Ask a cop a question...

[Liability]

The Cop was in the Right.
It is dark, it is remote, the Subject was instructed what to do and totally ignored instruction. He should not even have left his vehicle. He remains a total idiot. The Cop does have the Right to Order You.
That said, the Cop was an Asshole, and handled the situation poorly. There were 4 Cops there. They could have easily approached the Subject, spread him out against the car or ground, Frisked him and cuffed him if needed without the tazer. Repeating something that is clearly not working a hundred times is past lame.

The voice of the Type-A personality in all its glory.

Oh NOZIES. MikeytheK has gotten access to the LABELS again.

 

[geauxtohell]

No it's not fuck the police, it's fuck the 85% power hungry punks behind a little piece of metal.

85%? You guys act like you are the victims of consistent police discrimination. The best you can offer is being lawfully stopped by a cop for a traffic offense.

At least NWA had a point. You guys just sound like the typical crotchity white bastard who thinks the rules don't apply to him.

I actually think the rules apply to the police. My question is, why do you think they are exempt?

I don't. Up to the initial taze, I fail to see where the "rules" were violated. It appears that Harper won his suit not on the fact that he was tazed but the fact that he was tazed repeatedly while on the ground, which is a different fact pattern then initially presented. That part is hard to suss out from the video because Harper and the officers are obscured by his car. I would fully agree that a person who is restrained and no longer a threat shouldn't be tazed.

I still have a hard time being sympathetic to Harper. He created a chaotic situation. He's lucky it didn't end up worse.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think it's lawful for a police officer to order someone back into a car.

Can you legally support your assertion?

I'll agree that you can get out, but the second a cop tells you to get back in, it's a lawful order.

Why wouldn't it be?

Because lawful orders can only be issued in a situation where what you are doing is endangering the public, interfering with a police investigation, or breaking a law. That means that, unless it is illegal to get out of a car, it is not lawful to order someone to get back into the car. He can be told to get out of the street, but not to get in the car.

Please quote the part of the statute that say this?

First, in many states it is not illegal to disobey a police officer if he tells you to do something, which is why the guy in the OP was never charged with disobeying a lawful order. That charge does not exist in Utah, or Texas, which is the state in which I best understand the law.

Second, even in states that have that law, it is not unlimited in scope. If it were it would be facially unconstitutional because it is overly broad. Police cannot order anyone to do something that is illegal, something I am sure everyone would agree with. They can only issue orders that are directly related to their duties.

They cannot order me to walk on one side of the street and not the other unless there is something that is going on that would endanger me, or someone else, or if there happens to be a huge crime scene and they have one side of the street taped off.

I am completely unwilling to go through every states law and find all the codes that apply in order to prove this. If you choose to take that as me being full of hot air and completely wrong, feel free. It is just common sense though, we do not live in a police state. Yet.

Let me point out that, if police could simply order anyone to do anything that was legal, the Arizona immigration would never have been an issue because police would be able to demand ID from anyone they wanted for no reason at all. Even ICE cannot do that, and they actually have the authority to demand that anyone within 25 miles of a US border declare their citizenship status.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 in the Right.
It is dark, it is remote, the Subject was instructed what to do and totally ignored instruction. He should not even have left his vehicle. He remains a total idiot. The Cop does have the Right to Order You.
That said, the Cop was an Asshole, and handled the situation poorly. There were 4 Cops there. They could have easily approached the Subject, spread him out against the car or ground, Frisked him and cuffed him if needed without the tazer. Repeating something that is clearly not working a hundred times is past lame.

I pretty much agree with everything you said.

 

[geauxtohell]

Because lawful orders can only be issued in a situation where what you are doing is endangering the public, interfering with a police investigation, or breaking a law. That means that, unless it is illegal to get out of a car, it is not lawful to order someone to get back into the car. He can be told to get out of the street, but not to get in the car.

It is perfectly legal for a police officer to give order that secure the safety of the officer and the citizen. You keep making these blanket statements that can't be found anywhere in the code book.

Even if "get back in your car" isn't "lawful" or proper (debatable), every other command he gave was.

If the driver wouldn't have acted erractically, the situation would never have been tense and there would have been no need to draw his weapon or to tell him to put his hands on his head. This officer, who was working on his own and without a partner, was basically left to try and figure out how to make a potentially dangerous situation safer and prevent this guy from getting inadvertantly shot (refer to previous video where the officer would be alive today if he shot the guy (as opposed to pulling out his baton) he pulled over the first time he charged him and put his hands on him.

