Bias? The shocking part of this story is that it happened. What could the cop say that justifies this? So how would bias sway to their side? I don't give a shit what the laws say; cops are allowed discretion are they not?
Yes. A biased piece. You can't see that?
It never offered the reasoning behind the search. I'm not saying there was good reasoning, but I'm objective enough to identify a 'heavily' biased piece when I read one.
The reason for the search is in the headline. Again, how would you change the bias? That would involve justifying the police actions in some way, would it not?
Bias? The shocking part of this story is that it happened. What could the cop say that justifies this? So how would bias sway to their side? I don't give a shit what the laws say; cops are allowed discretion are they not?
Yes. A biased piece. You can't see that?
It never offered the reasoning behind the search. I'm not saying there was good reasoning, but I'm objective enough to identify a 'heavily' biased piece when I read one.
Sure. Things can always be slanted one way or the other. I think the real issue here is why the fuck does a police officer have the right to do this without some kind of warrant or court order?
The reason for the search is in the headline. Again, how would you change the bias? That would involve justifying the police actions in some way, would it not?
Is this woman a drug dealer? Had there been a surveillance team watching her? These are types of things that might explain why they felt compelled to search her bum for dope. The official police rationale wasn't reported and for the complete story... it would be nice to know their side of things as opposed to what your submission was presenting.
I don't think their side of things would change much. At face value, this is a shocking event and very distasteful; however, the story you linked was exceptionally biased and never gave the complete picture where one might come to these conclusions by themselves- it was shoving it down the reader's throat. Hence... the biased comment.
From the outset I've expressed my chagrin. You're trying to make an argument out of nothing because if you were arguing that piece from that website (which I'm not completely familiar with) wasn't biased... well... that would be foolish. Even RG- the most ardent cop critic- stated such.
Bias? The shocking part of this story is that it happened. What could the cop say that justifies this? So how would bias sway to their side? I don't give a shit what the laws say; cops are allowed discretion are they not?
Yes. A biased piece. You can't see that?
It never offered the reasoning behind the search. I'm not saying there was good reasoning, but I'm objective enough to identify a 'heavily' biased piece when I read one.
Sure. Things can always be slanted one way or the other. I think the real issue here is why the fuck does a police officer have the right to do this without some kind of warrant or court order?
Did you read my post where if such a search was necessary... they should perform it at the station and after a supervisor had reviewed the situation to determine the appropriateness of it?
I need more details. She was probably resisting, or giving attitude, or something.
I think I might start posting every police abuse case I see in my fb feed. there are SO many not being covered in this thread.
When did cavity searches become illegal?
Don't you think a better question is when did cavity searches become legal?
Are you defending the cops penetrating a woman in public view at a stop for a minor traffic violation, over the suspicion of a misdemeanor amount of marijuana?
I'm asking a simple question. You're reading way to much into that.
I need more details. She was probably resisting, or giving attitude, or something.
I think I might start posting every police abuse case I see in my fb feed. there are SO many not being covered in this thread.
When did cavity searches become illegal?
Don't you think a better question is when did cavity searches become legal?
Are you defending the cops penetrating a woman in public view at a stop for a minor traffic violation, over the suspicion of a misdemeanor amount of marijuana?
I'm asking a simple question. You're reading way to much into that.
I'm asking a question as well, I may be reading too deeply, but there are many many things you could have said, and you chose to say one very vague pro-cop thing which raised a ton of questions.
I need more details. She was probably resisting, or giving attitude, or something.
I think I might start posting every police abuse case I see in my fb feed. there are SO many not being covered in this thread.
When did cavity searches become illegal?
Legal or not, to do this over a plant that is now legal in 5 states in public view to me is immoral. Some discretion can be used by the officers involved.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Bias? The shocking part of this story is that it happened. What could the cop say that justifies this? So how would bias sway to their side? I don't give a shit what the laws say; cops are allowed discretion are they not?
Yes. A biased piece. You can't see that?
It never offered the reasoning behind the search. I'm not saying there was good reasoning, but I'm objective enough to identify a 'heavily' biased piece when I read one.
