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.
Taking someone out of their car for safety doesnt make sense unless we are supposed to believe the thoughts a cop gives automatically and cast aside reasoning and suspend disbelief. I think he'd have to explain why the stop wasnt safe to begin with but thats on video....cant lie about that champ
Well guess what....Supreme Court ruling Maryland vs Wilson grants cops that authority. All the other jibberish you've types is irrelevant because the LAW allows him to do what he did..
He has the authority just not the circumstances to back up his thinking. He already said it was to make it safer, not that he has the authority.
He should've led with that...but instead he lied and wont be able to back it up.
Big deal, I know
What PROOF is there that isn't his reason? Just because you don't believe it? Some criminals will act belligerent to get cops to back off and not discover what they're hiding. That's why Maryland vs Wilson granted this blanket authority to cops for safety to remove someone....because the cop CANNOT know what he doesn't know....whether the person is hiding something.
You can't prove what he was thinking. He doesn't have to prove it. The simple unknown in itself is enough to justify the safety concern.....and the SUPREME COURT agreed....because they made it legal to remove someone "for safety" even without any clear facts of what it is that is unsafe...because the cop cannot know what he doesn't know.
What PROOF is there that isn't his reason?
Not so funny when you've had to deal with these White thugs.You all can drop the 'just because she was a Black" bullshit.
Every LEO in the country knows that you pull over a White guy and they are right away refusing to follow your instructions you have literally 100% of the time a SERIOUS problem that is going to require physical force 100% of the time.
Well, he's out of a job and facing fines and jail time.Pennsylvania v. Mimms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Even before Wilson......
1977 Pennsylvania vs Mimms, SCOTUS ruling.
The court said just for general safety, such as vehicles approaching the stop or possible hidden weapons in the car....the cop can remove a driver for "officer safety" WITHOUT any clear articulable threat. Court ruled that this is only "minimally more invasive" and the balance of 4th Amendment and officer safety is reasonable by removing a driver for general safety.
So....you see.....TWO SCOTUS cases validate this cop. He doesn't need a specific reason. Just the blanket "officer safety" concern is enough.
You may not like it. We don't like homo marriage. But both are law. And you liberals should be against this obvious unlawful prosecution.
No one disputes this is a law, he needs a reason for the action. The reason cant be "Because I can"
YOU AREN'T GETTING IT. The "reason" is plainly just general safety. You can't know the unknown. The court clearly ruled this. He doesn't need a specified reason.
And shooting someone isn't the same. Graham vs Connor already ruled on that.
You simply don't get it or refuse to accept it. The Supreme Court had already ruled....twice....that cops can take you out of a car for the simple reason of general safety to defend against the unknown. It's law. Repeat...it's LAW.
You may not like it. Honestly....I think it grants a tad too much authority. But it DOES do it and it's law. The law literally does basically grant the "because I can".
Another SCOTUS rule also regulates how LONG he can keep you out of the car. The stop can only last an amount of time that is "reasonable". So the cop CAN make you get out of the car "Because I can"....but if it's a simple traffic ticket and NO OTHER suspicion or violation is present he can NOT keep you on the sidewalk for 2 hours just to be a dick. The rule of thumb for police trainers is that if all you have is a simple traffic violation...the stop should be over within 10 minutes.
Great, so take your elongated version of "Because I can" and run with it.
Well, he's out of a job and facing fines and jail time.Pennsylvania v. Mimms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Even before Wilson......
1977 Pennsylvania vs Mimms, SCOTUS ruling.
The court said just for general safety, such as vehicles approaching the stop or possible hidden weapons in the car....the cop can remove a driver for "officer safety" WITHOUT any clear articulable threat. Court ruled that this is only "minimally more invasive" and the balance of 4th Amendment and officer safety is reasonable by removing a driver for general safety.
So....you see.....TWO SCOTUS cases validate this cop. He doesn't need a specific reason. Just the blanket "officer safety" concern is enough.
