DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Religion, Politics and World Events (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events-47/)
-   -   The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events/597561-cops-behaving-badly-thread.html)

DVD Polizei 07-23-15 04:00 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by DaveyJoe (Post 12543782)
I think it's scary that the suggestion is for civilians to deal with cops in similar ways you should deal with wild fucking animals. "Do not provoke a cop in his natural habitat" should not be the solution in 21st century America.

So if you come across a bear, you're the guy that says, "Bring it on!"

Yep that's 21C brainpower.

CaptainMarvel 07-23-15 04:35 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 
(We'll put aside the discussion of whether the officer ordered her out of the car because she refused to put out the cigarette... I'll take that as granted for this discussion, but I'm not entirely certain that's the case.)


Originally Posted by Living Dead (Post 12543737)
If a cop can order someone out of their car at a traffic stop for any reason at any time, I'm wondering why the cop didn't tell the guy in the video in post 2715 to get out? The guy won't roll down the window, he won't answer questions... that seems a lot more suspicious than someone asking why they have to put out their cigarette. But that officer doesn't do a thing.

The officer has discretion to remove the driver. I'd personally have had him out of the car ASAP. I couldn't tell you why that officer didn't.


You could be correct for all I know, but what's to keep officers from dragging people out of cars left and right over every little thing? Like in the Bland video, where the cop was probably just butthurt that she didn't do what he said? If refusing to do something that you have every right to refuse is grounds for being pulled out of your car, where does it end? Is the law different based on location or something?
That's the point. "Refusing to do something that you have every right to refuse" is not grounds for "being pulled out of your car." But the officer doesn't have to articulate grounds to ask people to exit the vehicle. That's a lawful order, period. If the person refuses to exit the vehicle, then they can be forced out.

LurkerDan is at least partially correct in that the rule about officers being able to remove people from vehicles during a traffic stop was rooted in concerns for officer safety, but he seems to be asserting that the officer has to be able to articulate that for any given stop. That's not the case (whether a professor agrees with him or not... and I'm going to have to hope for Weisburg's sake that the reporters misquoted him, or extrapolated poorly from what he did say, because this is right up there with the motor vehicle warrant exception and Miranda as black letter law). The Court has repeatedly set "removal from the vehicle is allowed" as a bright line, not a conditional one. There's not a separate hearing that takes place to determine the reasonableness... if there's a legal stop, the officer may remove you from your car (or to the contrary, order you to stay in your car if you want to exit it).

That not only applies to drivers (who committed the traffic offense), but also to each and every passenger in that vehicle (even though the passenger hasn't committed the offense). The Court has specifically repudiated the notion that some sort of articulable suspicion of danger is necessary:


Originally Posted by Brendlin
In Maryland v. Wilson, we held that during a lawful traffic stop an officer may order a passenger out of the car as a precautionary measure, without reasonable suspicion that the passenger poses a safety risk. (citation removed, but parenthetical noting "driver may be ordered out of the car as a matter of course"). In fashioning this rule, we invoked our earlier statement that "[t]he risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation."

In the Mimms case where the Court articulated the authority to remove the driver, "The State freely concedes the officer had no reason to suspect foul play from the particular driver at the time of the stop, there having been nothing unusual or suspicious about his behavior. It was apparently his practice to order all drivers out of their vehicles as a matter of course whenever they had been stopped for a traffic violation."

LurkerDan and Professor Weisburg (if the article is quoting him correctly) seem to be taking the position of the dissent from Maryland v. Wilson: "If a police officer conducting a traffic stop has an articulable suspicion of possible danger, the officer may order passengers to exit the vehicle as a defensive tactic without running afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, I assume that the facts recited in the majority's opinion provided a valid justification for this officer's order commanding the passengers to get out of this vehicle. But the Court's ruling goes much farther. It applies equally to traffic stops in which there is not even a scintilla of evidence of any potential risk to the police officer." That dissent is basically the same dissent from Mimms. It lost in Mimms, it lost in Maryland v. Wilson, and as far as I know, it hasn't ever been made the rule as a matter of federal Constitutional law.

