Ask a cop a question...

[oldsalt]

All he had to do was answer the question.

As someone noted, answering the question would have set the driver up for what he wanted, a larger debate and confrontation. The police officer was trying to control the situation. He no reason to suspect that this guy was a regular asshole as opposed to a potentially altered or dangerous person.

Again, do you find the actions of a person that walks up to a loaded gun and says "what are you going to do, shot me?" reasonable? Would you do that?

Have I ever followed that advice?

Twice.

I never once got tased for it. In fact, the police and I had a nice discussion about rights, and I got off without a ticket once. the second time the officer asked for permission to search my car, and tried to make me wait until a k9 unit showed up. I drove off after 20 minutes without being searched.

If you got tazed for that, I would be on board with "police brutality". You can look at my earlier video which clearly shows brutality from a compliant driver.

Thanks for sharing. I was more interested. I always like the "am I being detained?" tact for traffic stops. By my rudimentary understanding of the law, without having probable cause or reasonable suspicion, a cop can't make you wait for a K-9 unit.

Again, you handled what you perceived to be improper stops in a much better and more respectable manner than this guy. I would never support a cop for tasing a respectful and calm citizen who was questioning them.

This is not an analogous situation.

Winner

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Boo Hoo Hoo. If the cop was wrong then there will be consequences.

Personally I think anyone STUPID enough to argue with the cops deserves what ever non lethal thing happens to them. They have a job to do and we have no business harassing them while they do it.

It is simply amazing that when you do not harass them nothing happens.

There were consequences, the city settled a civil suit with the guy. that, by your definition, makes the cop wrong.

Why is it stupid to expect the police to justify themselves when they stop you? Last time I looked they are actually required to justify every stop they make, they cannot just stop you because they feel like hassling you.

I agree but the only thing he did wrong was leaving his vehicle. From my exprenice when a person jumps from their vehicle like that they are hiding something.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

I viewed him as a threat. As I said, I don't think a cop has to wait for someone to start shooting to be perceived as a threat.

[...]

You viewed him as a threat in relation to yourself. And therein lies a tale.

When I was a boy growing up in Brooklyn in the 40s and 50s the minimum height for becoming a cop was six feet. Their Academy training and post-Academy conditioning included boxing, wrestling and other martial arts at the Academy gym. Female officers were not assigned to routine patrol and there was emphasis on using the gun only as a last resort. In fact, I clearly recall my late uncle (an NYPD Detective) telling us that a NYC cop was not allowed to draw his firearm unless confronted with an actual threat of lethal force.

In anticipation of your response to what I am plainly implying, it may be said that the concept of officer safety must have its limits. Policework, like firefighting, sandhogging, steeplejacking, etc., is a dangerous job. Any cop who is not willing to face that reality should choose a safer occupation. Any cop who is not prepared to deal with Bruce Harpers should avoid initiating the kind of situation that developed from it.

 

[geauxtohell]

Yet you do?

No. I never claimed to. I am not the poster telling another poster their are "wrong" for having a contrary opinion. I recognize that an opinion is just that.

The Indiana Supreme Court recently ruled that people do not have the right to resist the police when they are wrong because they can challenge them in court later and it might end up escalating in violence and someone getting hurt. That means they agree with you.

And why not? We have a system that provides people with legal recourse for abuses by authority. It's just sound public policy to instruct citizens to take such issues to court as opposed to trying to "have their day in court" while being arrested or detained.

Like it or not, we don't have the discretion as citizens to simply tell the police: "you are wrong."

The Attorney General of that state filed a brief asking them to overturn that decision. Why should people who are going about their business have to put up with the police doing whatever they want simply because it might provoke them to be challenged? Until you can answer that in a way that does not lead to the police having excess power and taking us another step down the road to a police state you are wrong.

Because police can't do "whatever they want". They are regulated in the same manner as every other government agency.

 

[oldsalt]

[...]

I viewed him as a threat. As I said, I don't think a cop has to wait for someone to start shooting to be perceived as a threat.

[...]

You viewed him as a threat in relation to yourself. And therein lies a tale.

When I was a boy growing up in Brooklyn in the 40s and 50s the minimum height for becoming a cop was six feet. Their Academy training and post-Academy conditioning included boxing, wrestling and other martial arts at the Academy gym. Female officers were not assigned to routine patrol and there was emphasis on using the gun only as a last resort. In fact, I clearly recall my late uncle (an NYPD Detective) telling us that a NYC cop was not allowed to draw his firearm unless confronted with an actual threat of lethal force.

In anticipation of your response to what I am plainly implying, it may be said that the concept of officer safety must have its limits. Policework, like firefighting, sandhogging, steeplejacking, etc., is a dangerous job. Any cop who is not willing to face that reality should choose a safer occupation. Any cop who is not prepared to deal with Bruce Harpers should avoid initiating the kind of situation that developed from it.

inane gobbledygook.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh lord. Talk about your non-sequiturs.

