Ask a cop a question...

[bigrebnc1775]

While the idiot was on the ground you can hear the police yelling at him repeatedly "Stop Resisting".

While being tazed what do you expected?

 

[oldsalt]

All events escalated by him. Get what cha pay for. Stop being stupid.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All events escalated by him. Get what cha pay for. Stop being stupid.

Here a traffic stop that happen to me.
I was driving through a little town called davidson a couple of years ago. A cop stopped me, I asked him why he stopped me he said for not wearing my sat belt, which I was while I was sitting in my truck I started getting pissed so I open the door and got out he told me to get back in my truck. I told him directly the sidewalk is public access and I will stand on the sidewalk if I want to. We went around and around and finally some back up came and cool the situation down. Anyway I fucked with the cops mind so much he wrote the wrong tag number from an old registraition I gave him. Went to court fought it DA through it out because I said how can the officer tell if I was wearing a seat belt in a moving vehicle or not when he couldn't even write to correct tag number on the citation while the vehicle was parked in front of his patriol car?

I fought the law and they lost.

 

[SFC Ollie]

All events escalated by him. Get what cha pay for. Stop being stupid.

Here a traffic stop that happen to me.
I was driving through a little town called davidson a couple of years ago. A cop stopped me, I asked him why he stopped me he said for not wearing my sat belt, which I was while I was sitting in my truck I started getting pissed so I open the door and got out he told me to get back in my truck. I told him directly the sidewalk is public access and I will stand on the sidewalk if I want to. We went around and around and finally some back up came and cool the situation down. Anyway I fucked with the cops mind so much he wrote the wrong tag number from an old registraition I gave him. Went to court fought it DA through it out because I said how can the officer tell if I was wearing a seat belt in a moving vehicle or not when he couldn't even write to correct tag number on the citation while the vehicle was parked in front of his patriol car?

I fought the law and they lost.

We all have a little asshole in us. But why would you brag about it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All events escalated by him. Get what cha pay for. Stop being stupid.

Here a traffic stop that happen to me.
I was driving through a little town called davidson a couple of years ago. A cop stopped me, I asked him why he stopped me he said for not wearing my sat belt, which I was while I was sitting in my truck I started getting pissed so I open the door and got out he told me to get back in my truck. I told him directly the sidewalk is public access and I will stand on the sidewalk if I want to. We went around and around and finally some back up came and cool the situation down. Anyway I fucked with the cops mind so much he wrote the wrong tag number from an old registraition I gave him. Went to court fought it DA through it out because I said how can the officer tell if I was wearing a seat belt in a moving vehicle or not when he couldn't even write to correct tag number on the citation while the vehicle was parked in front of his patriol car?

I fought the law and they lost.

We all have a little asshole in us. But why would you brag about it?

Because I was unjustly stopped and the cop was an idiot. I keep tewlling ya'll cops ain't what you think they are 85 % are on power trips. Ask me how I know?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That's my point.

If it is not illegal to get out of a car during a traffic stop it is not lawful to order someone to get back into one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This kid had his day in court.

He was charged with resisting arrest and cited for his license plate.

All I can figure is the jury either wasn't permitted to see the video or they were blind, The idiot was acquitted on the resisting charge.

In order to resist arrest someone has to be under arrest. He never resisted because no one even tried to arrest him until after they tased him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

While the idiot was on the ground you can hear the police yelling at him repeatedly "Stop Resisting".

Tell you waht. Let me and a couple of other guys shoot you with Tasers and see how much resisting you do. Cops are trained to say "Stop resisting" in order to protect themselves from lawsuits.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_IQDOvp2o"]YouTube - ‪Drunk Girl Gets Taken Down At Galley-Place Metro Station‬‏[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All events escalated by him. Get what cha pay for. Stop being stupid.

Here a traffic stop that happen to me.
I was driving through a little town called davidson a couple of years ago. A cop stopped me, I asked him why he stopped me he said for not wearing my sat belt, which I was while I was sitting in my truck I started getting pissed so I open the door and got out he told me to get back in my truck. I told him directly the sidewalk is public access and I will stand on the sidewalk if I want to. We went around and around and finally some back up came and cool the situation down. Anyway I fucked with the cops mind so much he wrote the wrong tag number from an old registraition I gave him. Went to court fought it DA through it out because I said how can the officer tell if I was wearing a seat belt in a moving vehicle or not when he couldn't even write to correct tag number on the citation while the vehicle was parked in front of his patriol car?

