Ask a cop a question...

[Dr Grump]

You guys can post all the Youtube videos you like. I take each incident on its merits.

1) The guy asked a question. The cop could have answered.
2) The cop had a GUN on the guy. There was no way the guy was going to outdraw him if he was armed.
3) He did start to obey the cop, then it went from "I want to see if you are going to cause me harm" to "I want you prone on the ground at my feet".
4) Both were out of line IMO....The cop could have been less aggressive, the guy should have not walked towards.


5) What is not lost to this foreigner is how your 'free' society is in reality. Why is this? Why is the cop like this? That is what 'your god given unalienable' second amendment has caused.
6) You see, because you have your second amendment you are more 'free', yet it creates situations where cops fear for their lives, and then your rights are eroded. The irony of this is not lost on me. It's a catch 22 situation - in order to save the village you have to burn it to the ground....

 

[CMike]

It's really very simple.

The driver failed to obey a

He doesn't know if the driver is armed or not. He doesn't know what the driver will do.

If you're so sure of all this why do you suppose the driver has been awarded a $45k settlement from the City of Bountiful, UT, and is in line to win a similar award from the County, and has not been prosecuted for any offense? Can it possibly be that a long-held belief of yours is simply wrong?

I just read the article.

He was tazed around 60 times. That is very excessive. That's why he won.

However the original taz is justified.

 

[MikeK]

I just read the article.

He was tazed around 60 times. That is very excessive. That's why he won.

However the original taz is justified.

Where in the article does it say Harper was prosecuted and found guilty?

Nowhere. Because he was found guilty of nothing.

So the idea that it was necessary for three big, trained police officers to use redundant and potentiallly lethal force, even once, against an unarmed subject who had neither committed nor was suspected of any criminal offense and had issued no overt or implicit threat to any of them is yours alone. You simply have a problem accepting the fact that inviolable supremacy of police authority exists mainly in the minds of the police and Type-A citizens.

 

[CMike]

1. Can you site a law anywhere that says that disobeying a police officer is illegal? That makes an order to get back into your car illegal?
2. The driver was unarmed.
3. Repeating illegal orders do not make them legal.
4. Which is why he should answer the question instead of excalating the confrontation.
5. Should have does not make it illegal for him to not do it.

Failure to obey a police order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Failure to obey a police officer, or failure to obey a police order, is typically a misdemeanor. In Washington, DC, this law is utilized primarily for purposes of ensuring that officers tasked with directing traffic have the authority to direct motorists and pedestrians in a proper and safe manner.[1]


How does the police officer know that the driver is unarmed?

The orders were legal

Washington DC is not Utah

Utah Code

Motor Vehicles
Chapter 6a Traffic Code

Section 209 Obedience to peace officer or other traffic controllers -- Speeding in construction zones.
41-6a-209. Obedience to peace officer or other traffic controllers -- Speeding in construction zones.
(1) A person may not willfully fail or willfully refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a:
(a) peace officer;

(b) firefighter;
(c) flagger at a highway construction or maintenance site using devices and procedures conforming to the standards adopted under Section 41-6a-301; or
(d) uniformed adult school crossing guard invested by law with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffi
c.
(2) (a) If a person commits a speeding violation in a highway construction or maintenance site where workers are present, the court shall impose a fine for the offense that is at least double the fine in the uniform recommended fine schedule established under Section 76-3-301.5.
(b) The highway construction or maintenance site under Subsection (2)(a) shall be clearly marked and have signs posted that warn of the doubled fine.

Renumbered and Amended by Chapter 2, 2005 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WordPerfect 41_06a020900.ZIP 2,625 Bytes

 

[CMike]

He has already shown to have know idea of Police procedures

I was a cop in NZ, not US. But our procedures are pretty similar..oh, and we're not armed either....I am well aware of US procedures. Always thought they were over the top. Then again, whenever we have "what occupation to you trust most" surveys down here nurses, doctors and police are always on the top of the list. Bet that ain't the same stateside. Wonder why..

We are talking NZ, and he wasn't even armed.