The driver decided to act like an asshole and, not surprisingly, the situation got out of hand. Then the fuck-stick got a paycheck because his sorry ass got "over tased" when he was on the ground.

The officer that pulled him over wasn't running the taser. I really fail to see how he did anything wrong except try and control the situation.

I am not the one making statements that cannot be found in the law, I am demanding that you prove that your claim is actually in the law. You just assume that what you believe to be true is true. Unless you provide some sort of proof that a person is required to remain in the car ordering them back into the car is not a legal order. The reason police want people to remain in the car is that it gives them an excuse to visually search the car, that makes an order to get in the car the legal equivalent of them ordering you to let them search your car without a warrant.

A police officer can visually (meaning they can look for anything they can see) search your car without a warrant or you being in the car as it stands. If you leave a bag of cocaine on the front seat in full view, that gives them probable cause to search the rest of it.

So ordering people back into a car has nothing to do with facilitating an unlawful search and seizure.

In some states, officers can search your car, glovebox and everywhere you have access to while you drive without a warrant or your permission.

All of my statements about lawful orders come from the previous statute. I have no reason to believe that an officer any of the orders, to include "get back in the car" were unlawful.

As for the rest of what he said, a traffic stop does not give police the right to put someone on their knees.

Not a normal traffic stop. When a person is acting in a manner that the officer perceives to be threatening to his or the driver's safety, he has the right to stand someone down. I think the officer was trying to put Harper in a position he could be controlled with by one officer as he was alone. His next move very well could have been to place Harper under arrest or detain him. We'll never know, because when he gave that order, Harper went frigging ballistic and it was back to square one.

Unreasonable to take a peaceful driver how is not suspected to be dangerous and is behaving and put them on their knees? Absolutely. I would expect a cop to be sanctioned for crap like that. However, you guys keep acting like Harper was being perfectly appropriate. He most certainly was not.

They only have that right if they are arresting someone who is actively offering resistance to that arrest.

I suspect you are speculating again. An officer doesn't have to say "you are under arrest" first before putting someone on their knees or on the ground. I would expect an arrest to follow that, but I have my doubts that there is a pre-requisite.

Police are supposed to be trained to handle people who are erratic or mentally deranged.

Have you ever tried to reason with a psychotic person? All the training in the world is only going to get you so far. I don't expect cops to be mental health professionals, and ask a psychiatrist to tell you some war stories one day. They are constantly being assaulted by the patient population they have spent 8 years (at a minimum) being trained to handle and treat. On my Psych rotation, one of the Psychiatrists had recently had a mug broken across his face by a psychotic patient.

I expect police to be equipped to spot mentally ill people and take proper precautions and get the proper people involved.

I don't expect them to start administering haldol to them.

Do you think they should shoot people just because they are crazy?

Of course not. Don't be absurd. Is Harper mentally ill? His cognition seems fine to me and he certainly didn't seem delusional. He might be manic, but that still doesn't give him a free pass.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

85%? You guys act like you are the victims of consistent police discrimination. The best you can offer is being lawfully stopped by a cop for a traffic offense.

At least NWA had a point. You guys just sound like the typical crotchity white bastard who thinks the rules don't apply to him.

I actually think the rules apply to the police. My question is, why do you think they are exempt?

I don't. Up to the initial taze, I fail to see where the "rules" were violated. It appears that Harper won his suit not on the fact that he was tazed but the fact that he was tazed repeatedly while on the ground, which is a different fact pattern then initially presented. That part is hard to suss out from the video because Harper and the officers are obscured by his car. I would fully agree that a person who is restrained and no longer a threat shouldn't be tazed.

I still have a hard time being sympathetic to Harper. He created a chaotic situation. He's lucky it didn't end up worse.

Why does your degree of sympathy make a difference? I have no sympathy for racists assholes like Tank, but as long as he does not break the law I will defend his right to be who he chooses.

This guy did not break a law.

 

[geauxtohell]

it is constitutionally reasonable for officers to order a passenger in lawfully stopped automobile to remain inside the automobile or to reenter the automobile

Traffic Stops and Control of Passengers

That only applies in the 8th, and I disagree with it. If I am a passenger in a car that is stopped for a traffic violation, and I decide to get out and start walking, the police are fucked if they think they can detain me.

I think it's absurd that MJ is illegal. I am not under the illusion that if I am caught in possession of MJ that my opinion of the law is going to matter a damn bit, either to the arresting officer or the court.