You may not like it. We don't like homo marriage. But both are law. And you liberals should be against this obvious unlawful prosecution.
No one disputes this is a law, he needs a reason for the action. The reason cant be "Because I can"
YOU AREN'T GETTING IT. The "reason" is plainly just general safety. You can't know the unknown. The court clearly ruled this. He doesn't need a specified reason.
And shooting someone isn't the same. Graham vs Connor already ruled on that.
You simply don't get it or refuse to accept it. The Supreme Court had already ruled....twice....that cops can take you out of a car for the simple reason of general safety to defend against the unknown. It's law. Repeat...it's LAW.
You may not like it. Honestly....I think it grants a tad too much authority. But it DOES do it and it's law. The law literally does basically grant the "because I can".
Another SCOTUS rule also regulates how LONG he can keep you out of the car. The stop can only last an amount of time that is "reasonable". So the cop CAN make you get out of the car "Because I can"....but if it's a simple traffic ticket and NO OTHER suspicion or violation is present he can NOT keep you on the sidewalk for 2 hours just to be a dick. The rule of thumb for police trainers is that if all you have is a simple traffic violation...the stop should be over within 10 minutes.
This WHOLE charge is based on GUESSING you big bag of dumbfuck!So you don't know HOW the story contradicts the tape, you just believe it does. Amirite?Can you not elaborate? I mean, really...what contradicts what?
His story contradicts the tape. Its really simple.
On what? The information the Grand Jury knows?
No I cannot because I'd be making it up, like you did when you offered defenses that is not being presented
There is no indication he needed to remove her for safety reasons from the video. He was pissed off.
Lets not pretend you are on some sort of fact based foundation either. You're entire defense consist of guesses unless you have something factual to present. Do you?
So you don't know HOW the story contradicts the tape, you just believe it does. Amirite?Can you not elaborate? I mean, really...what contradicts what?
His story contradicts the tape. Its really simple.
On what? The information the Grand Jury knows?
No I cannot because I'd be making it up, like you did when you offered defenses that is not being presented
There is no indication he needed to remove her for safety reasons from the video. He was pissed off.
Lets not pretend you are on some sort of fact based foundation either. You're entire defense consist of guesses unless you have something factual to present. Do you?
This WHOLE charge is based on GUESSING you big bag of dumbfuck!So you don't know HOW the story contradicts the tape, you just believe it does. Amirite?Can you not elaborate? I mean, really...His story contradicts the tape. Its really simple.
On what? The information the Grand Jury knows?
No I cannot because I'd be making it up, like you did when you offered defenses that is not being presented
There is no indication he needed to remove her for safety reasons from the video. He was pissed off.
Lets not pretend you are on some sort of fact based foundation either. You're entire defense consist of guesses unless you have something factual to present. Do you?
SCOTUS has ruled he does not NEED a specific reason. "Officer safety", according to SCOTUS, is the reason.
Bucs, no one is questioning whether he had the right to remove her from her car. He is indicted for lying. And the vids prove he is lying. It's perjury, son, and Wilson does not protect him. Why were you fired in Charleston area?
Texas Perjury Laws - FindLawYou were wrong when you said you would not be released from the police.
You are wrong on this. The officer is indicted for lying about the events, which is not protected by law.
So YOU should control when people feel unsafe?SCOTUS has ruled he does not NEED a specific reason. "Officer safety", according to SCOTUS, is the reason.
He doesnt need one but a reason would help his defense that it was unsafe. From the video there was no indication it was unsafe to begin with. So he'll need to get creative and hope it flies.
SCOTUS has ruled he does not NEED a specific reason. "Officer safety", according to SCOTUS, is the reason.
He doesnt need one but a reason would help his defense that it was unsafe. From the video there was no indication it was unsafe to begin with. So he'll need to get creative and hope it flies.
Because I can is not a reason. He said for Safety reasons. He needs reasons why it was unsafe.