Back when I did traffic stops, I would make my decisions about who exited based on the ad hoc circumstances. Sometimes I'd have the driver get out and off the roadway if traffic was bad, so I wouldn't be standing in the road trying to talk in their window. Often I'd remove the driver so I could separate the driver and passenger and see if I could get conflicting stories. I can very easily see myself asking Bland to have exited the vehicle at the end of the stop, because I'd want to capture her physical demeanor on video (based on how she was acting, I'd assume she would complain on me, so I'd want to document how nasty she was). There are 100 reasons why I might leave somebody in a car, or have them exit it, or some combination... no justification is required.

Once again for some of the reading impaired, I'm not saying this was good police work. But it was lawful to remove her from the vehicle.

LurkerDan 07-23-15 04:37 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by Dave99 (Post 12543792)
She was an asshole, the cop was an asshole, and it's very unfortunate she killed herself over something like this.

My main takeaway from this is minor traffic offenses should not be arrestable. To think you could go to jail for not using a turn signal or speeding is absurd. Even if rarely used, this option should simply be taken out of the playbook. I get she was arrested for assault etc, so that wouldn't apply in this situation.

Totally agree that minor traffic offenses should not arrestable. That just gives cops way too much power, given that they can concoct a minor traffic offense out of nothing.

As for her being an asshole, sorry, I don't agree. She did some things that were not smart, sure, so if you want to call her an idiot, I wouldn't quibble. But as near as I can see, she didn't do anything remotely "asshole" to him until after he told her to step out of the car. And given how that request was unequivocally assholish -- after he'd written the warning/ticket and merely had to get her signature -- then I don't think it's fair to paint her in the same brush as him.

Why did he pull her over? Because she was black? Because she had out of state plates? Does anyone for a minute think he wouldn't have pulled her over if she HAD signaled her lane change? Would he have just gone his merry way? Or would he have continued to sit behind her until he decided he had enough?

CaptainMarvel 07-23-15 04:58 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by LurkerDan (Post 12543850)
Totally agree that minor traffic offenses should not arrestable. That just gives cops way too much power, given that they can concoct a minor traffic offense out of nothing.

They aren't here, and haven't been for decades as far as I know. Except for DUI, vehicular manslaughter, and a few others, you used to only be able to arrest them if they didn't sign the ticket (which was their bond to appear in court). They did away with even that signature requirement completely a few years ago. Alabama is not particularly progressive, so I was surprised to learn other places still allowed custodial arrests for citations.


Why did he pull her over? Because she was black? Because she had out of state plates? Does anyone for a minute think he wouldn't have pulled her over if she HAD signaled her lane change? Would he have just gone his merry way? Or would he have continued to sit behind her until he decided he had enough?
:rolleyes:

Dave99 07-23-15 05:16 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by LurkerDan (Post 12543850)
Totally agree that minor traffic offenses should not arrestable. That just gives cops way too much power, given that they can concoct a minor traffic offense out of nothing.

As for her being an asshole, sorry, I don't agree. She did some things that were not smart, sure, so if you want to call her an idiot, I wouldn't quibble. But as near as I can see, she didn't do anything remotely "asshole" to him until after he told her to step out of the car. And given how that request was unequivocally assholish -- after he'd written the warning/ticket and merely had to get her signature -- then I don't think it's fair to paint her in the same brush as him.

Why did he pull her over? Because she was black? Because she had out of state plates? Does anyone for a minute think he wouldn't have pulled her over if she HAD signaled her lane change? Would he have just gone his merry way? Or would he have continued to sit behind her until he decided he had enough?

I'll give you the officer could have done much better at explaining the whole get out of the car thing, instead he just goes for the escalation method. Or he could have just ignored it obviously and been on his way.

And I hate to agree with marvel more than once in a great while, but she was obviously very irritated, I can understand why there might have been a semi-decent reason to ask her to step out of the car to see if he could figure out why. She goes shitty the second that happens though.