It's the equivalent of the brownies in the US.

 

[CMike]

I have a concealed pistol license.

This is my plan for what to do when getting stopped when carrying.

My hands are on the wheel with dome lights on if dark.

Officer before we start I just want to say I have a concealed pistol license and I am carrying.

My wallet is in my left pants pocket and my firearm is on my right hip.

What do you want me to do?

You will get a gun in your face, backup will be called, and you will be put on the ground. If you are in the wrong jurisdiction, or get the wrong cop, you will be tased as part of that process. You can also face arrest, and having your weapon confiscated. Some police departments have openly said they will ignore any laws that allow people to carry guns.

Tactical-Life.com » Milwaukee Police Ordered to Arrest, Take Guns Away Despite Legal Open Carry Laws

Feel free to blame the violation of your rights on the people that challenge the police.

I am part of an organization called Michigan Gun Owners that also has an internet forum, where we share stories.

The vast majority of those who have posted about being stopped with a CPL and carrying have gone very well. Often the police officer doesn't even ask about the gun, sometimes they chat about types of guns with the police officers.

The biggest complaint is that sometimes police officers take the gun until the end of the stop, and then they give it back to them. They are allowed to legally do this.

Your link deals with open carry. That is a whole other issue, which I would love to talk about. In Michigan you don't need a license to open carry a firearm.

 

[CMike]

how many times are cops murdered in traffic stops?

There is no question that policework is dangerous. So is fishing and logging, etc. There is no way to eliminate the inherent risk in policework other than imposing paramilitary police state methods, such as having S.W.A.T. teams with machine guns and vicious dogs pulling cars over for the kind of minor traffic violations cops now pull them over for.

So the obvious bottom line to that issue is every cop on every police force in America had a choice between that occupation and something safer. Nobody is drafted into policework -- or smoke-jumping, ironworking, etc. Keep in mind that policework is not the most dangerous job of all. Not even close.

getting tased for acting in a threatening manner toward a police officer does not make someone a victim.

What do you consider to be a threatening manner? At what stage in a confrontation should an able-bodied male with a 9mm automatic on his hip feel threatened?

Disobeying the lawful orders, and coming at the cop with his hands near his pockets, was coming at him at a threatening manner.

If I was the cop I would be on high alert at all stages.

You might have a gun on your hip, but you don't know who the driver is and what gun he might have.

 

[CMike]

I know there are good police out there who respect the rights of people the interact with. If all of them were like that I wouldn't have a problem. the problem comes when the ones who think everyone who is obeying the law deserves to be put on the ground with safety of themselves, or the public, as an excuse.

You can't be confrontational with police, the minute they let their guard down something might happen, better safe then sorry. The guy on the video was out of line and confrontational. and shouldn't have gotten a pennie.

By that logic, if I wanted to kill a cop I would be nice and cooperative, and get him when he thinks he is safe.

If the choice is between your freedom and a police officer being a little less safe, your freedom wins.

The cop should never let his guard down.

 

[CMike]

Failure to obey a police order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Failure to obey a police officer, or failure to obey a police order, is typically a misdemeanor. In Washington, DC, this law is utilized primarily for purposes of ensuring that officers tasked with directing traffic have the authority to direct motorists and pedestrians in a proper and safe manner.[1]

Failure to obey a police officer's lawful order is a misdemeanor -- and in some cases a felony (e.g., resisting arrest).

Do you know for certain that a police officer can lawfully order you to stay in your car, or get out of your car, or to do anything else, when he has no cause to believe you have broken any law -- or when he has absolutely no legal right to detain you? Or are you just assuming that?

Yes, I do.

Utah Code

How does the police officer know that the driver is unarmed?

How does driver know the police officer is really a police officer? Have you ever heard of impersonations?

You call the police and verify the police officer's name.

You don't go out of the car, come towards him with your hands near your pockets, and challenge him.

 

[CMike]

It's really very simple.

The driver failed to obey a lawful order after numerous commands to do so.

The police officer even said he would taz him if he didn't comply.