Sure. Things can always be slanted one way or the other. I think the real issue here is why the fuck does a police officer have the right to do this without some kind of warrant or court order?
Did you read my post where if such a search was necessary... they should perform it at the station and after a supervisor had reviewed the situation to determine the appropriateness of it?
Yes I read it. I don't think it should be in the hands of a police officer at all.
At the very least it was tasteless.This is piss poor policing.These officers should be disciplined. If a cavity search was needed,a female officer back at station in private was the way to get it done. But this was an extremely biased piece none the less,just oozing with cop hatred.But looking at the internet source that makes sense.
I can think of only two scenarios in which it might be justified to do such a search in public at the point of arrest, rather than in private at the station if it needed to be done at all, and they both involve things that might be used during transit.
One is if the officers had evidence to suggest she had a weapon hidden. The second is if they had evidence to suggest she had a substance a lot more dangerous than pot (pills, etc) i.e. something a suspect might either try to get rid of during transit, or use to overdose. And by evidence I do mean evidence, not just "we thought she might have had something". The story as written is horrific.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The reason for the search is in the headline. Again, how would you change the bias? That would involve justifying the police actions in some way, would it not?
Is this woman a drug dealer? Had there been a surveillance team watching her? These are types of things that might explain why they felt compelled to search her bum for dope. The official police rationale wasn't reported and for the complete story... it would be nice to know their side of things as opposed to what your submission was presenting.
I don't think their side of things would change much. At face value, this is a shocking event and very distasteful; however, the story you linked was exceptionally biased and never gave the complete picture where one might come to these conclusions by themselves- it was shoving it down the reader's throat. Hence... the biased comment.
From the outset I've expressed my chagrin. You're trying to make an argument out of nothing because if you were arguing that piece from that website (which I'm not completely familiar with) wasn't biased... well... that would be foolish. Even RG- the most ardent cop critic- stated such.
Unsurprisingly, I see it as you trying to make an argument out of nothing Yes, you've admitted the search shouldn't have been done in public, and that if for pot, it was a joke to do the search in the first place...also the fact that more than one officer could have stopped it if they had utilized a little common sense and empathy. I even pointed out that trying to sway the bias would mean some sort of justification. And you did just that. So with your admissions, then justifications.....who is the one making an argument out of nothing? Lets follow thru with your two examples.... - Turns out the woman has scales, a thousand dollars cash, and a box of zip lock baggies in her car. She's a dealer!.... - Woman has been under surveillance for months for suspected (what?) drug dealing (?). They finally decide to swoop in while she's at a gas station, and..... the next part of the story is....... -we bent her over the car in the gas station parking lot and did a full cavity search.
Is there anything beyond face value here? There is no mention of weapons as a reason for the search - only the smell of pot. Maybe the article left facts like that out - that would be a problem...but highly unlikely. It's alternet. Surprised to see people questioning it as some kind of fringe site...it's one of the most popular indy sites on the web and has been around for nearly 20 years. I doubt it has the same editorial fact checking standards of those bastions of unbiased info Fox, MSNBC, CNN etc....but it's not exactly a random blog or anti-cop site. My speculation? She was likely giving them attitude, and this was done as a form of punishment.
And that's where I always have a problem with this discussion....people justify ridiculous amounts of force for non-compliance - disobedience is enough to get you shot in many people's eyes. And every time excessive force is used, the line is 'I thought my life was in danger'.....way too many people give cops the benefit of doubt when that line gets trotted out. Perfect example: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/17-year-boy-shot-killed-cops-flashing-headlights-flexing-rights/
Slam the source all you want....it was a kid who felt there was no justification in being pulled over. He definitely played a part in the escalation. But he was unarmed, and presented no real danger to the cop, nor the public he is supposed to be keeping safe. God, I could have been shot ten times as a youth if that situation was enough to justify lethal force. What was the worst that could have happened in this situation? The cop backs down and lets him go? No....some cops will never allow that to happen because it's an afront to their ego when someone will not comply. But all they have to say is they thought their life was in danger.
The reason for the search is in the headline. Again, how would you change the bias? That would involve justifying the police actions in some way, would it not?