I fought the law and they lost.

I was walking down a street once when I was stopped by a BNSF railroad cop and told I was on railroad property. I argued with him a lot, demanded to see his ID, made him show me his ID, not his badge, and hold it long enough for me to actually read it. He wrote me a ticket for hassling him, claiming that he would have let me off with a warning if I hadn't given him a hard time. One thing, he was so pissed that he enhanced the ticket by claiming that I had been previously warned. When I went to court I demanded to see the record of the warning, which he could not produce. He did not even take my picture for the ticket, which was part of what he was required to do.

Ditto on the last line.

 

[Dr Grump]

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...

For the bulk of that video, the driver wasn't under arrest. He was too hostile to the police officer to even let the situation be sorted out. I'll agree that the cop probably made a mistake with telling him to get on his knees. In the cop's defense, that was after the driver had acted erratically for about a minute and a half and berated him. Other than that minor point, I don't think the officer did anything wrong. He was trying to control an unruly driver and ensure his safety and Harper's safety.

I really have to question anyone who claims that Harper's behavior was "normative". I am suspicious of why he acted the way he did. It didn't justify tasing him repeatedly on the ground, but I don't really see how they erred in trying to resoleve the situation.

I fully agree with you on the irony of the "gun culture".

You see I see it differently. I don't see him as being hostile at all. He eventually gets agitated, but the first thing he asks - in what I consider a reasonable tone - is "why was I stopped?". No cussing, no walking around macho, no attempt to run, no flipping the bird - nothing.

I didn't see the driver even being unruly until a few good minutes into the video, and the cop just constantly yelling at him.

I see Harper's behaviour as totally normal - in the beginning. he was not being unreasonable in any way, shape or form IMO...

 

[CMike]

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.

That's my point.

If it is not illegal to get out of a car during a traffic stop it is not lawful to order someone to get back into one.

Odd logic.

What was unlawful was the failure to obey a police officer.

I quoted the law. Where does it say that a police officer can only order someone to not do something illegal?

 

[CMike]

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...

Sounds like the NZ idea of a police officer is sitting by a camp fire and telling ghost stories.

I am all for the 2nd Amendment. The criminals will get the guns regardless of the rights.

There are very CPL holders who committ a crime using a gun. However, these people have the legal right to defend themselves and their families. It's called freedom.

 

[CMike]

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...

For the bulk of that video, the driver wasn't under arrest. He was too hostile to the police officer to even let the situation be sorted out. I'll agree that the cop probably made a mistake with telling him to get on his knees. In the cop's defense, that was after the driver had acted erratically for about a minute and a half and berated him. Other than that minor point, I don't think the officer did anything wrong. He was trying to control an unruly driver and ensure his safety and Harper's safety.

I really have to question anyone who claims that Harper's behavior was "normative". I am suspicious of why he acted the way he did. It didn't justify tasing him repeatedly on the ground, but I don't really see how they erred in trying to resoleve the situation.

I fully agree with you on the irony of the "gun culture".

You see I see it differently. I don't see him as being hostile at all. He eventually gets agitated, but the first thing he asks - in what I consider a reasonable tone - is "why was I stopped?". No cussing, no walking around macho, no attempt to run, no flipping the bird - nothing.

I didn't see the driver even being unruly until a few good minutes into the video, and the cop just constantly yelling at him.

I see Harper's behaviour as totally normal - in the beginning. he was not being unreasonable in any way, shape or form IMO...

In this country if you get stopped by a police car you stay in the car. You don't go outside, walking toward the police officer, demanding to know the reason for the stop.

 

[CMike]

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.

Not that I saw. Where exactly did he obey the cop?

