rules.
How do you know for certain how long it was. To them a few minutes could be anywhere from 10 to 15 minutes or even longer.
The direct conflict between the police and the public is directly due to Sharpton, Holder and Obama accusing them of being racists.

Sure, they could have been up to something. That is irrelevant though - we do not accost people because they might have been up to something. Had there been actual EVIDENCE that they were up toi something that would be different. As Mike stated - they could have simply sent a ticket to them for both being in the park late and driving off.

Right, he was probably driving daddies car, what ya going to do, send two tickets to the registered owner, the cop hadn't identified the two in the car, when they guy drove off all he had was a plate number.

And if you let your kids drive your car then you are culpable.

Real tough right? I guess it is better to just allow the cops to do anything they want so that we all have a security blanket that does not add any real security.

So I guess if you find yourself in deep shit, the last thing you'll do is call 911. LMAO

Do you have something more than a straw man that has nothing to do with anything I have said?

 

[OKTexas]

They were still in the Park when it closed.
The Park Rangers then have full authority to ask for ID, which he did not do.
If they had gotten out of the Park before it closed they would not have been stopped like that.
Did it ever occur to you that they could have been up to something?
That is the point of view from Park Rangers when someone does not follow park rules.
How do you know for certain how long it was. To them a few minutes could be anywhere from 10 to 15 minutes or even longer.
The direct conflict between the police and the public is directly due to Sharpton, Holder and Obama accusing them of being racists.

Sure, they could have been up to something. That is irrelevant though - we do not accost people because they might have been up to something. Had there been actual EVIDENCE that they were up toi something that would be different. As Mike stated - they could have simply sent a ticket to them for both being in the park late and driving off.

Right, he was probably driving daddies car, what ya going to do, send two tickets to the registered owner, the cop hadn't identified the two in the car, when they guy drove off all he had was a plate number.

And if you let your kids drive your car then you are culpable.

Real tough right? I guess it is better to just allow the cops to do anything they want so that we all have a security blanket that does not add any real security.

So I guess if you find yourself in deep shit, the last thing you'll do is call 911. LMAO

Do you have something more than a straw man that has nothing to do with anything I have said?

Nope that's all I got for your delusions, so far you haven't proved the cop in this case did a damn thing wrong, deflection and hand wringing don't cut it.

 

[peach174]

Why are you ignoring the FACTS, that wasn't the case here. The dumbass kid restarted his car and drove away, that is felony evading and the subsequent felony stop was justified. The cop followed the rules, the kid didn't.

I'm not ignoring those "facts." But those "facts" are held to be facts only because their essence is rarely challenged.

(Excerpt)

Police officers need no justification to stop someone on a public street and ask questions, and individuals are completely entitled to refuse to answer any such questions and to go about their business. However, a police officer may only search people and places when the officer has probable cause or reasonable suspicion to suspect criminal activity.

"Probable cause" means that the officer must possess sufficiently trustworthy facts to believe that a crime has been committed. In some cases, an officer may need only a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a limited search. Reasonable suspicion means that the officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand.

Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion

(Close)

Your facts exist as you and most other cops have been led by common practice and observation to believe are cut and dried. But when a citizen who is subjected to excessive imposition of police authority, such as the Newton kid in the topic example obviously has been, and the circumstances are adequately challenged in a superior court, these secondary charges, e.g., the "felony evading" bullshit are promptly dismissed -- and I have personally seen this happen numerous times. The problem is we don't read or hear about these interpretive challenges often enough to understand how our rights are being tampered with.

The real fact, as I am led to understand by the report we've both read, is the Newton kid was guilty of nothing but violating a reverse curfew, which is at most a summons offense.

When Newton was signaled by the Ranger, he did stop. But Newton has explained that the Ranger's conduct under the circumstances seemed sufficiently excessive to cause him to fear for his and his companion's safety. And being confident that he'd done nothing to justify the direction this traffic stop was moving in he was motivated to get away.

There is nothing to be challenged here.
The kid broke the rules of the park. Then did not do as he was told.
We are a nation of laws.
The minute that individuals decide to not follow the rules, no matter how small and not take individual responsibility, then the cops take over (fascism) and soon after that, the Government (Communism).

You either be responsible individuals and have freedom, or you disobey rules and authority and you get Government control and loss of freedom.
You are seeing the break down of our society and the end result is complete control over all of us if we don't get this type of behavior under control.