Is this woman a drug dealer? Had there been a surveillance team watching her? These are types of things that might explain why they felt compelled to search her bum for dope. The official police rationale wasn't reported and for the complete story... it would be nice to know their side of things as opposed to what your submission was presenting.
I don't think their side of things would change much. At face value, this is a shocking event and very distasteful; however, the story you linked was exceptionally biased and never gave the complete picture where one might come to these conclusions by themselves- it was shoving it down the reader's throat. Hence... the biased comment.
From the outset I've expressed my chagrin. You're trying to make an argument out of nothing because if you were arguing that piece from that website (which I'm not completely familiar with) wasn't biased... well... that would be foolish. Even RG- the most ardent cop critic- stated such.
Unsurprisingly, I see it as you trying to make an argument out of nothing Yes, you've admitted the search shouldn't have been done in public, and that if for pot, it was a joke to do the search in the first place...also the fact that more than one officer could have stopped it if they had utilized a little common sense and empathy. I even pointed out that trying to sway the bias would mean some sort of justification. And you did just that. So with your admissions, then justifications.....who is the one making an argument out of nothing? Lets follow thru with your two examples.... - Turns out the woman has scales, a thousand dollars cash, and a box of zip lock baggies in her car. She's a dealer!.... - Woman has been under surveillance for months for suspected (what?) drug dealing (?). They finally decide to swoop in while she's at a gas station, and..... the next part of the story is....... -we bent her over the car in the gas station parking lot and did a full cavity search.
Is there anything beyond face value here? There is no mention of weapons as a reason for the search - only the smell of pot. Maybe the article left facts like that out - that would be a problem...but highly unlikely. It's alternet. Surprised to see people questioning it as some kind of fringe site...it's one of the most popular indy sites on the web and has been around for nearly 20 years. I doubt it has the same editorial fact checking standards of those bastions of unbiased info Fox, MSNBC, CNN etc....but it's not exactly a random blog or anti-cop site. My speculation? She was likely giving them attitude, and this was done as a form of punishment.
And that's where I always have a problem with this discussion....people justify ridiculous amounts of force for non-compliance - disobedience is enough to get you shot in many people's eyes. And every time excessive force is used, the line is 'I thought my life was in danger'.....way too many people give cops the benefit of doubt when that line gets trotted out. Perfect example: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/17-year-boy-shot-killed-cops-flashing-headlights-flexing-rights/
Slam the source all you want....it was a kid who felt there was no justification in being pulled over. He definitely played a part in the escalation. But he was unarmed, and presented no real danger to the cop, nor the public he is supposed to be keeping safe. God, I could have been shot ten times as a youth if that situation was enough to justify lethal force. What was the worst that could have happened in this situation? The cop backs down and lets him go? No....some cops will never allow that to happen because it's an afront to their ego when someone will not comply. But all they have to say is they thought their life was in danger.
Wow, that is so messed up what sadly happened to that teen. How covienient the shooting happened off camera. I'm sure some of us have been in those situations at night where you flash someone to let them know their high beams are on and it can be a road hazard.
Yes many here have said its best to ALWAYS comply to an officers commands, directions or assertions. In most cases it is best however they're times one must stand up for themselves. I once was pulled over in NC for speeding. The officer said I was traveling 82 mph and I asked her how did she garner that speed. She said by radar, I asked to see it, she said no and I pointed to my radar detector and told her it did not record/register any radar or laser siting. She then told me radar detector were illegal in this state. I slowly turned to her as my heart raced and said to her in the 6 years I've been vacationing in the Outer Banks never ever have seen a sign entering or leaving this state that says they are illegal. They are however illegal in VA and DC there I put it away, it's not illegal in my home state of MD. She said nothing checked out my license/insurance and registration all good, handed them to me and I finished my trip without any ticket.
They're times one just has to stand up for yourself, however it's best to do so as calmly and politely as possible.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I checked out that story of Deven (?), the 17 year old, who was killed by the officer.
License and registration, man. Just give the cop your license and registration. I am not justifying murder in this situation- it seemed prior to lights out that the kid had been successfully detained; however, the kid certainly forced the officer to escalate the situation to a completely unnecessary point.
