The actions of the subject in this case were clearly no more than “passive resistance” (and I think an argument could be made that they didn’t even exceed “verbal noncompliance”, since he didn’t “prevent” the officers from taking any of the “lawful action” that the situation required, i.e., ticketing the driver for a traffic violation). That is not the sort of behavior for which a taser attack is appropriate.
No, really. The odds of this happening to any individual are probably small, and the odds of it happening to me are far smaller. Does that seem reasonable to you? Do you think it seems reasonable to people on the wrong end of the equation?
I’m not telling anyone what they should do. I did mention what I would do in a similar circumstance. Since no one is currently pointing a gun at you (blink your eyes twice if they are), would you stay in the vehicle with the young children or would you get out?
I’ve highlighted what I disagree with. It’s a pity; you were doing so well for the first hundred words or so.
And I hope you’ll agree that at this point, these folks are acting out of concern for their (and our) civil rights.
BTW, has anyone checked out this VICE piece yet? I thought it started off well but by the end it was just kind of bleating like a sunstroked goat. I’d have preferred to see the author take a look at what a police-less society would look like and what steps we might take to get there. I’d don’t know that it’s a realistic goal, but it would have been a more interesting read and a better end to the piece than what was published, IMO.
The guys who break the window are responsible for showering glass on kids, not the unarmed, non-violent guy sitting in the front seat. The cops had other options than showering glass on kids.
I read that article. I’m not sure about the conclusion either, but the instances it highlights make me think this issue has a lot of similarities to the Penn State abuse coverups, the Catholic Church pedophilia scandal, the NFL domestic abuse problem, and similar big organizational coverups. In short, big, powerful institutions pretty much always have corrupt institutional morals, and will always prioritize protecting themselves above justice. So that to police forces as institutions, this issue will be seen more as “how can we stop all this criticism and media/legal attacks on police officers?”, rather than “do we really have a problem with excessive force towards black people, and if so, how do we fix it?”. As an institution, police forces are not concerned with this question – they’re uninterested in finding out if they have a brutality problem, except for how it affects their public relations, to the point that they don’t even want statistics about it out there (and will refuse to help anyone looking into it).
Can we please stop with this particular piece of hyperbole? And calling it that is being generous. The kids were in the back seat. Looks like the passenger was a fairly big guy and the seat was fairly far back. Watch the video. If the rear passenger window was smashed you could rightly say that the kids were showered with glass. It wasn’t, and they weren’t. You know, if you, and others, have to resort to this kind of emotional hyperbole, maybe your point isn’t a point after all, but a desperate attempt to argue through emotion. Won’t someone think of the children!
The thing that I liked most about the piece was that it showed that I’m not the only person who noticed (I noticed years and years ago) that nearly every police shooting has the same story and that even when other eyewitness accounts contradict the officer’s version of things, the law ALWAYS seems to fall on the cops’ side. I’ve always wondered how it was that I seemed to be the only person noticing that the police seem to have a script that they read from when they talk about an officer shooting someone.
How do you reconcile your belief that the odds of this happening to any individual are probably small but the honestly held belief that it’s reasonable for people to fear thuggery from police during a traffic stop?
The order to exit the vehicle was not a request, it was a lawful command. The police have the authority to compel compliance with that command. Do you agree?
Actually, the actions of the person based on your description would be ‘active resistance’. He was ordered to exit the vehicle and refused. At that point he was going to be arrested. The table states:
The subject’s actions are intended to facilitate an escape or prevent an arrest. The action is not likely to cause injury.
Moreover, I can’t determine if this article is binding on the department in question. It looks like a study and recommendation but let me know if there is something that is authoritative.
From what I understand, in many departments nowadays officers receive specific and significant instruction on how to justify a shooting after the shooting is complete.
I’m criticizing the decision making of the police – they did not need to break that window to “protect and serve”. And breaking the window put the children in the back at risk. Not a huge risk, but still a totally unnecessary one.
Watching the video again, it looks like pieces of glass went everywhere, including into the back seat, by the way.
Oh, please. You, and others, have repeatedly whined about the cops “showering glass on kids”! Oh, the horror!!!
It didn’t happen. Stick to what did happen and you’ll have a better argument. And just show you know, there’s very little danger from wind glass. It’s designed to break just the way you see, into pebbles, not shards with sharp edges. Either way, the kids were in zero danger due to the breaking of the glass.
What caused them the most damage, IMO, is the length of the confrontation and arguing. I said upthread that they seemed like a once family and I feel for them. But if he would have gotten out of the car as requested, this incident would have been much less traumatic for everyone. Now, I’m not placing blame on anyone. In fact, I asked upthread if anyone knew about what law would allow a police officer to ask a passenger to step out of the car, and under what circumstances. I can’t find a satisfactory explanation, So it is perfectly possible that the officers acted inappropriately. Unless they didn’t.
I also asked if anyone knew how ling the incident had been occurring prior to the video being recorded. Anyone know?
Two days ago, someone on CNN said it took 13 minutes. I wasn’t watching the TV so I can’t tell you which one said it. Of course, CNN did not say when the clock started. Was it when the stop occurred? Was it when the officer first talked to the driver? Was it when the driver called 9-1-1? They didn’t bother to say when the clock stopped either. When the passenger was handcuffed? When the window was broken?