Here's a major difference, the Freedom Riders did exactly what the cops told them to do. They made the police look stupid by complying with them.

That's a far cry from a lone, belligerent driver "without a cause".

They also broke the law, this guy did not.



Yet you do?

Again, this guy could have made a constitutional argument without provoking a police officer.

Is it illegal to provoke a police officer? Absolutely not. Does it give the police a reason to suspect you might be altered or possibly dangerous? Absolutely.

The Indiana Supreme Court recently ruled that people do not have the right to resist the police when they are wrong because they can challenge them in court later and it might end up escalating in violence and someone getting hurt. That means they agree with you.

The Attorney General of that state filed a brief asking them to overturn that decision. Why should people who are going about their business have to put up with the police doing whatever they want simply because it might provoke them to be challenged? Until you can answer that in a way that does not lead to the police having excess power and taking us another step down the road to a police state you are wrong.

Do you have a link to that case? I find it very difficult to believe that the courts would take a position that would likely overload it, as there are so many instances in which right and wrong never entered the picture, only whether the courts would be able to handle the influx. Also, getting access to the court system is not all that easy for a poor person. Many people would not be able to go out and hire a lawyer to pursue an issue like this. And even thought many cases are taken on contingency, plaintiffs still have to pay the expenses of their lawsuit.

Some of the many problems with the ruling.

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

 

[geauxtohell]

Once I inadvertently let my car tags expire. I got stopped and was given a ticket which, when I got them renewed, would automatically be dismisssed. About a week later, on the way to the courthouse, I was stopped again by a different officer for my expired tags. The officer asked me why I had waited and I told him that I am a nurse and can't just run out at will to go to the courthouse and given that it is only open when I am working I had to wait until I could request some time off. I told him I was on my way to the courthouse at that red hot minute, and I was about 2 blocks away. He acted skeptical. I told him, 'follow me, I won't be offended.' Well, he didn't follow me, I did get my tags, and I didn't get tazed.

Does anyone on here see how this scenario could have escalated? I certainly do. Of course, generally cops like nurses.

You guys seem to think that one side of this argument is advocating for tazing citizens who are complying with law enforcement wholesale.

That is of course, not the situation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A ticket could be issued but it would be dismissed in court (as was the ticket I got long ago for a burned out headlight).

As for the reason for stopping him, too few Americans are aware of an important consideration in the matter of car stops. One of the most insidious components of the War On Drugs are the subsidies handed out to civilian police departments whose performance statistics satisfy a minimum requirement of anti-drug activity (arrests). In fact, the S.W.A.T. activities of most police departments, including the paramilitary weapons, gear and clothing are included in the subsidies.

Because the vast majority of drug arrests are facilitated by car stops the police have developed profiles upon which their stops are selected. These profiles are based on statistics that reveal consistent factors in car stops which have resulted in past drug arrests. Some of these factors are an older, shabby car with a younger driver, moving suspiciously within the speed limit. In some places a Black driver rates high as a profile factor.

The police have learned that stopping cars which fit the profile increase their chances of making a "drug collar" and because of the federal subsidy the pressure is on to make those arrests. So some cops will look for any reason to stop a profiled car while others will invent a reason (speeding, etc). Anyone who doubts what I'm saying here need only watch a few (educational) episodes of the tv documentary, COPS, in which the process is seen time and time again.

There is that too,

I once got stopped for a burned out headlight twice in one night. I didn't get a ticket the second time because I just handed the officer my license and the first ticket. He went back to his car and checked whatever they check and told me to get it fixed ASAP. Shortest traffic stop I ever had.

And that is totally reasonable. Only a total asshole would ticket you twice on the same night for the same offense (for a benign offense like that).

I agree that it was completely reasonable, which is why I handed him the ticket. I replaced the headlight the next day and the ticket was dismissed when I went to court.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Until you can answer how a 'get back in your vehicle', which is protocol in most jurisdictions, is use of excessive force, you are wrong. At which point, the cop was thinking, this guy will not listen to me......Look, the cop didn't start out with a 'lay on your back and do as the good cop tells you' command. Your flower child argument has criminals everywhere grinning.

Never said it was.

Nice strawman though.

Then you should read what you post. you did.

I argued that using the Taser was excessive force. I said that telling him to get back in the car was not a reasonable request.

 

[geauxtohell]

Maybe you might understand Type-B reasoning if it's presented to you in abstract form, such as:

If someday you are driving around the vicinity of Bountiful, Utah, with a crooked front license plate or some other equally insignificant irregularity, it is extremely unlikely that you will be inconvenienced by police pulling you over. And for that small but very real increase in the level of your freedom from government oppression you have Bruce Harper to thank. Without such small, occasional and successful "push-back" incidents to remind the police they are servants rather than masters the drift toward fascism would be accelerated.