I disagree with your suggestion of the cop relenting because a 17 year old refused to comply with very basic commands at a legal stop and made things challenging. That's the way to avoid any citation? Argue and disobey every command? Maybe not even pull over so that the cop stops pursuing you? Think of what you are saying before attributing heightened response to ego.
You made a point that suggested you liked to become confrontational with the police. Would you raise a boy to 17 years of age to act the same with police? I have a boy 17 years of age and the modus operandi is full compliance- if there is an issue that needs to be dealt with... we will deal with it afterwards, but to engage a cop at the scene- a man with a tool belt of weapons- is foolhardy at best: not heroic, brave, or constitutional.
I have preached to my kids the following: 'account for the moron'. Expect the worse of people so you are not surprised when they exhibit their worst (specifically with regards to driving... but applicable to life as well). Don't always assume the person you are dealing with is going to act the way you think they might. What did this kid think was going to happen as a result of disobeying?
Don't you see how always bringing it back to the personal responsibility of the civillian is absolving the public servants of their role in lacking personal responsibility??
Don't you see how always bringing it back to the personal responsibility of the civillian is absolving the public servants of their role in lacking personal responsibility??
Are you suggesting the non-compliance has nothing to do with the tension and conflict we have witnessed?
Don't you see how always bringing it back to the personal responsibility of the civillian is absolving the public servants of their role in lacking personal responsibility??
Are you suggesting the non-compliance has nothing to do with the tension and conflict we have witnessed?
No. Are you suggesting it is the role of officers to escalate to violence when confronted with non-compliance?
I'm not suggesting the cops should just let the public do as they please, but I am suggesting we hold the people paid to uphold the law to a higher standard than a common citizen. By constantly laying the responsibility at the feet of the victim you are absolving the perpetrator for their responsibility to a certain degree. It's always one sentence about the cop could have used better judgement and then paragraphs about how the civilian should have used better judgement.
Don't you see how always bringing it back to the personal responsibility of the civillian is absolving the public servants of their role in lacking personal responsibility??
Are you suggesting the non-compliance has nothing to do with the tension and conflict we have witnessed?
No. Are you suggesting it is the role of officers to escalate to violence when confronted with non-compliance?
I'm glad you said 'no' in response to my question because that means we agree on at least one thing.
As for your question, if an officer is left with no other option... 'force' is an option. Tucking the tail and retreating back to the car is not an option in my mind. Nor is phoning in for the 'detained subject whisperer' to gently convince the person to hand over a license and registration.
Back to you now: in a scenario where non-compliance is practiced... what should police protocol be?
* Deadly force only when truly threatened. I don't believe the cop in this most recent situation was truly threatened and I do think this is a case of abuse/murder. By pointing out the belligerence of the kid... I am not absolving the officer of anything up to the point where he used the taser. It was at that point the officer went too far in my mind.
I'm not suggesting the cops should just let the public do as they please, but I am suggesting we hold the people paid to uphold the law to a higher standard than a common citizen. By constantly laying the responsibility at the feet of the victim you are absolving the perpetrator for their responsibility to a certain degree. It's always one sentence about the cop could have used better judgement and then paragraphs about how the civilian should have used better judgement.
Don't you see how always bringing it back to the personal responsibility of the civillian is absolving the public servants of their role in lacking personal responsibility??
Are you suggesting the non-compliance has nothing to do with the tension and conflict we have witnessed?
Thirty, people are idiots but cops are professionals so they should be able to deal with them. This kid shouldn't be dead. Can relate to 17 year olds being idealistic. Shouldn't have cost him his life. Some cops have chips on their shoulders and I get why. We just need to do better as a society.
I'm not suggesting the cops should just let the public do as they please, but I am suggesting we hold the people paid to uphold the law to a higher standard than a common citizen. By constantly laying the responsibility at the feet of the victim you are absolving the perpetrator for their responsibility to a certain degree. It's always one sentence about the cop could have used better judgement and then paragraphs about how the civilian should have used better judgement.
I'm only being pragmatic.
