Random Politics & Religion #00

No, you showed a defense attorney website advising you to get out of your car because it is legal for an officer to order you out, even in inclement weather if they have cause. Read: an officer can order you out of a vehicle if they feel you are a flight risk or to determine your fitness to operate a motor vehicle.

In this case he ordered her out in order to arrest her for no reason, then dragged her out when she refused. The assault was him throwing her to the ground while performing an unlawful arrest. Again, these are distinctly different things, and it also never should have escalated to that point. The officer didn't even have to de-escalate it, he was the one who escalated it, and all because she had a bad attitude.

So you're standing by and sticking with the idea that we are allowed to
1) Not show ID and 2) Not step out of the vehicle?
Why do we even bother pulling over then. Doesn't Civil Liberies mean we can just ignore them?
Actually you are wrong.

Are you literally just ignoring what I said? You are required to provide a driver's license if you are legally stopped while operating a motor vehicle on public roads. Outside of that, unless you're suspected of a crime, you absolutely do not have to identify yourself, and even then, do not have to show your license. I clarified it twice already, here's the third: In a situation involving a pedestrian (that means walking around in public) if a cop stops you and asks for ID, you can and should tell him to get bent.

In the situation where an officer orders you to exit your vehicle without cause, either to perform an unlawful arrest or unlawful search, you absolutely can and should protest the action and request a supervisor immediately. He had no reason to remove her from the vehicle besides petty malice from her not being grateful for only giving her a warning.

Ideally, if you're stopped while driving a car, you wouldn't need to worry about being dragged out of the car for not being polite. Police aren't your friends, every single interaction they are trying to build a case against you. It's the typical "when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail". They spend their day trying to find criminals, eventually, everyone starts to look like one. Law enforcement is supposed to be a civilian peacekeeping force, but they've begun to regard themselves as above civilian, crime fighting para-military, largely thanks to the drug war.

I would argue that even without the drug war police have quotas to bank and would still act as such regardless. Beyond that, Yes I did overlook how you corrected what you claimed about showing ID. Though you do still have to exit your vehicle if a police officer requests you do such. You can't roll up the windows and lock your doors. All she had to do was step outside. If he then arrested her then obviously he was going beyond. Assuming he was planning on arresting her outside the car is the same as assuming he wasn't getting a load of smoke blown in his face. I agree the whole situation shouldn't had escalated to such yet it seems that both sides were equally guilty.

Equally guilty? He could easily have given her the warning or ticket and went on with his day, as she wasn't committing any other crimes and being a *** isn't illegal. Instead, he needed to teach her a lesson, and now she's dead and his life is ruined. Saying she could have avoided the outcome by being more polite is pathetic.

I would contest that 99.99% of the time if you refuse to put out your cigarette. Then refuse to exit the vehicle that you can and will be arrested. Not cause you did something "wrong" but because you refused to follow orders. If you want to stop that from happening it sounds like you would have to reverse the US Supreme Court ruling. Exiting the vehicle is the law. Her losing her life had zero to do with him. He could've handled it differently. They both could have.Unfortunately, it's also reality. That or just exiting the vehicle.

You just don't get it, he is the one with the training and responsibility to ensure the public safety. Getting into a pissing contest and flexing his authority is not only against their department policies, it's illegal. If he had cause to remove her from the vehicle, like suspecting her of being drunk or seeing something illegal in the vehicle, or having an arrest warrant, or an arrestable offense, then yeah, it's on her. He didn't. And, no, you don't need to reverse a supreme court decision. The question isn't whether he has the authority to remove her from the vehicle, the question is whether it was remotely appropriate and whether her reaction justified her fate.

He should never have escalated the situation by asking antagonizing her and ordering her out of her car for refusing to put out her cigarette. He should never have attempted to place her under arrest without cause. And, he positioned her outside the field of view of the camera intentionally so he could claim she assaulted him, which there is no evidence of. As soon as the thing went down, he immediately tried to play damage control, even volunteering another officer's testimony by saying that "she saw it too", even though that officer didn't arrive until AFTER the supposed assault. He even tried to show the officer that apparently witnessed it the place where she kicked him.

He's a bad egg and shouldn't be defended on any level.

