Here’s a cop doing something nice, but all I can think is, I wonder if he’d have done the same if the lady had not been white?
And when it happens, it’s appropriate for the cops to break windows, tase, and put children at risk, even though there’s no evidence anyone is in any danger?
When someone doesn’t obey the police, does that mean that any force short of deadly force is okay? Could they have beaten him on the ground? How did their actions “protect and serve” anyone at all?
Ok, that’s one endorsement for the Judge Dredd model of policing.
Probably not. But the bad PR can not be denied. At some point it ceases to matter what the ratio of good:bad actually is. Instead it’s about perception and currently the perception is negative. Police as a whole can try to address that perception however justified, if they want. Or not.
The cops have a serious problem on their hands. It would be great if everyone obeyed the cops, and that was it. But when people obey the cops and still get shot, or stop fleeing and still get beaten, it starts to seem pretty reasonable when they aren’t as inclined to obey, and are more inclined to just avoid the police.
Doing nothing while unarmed – like sitting in the passenger seat of a car with no one in danger of anything – even if the cops want you to do something (and assuming that there is no urgent danger to anyone) – seems like it should never be responded to with force. What’s the justification for such violence? What’s the justification for beating someone after they stop fleeing when their hands are in the air?
He should have got out of the car. His wife should have shut the fuck up, and they’d have both probably been on their way in no time. The guy refusing to get out of the car was asking for trouble.
Bolding mine.
So now police are even causing volcanoes? This abuse of power is getting completely out of hand!
Here’s a fun thought exercise: explain why the cops couldn’t have talked to the guy until he got out of the car.
The cops don’t have any responsibility to try and resolve a situation like this without force? Why couldn’t they have just kept trying to convince him to comply? They didn’t even say “if you don’t get out, we’re going to break the window and tase you”.
So the family is suing the police: Tasered Passenger: 'My Civil Rights Were Just Thrown Out the Window'.
Good. I’m curious why they asked the passenger for any information at all. I also wonder why they demanded he get out of the car. Given the charges listed in the article, it wasn’t for any outstanding warrants. It seems to me they needlessly escalated this situation from the get-go.
Also, there needs to be a new standard for drawing a weapon that involves a criterion more substantial than “his hands went where I couldn’t see them.” Seems like whenever you demand an ID, the person’s hands are going to go where you can’t see them.
How long would you suggest they engage in conversation with the person not complying with lawful commands?
It’d be nice if they chose to do so, but no. They have the authority to force compliance with lawful commands. I’m not sure what the escalation of force for this particular department is, but if someone refuses to exit a vehicle there’s not much choice other than breaking the window. Tasing seems appropriate once you’ve gone down that route since you need to subdue the person and there isn’t enough room to swing a billy club.
I think the key question is if they broke the window too soon. Once that decision was made, it wasn’t going to go well for the person in the vehicle.
How about more than a few minutes?
They shouldn’t have this authority in situations (like this one) in which disobeying a command puts no one in any danger. Failure to respect a cop’s “authoritah” should not be a valid reason to use force.
Sure there is – keep trying to talk him into complying. Don’t break the window. Don’t put the children at risk simply because the guy isn’t doing what you’re telling him to do while no one is in any danger.
How about not tasing him or clubbing him?
LOL. I think there are many other key questions (like “is showering children with glass necessary to protect and serve the public in this situation?”), but perhaps this is one too. Can you answer it, or any of the others?
My belief is that the police shouldn’t get violent when dealing with someone who isn’t violent or dangerous or creating a dangerous situation for others. And for that matter the guy had reason to be alarmed. I think talking to him for a few minutes would have defused the situation. Would you like to answer the question now? Why couldn’t they talk to him and convince him to get out of the car?
Yup, I was just going to point that out. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
So basically, we should be able to “stand our ground” with cops.
You’re an idiot.
Regards,
Shodan
And the reason the cops had to resort to brute force is… ?
Do you care to engage on any of the questions brought up in the thread, or is it as simple as “if someone fails to obey cops, then anything the cops do to them subsequently is justified”?
He already answered this. He said yes.
How many?
The glass is broken at about the 1:54 mark of the linked video. The video starts after the vehicle was stopped, presumably after the initial request to exit from what I gather. The officers were engaging in conversation throughout the encounter. I’m not sure if the 1:54 of seen footage is too long, but it doesn’t appear too short.
Okay. They do though. Everyone knows they do. Should the police action be stymied by a person who won’t exit a vehicle indefinitely?
Removing the person from the vehicle requires the police to go hands on if he will not comply. Once you go hands on, tasing is really the best alternative. Other options of force would likely result in more serious injury. Like I said, once the decision to break the window and force the exit, tasing was a foregone conclusion. Basically if an officer has to lay hands on you, expect to be tased.
I don’t think showering children with glass is necessary to protect and serve the public in this situation. That is an unfortunate byproduct. What is necessary is enforcing compliance with lawful commands. Of course there is a cost benefit to that choice among other alternatives.
Talking to him may have defused the situation. It may not have. Sometimes reason and dialogue are not sufficient.
Presumably they had been talking to him for at least 2 minutes already. Assume that some longer amount of time had passed. What is the resolution if the guy would not exit the vehicle when ordered to do so? They could call a locksmith, use some kind of knock out gas, tow the vehicle, lay siege to it and starve them out, tow the whole vehicle to jail, I’m not sure what else. What do you think should be the solution when a person for whatever reason refuses to obey a lawful command to exit a vehicle for an indeterminate amount of time?
Does that answer your question?
Indefinitely. Seriously. You don’t get to assault people just because you’re a cop and you’re impatient. This citizen was not a danger to anyone. This was a non-compliant but 100% non-violent situation. Wait the guy out.
Call me crazy, but I dream of an America where the police don’t use violence to enforce compliance by non-violent, law-abiding citizens.