I understand that, but even pragmatism has it's limits. What would you do if an officer wanted to "cavity search" you for marijuana on a public street? Would you comply? If you resist and they shoot you is it not justified legally and by the argument for compliance presented here?
Don't you see how always bringing it back to the personal responsibility of the civillian is absolving the public servants of their role in lacking personal responsibility??
Are you suggesting the non-compliance has nothing to do with the tension and conflict we have witnessed?
No. Are you suggesting it is the role of officers to escalate to violence when confronted with non-compliance?
I'm glad you said 'no' in response to my question because that means we agree on at least one thing.
As for your question, if an officer is left with no other option... 'force' is an option. Tucking the tail and retreating back to the car is not an option in my mind. Nor is phoning in for the 'detained subject whisperer' to gently convince the person to hand over a license and registration.
Back to you now: in a scenario where non-compliance is practiced... what should police protocol be?
* Deadly force only when truly threatened. I don't believe the cop in this most recent situation was truly threatened and I do think this is a case of abuse/murder. By pointing out the belligerence of the kid... I am not absolving the officer of anything up to the point where he used the taser. It was at that point the officer went too far in my mind.
In the case of refusing to turn over license and registration I think the officer should persist, it has to be determined that the person isn't a dangerous fugitive or criminal. It isn't always a reasonable request that is refused though.
Don't you see how always bringing it back to the personal responsibility of the civillian is absolving the public servants of their role in lacking personal responsibility??
Are you suggesting the non-compliance has nothing to do with the tension and conflict we have witnessed?
Thirty, people are idiots but cops are professionals so they should be able to deal with them. This kid shouldn't be dead. Can relate to 17 year olds being idealistic. Shouldn't have cost him his life. Some cops have chips on their shoulders and I get why. We just need to do better as a society.
I hear what you are saying, but remember this: cops are people too. As such, we have some idiots serving as cops. Many, if not most, act very professionally; however, as we have witnessed, the idiots amongst them rear their heads.
It is with that in mind that a person is best served not forcing the hand of a potential idiot.
Of course we can expect more from a policing service as we can with any public service; but as all public services have demonstrated, there are poor performers that will always be there.
I'm not suggesting the cops should just let the public do as they please, but I am suggesting we hold the people paid to uphold the law to a higher standard than a common citizen. By constantly laying the responsibility at the feet of the victim you are absolving the perpetrator for their responsibility to a certain degree. It's always one sentence about the cop could have used better judgement and then paragraphs about how the civilian should have used better judgement.
I'm only being pragmatic.
I understand that, but even pragmatism has it's limits. What would you do if an officer wanted to "cavity search" you for marijuana on a public street? Would you comply? If you resist and they shoot you is it not justified legally and by the argument for compliance presented here?
Yikes. Tough one. I'd do my best to squirm out of that one, but what I wouldn't do is take a few bullets out of principle.
In the event I was searched... I'd seek recourse afterwards.
I'm not suggesting the cops should just let the public do as they please, but I am suggesting we hold the people paid to uphold the law to a higher standard than a common citizen. By constantly laying the responsibility at the feet of the victim you are absolving the perpetrator for their responsibility to a certain degree. It's always one sentence about the cop could have used better judgement and then paragraphs about how the civilian should have used better judgement.
I'm only being pragmatic.
I understand that, but even pragmatism has it's limits. What would you do if an officer wanted to "cavity search" you for marijuana on a public street? Would you comply? If you resist and they shoot you is it not justified legally and by the argument for compliance presented here?
Yikes. Tough one. I'd do my best to squirm out of that one, but what I wouldn't do is take a few bullets out of principle.
In the event I was searched... I'd seek recourse afterwards.
I don't know what I would do either. I would insist on my rights calmly, but if that failed I don't know. I don't think anyone is usually expecting an officer to go straight to bullets when they put up light resistance, and not having someone force their fingers into you is a pretty strong principle. Might be worth standing for lol
I need more details. She was probably resisting, or giving attitude, or something.
I think I might start posting every police abuse case I see in my fb feed. there are SO many not being covered in this thread.
When did cavity searches become illegal?
Don't you think a better question is when did cavity searches become legal?
