Simple: She was detained and searched without probable cause. Also known as a violation of her fourth amendment rights. And all because she wasn’t sufficiently subservient.
No, thats why I would have pulled up to a safe distance, and kept the car between myself and the “suspect”, and direct him to put the weapon on the ground.
Risking your life would be pulling right up to a person with a gun. If it had been real, he could have shot at least one of them before they shot him. They were fortunate that it was a fake gun, for their actions could have put themselves into danger.
She was detained with probable cause, which the cop makes quite clear to her. And she was handcuffed because she wasn’t sufficiently cooperative, not subservient, and that us not a problem. She was on her way again, with no harm of any sort done to her, in a few minutes. It’s close to ideal for a stop, if she’d have been fully cooperative she could have spent those few minutes standing there rather than Sat down cuffed, but that’s a minor detail.
She wasn’t in any way punished, you fucking idiot. She wasn’t humiliated, arrested, charged, nothing bad happened to her.
That you consider cooperation with the police to be supporting fascism shows just how stupid you are. You live in a democracy, with a reasonably functional court system. If you feel that a representative of the government has done wrong by you, you have multiple avenues to make it right. That doesn’t remove your duty to respect the position - if not the individual - and to fully cooperate with them.
Watch the video again. The cop tells her why she’s been stopped.
I said earlier they could have acted differently. But none of that is relevant, what matters is whether the perceived threat at the point of the shooting was reasonable. If so, it was legitimate self defence.
The failure to follow best practice is probably why the city paid a settlement. It doesn’t mean that it wasn’t self defence, if you watch the video it evidently was.
Prior to handcuffing, he did not make that clear, all he said was that there was a report of someone riding a bike and wearing black. He did not get to the part where she was committing the crime of “looking at driveways” until after he had her in cuffs, so you are wrong on #1.
She followed all of the officer’s instructions. She stopped, she got off her bike, she went through her belongings in order to find her ID for the officer. She could not have been more cooperative, without being subservient. So there you go, wrongo on numero two-o.
Few minutes? She was in the back of the vehicle for almost 6, and spent over 7 wearing hand cuffs. Then she had to pick up all her stuff that was scattered across the street. That’s not a few minutes. That’s late enough to get fired from work.
Tell me, what could she have done to be more cooperative? Which of the officer’s instructions did she not follow?
There’s no reason he has to tell her anything, but as it happens he did, so your question got answered. She should have done as she was instructed without having to be asked twice for everything, without questioning it, and without the ridiculous bad attitude. In short, she should have cooperated, not grudgingly given the minimum possible compliance.
And yes, 6 or 7 minutes to help the police is a few minutes, and no one should consider it an imposition, it’s a responsibility. That’s not something you’ll get sacked for, at least not at a job worth having.
You seem to very much misunderstand the role of the police if you think her attitude and lack of respect she gave him is acceptable. The police represent the government - that is, they represent *everyone *, and regardless of the individual wearing the badge, you respect them just as you respect the rest of the government and the law.
Or you can ignore it, and end up in the shit, up to you. But if this nonsense is what people are complaining about when the say the police “mistreat” people then yeah, it’s bullshit, and people complaining need to get a grip.
Sorry man, I don’t disagree with 100% of the things you say, but if you think lack of respect for a police officer warrants being placed in handcuffs, that is a bunch of bullshit.
A “perceived threat” is not an acceptable reason to shoot someone. Someone with a toy gun may be perceived to be threatening, but unless you’re allergic to plastic, you’re in no danger. There’s no “reasonable threat” there.
Or is it only cops that get to respond to “perceived threats” with instant gunfire? That the city settled for millions and the cop is no long employed with them might just be a hint that there was something not right about that killing.
Lack of cooperation justifies that, not that it needs much justification. Being g cuffed probably made that encounter faster, and safer for everyone involved. No harm done, and some benefit.
Safer for everyone? If the cop perceived a threat he should have shot her, right? Like he woulda if a 12 year old black kid was playing with a toy gun.
That you continually mischaracterise that incident as “playing with a toy gun” shows that you can’t be bothered to look at what’s actually happening, and why, in all these situations, and would rather just let your biases show.
He was a 12 year old kid playing with a toy gun. That’s what actually, factually was going on. I’ll admit to having a bias against people who shoot kids playing with toy guns.
Not until she was in handcuffs, he didn’t.
And he never explained why “looking at driveways” was a crime.
What did he ever have to ask her twice for? She complied with his every directive. You tell me what she refused. You can’t, because she didn’t.
Ah, and there it comes out, she was put into handcuffs because she did not have an unquestioning worship of the police.
She did cooperate, and there is nothing illegal about being annoyed about it, and there is nothing illegal about minimal compliance. And you are wrong on that too, as she didn’t have to comply at all. She had no requirement to identify herself. She was not driving, and she was not suspected of any crime. She gave more than the minimum compliance.
