Dude please read what I wrote.
He acted lawfully. Whether his actions were permissible per department policy is for his superiors to determine.
Understood. But I’d say that the legality of his actions does not bear directly on his moral culpability for her suicide, and also does not bear directly on the question of whether a lot needs to be changed in how we police in order to prevent things like the escalation of a traffic stop to a situation where someone is committing suicide in police custody.
It was exactly the character of his actions which was not admirable which applies some culpability for her death to him. And it is exactly the facts about police culture and policy which made his non-admirable actions so easy to carry out.
Right, but I’m asking you whether you think he acted admirably.
It was only “required” when she was conveniently out of camera range. It was at that point that she began to complain (off camera) that he was hurting her. When he said, “Stop moving!”, she replied, “You’re the one who keeps moving me!”. And we saw that when he walked her out of range the second time.
Do you really think “concern for her comfort” was his frame of mind or motivation? After seeing that video?
I live in a city; not many grassy places to subdue people. From what I’ve seen, they try to lean them over the hood of the vehicle to subdue if necessary. That would have kept them in camera range as well.
Then I’m not sure I understand the question.
Do you admire his police work in this case?
As in, “Wow, what an exemplary example of great police conduct and enforcement!”
In another thread someone posted a statistic.
Something like 4 people commit suicide per ONE HUNDRED thousand arrests.
She could have most likely easily avoided being arrested. She certainly had a very great deal of control over whether she committed suicide.
IMO his moral culpability regarding the actual suicide is like a tiny fraction of a percent compared to hers.
IMO, no one has moral culpability for another’s suicide.
His actions were within the letter of the law. Whether I “admire” them or not is not relevant.
Yes, because there is no middle ground as to how much training we can require. :rolleyes:
In some places, a GED and four weeks training is all you need. Does that make sense?
545.156 requires at least a siren, or lights and siren, or lights only.
Those were not in use, so 545.156 does not apply.
Do you agree?
Obviously I disagree…
The legal maneuver is only authorized when lights or siren are being used. The law is very clear on this point.
Cite?
I disagree.
It’s supply and demand. It does not take a rocket surgeon to give out traffic tickets (although some traffic cops may be quite brilliant, who knows). You pays your taxes, you gets your quality of cops. You want cops that will consistently, day after day, take the abuse from citizens that think that they “know their rights” and be unfailingly polite and correct - you will have to pay a LOT more than you do now.
But it passes the test of, “Is it a lane change?”
It’s very difficult for me to understand on what basis you appear to be floating the idea that a vehicle which moves from one lane to another is not executing a lane change, but I would be very interested in hearing any specific statute or caselaw that supports the position that, technically or otherwise, it isn’t a lane change.
Yet, despite the laws, I don’t think any sane person would say, “Oh yeh… she needed to be incarcerated for several days.”
I believe she wouldn’t have committed suicide if she wasn’t thrown in prison. While the actions of other people are entirely their own, such as her tragic suicide, it wasn’t a foreseeable, or even likely consequence of the cop’s arrest. However, it’s a consequence nonetheless. It’s not like it was an accident she was thrown in jail. She was placed there unreasonably by a bully officer, and the jail failed to keep her alive.
I hope he’s feeling a modicum of indirect responsibility here, and reflecting all that much more on his behavior as an officer and it’s unpredictably tragic outcome.
If it were me, I’m not sure I could sleep at night for a long while.
If even it was a legal maneuver, she should have still signaled. The point of the signal is to alert other cars of your intended behavior. The information that you’re about to move right is valuable to a car rapidly approaching you from behind.