I don’t think so – a rather non-imaginary scenario might be the cops agreeing to give the driver the ticket (like she asked – she said “just give me the ticket!” or something similar) for the seatbelt violation and letting them go on their way. Or the cops calling for a supervisor, like the passenger asked, who might be able to reassure the passenger that he was in no danger of violence if he got out of the car.
I see no risk to the cops if they treat people who are scared of the police as if their fear is actually reasonable, rather than reinforcing this fear – and in the long run, reinforcing this fear might be far more dangerous to the cops.
Yes, it was incorrect, because he probably never thought the cops would shower glass onto children and tase him when he had done nothing violent whatsoever.
One thing I get out of this is that some cops are way, way too quick to resort to using force when it might not be necessary. What was the reason to use force in this situation? It wasn’t to protect the cops. It wasn’t to protect the public. The only rational reason was to protect the authority of the cops – to send the message that “if you don’t obey, you will regret it”. That is a bad reason, in my opinion.
“Whatever you do, don’t stop foaming at the mouth.”
I don’t think hyperbole helps, whether the person sees it as defensive or offensive. Given where we are and the motto, it also seems kinda ironical that so many people here are wilfuly ignorant of their own motivations when being snotty and nasty and combative.
I don’t think you can conclude the order was given for no particular reason. What do you base that on? Officers during a vehicle stop I believe have a presumptive ‘officer safety’ based reason for ordering people out of the vehicle.
In your view, what would be reasonable lengths to enforce their order to exit the vehicle? Is there any way that would be reasonable in your view to force the exit of the vehicle?
Let me rephrase. Once the order was given, there was no turning back - the guy was going to exit the vehicle immediately to comply with the order one way or another. Do you agree with that?
I can’t quite parse what you are saying. Are you saying it’s a reasonable fear for them to have, or for you to have, or for the general public to have, or something else?
I don’t agree that this has to be true – why was their no turning back? Is it that bad if cops change their minds if they realize this man presents no risk and no one is in any danger? Is it that bad if they wait longer, perhaps calling for a supervisor? What would be wrong with these options?
It’s a reasonable fear for many people, including these people, to have.
That’s a legal justification for ordering him out of the car, not a reason to give the order. If all he did was fail to wear a seatbelt, there is no reason to order him out of the car. The driver was accused of the same, and nobody told her to get out.
It is ironic that, in your attempt at a higher-level, holier than thou corrective admonition regarding tone, that you would characterize people as foaming at the mouth, snotty, nasty, combative and ignorant.
Gee, you really compel me to see your perspective when you put it like a total asshole might put it.
In MA passengers are not required to carry ID or provide it if asked. For passenger seat belt violations the officer has a choice of ticketing the passenger or driver so if they can’t I’D the passenger they can just fine the driver instead.
From this do you conclude there was in fact, no reason? That seems like a stretch.
My guess is that because at some point in time the passenger made a furtive movement (described by police accounts). This was probably when he reached into a bag to retrieve ID or paperwork or something that was requested. This is what sounds like led to the initial unholstering of weapons. This precipitated the order to exit and why he was ordered and not the driver.
I didn’t know this was resolved. Did I miss it? You stated that ‘…then had to go to unreasonable lengths to enforce it because they were afraid of losing face.’ By stating this, you are implying that there are reasonable lengths they could have gone to to enforce their order. What are they? Previous posters have said that they could have waited for a supervisor to arrive, waited the duration of their shift (presumably in rotation indefinitely until the occupants choose to exit, or die in the vehicle), or continue to debate with the folks for some indeterminate amount of time. I hadn’t read your take on it so I’m asking.
I understand there may not be a bright line distinction between X is not enough time and X + Y is enough, but is there a ball park how long to wait before engaging in force in either duration or number or orders given?
Waiting for a supervisor to arrive for a traffic stop doesn’t seem practical to me. Does it seem practical to you? Let’s play that out. What if they wait for a supervisor and the supervisor assures the passengers that they are not in any physical danger, they will be getting a ticket and probably arrested for obstruction or some other related charge. Then the passenger still refuses to exit. What would be your solution?
They could write a ticket for the driver and go home. They could call in a higher ranking police officer. They could follow them home (or to the hospital, their destination) and wait for them to get out of the car. They could say “if you don’t get out, we’re going to smash the window”. If he does nothing, they could say “we’re getting ready to smash the window – please have the children cover their faces and get in a safe position” before actually smashing the window.
These all sound like better options than what the officers actually did. Their actions served no purpose in either protecting themselves or protecting the public, and in fact endangered the children in the car as well as portraying themselves in a bad light and in a way that is likely to lead to less cooperation among people in the future.
When no one is in any danger, and no one is being arrested for a crime, why should non-violence ever be responded to with violence by cops?
Ok, let’s parse this out a bit:
[ul]
[li]**They could write a ticket for the driver and go home. **[/li]This would be after they had ordered the person to exit in this scenario. So this means they could have either changed their mind on the order, or allow the order to be undermined. Is that right?
