No, but you found a truly hilarious way to avoid answering. Knockout gas! I love it. All this for a guy who wasn’t even told he was getting a ticket.
The officers were probably on their way to arrest a multiple murderer/child kidnapper/terrorist when they pulled these people over for a seatbelt violation. You know how that this. Happens all the time. Every second counts!
[QUOTE=Bone]
Does that answer your question?
[/QUOTE]
Why did they need to engage the passenger at all?
So continuing to talk to him for several more minutes would have been wrong? Why would that have been wrong?
They shouldn’t – so this isn’t just a problem of bad behavior, but of police authority (in my view). What police action was “stymied” here?
For one thing, the threat of this would likely have motivated the man to comply. For another, once the window is broken, they still could have ordered him to come out, and it’s very possible he would have complied. The taser seemed to accomplish nothing.
Why is enforcing compliance necessary in this situation? What would have been terrible if they had waited?
Yes. Yes. Yes. What’s the worst case in that scenario? Cops spend a few minutes/hours waiting the guy out? Hey, maybe it becomes a funny story on the local news: “Crazy Passenger Tries to Wait Out Traffic Stop . . . Until He Has to Pee!”
Officers still take home a paycheck for doing their jobs, guy still gets his seatbelt ticket (and maybe another for delay of game or something like that), and everyone goes home unhurt at the end of the day.
Instead, the story is: “Police Break Car Window and Tase Man in Front of Girlfriend and her Kids for Not Getting Out of the Car.”
Police are law enforcement, but they are also our neighbors/parents/children/friends, and they ought to be trained to think of us that way as well. Having the supposed authority to enact violence on people to compel compliance does not always mean that it’s the best or even close to the right choice. This is a case in which it is clearly the wrong choice.
Can you re-ask the question so I can answer it? Was the question, ‘Why couldn’t they talk to him and convince him to get out of the car?’?
If so, then the answer is, because either they were not persuasive enough, the person refused to be persuaded, or some combination. There’s no real way to assess any particular answer or series of answers other than viewing the results. They ordered him to exit. He refused. This continued for over 1:45 and it wasn’t for lack of time because the occupants were able to discuss and engage in conversation. The officers could not convince him because he refused to be convinced. The converse question is also applicable - why couldn’t the passenger exit the vehicle?
Seriously though, if force is off the table, then there is no way to elicit compliance for non-violent folks in this scenario.
Why was there a scenario?
The question is about why they had to stop talking to him at that point, break into the car, and use a Taser on a man who was sitting down. Why couldn’t they continue talking to him?
Because they aimed guns at a man when he reached for a ticket they asked him to produce. They must’ve thought he was one of those cop killers who drives around with his kids in the car. I don’t know what he had to get upset about!
So they can pat him down and go on a fishing expedition, maybe search the car too. Black people: wear your seatbelts. Maye wear like 3-4 extra belts just to be sure. And you guys should be the best drivers in America. Give 'em no excuse! Not that they can’t make up one anyway, but still.
Because the fat bastards are mad that he made them run their fat asses after him.
Of course Jones says he was wearing a seatbelt. Apparently being an accessory to someone else not wearing a seatbelt is also dangerous.
So let’s review.
The man was breaking the law.
He refused a lawful instruction from a police officer.
He made a sudden movement and reached into something the officer couldn’t see without explaining himself.
And, as always, the police are the bad guys.
Typical.
Stuck in traffic?
So the problem, in your opinion, is that the police are allowed to enforce the law.
Cops, as a group, continue to not impress me. In a sort-of spirit of fairness to them, though, I will note that the current cohort of badges are just following time honored tradition for their kind. Even a casual study of police here in the US will show that bullying, racism, and corruption were the rule, rather than the exception through most of their history. Those old-timey cops were Officer Friendly only if you were the right color and from the right side of the tracks. The only difference is that they weren’t caught on video whooping on their victims.
Except I believe I learned on these boards that folks were being profiled as possible bad guys because they were following all the traffic rules. Very suspicious behaviour.
Bukkake party ran long down at the precinct, I’m guessing.
Well, you got [del]some[/del]most of the details wrong. Like “who” and “when” and “what” and “why”. I think you may have gotten “where” right by omitting it completely. You fucked up the conclusion, tho, unless your goal was to construct a strawman, in which case you made a lovely one for us all to see.
I’m thinking of making a formal complaint. The whole first page of this thread is ruined. No disrespect to Shodan and Bone, but they can’t provide Smapti-level bootlicking. What’s the point of having a thread like this if some numbnuts toady isn’t there to defend the police and blame the victims no matter how transparently absurd his excuses are?
He got the conclusion he wanted: ‘Mommy and Daddy will keep me safe from the bad people.’
First, did you watch the video? The window smashing/tasing was in response to non-compliance, not in response to a sudden movement.
Second, disobeying police is not reasonable reason for police to use violence on someone when nobody is in danger, nobody is fleeing, and no crime is being committed.
Third, no, the police aren’t always the bad guys. They are today, though.
Failure to use a seatbelt and failing to leave a vehicle when ordered are both crimes. What’s unreasonable here?