Are we assuming smoke wasn't being inadvertently blown in his face from the car?Are we assuming he was about to arrest her once she was outside the vehicle? (which he had no grounds of doing such if she had complied and removed herself from the vehicle instead of refusing to begin with)

I don't know man. I'm trying not to jump to ridiculous conclusions or assumptions. If you wish to assume all that then whatever. He's guilty. End of discussion. Case closed.

Inadvertently blown in his face? I'll try to contain my outrage. I bet it'd be totally reasonable to attack and unlawfully detain anyone smoking in your general vicinity, even if they are only there by your volition.


Is there another reason for him to order her out of the vehicle? Because there sure isn't a legal grounds for it.

I'm assuming that his actions directly lead to a woman being unlawfully arrested and subsequently dying. Even if he didn't consciously do it, his job is to protect the safety of the public, not to flex his authority or punish a mouthy woman.

Do tell me. Why is it police practice to ask you to put out your cigarette in the 1st place?
- Hand movement in the car a possible threat of concealed weapon?
- Police not having total control of the situation?
- 2nd hand smoke?
idfk... Do you?
You seem to have all the right answers and assumptions so please assume to me something
so I can understand police behavior....
When you have the answer. Let everyone else know please.

No, just no. You can't just jump to the "what if he thought she had a sharp object". Being an *** like this guy does more to endanger the lives of cops than any 20 year old woman. She instantly went into *** mode because there's a long history of that kind of abuse.

It's funny how the experts agree with me that the whole thing was a petty flexing of authority because she didn't care how big he thought he was.

Just hope you never have to face abuse from some cop with anger issues who decides you look like someone who beat him up in high school.

Just go back one page and read the article from the Houston Chronicle I posted.

His own fricking department thinks he acted unreasonably. He is off the street and on "administrative duty". He may be facing criminal charges.

People seem to think they have rights that they do not possess or claim knowledge about things. Which once looked into you find out that they have no clue what they're even talking about.

Passive aggressive much?

I must admit it was extremely funny differentiating fact from your personal fairy tales.

You haven't differentiated anything besides misreading what I wrote and congratulating yourself over and over.

You 1st made outrageous claims and had to fix yourself. Which I did overlook yet you still seem to insist that you possibly have the right to totally disregard police orders. Something so simple as being asked to step out of a vehicle. You even made such absurd claims that I am personally part of the problem cuz I don't fight against being asked to put out my cigarette or step out of the car. I'm not sure whose laws you do follow or understand cuz you don't seem to comprehend US laws at all whatsoever. All while claiming you understand civil liberties better than the next guy. Which is all extremely ridiculous.You're the professor.

As I loathe to defend Jassik, he is actually right for once.

Very few people understand the difference between a right and privilege...

Int the world today everything is a right ! Abortions feelings etc

I didn't change or edit any of my posts and I was quite clear and exact in my wording. You don't have to agree with my take on law enforcement, but you found a defense attorney website that doesn't even contradict what I said and failed to address any of the other things that went wrong in that traffic stop, and we haven't even discussed the negligence or possible murder of the women after her arrest. You weren't even aware that cops shoot hundreds of unarmed "non-compliants" a year. What is your drive on this topic? Why are you so hell bent on defending this piece of ***?

Oh this is about that woman and the cop yea she had many opportunities to not get arrest but she refused to follow orders. It is really that simple.

Yeah she was a real criminal. I don't think the problem was her attitude so much. The problem is that it should be Against the Law to smoke in front of an officer to begin with. This seems to give ppl the false notion of being empowered. Which is obviously capable of turning a normal routine situation into a heated confrontation between police and yourself. They should also force police to give warnings explaining the situation and laws properly in great detail to ppl so that they don't find themselves arrested for something so trivial.

a-year-of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000

That's it, we must disband the world's police force because out of the entire police force, 90 officers killed unarmed people!

From the article:

These should NEVER happen. The rest are judgement calls, obviously, but if a suspect has a melee type weapon like a bat or a knife, negotiation or non-lethal means should be the only course of action.

Are you saying that a knife or a bat is not a deadly weapon?

If I arrived at my home to watch someone unknown bolt out the door. I'm thinking the dude is as guilty as he looks. I'd rather the cop shoot them just to immobilize them.

Not from 30 feet away where the cops that shot the homeless vet in Nevada were standing.



I'm sure you'd feel the same way if you were the guy getting shot in the back without due process.

Why would I run? So I wouldn't be shot in the 1st place. Like I wouldn't be found doing something that would give me idea that I should [run away!]