Are you defending the cops penetrating a woman in public view at a stop for a minor traffic violation, over the suspicion of a misdemeanor amount of marijuana?
I'm asking a simple question. You're reading way to much into that.
I'm asking a question as well, I may be reading too deeply, but there are many many things you could have said, and you chose to say one very vague pro-cop thing which raised a ton of questions.
What is pro cop about asking if the search the cop did was legal or not? If it is legal, what are we talking about? If it is not legal, then they should be disciplined accordingly.
I need more details. She was probably resisting, or giving attitude, or something.
I think I might start posting every police abuse case I see in my fb feed. there are SO many not being covered in this thread.
When did cavity searches become illegal?
Don't you think a better question is when did cavity searches become legal?
Are you defending the cops penetrating a woman in public view at a stop for a minor traffic violation, over the suspicion of a misdemeanor amount of marijuana?
I'm asking a simple question. You're reading way to much into that.
I'm asking a question as well, I may be reading too deeply, but there are many many things you could have said, and you chose to say one very vague pro-cop thing which raised a ton of questions.
What is pro cop about asking if the search the cop did was legal or not? If it is legal, what are we talking about? If it is not legal, then they should be disciplined accordingly.
If it was your daughter/wife/mother would you wonder what we were talking about? Yeah right, and you wonder why I see that as a pro-cop question? How is it not?
Comments
It never offered the reasoning behind the search. I'm not saying there was good reasoning, but I'm objective enough to identify a 'heavily' biased piece when I read one.
I don't think their side of things would change much. At face value, this is a shocking event and very distasteful; however, the story you linked was exceptionally biased and never gave the complete picture where one might come to these conclusions by themselves- it was shoving it down the reader's throat. Hence... the biased comment.
From the outset I've expressed my chagrin. You're trying to make an argument out of nothing because if you were arguing that piece from that website (which I'm not completely familiar with) wasn't biased... well... that would be foolish. Even RG- the most ardent cop critic- stated such.
Godfather.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
If a cavity search was needed,a female officer back at station in private was the way to get it done.
But this was an extremely biased piece none the less,just oozing with cop hatred.But looking at the internet source that makes sense.
One is if the officers had evidence to suggest she had a weapon hidden. The second is if they had evidence to suggest she had a substance a lot more dangerous than pot (pills, etc) i.e. something a suspect might either try to get rid of during transit, or use to overdose. And by evidence I do mean evidence, not just "we thought she might have had something". The story as written is horrific.
Yes, you've admitted the search shouldn't have been done in public, and that if for pot, it was a joke to do the search in the first place...also the fact that more than one officer could have stopped it if they had utilized a little common sense and empathy.
I even pointed out that trying to sway the bias would mean some sort of justification. And you did just that. So with your admissions, then justifications.....who is the one making an argument out of nothing? Lets follow thru with your two examples....
- Turns out the woman has scales, a thousand dollars cash, and a box of zip lock baggies in her car. She's a dealer!....
- Woman has been under surveillance for months for suspected (what?) drug dealing (?). They finally decide to swoop in while she's at a gas station, and.....
the next part of the story is.......
-we bent her over the car in the gas station parking lot and did a full cavity search.
Is there anything beyond face value here? There is no mention of weapons as a reason for the search - only the smell of pot. Maybe the article left facts like that out - that would be a problem...but highly unlikely. It's alternet. Surprised to see people questioning it as some kind of fringe site...it's one of the most popular indy sites on the web and has been around for nearly 20 years. I doubt it has the same editorial fact checking standards of those bastions of unbiased info Fox, MSNBC, CNN etc....but it's not exactly a random blog or anti-cop site.
My speculation? She was likely giving them attitude, and this was done as a form of punishment.
And that's where I always have a problem with this discussion....people justify ridiculous amounts of force for non-compliance - disobedience is enough to get you shot in many people's eyes. And every time excessive force is used, the line is 'I thought my life was in danger'.....way too many people give cops the benefit of doubt when that line gets trotted out.