 

[jillian]

I see Harper's behaviour as totally normal - in the beginning. he was not being unreasonable in any way, shape or form IMO...

i think part of the problem is a function of custom. in this country, if i'm pulled over, i have to keep my hands visible and open the driver's side window. getting out of the car without being asked to is considered threatening behavior. in such an instance, the officer has the right to assume that he is in danger and can act accordingly.

in this case, it appears the person kept walking toward the officer despite being asked to stop. his hands were pocketed and could have concealed anything. the officer was entitled to act with reasonable force to protect himself...in this case using a taser and not deadly force.

 

[Dr Grump]

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...

Sounds like the NZ idea of a police officer is sitting by a camp fire and telling ghost stories.

I am all for the 2nd Amendment. The criminals will get the guns regardless of the rights.

There are very CPL holders who committ a crime using a gun. However, these people have the legal right to defend themselves and their families. It's called freedom.

Well, you can be slightly condescending if you like...but I've had to deal with people like this:

http://members.nzpif.org.nz/UserFiles/image/MongrelMob_300x200.jpg

And this

http://skyoneonline.co.uk/rosskempgangs/assets/images/episode-newzealand.jpg

and this

Gang show of force at court - crime - national | Stuff.co.nz

Maori ethnic gangs. Make your bloods and crips look like choir boys.

That aside, I know you think it is "freedom". You are so free, and your society so awash with guns, that citizens get treated like criminals because the cops don't have a clue who is carrying and who isn't. In NZ, we know 99.99999999999 percent of those we stop are not carrying....And on the very very very minor off chance there is somebody is carrying, we don't create a new law just 'in case' somebody is carrying. We don't curtail your average citizens freedoms for the exception to the rule (although some people do lobby for that)....

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

Not that I saw. Where exactly did he obey the cop?

Put his hands on his head and turned around...

 

[Dr Grump]

For the bulk of that video, the driver wasn't under arrest. He was too hostile to the police officer to even let the situation be sorted out. I'll agree that the cop probably made a mistake with telling him to get on his knees. In the cop's defense, that was after the driver had acted erratically for about a minute and a half and berated him. Other than that minor point, I don't think the officer did anything wrong. He was trying to control an unruly driver and ensure his safety and Harper's safety.

I really have to question anyone who claims that Harper's behavior was "normative". I am suspicious of why he acted the way he did. It didn't justify tasing him repeatedly on the ground, but I don't really see how they erred in trying to resoleve the situation.

I fully agree with you on the irony of the "gun culture".

You see I see it differently. I don't see him as being hostile at all. He eventually gets agitated, but the first thing he asks - in what I consider a reasonable tone - is "why was I stopped?". No cussing, no walking around macho, no attempt to run, no flipping the bird - nothing.

I didn't see the driver even being unruly until a few good minutes into the video, and the cop just constantly yelling at him.

I see Harper's behaviour as totally normal - in the beginning. he was not being unreasonable in any way, shape or form IMO...

In this country if you get stopped by a police car you stay in the car. You don't go outside, walking toward the police officer, demanding to know the reason for the stop.

I know. Sad state of affairs ain't it...How dare somebody question somebody as to why their right to live free in the pursuit of happiness is being curtailed.

 

[Sunshine]

I believe that Special Weapons and Techniques (SWAT) would have tried to de-escallate the driver. Screaming and barking orders is not a de-escalation technique. Too bad the gumshoes don't get a taste of this training. It would have helped the officer and the driver.

 

[Dr Grump]

I see Harper's behaviour as totally normal - in the beginning. he was not being unreasonable in any way, shape or form IMO...

i think part of the problem is a function of custom. in this country, if i'm pulled over, i have to keep my hands visible and open the driver's side window. getting out of the car without being asked to is considered threatening behavior. in such an instance, the officer has the right to assume that he is in danger and can act accordingly.

in this case, it appears the person kept walking toward the officer despite being asked to stop. his hands were pocketed and could have concealed anything. the officer was entitled to act with reasonable force to protect himself...in this case using a taser and not deadly force.

Go back and see how long his hands are in his pockets? Bugger all. And the whole time the cop had a loaded (I presume) gun on him at about 15 feet if that.

Of course an officer is allowed to act with reasonable force to protect himself. And if you can kindly point to the time code as to where the guy started attacking him, we can go from there....