 

[geauxtohell]

Because lawful orders can only be issued in a situation where what you are doing is endangering the public, interfering with a police investigation, or breaking a law. That means that, unless it is illegal to get out of a car, it is not lawful to order someone to get back into the car. He can be told to get out of the street, but not to get in the car.

Please quote the part of the statute that say this?

First, in many states it is not illegal to disobey a police officer if he tells you to do something, which is why the guy in the OP was never charged with disobeying a lawful order. That charge does not exist in Utah, or Texas, which is the state in which I best understand the law.

Second, even in states that have that law, it is not unlimited in scope. If it were it would be facially unconstitutional because it is overly broad. Police cannot order anyone to do something that is illegal, something I am sure everyone would agree with. They can only issue orders that are directly related to their duties.

They cannot order me to walk on one side of the street and not the other unless there is something that is going on that would endanger me, or someone else, or if there happens to be a huge crime scene and they have one side of the street taped off.

I am completely unwilling to go through every states law and find all the codes that apply in order to prove this. If you choose to take that as me being full of hot air and completely wrong, feel free. It is just common sense though, we do not live in a police state. Yet.

Let me point out that, if police could simply order anyone to do anything that was legal, the Arizona immigration would never have been an issue because police would be able to demand ID from anyone they wanted for no reason at all. Even ICE cannot do that, and they actually have the authority to demand that anyone within 25 miles of a US border declare their citizenship status.

Your first point is irrelevant. It is illegal in Utah.

No one is disputing that police officers shouldn't be able to order someone to do something illegal, immoral or fattening.

We are disputing that any of the orders given to Harper were illegal, immoral or fattening.

 

[geauxtohell]

I actually think the rules apply to the police. My question is, why do you think they are exempt?

I don't. Up to the initial taze, I fail to see where the "rules" were violated. It appears that Harper won his suit not on the fact that he was tazed but the fact that he was tazed repeatedly while on the ground, which is a different fact pattern then initially presented. That part is hard to suss out from the video because Harper and the officers are obscured by his car. I would fully agree that a person who is restrained and no longer a threat shouldn't be tazed.

I still have a hard time being sympathetic to Harper. He created a chaotic situation. He's lucky it didn't end up worse.

Why does your degree of sympathy make a difference? I have no sympathy for racists assholes like Tank, but as long as he does not break the law I will defend his right to be who he chooses.

This guy did not break a law.

It doesn't. It's just my personal opinion. I am allowed one, right?

Harper did break the law. He failed to comply with lawful orders. I agree he didn't resist. Apparently so did the court.

 

[SFC Ollie]

it is constitutionally reasonable for officers to order a passenger in lawfully stopped automobile to remain inside the automobile or to reenter the automobile

Traffic Stops and Control of Passengers

That only applies in the 8th, and I disagree with it. If I am a passenger in a car that is stopped for a traffic violation, and I decide to get out and start walking, the police are fucked if they think they can detain me.

Come try that in my little village....

I think you will find that nearly every court in the country would back the officer....

Ever heard of precedence?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A police officer can visually (meaning they can look for anything they can see) search your car without a warrant or you being in the car as it stands. If you leave a bag of cocaine on the front seat in full view, that gives them probable cause to search the rest of it.

So ordering people back into a car has nothing to do with facilitating an unlawful search and seizure.

In some states, officers can search your car, glovebox and everywhere you have access to while you drive without a warrant or your permission.

No they cannot. They used to be able to search the entire vehicle if they arrested you while you were in control of the car, which is why lawyers advised people to step out of the car, lock it, and put the keys on the roof, it severely limits the police in their ability to find incriminating evidence. More recent court decisions have limited what they can search to what is in arms reach of the driver, which only includes the glove box if it is not locked.

That applies in every single state. In other words, you are mistaken in your belief that police can search any part of your car without your permission. They can only do so if they arrest you.

All of my statements about lawful orders come from the previous statute. I have no reason to believe that an officer any of the orders, to include "get back in the car" were unlawful.

That statute applied to directing traffic. Unless you can show me how you can stretch this to cover a situation like that in the video I do not agree.

Not a normal traffic stop. When a person is acting in a manner that the officer perceives to be threatening to his or the driver's safety, he has the right to stand someone down. I think the officer was trying to put Harper in a position he could be controlled with by one officer as he was alone. His next move very well could have been to place Harper under arrest or detain him. We'll never know, because when he gave that order, Harper went frigging ballistic and it was back to square one.