Perfect example:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/17-year-boy-shot-killed-cops-flashing-headlights-flexing-rights/
Slam the source all you want....it was a kid who felt there was no justification in being pulled over. He definitely played a part in the escalation. But he was unarmed, and presented no real danger to the cop, nor the public he is supposed to be keeping safe. God, I could have been shot ten times as a youth if that situation was enough to justify lethal force. What was the worst that could have happened in this situation? The cop backs down and lets him go? No....some cops will never allow that to happen because it's an afront to their ego when someone will not comply. But all they have to say is they thought their life was in danger.
Yes many here have said its best to ALWAYS comply to an officers commands, directions or assertions. In most cases it is best however they're times one must stand up for themselves. I once was pulled over in NC for speeding. The officer said I was traveling 82 mph and I asked her how did she garner that speed. She said by radar, I asked to see it, she said no and I pointed to my radar detector and told her it did not record/register any radar or laser siting. She then told me radar detector were illegal in this state. I slowly turned to her as my heart raced and said to her in the 6 years I've been vacationing in the Outer Banks never ever have seen a sign entering or leaving this state that says they are illegal. They are however illegal in VA and DC there I put it away, it's not illegal in my home state of MD. She said nothing checked out my license/insurance and registration all good, handed them to me and I finished my trip without any ticket.
They're times one just has to stand up for yourself, however it's best to do so as calmly and politely as possible.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I checked out that story of Deven (?), the 17 year old, who was killed by the officer.
License and registration, man. Just give the cop your license and registration. I am not justifying murder in this situation- it seemed prior to lights out that the kid had been successfully detained; however, the kid certainly forced the officer to escalate the situation to a completely unnecessary point.
I disagree with your suggestion of the cop relenting because a 17 year old refused to comply with very basic commands at a legal stop and made things challenging. That's the way to avoid any citation? Argue and disobey every command? Maybe not even pull over so that the cop stops pursuing you? Think of what you are saying before attributing heightened response to ego.
You made a point that suggested you liked to become confrontational with the police. Would you raise a boy to 17 years of age to act the same with police? I have a boy 17 years of age and the modus operandi is full compliance- if there is an issue that needs to be dealt with... we will deal with it afterwards, but to engage a cop at the scene- a man with a tool belt of weapons- is foolhardy at best: not heroic, brave, or constitutional.
I have preached to my kids the following: 'account for the moron'. Expect the worse of people so you are not surprised when they exhibit their worst (specifically with regards to driving... but applicable to life as well). Don't always assume the person you are dealing with is going to act the way you think they might. What did this kid think was going to happen as a result of disobeying?
Are you suggesting it is the role of officers to escalate to violence when confronted with non-compliance?
By constantly laying the responsibility at the feet of the victim you are absolving the perpetrator for their responsibility to a certain degree.
It's always one sentence about the cop could have used better judgement and then paragraphs about how the civilian should have used better judgement.
As for your question, if an officer is left with no other option... 'force' is an option. Tucking the tail and retreating back to the car is not an option in my mind. Nor is phoning in for the 'detained subject whisperer' to gently convince the person to hand over a license and registration.
Back to you now: in a scenario where non-compliance is practiced... what should police protocol be?
* Deadly force only when truly threatened. I don't believe the cop in this most recent situation was truly threatened and I do think this is a case of abuse/murder. By pointing out the belligerence of the kid... I am not absolving the officer of anything up to the point where he used the taser. It was at that point the officer went too far in my mind.
What would you do if an officer wanted to "cavity search" you for marijuana on a public street?
Would you comply?
If you resist and they shoot you is it not justified legally and by the argument for compliance presented here?
It isn't always a reasonable request that is refused though.
It is with that in mind that a person is best served not forcing the hand of a potential idiot.
Of course we can expect more from a policing service as we can with any public service; but as all public services have demonstrated, there are poor performers that will always be there.
In the event I was searched... I'd seek recourse afterwards.
In the event I was searched... I'd seek recourse afterwards.
I don't know what I would do either. I would insist on my rights calmly, but if that failed I don't know.
I don't think anyone is usually expecting an officer to go straight to bullets when they put up light resistance, and not having someone force their fingers into you is a pretty strong principle. Might be worth standing for lol
Yeah right, and you wonder why I see that as a pro-cop question? How is it not?