The cop was completely justified.

He doesn't know if the driver is armed or not. He doesn't know what the driver will do.

If you're so sure of all this why do you suppose the driver has been awarded a $45k settlement from the City of Bountiful, UT, and is in line to win a similar award from the County, and has not been prosecuted for any offense? Can it possibly be that a long-held belief of yours is simply wrong?

Because he was tazed multiple times which was not revealed in the OP.

The multiple times of being tazed was excessive.

 

[CMike]

I have a concealed pistol license.

This is my plan for what to do when getting stopped when carrying.

My hands are on the wheel with dome lights on if dark.

Officer before we start I just want to say I have a concealed pistol license and I am carrying.

My wallet is in my left pants pocket and my firearm is on my right hip.

What do you want me to do?

Great way to live your life huh? Land of the free huh?

I have no issue with it.

I am aware that police officers deal with many unsavory people. Therefore, if they see someone with a gun it creates a lot of tension. They don't know if it will be used against them.

Therefore, it's my responsiblity to take down the tension and make it as easy as possible to get through the stop without getting shot.

Also just because someone has a CPL doesn't mean that the gun won't be used against the police officer.

 

[CMike]

You guys can post all the Youtube videos you like. I take each incident on its merits.

1) The guy asked a question. The cop could have answered.
2) The cop had a GUN on the guy. There was no way the guy was going to outdraw him if he was armed.
3) He did start to obey the cop, then it went from "I want to see if you are going to cause me harm" to "I want you prone on the ground at my feet".
4) Both were out of line IMO....The cop could have been less aggressive, the guy should have not walked towards.


5) What is not lost to this foreigner is how your 'free' society is in reality. Why is this? Why is the cop like this? That is what 'your god given unalienable' second amendment has caused.
6) You see, because you have your second amendment you are more 'free', yet it creates situations where cops fear for their lives, and then your rights are eroded. The irony of this is not lost on me. It's a catch 22 situation - in order to save the village you have to burn it to the ground....

Sometimes the cop still gets shot even though the cop has drawn his weapon.

Police Videos, Law Enforcement Videos, Taser Videos and Police Pursuit Videos - PoliceLink

The driver was completely to blame for the first taz. He had to legally follow the officer's orders. The cop gave him numerous chances to do so. He even told him that he would tax him if he didn't comply.

That said I want to make it clear that I condemn the excessive tazing. That should be criminal. However, the initial taxing was completely justified.

 

[CMike]

I just read the article.

He was tazed around 60 times. That is very excessive. That's why he won.

However the original taz is justified.

Where in the article does it say Harper was prosecuted and found guilty?

Nowhere. Because he was found guilty of nothing.

So the idea that it was necessary for three big, trained police officers to use redundant and potentiallly lethal force, even once, against an unarmed subject who had neither committed nor was suspected of any criminal offense and had issued no overt or implicit threat to any of them is yours alone. You simply have a problem accepting the fact that inviolable supremacy of police authority exists mainly in the minds of the police and Type-A citizens.

He disobeyed numerous lawful orders given by the police. I watched it on the video.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Sometimes the cop still gets shot even though the cop has drawn his weapon.

That's true. Nobody said policework isn't dangerous -- but there are much safer occupations to choose from. And I do not advocate transforming America into a police state just to advance officer safety to its optimal level. Any cop who finds the existing level of risk intolerable should look for a safer job.

The driver was completely to blame for the first taz. He had to legally follow the officer's orders. The cop gave him numerous chances to do so. He even told him that he would tax him if he didn't comply.

Harper did follow the cop's order to turn around and put hands on head, which is quite enough to ensure the cop's safety, especially when dealing with someone he has no cause to suspect of being dangerous. But being told to get on his knees was beyond what Harper felt was tolerable and apparently the court agreed with him.

This "Get on your knees!" and "Get on the ground!" routine is okay when dealing with someone who is known to be dangerous. The problem is it gets habitual and much too routine. In fact, far too many cops kinda like it.