What you keep forgetting is that you are not a police officer. Police are supposed to be trained to handle people that react badly to being stopped, and should defuse the situation. I have never defended Harper's reaction to the stop, just his right to ask why he is being stopped.

Unless Harper actually presented a danger to the officer, which he did not, even if you, personally, would have felt threatened in that situation. Police are trained to handle potentially dangerous situations and defuse them. That did not happen here.

Unreasonable to take a peaceful driver how is not suspected to be dangerous and is behaving and put them on their knees? Absolutely. I would expect a cop to be sanctioned for crap like that. However, you guys keep acting like Harper was being perfectly appropriate. He most certainly was not.

No, we keep insisting that the police were wrong, there is a difference.

I suspect you are speculating again. An officer doesn't have to say "you are under arrest" first before putting someone on their knees or on the ground. I would expect an arrest to follow that, but I have my doubts that there is a pre-requisite.

You do not believe that police have to tell you that you are under arrest? Since when?

Regardless, putting someone on the ground is if that person is an imminent threat. There were 4 cops there, he was not a threat to anyone.

Have you ever tried to reason with a psychotic person? All the training in the world is only going to get you so far. I don't expect cops to be mental health professionals, and ask a psychiatrist to tell you some war stories one day. They are constantly being assaulted by the patient population they have spent 8 years (at a minimum) being trained to handle and treat. On my Psych rotation, one of the Psychiatrists had recently had a mug broken across his face by a psychotic patient.

I used to live with one, I know just how hard it is to reason with them. That does not mean I had the right to use force if she did not comply with a request that I felt was reasonable, nor does it mean the police have the right to do so either. They have a right to defend themselves, but not to initiate the use of force in an attempt to preemptively defend themselves from something that might happen.

I expect police to be equipped to spot mentally ill people and take proper precautions and get the proper people involved.

I don't expect them to start administering haldol to them.

Neither do I. Can you point out where this officer made any attempt to make sure that Harper was not mentally ill? Why are you assuming that he was when you continually point out that he was acting irrationally?

Of course not. Don't be absurd. Is Harper mentally ill? His cognition seems fine to me and he certainly didn't seem delusional. He might be manic, but that still doesn't give him a free pass.

If you did I psych rotation you are perfectly aware that psychotic people can appear reasonable. I have seen people who were caught up in the delusions that were so ridiculous that it makes no sense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Traffic Stops and Control of Passengers

That only applies in the 8th, and I disagree with it. If I am a passenger in a car that is stopped for a traffic violation, and I decide to get out and start walking, the police are fucked if they think they can detain me.

I think it's absurd that MJ is illegal. I am not under the illusion that if I am caught in possession of MJ that my opinion of the law is going to matter a damn bit, either to the arresting officer or the court.

That depends.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please quote the part of the statute that say this?

First, in many states it is not illegal to disobey a police officer if he tells you to do something, which is why the guy in the OP was never charged with disobeying a lawful order. That charge does not exist in Utah, or Texas, which is the state in which I best understand the law.

Second, even in states that have that law, it is not unlimited in scope. If it were it would be facially unconstitutional because it is overly broad. Police cannot order anyone to do something that is illegal, something I am sure everyone would agree with. They can only issue orders that are directly related to their duties.

They cannot order me to walk on one side of the street and not the other unless there is something that is going on that would endanger me, or someone else, or if there happens to be a huge crime scene and they have one side of the street taped off.

I am completely unwilling to go through every states law and find all the codes that apply in order to prove this. If you choose to take that as me being full of hot air and completely wrong, feel free. It is just common sense though, we do not live in a police state. Yet.

Let me point out that, if police could simply order anyone to do anything that was legal, the Arizona immigration would never have been an issue because police would be able to demand ID from anyone they wanted for no reason at all. Even ICE cannot do that, and they actually have the authority to demand that anyone within 25 miles of a US border declare their citizenship status.

Your first point is irrelevant. It is illegal in Utah.

No one is disputing that police officers shouldn't be able to order someone to do something illegal, immoral or fattening.

We are disputing that any of the orders given to Harper were illegal, immoral or fattening.

The first point is completely relevant, it is not legal in Utah.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't. Up to the initial taze, I fail to see where the "rules" were violated. It appears that Harper won his suit not on the fact that he was tazed but the fact that he was tazed repeatedly while on the ground, which is a different fact pattern then initially presented. That part is hard to suss out from the video because Harper and the officers are obscured by his car. I would fully agree that a person who is restrained and no longer a threat shouldn't be tazed.