While you might question Bruce Harper's mental status the simple fact is it is opposite of yours -- and the federal court agreed with him. Not you. Which is the bottom line.

You keep wanting to make this about the stop. I agree the stop was unreasonable. I also agree Bruce Harper could have made that point in a better way.

The fact is, at the time Harper was pulled over, he had no idea why he was stopped. For all he knew, they could have been looking for a violent offender driving the same car.

So, the issue of the stop, is not germane to the debate at large. What is relevant is the way Harper acted.

And once again, the federal court did NOT agree with Harper. You are either ignoring the facts for convenience or not reading my posts.

They settled. The case never made it to "federal court". Even it if had, the issue was over brutality, not whether Harper's unique brand of protest was warranted or not.

 

[oldsalt]

Never said it was.

Nice strawman though.

Then you should read what you post. you did.

I argued that using the Taser was excessive force. I said that telling him to get back in the car was not a reasonable request.

Why not?

 

[oldsalt]

Once I inadvertently let my car tags expire. I got stopped and was given a ticket which, when I got them renewed, would automatically be dismisssed. About a week later, on the way to the courthouse, I was stopped again by a different officer for my expired tags. The officer asked me why I had waited and I told him that I am a nurse and can't just run out at will to go to the courthouse and given that it is only open when I am working I had to wait until I could request some time off. I told him I was on my way to the courthouse at that red hot minute, and I was about 2 blocks away. He acted skeptical. I told him, 'follow me, I won't be offended.' Well, he didn't follow me, I did get my tags, and I didn't get tazed.

Does anyone on here see how this scenario could have escalated? I certainly do. Of course, generally cops like nurses.

You guys seem to think that one side of this argument is advocating for tazing citizens who are complying with law enforcement wholesale.

That is of course, not the situation.

When folks blindly persuade the argument, they lose ground.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

I viewed him as a threat. As I said, I don't think a cop has to wait for someone to start shooting to be perceived as a threat.

[...]

You viewed him as a threat in relation to yourself. And therein lies a tale.

When I was a boy growing up in Brooklyn in the 40s and 50s the minimum height for becoming a cop was six feet. Their Academy training and post-Academy conditioning included boxing, wrestling and other martial arts at the Academy gym. Female officers were not assigned to routine patrol and there was emphasis on using the gun only as a last resort. In fact, I clearly recall my late uncle (an NYPD Detective) telling us that a NYC cop was not allowed to draw his firearm unless confronted with an actual threat of lethal force.

In anticipation of your response to what I am plainly implying, it may be said that the concept of officer safety must have its limits. Policework, like firefighting, sandhogging, steeplejacking, etc., is a dangerous job. Any cop who is not willing to face that reality should choose a safer occupation. Any cop who is not prepared to deal with Bruce Harpers should avoid initiating the kind of situation that developed from it.

inane gobbledygook.

Your one-line ad hominems contribute nothing to an interesting discussion. They identify you as either an adolescent or an adult with an adolescent mentality, meaning your efforts here are a waste of time and space.

So off to my Ignore list you go, along with the rest of the schoolyard gang.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As someone noted, answering the question would have set the driver up for what he wanted, a larger debate and confrontation. The police officer was trying to control the situation. He no reason to suspect that this guy was a regular asshole as opposed to a potentially altered or dangerous person.

Interesting.

You object to me trying to force police to read minds, but have no problem doing it yourself.

Again, do you find the actions of a person that walks up to a loaded gun and says "what are you going to do, shot me?" reasonable? Would you do that?

I might, if I was feeling aggravated enough.

What you fail to understand is that every single time you walk up to a police officer you are approaching a loaded weapon. That is why I demand that those weapons be controlled by someone that understands that people have the right to challenge their authority.

If you got tazed for that, I would be on board with "police brutality". You can look at my earlier video which clearly shows brutality from a compliant driver.

Thanks for sharing. I was more interested. I always like the "am I being detained?" tact for traffic stops. By my rudimentary understanding of the law, without having probable cause or reasonable suspicion, a cop can't make you wait for a K-9 unit.

Again, you handled what you perceived to be improper stops in a much better and more respectable manner than this guy. I would never support a cop for tasing a respectful and calm citizen who was questioning them.

This is not an analogous situation.