7 minutes in handcuffs. Plus the time before that, and the time after that. Plus the time picking up the stuff that he had thrown all over the ground. Plus going into work, wearing a soiled and trampled uniform from his treatment of her possessions.
People’ve been fired for less. And before you get on your high horse, and judge the types of jobs that people take, you need to realize that people, even people who aren’t cops, need to make living, and they take the jobs they can get. So fuck off with your “job worth having” bullshit.
You seem to misunderstand the role of the gov’t, if you think that giving attitude and lack of respect to the agents of the gov’t is licensed for those agents to manhandle and harass you. We are not a tyranny, not yet. The police state may be coming in the near future, but until you have welcomed in that police state, we are allowed to have an attitude and disrespect towards the agents of the state. That is not illegal, not yet, anyway.
You can pretend you have rights, and have those right shit on by agents of the state.
This is but one example of police overstepping their authority to abuse the people they have power over. There are many other examples. If you note, this thread is full of them. Of course you note that, you defend them all.
Look, I’ve pointed this out in other threads to other people, but do you really think that you would do well under fascism? It sounds like a great idea, until you realize that it is not you that’s going to be calling the shots, it’s not you that’s going to be oppressing others. It is most likely you that is going to be either oppressed or against a wall when your fantasied police state emerges.
I mean, if you actually think that you would be better off, if you actually think that you would be one of the ones on top doing the oppressing, then I can see the appeal, but that ain’t you buddy, you just be the poor dumb ignorant shit that they convince to roll out the carpet, you don’t get to set foot on it.
As K9 already stated, and you chose not to respond to, probable cause needs a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. There was NO probable cause, thus, the detention was unconstitutional as was the search. The handcuffing was entirely because he felt he wasn’t being respected enough, which is some authoritarian bullshit that we, the people, should absolutely denounce.
This probably deserves its own thread, but I’ll put it here for now. Recent studies on the impact of police body cameras are inconclusive. We’re not yet seeing clear evidence that forcing police to wear body cameras has a significant impact on outcomes. The randomized studies that have been run so far don’t find that body cams reduce police violence or citizen complaints. The article offers many caveats and possible explanations, and it does recognize that body cams might be justified to provide evidence in cases where an incident of excessive force is investigated. However, at least based on the data so far, body cams don’t seem to prevent violent incidents between police and civilians. Washington DC spent a million dollars on setting up the cameras and expects to spend two million dollars a year in data storage. The article questions whether that money is better spent on other preventive measures, or if it’s worth it, if it only serves to provide evidence in the relatively rare case that an officer is accused of misconduct.
If it turns out that body cams don’t actually reduce violence, that’s very disappointing, of course. As someone who favors greater accountability of police and greater consequences for police abuses, I was really hoping body cams would be a fairly simple and intuitive step in the right direction. Maybe they will yet turn out to be so, as more data is produced. But if we’re going to spend multiple millions of dollars per year per department on these things, I’d like to be sure they do what we want them to.
Please stop talking to Steasshole like he lives in the US. He lives in England and really has fuck-all to worry about the US becoming a police state. In fact, it seems likely that he would relish the US becoming a police state, in a perverse, spectatorial way.
Oh. I had thought that, I thought that I remember him mentioning that he wasn’t from here, but as he is so invested in the going ons of our country, I forgot.
So, just a troll then. Not even having an investment in the outcomes of the policies he endorses. No wonder he is so ignorant of US laws. Not that US citizens aren’t pretty ignorant of US laws, but he seemed to have a special type of ignorance.
So, in England, are cops worshipped? I thought most of them didn’t even carry guns most of the time.
There was probable cause he explained to her, as he did with the handcuffing.
Are you suggesting that the police should ignore reports of crimes, and not stop suspects? That’s why she was stopped, and all she had to do was identify herself and wait a few minutes. That, apparently, was too much to ask - and, astonishingly, seems like too much to ask of plenty of people here.
She wasn’t arrested, wasn’t mistreated or harmed in any way, and the cop was far politer to her than she was to him. What, exactly, is the problem? Is it genuinely that people feel that being handcuffed for 5 minutes is somehow an imposition on someone who refuses to cooperate with the police?
Also, what search? She wasn’t searched at any point in the video.
Ok, let’s try this again. There are two standards, probable cause which would be the basis of arrest and reasonable suspicion which would be sufficient to detain, and search the person for weapons, but not search their belongings.
Probable cause requires a logical believe supported by articuable facts that a crime has been or will be committed. Reasonable suspicion, being a standard less than probable cause, requires a presumption that a crime has been or will be committed.
Now please answer me this: What crime did he believe this lady was or will be committing?