You know from here and elsewhere my limited tolerance to bad (or even marginal) policing, but this chick did everything short of making a written request to go to jail. And again, the cop could have defused this also, so he's a dick for not doing so.

I just look at this as if she hadn't killed herself, there would be much ado about nothing regarding this stop & arrest. Just another person who talked their way into cuffs.

DaveyJoe 07-23-15 05:23 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by DVD Polizei (Post 12543829)
So if you come across a bear, you're the guy that says, "Bring it on!"

Wouldn't happen, I wouldn't be found in a gay bar in the first place.

CaptainMarvel 07-23-15 05:32 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by Dave99 (Post 12543870)
And I hate to agree with marvel more than once in a great while, but she was obviously very irritated, I can understand why there might have been a semi-decent reason to ask her to step out of the car to see if he could figure out why. She goes shitty the second that happens though.

:banana: :banana: :banana:

kvrdave 07-23-15 05:38 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel (Post 12543686)
I agree about the comment regarding it not being good policing. For several reasons:
1) I personally avoid making requests that I can't enforce, because if the persons refuses to comply, I've just diminished my authority. If you give somebody a directive they don't have to follow, you can't be butthurt if they don't follow it.
2) He did a poor job telling her what she was being arrested for, or articulating himself throughout the stop.
3) She was an asshole, and he let her goad him into being one. He lost control of his demeanor.
4) She is obviously recalcitrant, and you're just going to give her a warning? Don't give warnings to people who don't accept responsibility. Stroke her with a ticket.

1-3 I am with you 100%. #4 I am mainly with you. It would certainly have helped justify things rather than hearing about getting a warning and then going to jail. But I think #4 is probably more judgment call (which is you were talking about, obviously).

See, this is why I love you. Fuck Dan!


Oh, who am I kidding. I can't quit Dan. :(

kvrdave 07-23-15 05:57 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...bO/story.html#

A Suffolk Superior Court judge has upheld a decision by an arbitrator who ruled that the Boston Police Department must reinstate an officer fired in 2012 for allegedly using excessive force during an arrest and then lying about the incident.

The city had challenged the ruling, involving Officer David C. Williams, contending that the commissioner had the right to fire officers and that it would violate state law and sound public policy to cede that power to an arbitrator. In a June 29 decision, Superior Court Judge Dennis J. Curran agreed that the commissioner should have the “right and authority” to “manage and discipline” his officers. But he found that state law and legal precedent bound him to uphold the arbitrator’s 2013 ruling.

“The court is constrained by the arbitrator’s finding of fact,” Curran wrote. “The charges against Officer Williams represent a potentially serious breach of [his] oath and the public trust. Nonetheless, no matter how valid and poignant the police department’s concerns are, it is beyond the court’s power to grant the requested relief.”

Former Commissioner Edward F. Davis fired Williams over the arrest of Michael P. O’Brien, then of Methuen, in the North End on March 16, 2009. A police trial board had determined that Williams used an improper chokehold on O’Brien during a heated fender-bender dispute between O’Brien and another motorist just after midnight on Hanover Street, and later lied about the arrest. The city paid O’Brien $1.4 million in 2012 to settle a civil rights suit.

In reinstating Williams, the arbitrator, Michael C. Ryan, had ruled that O’Brien, a former Middlesex County correction officer, was not a credible witness, was intoxicated the night of the arrest, and had a motive to lie. “[I]t is clear to me that O’Brien’s account of the incident was not truthful,” Ryan wrote. “If officers became aggressive, and there is no doubt that they did, it was because the behavior of O’Brien and his friends warranted it.”

Bonnie McGilpin, a City Hall spokeswoman, said in an e-mail that Boston “is reviewing the decision and determining whether or not to appeal.” She added that “Williams’ status will remain as terminated (unpaid) unless the City decides not to appeal the decision.” Williams stands to receive more than $400,000 in back pay, as well as retroactive benefits, other compensation, and restored seniority upon reinstatement.

The city has 30 days to appeal, McGilpin said.

