This was a seat belt stop. The purpose of the seat belt law is to ensure the safety of a car’s occupants. Getting one of them out of the car is not consistent with getting them to buckle up, and tasing them is not a way to ensure their safety. But it very quickly became not about safety but about Respecting Authoritah, didn’t it? Or maybe the seat belt law was a mere pretext for a DWB violation, hmm?
Neither of which is an example of the thing you claimed is real, then backed off into claiming you were simply hypothesizing could be real, about people pretending to be submissive before ambushing a cop.
What you *should *be pissed about is your low level of skill at making up rank bullshit.
Try harder next time. Or, better yet, don’t try at all.
Actually it is. Making a “nyah, nyah no it isn’t” statement doesn’t magically clear you.
Both those cites show situations (traffic stops actually) where the person stopped first appeared to comply with the officers and then opened fire on them.
What’s your next tactic? Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la la la I can’t hear you!
“This is false and you made an incorrect statement of fact. Do you agree?” (as relates to “The officer also had no lawful basis to demand (or request) that the passenger (or driver) get out of the car.” )
If you want an amendment to #475, I will say “no” what I said wasn’t false/incorrect (authority and legal basis are two different things) and no, I don’t agree that I made an incorrect statement of fact as applied to the Indiana situation.
[Quote=Bubbadog]
… there exists violent people who will try to appear confused scared etc while looking for an opportunity to harm the cop.
[/Quote]
Both cites show the drivers of the car stopping for a traffic violation (complying). Both cites show the occupant of the vehicles (after complying) drawing weapons and shooting at (in one case killing) the police. It should be clear to someone even as hate crazed as you are.
Unless you view the traffic stop as an act of aggression by the police. That’s the only explanation I can see for your insistence on beating this side point into the dirt with your dick. If that’s the case then its obvious that I’m arguing with a fool and I’ve unfortunately started to blend in with him.
Fallen, it appears you are a lawyer. I think that means you can search for this answer better than I. Is Indiana a state that allows the Common Law right to resist unlawful arrest.? I recently read a Slate article that discussed how some states have the common law in this, and some have a statute that if arrested unlawfully, your remedy must be after the fact. That article did not have a complete list by state.
Ok, so you believe there was no lawful basis to demand the passenger get out of the car. You are wrong. There’s this thing called SCOTUS. They had a case before them, Maryland v. Wilson.
It said:
**
**
Just for the other readers who may be following along, here’s what Know My Rights (not authoritative, but generally correct and pro individual rights) says:
I watched one of BubbaDog’s videos. I feel bad for Dept. Dinkheller. He showed amazing restraint towards Brannan. But J. Jones was not acting like that, and the police could see that Jones had no rifle, so I don’t see how the incidents are comparable.
It’s also done right away, since the idea is to safe the situation for the officer making an arrest. Asking a passenger to get out after the arrest is over is against the letter of the law.
“Arrest” in this case being that when the police stop you from being free to move about your country, it is an arrest. Doesn’t mean you are charged, and usually you are free to go after the cops finish doing whatever it is they want to do during the arrest.
But you are under arrest when you are not free to go.
Wrong. If an officer orders you to stop, and you don’t, you will be charged with “resisting arrest”.
People are confused as to how they can be arrested for resisting arrest, when that is the only charge. They were not already under arrest, so how could they resist arrest? Try not stopping when ordered to, you will find out that being told to stop means you are under arrest.
It does not mean you are charged, but if you resist stopping, the charge will be “resisting arrest”. Unless you are really fast, then it will be fleeing and eluding, as well as resisting arrest.
(I swear I got this idea before reading about Officer Denny, Sandusky P.D.)
Some of the annoyance with Jamal Jones for not getting out of the car seems to derive from the fact that he could not have expected his tactic to work indefinitely. “What was he waiting for ? No ‘Supervisor’ is going to come.”
But what is done with minors when their parents are arrested at a traffic stop? Does Hammond, IN have a Child Protective Servcies, or would they just take the minors along to the station in their police cars? If the former, then could it not be reasonable if Jones was waiting for CPS to arrive? At some point Jones may have realized he was going to get arrested, and probably Mahone too.
The videos weren’t meant to be a comparison to Jones situation.
They were examples of situations where people initiate violence with police after appearing to comply. I provided them because I got sucked into a fight with an idiot (ElvisL1ves) who yelled “cite” when I mentioned that “there exists violent people who will try to appear confused scared etc while looking for an opportunity to harm the cop.”
ElvisL1ves started out making some statements that I found generally agreeable but then he got all bent out of shape when I commented that some of his arguments could be flipped when he said:
[Quote=ElvisL1ves]
You may well be one of the good guys, one of the non-Authoritah ones, one of the non-racists, one of the non-gun-brandishers, one of the non-threateners. If so, good for you. But you do have colleagues who are not, don’t you?
[/Quote]
He basically stated that there are shitty cops out there and I replied that there are shitty people too. When you’re stupid and blinded with hatred as Elvis was you start demanding proof that shitty people exist. My bad for being suckered in to an argument with an idiot.
Bricker certainly has quality. Fallen not so much. Hell, already, I can start reading random bloviations in these threads and think “sounds like Fallen’s sorta crap” and sure enough…
So long as you’re not in law enforcement or a criminal law attorney, it’s not terribly harmful for you to misapprehend the difference and thinking that you’re under “arrest” if you’re stopped by a police officer for whatever reason (traffic or otherwise). The problem is that the misinformation doesn’t help when spread to a wider audience. Instead of declaring what will or won’t happen in a given scenario, (I wouldn’t advise after being pulled over for a traffic stop to decide to leave before the interaction is finished, for instance), it’d be better if you simply advised folks to google “arrest vs. detention”.
Yes, there is a racial problem in the U.S. but to single out the cops is disingenuous. Homicide is the leading cause of death among black males from the ages 15-34 (somewhere near 50%!). 90% of those are committed by members of their own race. 8% is the number for whites of the same age group. 83% by members of their own race. What do these numbers mean? I don’t know but you can twist stats to get whatever result you want.
You’re the one offering the stats; you tell us what you think they mean. To me, they mean fuck all to the issue being discussed.
Essentially, these numbers mean that black people are more likely than white people to be murdered, AND they are also more likely to be hassled by the police.
Or are you saying that the one has some more direct relationship to the other?