I would have been Tased, if he had one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Once I inadvertently let my car tags expire. I got stopped and was given a ticket which, when I got them renewed, would automatically be dismisssed. About a week later, on the way to the courthouse, I was stopped again by a different officer for my expired tags. The officer asked me why I had waited and I told him that I am a nurse and can't just run out at will to go to the courthouse and given that it is only open when I am working I had to wait until I could request some time off. I told him I was on my way to the courthouse at that red hot minute, and I was about 2 blocks away. He acted skeptical. I told him, 'follow me, I won't be offended.' Well, he didn't follow me, I did get my tags, and I didn't get tazed.

Does anyone on here see how this scenario could have escalated? I certainly do. Of course, generally cops like nurses.

You guys seem to think that one side of this argument is advocating for tazing citizens who are complying with law enforcement wholesale.

That is of course, not the situation.

Not at all.

You are advocating the wholesale use of the Taser on people who do not comply with the demands of the police.

 

[geauxtohell]

[...]

I viewed him as a threat. As I said, I don't think a cop has to wait for someone to start shooting to be perceived as a threat.

[...]

You viewed him as a threat in relation to yourself. And therein lies a tale.

When I was a boy growing up in Brooklyn in the 40s and 50s the minimum height for becoming a cop was six feet. Their Academy training and post-Academy conditioning included boxing, wrestling and other martial arts at the Academy gym. Female officers were not assigned to routine patrol and there was emphasis on using the gun only as a last resort. In fact, I clearly recall my late uncle (an NYPD Detective) telling us that a NYC cop was not allowed to draw his firearm unless confronted with an actual threat of lethal force.

In anticipation of your response to what I am plainly implying, it may be said that the concept of officer safety must have its limits. Policework, like firefighting, sandhogging, steeplejacking, etc., is a dangerous job. Any cop who is not willing to face that reality should choose a safer occupation. Any cop who is not prepared to deal with Bruce Harpers should avoid initiating the kind of situation that developed from it.

And in those days "conceal carry" wasn't the norm. Especially not in Brooklyn. Things are a bit different in Utah.

The NRA loves to publish stories about 90 year old women blowing away home invaders.

The bottom line, it doesn't matter how good of a boxer you are if the other guy has a weapon.

You last statement is absurd. So police officers shouldn't pull anyone over on behalf of the Bruce Harper's of the world?

Give me a break.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then you should read what you post. you did.

I argued that using the Taser was excessive force. I said that telling him to get back in the car was not a reasonable request.

Why not?

Because there is no existing case law anywhere that says that people pulled over for a traffic stop has to remain in their car. You keep trying to force people to cite laws, why don't you find one that makes it illegal to get out of the car?

 

[geauxtohell]

They also broke the law, this guy did not.



Yet you do?



The Indiana Supreme Court recently ruled that people do not have the right to resist the police when they are wrong because they can challenge them in court later and it might end up escalating in violence and someone getting hurt. That means they agree with you.

The Attorney General of that state filed a brief asking them to overturn that decision. Why should people who are going about their business have to put up with the police doing whatever they want simply because it might provoke them to be challenged? Until you can answer that in a way that does not lead to the police having excess power and taking us another step down the road to a police state you are wrong.

Do you have a link to that case? I find it very difficult to believe that the courts would take a position that would likely overload it, as there are so many instances in which right and wrong never entered the picture, only whether the courts would be able to handle the influx. Also, getting access to the court system is not all that easy for a poor person. Many people would not be able to go out and hire a lawyer to pursue an issue like this. And even thought many cases are taken on contingency, plaintiffs still have to pay the expenses of their lawsuit.

Some of the many problems with the ruling.

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

I think that link and the recent Kentucky v. case is a much better example of police power run amok then this video.

 

[oldsalt]

Once I inadvertently let my car tags expire. I got stopped and was given a ticket which, when I got them renewed, would automatically be dismisssed. About a week later, on the way to the courthouse, I was stopped again by a different officer for my expired tags. The officer asked me why I had waited and I told him that I am a nurse and can't just run out at will to go to the courthouse and given that it is only open when I am working I had to wait until I could request some time off. I told him I was on my way to the courthouse at that red hot minute, and I was about 2 blocks away. He acted skeptical. I told him, 'follow me, I won't be offended.' Well, he didn't follow me, I did get my tags, and I didn't get tazed.

Does anyone on here see how this scenario could have escalated? I certainly do. Of course, generally cops like nurses.

You guys seem to think that one side of this argument is advocating for tazing citizens who are complying with law enforcement wholesale.

That is of course, not the situation.

Not at all.

You are advocating the wholesale use of the Taser on people who do not comply with the demands of the police.

Bullshit. What's your point?

 

[CMike]

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.

The cop was justified.

1) Disobeying a lawful order from a cop is a crime. They are not suggestions.

2) The driver was coming up to the cop

3) The cop repeated numerous times what the driver should do

4) The cop doesn't know what the driver will do

5) What the driver should have done is wait in the car with his hands on the wheel