I still have a hard time being sympathetic to Harper. He created a chaotic situation. He's lucky it didn't end up worse.

Why does your degree of sympathy make a difference? I have no sympathy for racists assholes like Tank, but as long as he does not break the law I will defend his right to be who he chooses.

This guy did not break a law.

It doesn't. It's just my personal opinion. I am allowed one, right?

Harper did break the law. He failed to comply with lawful orders. I agree he didn't resist. Apparently so did the court.

There is a reason he was not charged with that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Jillian his reaction is normal, at least with me it is. If I know that have have been wrongly stopped I will treat the cop like an ass.

That would be a really dumb thing to do. You are not going to win a power stuggle against a cop.

If you have a problem with a cop either

1) Ask for the supervisor

2) Go the next day and make a complaint with the supervisor

I've called them chickenshit I have called them wet behind the ears punks. When they fuck with me I fuck back. They put their pants on the same way I do, and don't forget I use to wear the same uniform with a badge. I called one cop a stupid bastard in front to the magistrate because he tried to get me for a DWI which I blew a 0 the asshat had the nerve to ask if I was doing drugs in front of the magistrate. Whenb they justly stop me I treat them with respect, but when they don’t I come down on them hard.

 

[oldsalt]

Jillian his reaction is normal, at least with me it is. If I know that have have been wrongly stopped I will treat the cop like an ass.

That would be a really dumb thing to do. You are not going to win a power stuggle against a cop.

If you have a problem with a cop either

1) Ask for the supervisor

2) Go the next day and make a complaint with the supervisor

I've called them chickenshit I have called them wet behind the ears punks. When they fuck with me I fuck back. They put their pants on the same way I do, and don't forget I use to wear the same uniform with a badge. I called one cop a stupid bastard in front to the magistrate because he tried to get me for a DWI which I blew a 0 the asshat had the nerve to ask if I was doing drugs in front of the magistrate. Whenb they justly stop me I treat them with respect, but when they don’t I come down on them hard.

Go to jail. Dipshit.

 

[MikeK]

I do not watch much TV. And Cops is never edited or anything right?

Of course COPS is edited. I'm sure we won't see anything the respective police agencies don't want us to see. But if you'll watch a few episodes it soon will become clear that a great deal of police (and, ultimately, court) time is wasted on counterproductive drug nonsense, most of which is initiated by car stops.

How many traffic stops are there in the USA each day? And 85 % of those are problems for you?

I have no problem with legitimately necessary car stops. I have a big problem with the kind of wastefully unnecessary "fishing" for drug activity which I believe is what precipitated the topic of this discussion.

I hope for you're sake that you never truly need a police officer.

If I ever do need a police officer I hope he is not preoccupied in a gun-point confrontation resulting from a night-time car stop for a crooked license plate.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Jillian his reaction is normal, at least with me it is. If I know that have have been wrongly stopped I will treat the cop like an ass.

Screaming "are you going to shoot me" and "Fuck you!" at a guy with a weapon pointed at you is "normal"?

I am beginning to see the disconnect.

At what point did he say fuck you to the cop and are you going to shoot me?
Could it be when the cop escalated the altercation?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That would be a really dumb thing to do. You are not going to win a power stuggle against a cop.

If you have a problem with a cop either

1) Ask for the supervisor

2) Go the next day and make a complaint with the supervisor

I've called them chickenshit I have called them wet behind the ears punks. When they fuck with me I fuck back. They put their pants on the same way I do, and don't forget I use to wear the same uniform with a badge. I called one cop a stupid bastard in front to the magistrate because he tried to get me for a DWI which I blew a 0 the asshat had the nerve to ask if I was doing drugs in front of the magistrate. Whenb they justly stop me I treat them with respect, but when they don’t I come down on them hard.

Go to jail. Dipshit.

fuckem

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

Jillian his reaction is normal, at least with me it is. If I know that have have been wrongly stopped I will treat the cop like an ass.

Screaming "are you going to shoot me" and "Fuck you!" at a guy with a weapon pointed at you is "normal"?

I am beginning to see the disconnect.

C'mon Geaux, I have never seen you as a cherrypicker...you have to take into consideration what happened before it got that far...

That would be like som guy sitting in a restaurant minding his own business when somebody starts bullying him. He ignores it for the first three or four minutes until the guy really gets in his face. The person being hassled, reacts and thumps the guy. When retelling his story to the cops, the bully starts recounting from the moment he got hit, all the while ignoring the rest of the incident. This is you are doing...