For the third or fourth time… (Your post is also nonresponsive.)
You gotta admit though, once he got out of the car things moved along quite smoothly.
I bet the real problem here is that he didn’t roll the window down far enough to give the cop a blowjob.
In the trade I think that’s called a Smapti.
This is true. The officer asks “Are you going to get out of the car or not?” and the passenger continues to sit still and babble incoherently as if he’s on drugs. (And he’s obviously smoking something from the fumes we can see near his hand.)
The police response is an appropriate reaction to a noncompliant individual.
It’s really impossible to say. It’s not unheard of for police to have both driver and passenger exit a vehicle during a traffic stop. SCOTUS has explicitly stated that police can order passengers out of a vehicle during a traffic stop in Maryland v. Wilson.
Any given circumstance may lead officers to order passengers out of a vehicle. In this case it appears to be based on some movement. Whether that’s true or not is irrelevant. In the interest of officer safety, police can order passengers out of a vehicle during a traffic stop.
I don’t think, nor did I assert that continuing to talk for several more minutes would have been wrong. They could have done so. My question to you is, for how long would they need to engage in this debate before you feel like sufficient time had elapsed to forcibly remove the person from the vehicle?
The voices in opposition urge restraint and for police to simply wait. I’d like to explore that further. Can you say for how long, or is the time unlimited?
I agree that police are often faced with a choice on how they execute their duties. I do not agree that this was clearly the wrong choice. It may have been wrong, but I’m undecided.
They could have. They could have done a number of things. If you advanced the story 2 more minutes, 5 more minutes, 30 more minutes, would that change your assessment at all?
At some point either the decision will be made to use force, or not. If the answer is never, then compliance with lawful commands goes out the window. Tasing the guy after they break the window is to decrease the chance of injury for officers and the guy they are removing.
I will say that it is disappointing that it appears that I am in agreement with Smapti. I’m not - about anything.
Thank you.
Possibly. But you can’t pretend that’s a logical argument against talking some more.
Do you honestly believe this ridiculousness? Come on. Apply your brain. The solution with the least chance of injury to the guy and the officers is talking to him. Of course smashing the glass and Tasering him increases the chance of injury.
Yes, that’s what you might call a warning sign.
The driver had already telephoned 911 asking for a supervisor to come to the scene. The guy repeatedly asked for a “white shirt” (supervisor).
With so many reports of police misconduct – for just one example, here’s an interview about a 92-year old man who needed medical treatment, but first “had to be subdued and handcuffed” by police who broke bones doing that – I can’t blame the people for wanting a supervisor. A little surfing on Youtube shows lots of drivers being tased for no good reason, once they got out of the car.
He wasn’t refusing; he was waiting for a supervisor to appear. Was the situation (seatbelt violation? suspected of being en route to voter registration? what?) so serous that tasing and window-breaking were in order, but not worth waiting for supervisor?
I’ve had problems with U.S. law enforcement where I insisted on seeing a supervisor. I’m not black, so wasn’t tased.
Which they did. How many times does the cop have to ask nicely? When is he allowed to escalate to anything other than “asking nicely again”?
Or should the cops just pack up and go home if the person they’re detaining doesn’t feel like being policed today?
** Bone **, I haven’t contended that the cops lacked the legal authority to demand his ID and demand that he step out of the vehicle.
I’m proposing that they had no need to do either, and that the whole cascade of events reflected overly zealous use of their authority. To the point that in my opinion it became abuse of their authority.
I also love that the video clearly reveals their description of the incident to be bullshit. This keeps up, and pretty soon only the Smaptis of the world will swallow anything the cops have to offer in these incidents.
I don’t think anybody has pointed this out yet, but in the NBC piece linked to by Hentor, the driver (the one on the phone throughout) was actually on the line with the 911 operator!
She had called 911 because of her concern about the cops’ behaviour (e.g. pulling their weapons for a seatbeat violation especially when there were kids in the backseat and when there had been not the slightest hint of imminent risk to the cops).
Wow - calling 911 to be protected from the cops. Bizzaro world.
It’s not an argument against talking more. The argument against talking more is that the time to talk can not be unlimited. I’m wondering what you think that limit should be.
You have to parse this line of discussion differently. After the decision was made to break the window, the tasing was inevitable as it was done to reduce the chance of injury. The key part of this is “after the decision was made to break the window”. If you accept the logic and use of tasers at all, then this follows. That’s why I think the tasering is incidental to the encounter. Once the police lay hands on a person, I expect tasing to happen. So the thing to focus on would be why was the decision made to break the window. And that goes back to how long police should engage in discussion with a person about their refusal to obey lawful commands.
Do you think it’s a reasonable outcome to wait for 911 to dispatch a supervisor to the scene of a traffic stop? That seems far fetched. The appropriate time to contest these actions would be in court.
I actually guffawed. I’ve never guffawed before, that I can recall.
But not enough to bring the situation to a satisfactory conclusion. It seems Jones was upset that the police aimed guns at him and the children after he tried to comply with an order from the police. I know you’re not bothered by anything except the tiniest amount of disobedience toward authority, but a human with a functioning brain might find that upsetting. On the other hand, this guy is a professional and the people he’s dealing with are amateurs. They don’t have a lot of experience with routine traffic stops and aren’t trained in how to handle situation like this or how to use minimal force.
Point of order: did they ask nicely? (Qualification: aiming a gun at someone’s head doesn’t count as asking nicely.)
When the guy is a danger to them or to someone else.
Maybe they should make up a more serious charge and arrest him.
I’m sure this will stop happening if the cops shoot and Taser enough people during routine traffic stops. The beatings will continue until morale improves!
Well, “I want to talk to your manager!” always works at the McDonald’s, so why wouldn’t it work with the cops?
Adam-12 should be used as training films.
Interesting. The website What are the rights of passengers during a traffic stop? | Flex Your Rights suggests that passengers should refuse to answer questions or refuse searches without an attorney present. I wonder what would have happened if they insisted on waiting for their attorney, perhaps in addition to a supervisor?
If you think asking for these things is over the top as an outcome of a safety stop, maybe the cops should stop shooting people or tasing them as the result of safety stops.
Several times.
Which he did when he refused to get out of the car.
I don’t approve of making up charges. Do you?
What law?
He did explain himself.
For breaking a window and tasing an unarmed man who presented no threat to anyone? Yep.
How about the cops who beat the suspect when he stopped fleeing and gave himself up?
He was wearing a seatbelt.
Breaking a window, showering glass upon children, and tasing an unarmed and non-threatening man because he didn’t get out of his car. That’s unreasonable.