_
[li]**They could call in a higher ranking police officer. **[/li]This is the ‘call in a supervisor’ line of thought. What happens if that is done and the situation is unchanged? How many supervisors are on duty as a proportion of traffic stops are there? Again that seems impractical.
_
[li]They could follow them home and wait for them to get out of the car.[/li]Do you think it is reasonable to allow a vehicle to depart in the middle of a traffic stop? That seems even more impractical than the above.
_
[li]They could say “if you don’t get out, we’re going to smash the window”. If he does nothing, they could say “we’re getting ready to smash the window – please have the children cover their faces and get in a safe position” before actually smashing the window.[/li]This seems to hinge on whether sufficient warning was given before smashing the window. I agree with this. I think there should be at least one warning that if the person does not comply they will be forcibly removed. I’m not sure if this was done or not but given the encounter was approximately 13 minutes and there was visible warning given the reactions I think this may have been satisfied. Do you think that in this situation the idea of breaking the window was never conveyed to the people in the car?
[/ul]
None of this makes sense. To start with, “furtive movement” is an easily-abused term because of its utter vagueness. He didn’t do anything “furtive.” He reached into his bag to comply with their order, and they found that confusing. What’s the logic here- they had to order him out of the car because he surprised them? Why is that? He gave them what they wanted, did he? Did they think maybe he still had a weapon in the bag?
My comment was that they never had to give the order in the first place, and you’re asking about their enforcement of the order I said they didn’t need to give. The proper way to resolve the situation was talking to the people in the car. End of story.
Why is it necessary to use force against people who are accused of a minor traffic violation and whose actions are not a threat to the police or anyone else?
Yes, impractical. Still better than showering children with glass and tasing a non-violent person.
Impractical, but still better than what they did.
I don’t know if they made it clear – they didn’t seem to in the video. This is the worst of the options I offered, because getting this guy out of the car was totally unnecessary. Showering children with glass was not worth it in this case. The police did harm here, not good.
But you see, if the police give a minor arbitrary order and it’s not followed, civil society will collapse. Anarchy in the streets, dogs and cats living together. That or the cop suffers a minor embarrassment if he has made the mistake of getting ego gratification from ordering people around.
I don’t know. Your original statement was that there was no particular reason to order the passenger out of the vehicle. I stated a possible reason. Whether or not you agree with it, I think it fits the fact pattern and can be identified as a possible reason. Therefore your conclusion that there was no particular reason is unfounded with the information we have.
Okay, from the totality of your statements I am interpreting that to mean that you believe that the order to exit itself was unreasonable and therefore there was no reasonable way to enforce that order. Is that a fair interpretation?
If that is the case, then my earlier statement to iiandyiiii that the calculus was wrong is true. The decision to order the passenger out of the car was the tipping point. Once that order was given and not complied with, the result was a foregone conclusion. Windows broken/tased/etc.
"It is ironic that, in your attempt at a higher-level, holier than thou corrective admonition regarding tone, that you would characterize people as foaming at the mouth, snotty, nasty, combative and ignorant.
Gee, you really compel me to see your perspective when you put it like a total asshole might put it."
It’s not “holier than thou” nor a “corrective admonition”. It’s an observation, and one not directed to you in particular (the set-up here is a little odd, in that you can either choose to reply to whole thread and not to a particular person’s post).
I should’ve made the ironical “what’s good for the goose” more clear. I meant no offense, though around here a knee-jerk misanthropic reaction is expected. (Of course, it won’t make any less angry in general or less frustrated with their lot in life, nor does it provide any relief. It may, however, keep someone from popping his/her significant other or animal in the head with a frying pan when (s)he gets home and is faced with [whatever unsatisfactory situation], and for that I guess it’s worth it?)
You do understand I was talking about a good and logical reason, right? A reason that makes no sense - which boils down to ‘he startled the cops’ - does not get the job done. If that’s the best you can come up with, I’m sticking to my description.
I said there was no reason to give the order. You figure out if I think the order was unreasonable. (I think it’s better to say it was arbitrary and unnecessary.)
The tipping point was when guns were aimed at these people. It’s borderline crazy to say anything else. That’s what turned this from a routine traffic stop into a confrontation. And the more you think about it, the more ridiculous that confrontation ought to seem. The police pointed guns at a family in a car after Jones went to comply with their order. At no time were they an obvious threat, and the idea that he was going to pull a gun on the cops when he was in a car with children at a point when they physically couldn’t have driven away because of the spikes is just nuts.
They weren’t waiting for a supervisor in connection with a simple traffic stop. They would have been waiting for a supervisor in lieu of smashing a window.
I have much sympathy for the idea that police orders should be obeyed. However, there is an on-going scandal of American police tasing or even shooting innocent people, especially Blacks. To fear the police is hardly irrational.
Is the scandal of excessive police force overblown by media attention? Perhaps. OTOH, on YouTube you can watch dozens of stupid tasing incidents, etc etc. till you’re bored. Many cops who obviously use excessive force are still not dismissed. Would obeying the cop’s instructions have been the “percentage play” for Jamal Jones? Yes, I think so. Was his fear irrational in today’s still-racist America? No.