You should understand that these commands are not specifically sanctioned by law. They are inventions of some ranking police official and are made a part of "Procedure" to be utilized when necessary. In this case it obviously was not necessary, thus the successful litigation.

 

[MikeK]

A person may not willfully fail or willfully refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a peace officer.

You need to understand that law is up to the courts to interpret. And you would be very surprised at how many cops wrongfully believe they are operating within the law.

And I didn't ask you to cite a law. I asked you to refer me to where in the article it said Harper was found guilty of anything.

 

[MikeK]

He disobeyed numerous lawful orders given by the police. I watched it on the video.

Then why wasn't he prosecuted?

You can't accept the fact that what you think is lawful, and what some cops think is lawful, just might not be lawful. That is why it is imperative to have a good lawyer defending you if you are arrested.

Obviously Bruce Harper did.

 

[CMike]

[...]

Sometimes the cop still gets shot even though the cop has drawn his weapon.

That's true. Nobody said policework isn't dangerous -- but there are much safer occupations to choose from. And I do not advocate transforming America into a police state just to advance officer safety to its optimal level. Any cop who finds the existing level of risk intolerable should look for a safer job.

The driver was completely to blame for the first taz. He had to legally follow the officer's orders. The cop gave him numerous chances to do so. He even told him that he would tax him if he didn't comply.

Harper did follow the cop's order to turn around and put hands on head, which is quite enough to ensure the cop's safety, especially when dealing with someone he has no cause to suspect of being dangerous. But being told to get on his knees was beyond what Harper felt was tolerable and apparently the court agreed with him.

This "Get on your knees!" and "Get on the ground!" routine is okay when dealing with someone who is known to be dangerous. The problem is it gets habitual and much too routine. In fact, far too many cops kinda like it.

You should understand that these commands are not specifically sanctioned by law. They are inventions of some ranking police official and are made a part of "Procedure" to be utilized when necessary. In this case it obviously was not necessary, thus the successful litigation.

i just rewatched the video, I didn't see him move to turn around or put his hands on his head any point.

Perhaps you can tell me what point in the video this happened? I missed it.

Yes, most police realize, I presume that it's not safe work. That said there are procedures in place to make it safer.

One of those procedures is for the driver to stay in the car unless instructed otherwise. The driver must also legally comply with all commands the officer gave.

In fact, his hand were pretty close to his pockets. That gave doubt as well if the driver would pull out a gun and start shooting.

 

[CMike]

He disobeyed numerous lawful orders given by the police. I watched it on the video.

Then why wasn't he prosecuted?

You can't accept the fact that what you think is lawful, and what some cops think is lawful, just might not be lawful. That is why it is imperative to have a good lawyer defending you if you are arrested.

Obviously Bruce Harper did.

The part were the police were excessive were the number of times he was tazed. That I agree with.

Just because he wasn't prosecuted doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime. Obviously, he did we watched it.

 

[CMike]

A person may not willfully fail or willfully refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a peace officer.

You need to understand that law is up to the courts to interpret. And you would be very surprised at how many cops wrongfully believe they are operating within the law.

And I didn't ask you to cite a law. I asked you to refer me to where in the article it said Harper was found guilty of anything.

Quantum asked for the cite. I provided it.

The law is the law, unless the courts strike it down.

Did the driver "willfully fail or willfully refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a peace officer"?

If so, he broke the law.

 

[geauxtohell]

Then I suppose you are backing off the claim that the "federal court agreed" with Harper? That is not the case.

Yes. That was an error I made earlier on in the thread when I misread someone else's interpretation of the report. An embarrassing error on my part, which I hope is forgiven.

Of course. I am not trying to be an ass about it, I am just making the point that this driver wasn't "vindicated" in court. You can infer that the city believed one of the officers goofed (the officer that pulled him over was not the officer that tazed him or had the tazer), but it's not a slam dunk. Inherent to a settlement is that the settling party doesn't admit to any wrong doing.

Now, it looks like the driver will have his day in court against the county. We'll see how he fairs there. Though, it might be different circumstances. It's not clear which officers were city and county in the video.