“David Williams is very happy with the decision and is hoping to get back to work as soon as possible,” said John Becker, an attorney with Sandulli Grace, which represents Williams’s union, the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association.

“I hope they’ll accept the decision of the Superior Court,” he said.

The judge’s ruling was not unexpected given the deference generally given to arbitrators’ decisions, said Neil V. McKittrick, a labor lawyer at Ogletree Deakins. Going forward, he said, the question is whether Boston will seek to reexamine with the union what constitutes just cause for terminating a police officer under their collective bargaining agreement.

“Maybe in those circumstances involving claims of police brutality, the police commissioner should have more discretion to deal with an issue the public has identified as a significant concern,” McKittrick said.

O’Brien’s attorney, Howard Friedman, said his client was “very disappointed.”

“Being a law enforcement officer, he wanted to get Williams off the police force,” Friedman said. “That’s why he came forward.”

Friedman called David Williams “an exceptionally lucky police officer.”

“Boston is unlucky because now they have to figure out what to do with him,” Friedman said.

In testimony before the police trial board, O’Brien asserted that the night of the arrest, Williams tackled him, put his arm around his neck, and drove him into the pavement after O’Brien pulled out a cellphone camera during the traffic stop. Williams countered that he had O’Brien in a “semi-bear-hug hold.”( :lol: @ "semi-bear-hug-hold")

In December 2012, the department’s Internal Affairs Division found Williams had used a chokehold and was untruthful in his testimony. He became the first officer Davis fired under a policy, launched in January 2010, that said officers would be terminated for lying in department reports, in court, or to police investigators. Williams then challenged the firing.

The case represents the second time the police department has been ordered to take back Williams. In 1998, Williams was fired for his role in the 1995 near-fatal beating of Michael Cox, a plainclothes officer who was mistaken for a homicide suspect. In 2005, an arbitrator ruled Williams was fired without just cause and ordered that he receive $500,000 in back pay and be reinstated.

That episode also cost the city. Cox, now a deputy superintendent, sued the city over the incident and received an $817,000 settlement. He also sued Williams and reached an out-of-court settlement.
Obviously the main issue is the problem with the law, similar to how stupid mandatory sentencing is. He probably ends up with a desk job. Fortunately, it isn't my state's money that will go towards this.

Minor Threat 07-23-15 06:19 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by kvrdave (Post 12543879)
Oh, who am I kidding. I can't quit Dan. :(

Step in line mother fucker!

http://i.imgur.com/bxqgUpe.gif

fujishig 07-23-15 06:30 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 
I know you didn't bold this part, dave, so 99% of people won't read it, but:


In reinstating Williams, the arbitrator, Michael C. Ryan, had ruled that O’Brien, a former Middlesex County correction officer, was not a credible witness, was intoxicated the night of the arrest, and had a motive to lie. “[i]t is clear to me that O’Brien’s account of the incident was not truthful,” Ryan wrote. “If officers became aggressive, and there is no doubt that they did, it was because the behavior of O’Brien and his friends warranted it.”
Internal affairs found that Williams lied, did they base it completely on O'Brien's testimony? Can cops just beat up drunk people with no recourse?

kvrdave 07-23-15 07:13 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 
Only in Boston, fortunately. :lol:

Artman 07-23-15 07:48 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by Neil M. (Post 12542939)
How is it bullshit? She resisted a lawful order and then resisted arrest.

Just watched it... that's pretty much my assessment.

Living Dead 07-24-15 12:54 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel (Post 12543847)
(We'll put aside the discussion of whether the officer ordered her out of the car because she refused to put out the cigarette... I'll take that as granted for this discussion, but I'm not entirely certain that's the case.)



The officer has discretion to remove the driver. I'd personally have had him out of the car ASAP. I couldn't tell you why that officer didn't.



That's the point. "Refusing to do something that you have every right to refuse" is not grounds for "being pulled out of your car." But the officer doesn't have to articulate grounds to ask people to exit the vehicle. That's a lawful order, period. If the person refuses to exit the vehicle, then they can be forced out.

