Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
- 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?
- The driver was unarmed.
- Repeating illegal orders do not make them legal.
- Which is why he should answer the question instead of excalating the confrontation.
- 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
disobeying a lawful order of a law enforcement officer violates Utah Code section 41-6a-209
I will agree that things are different from the 50s today all over America, not only in Utah.And in those days "conceal carry" wasn't the norm. Especially not in Brooklyn. Things are a bit different in Utah.
Having your hand on your own weapon, or having your weapon in your hand, and not seeing a weapon in a subject's hand is about all the advantage one can reasonably want -- provided one is a capable, competent and confident adversary. Which, unfortunately, too many of today's cops are anything but. Thus my comparative reference to the NYC cops of yesterday, all of whom were big badasses.The bottom line, it doesn't matter how good of a boxer you are if the other guy has a weapon.
You've omitted an important component of my statement. What I said is it isn't likely that any cops in the region of Bountiful, UT, will be pulling anyone over on quiet roads at night for bullshit reasons like a crooked license plate.You last statement is absurd. So police officers shouldn't pull anyone over on behalf of the Bruce Harper's of the world?
Do you disagree?
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....
Brannan was arrested the next morning without incident. He was found guilty on January 28, 2000 for the murder of Dinkheller and sentenced to death.[5] As of December 2010[update], he is still incarcerated in Georgia. The entire incident was videotaped on Dinkheller's cruiser dashboard camera. The video is now used throughout law enforcement to train new officers.
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.A person may not willfully fail or willfully refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a peace officer.
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.
Obviously they do kill some people. So do defibrillators and aspirin. However, in comparison to the other items a police officer carries, they are considered "non-lethal" and a better alternative for subduing a suspect then a .9 mm.
If they kill they are not non lethal.
End of discussion.
Okay, fine. "Less lethal". Whatever. You'll never hear me say tazers are 100% safe. You'll just hear me say "better than getting shot".
Tell that to the people they kill.
And this was clearly disproportionate use of firce.
That occurred near the beginning of the encounter, and was dealt with the command of "Let me see your hands," or whatever it was he actually said. So, yes, the officer should actually have to wait for him to pull a weapon before he shoots. You might not like it, but that is the rules, and that cop knew it when he took the job.
I think no such thing. I fully believe police should take the steps they need to protect themselves and the public. I also expect them not to shoot people just because they are having a bad day. It ain't fair, but life ain't fair.
Does that mean you think the police should be able to shoot anyone who approaches them, even if they are confused, dazed, deluded, or just plain crazy? Doesn't it make more sense to make sure the police are actually facing a danger before they shoot than to give them blanket permission to shoot people just because they might be a danger?
I can post plenty of stories of cops shooting people who are deaf and did not obey a command. I understand it happens, but it should be avoided. I want to do that by training officers to be better at judging situations, and to be ready to walk away of they are the only ones in danger. You want to allow them to shoot people who argue with them.
Different approaches, but I will take mine.
He was being shocked by 50,000 volts of electricity, it he wasn't subdued it would have taken a lot more than 3 people to hold him down. On the other hand, if they had just stopped shocking him, a 4 year old could have put the cuffs on him.
The county is probably being sued because one of their officers responded. I would have to know how long he was there and what he saw before I could judge the degree of culpability.
They don't, but they do have to wait until they have a weapon.
No he wasn't, because the guy did go beyond being verbal. Police should not use force unless they are responding to force.
No, I believe the police have a right to defend themselves against a demonstrated threat.
What threat was demonstrated? Remember that police are, theoretically, trained to deal with people who are simply angry. I had people yell at me as a customer service rep and never responded with violence, or even yelling back at them. And I wasn't trained for that.
I have ignored the "truth"? Where?
You backed off from your position that Tasers are non lethal. You do, however, seem to believe that police should react the same way you do to a problem.
They shouldn't.
STATUTORY STANDARDS FOR USING DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE
The law authorizes law enforcement officers to use deadly physical force only when they reasonably believe it is necessary to:
1. defend themselves or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or
2. make an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom they reasonably believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and, where feasible, they have given warning of their intent to use deadly physical force (CGS § 53a-22 (c)).
The law defines “deadly physical force” as physical force that can be reasonably expected to cause death or serious physical injury (CGS § 53a-3(5)). It defines “serious physical injury” as physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ (CGS § 53a-3(4)).
The law specifies that a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which, if true, would constitute an offense. If the believed facts or circumstances would not constitute an offense, an erroneous though not unreasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not make the use of physical force justifiable to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody (CGS § 53a-22(a)).
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
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
Still nothing about not getting out of a car during a traffic stop.
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.
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
Still nothing about not getting out of a car during a traffic stop.
I don't think anyone claimed that was illegal. It was just the 3 minutes of ignoring the cop's lawful commands after he got out of the car.
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....
Still nothing about not getting out of a car during a traffic stop.
I don't think anyone claimed that was illegal. It was just the 3 minutes of ignoring the cop's lawful commands after he got out of the car.
And then he did obey him and then the cop got all antsy.
In fact, it's the opposite. Once again, the time to argue the legalities of police officer action is in court. Not during the stop or arrest. Due process occurs after the arrest or citation.
I don't think anyone claimed that was illegal. It was just the 3 minutes of ignoring the cop's lawful commands after he got out of the car.
And then he did obey him and then the cop got all antsy.
Bullshit. He never 'did obey him'. Simple requests. Not 'take off your clothes' or 'suck my dick' or anything bizarre. The dud was itching for a scratch, and he got it!
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.[...]
Sometimes the cop still gets shot even though the cop has drawn his weapon.
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.
And then he did obey him and then the cop got all antsy.
Bullshit. He never 'did obey him'. Simple requests. Not 'take off your clothes' or 'suck my dick' or anything bizarre. The dud was itching for a scratch, and he got it!
Yes he did. He put his hands on his head, and turned around...more than enough for a safe environment until back up turned up. Then the cop wanted him on his knees....then what? Knee in the back and cuffs? For a slightly askew number plate. How's life living in the land of the free OS?
In fact, it's the opposite. Once again, the time to argue the legalities of police officer action is in court. Not during the stop or arrest. Due process occurs after the arrest or citation.
Down here it is the exact opposite. You better have a good reason for arresting somebody. It was ingrained in us from day one - if you are prepared to take away somebody's liberty you better have a very good reason for doing so.
And by good reason I mean it is similar to just cause. The minute you arrest somebody you are no longer allowed to question them and you give them the caution (our equivalent of the Miranda). Now, if they impart info after that, then that is one them but you cannot question them. The theory behind it is, if you have enough evidence to arrest them, then you need no more info. If you don't have enough evidence then you shouldn't arrest them.
Absolutely you should argue the toss about what is going on. I keep on harping back to this - especially to the righties on this board (and I know you are not one Geaux) and that is this: Please, please, please do not harp on about how great and free America is. This incident in the OP clearly shows you have a long way to go.
That being said, I stand by my reasoning that one of the main reasons for this is your gun culture. The irony about the reason for the second being in place in the first instance and what the knock on affect is, is not lost on me...
And then he did obey him and then the cop got all antsy.
Bullshit. He never 'did obey him'. Simple requests. Not 'take off your clothes' or 'suck my dick' or anything bizarre. The dud was itching for a scratch, and he got it!
Yes he did. He put his hands on his head, and turned around...more than enough for a safe environment until back up turned up. Then the cop wanted him on his knees....then what? Knee in the back and cuffs? For a slightly askew number plate. How's life living in the land of the free OS?