LurkerDan is at least partially correct in that the rule about officers being able to remove people from vehicles during a traffic stop was rooted in concerns for officer safety, but he seems to be asserting that the officer has to be able to articulate that for any given stop. That's not the case (whether a professor agrees with him or not... and I'm going to have to hope for Weisburg's sake that the reporters misquoted him, or extrapolated poorly from what he did say, because this is right up there with the motor vehicle warrant exception and Miranda as black letter law). The Court has repeatedly set "removal from the vehicle is allowed" as a bright line, not a conditional one. There's not a separate hearing that takes place to determine the reasonableness... if there's a legal stop, the officer may remove you from your car (or to the contrary, order you to stay in your car if you want to exit it).

That not only applies to drivers (who committed the traffic offense), but also to each and every passenger in that vehicle (even though the passenger hasn't committed the offense). The Court has specifically repudiated the notion that some sort of articulable suspicion of danger is necessary:



In the Mimms case where the Court articulated the authority to remove the driver, "The State freely concedes the officer had no reason to suspect foul play from the particular driver at the time of the stop, there having been nothing unusual or suspicious about his behavior. It was apparently his practice to order all drivers out of their vehicles as a matter of course whenever they had been stopped for a traffic violation."

LurkerDan and Professor Weisburg (if the article is quoting him correctly) seem to be taking the position of the dissent from Maryland v. Wilson: "If a police officer conducting a traffic stop has an articulable suspicion of possible danger, the officer may order passengers to exit the vehicle as a defensive tactic without running afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, I assume that the facts recited in the majority's opinion provided a valid justification for this officer's order commanding the passengers to get out of this vehicle. But the Court's ruling goes much farther. It applies equally to traffic stops in which there is not even a scintilla of evidence of any potential risk to the police officer." That dissent is basically the same dissent from Mimms. It lost in Mimms, it lost in Maryland v. Wilson, and as far as I know, it hasn't ever been made the rule as a matter of federal Constitutional law.

Back when I did traffic stops, I would make my decisions about who exited based on the ad hoc circumstances. Sometimes I'd have the driver get out and off the roadway if traffic was bad, so I wouldn't be standing in the road trying to talk in their window. Often I'd remove the driver so I could separate the driver and passenger and see if I could get conflicting stories. I can very easily see myself asking Bland to have exited the vehicle at the end of the stop, because I'd want to capture her physical demeanor on video (based on how she was acting, I'd assume she would complain on me, so I'd want to document how nasty she was). There are 100 reasons why I might leave somebody in a car, or have them exit it, or some combination... no justification is required.

Once again for some of the reading impaired, I'm not saying this was good police work. But it was lawful to remove her from the vehicle.

All of this was very informative and answered my question perfectly. I honestly did not know some of the info provided. Thanks!

Giantrobo 07-24-15 02:43 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 
If she was recalcitrant it's because American Law Enforcement has so abused their authority throughout history it is only natural for the targets of their abuse to act accordingly.

Giantrobo 07-24-15 04:46 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 
http://i61.tinypic.com/2znsje1.jpg

CaptainMarvel 07-24-15 05:12 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 
Yeah, not committing suicide could probably help with that "not dying" bit, too.

We had another similar incident down here in one of Birmingham's suburbs a few weeks ago. A black female was picked up on robbery charges, and while she was in the jail she hung herself ( STORY HERE ).

Her mom made all sorts of accusations about the police killing her. Of course, the "Black Lives Matter" crowd went nuts, because an accusation is as good as proof. They staged a big protest outside of the jail last week. Only when they didn't provoke any response whatsoever, they decided to move a few blocks over and stand in the road blocking one of the major highways, which finally got several of them arrested.

As it turns out, there was actually a video showing her hanging herself. So at least some of the idiot conspiracy theorists are shutting up (temporarily).

Red Dog 07-24-15 05:36 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 
CM is certainly right about the black letter - Mimms. The interesting thing about Wilson is that Kennedy was a dissenter (and Breyer/Ginsburg were in the majority). Kennedy is generally a law & order conservative. Funny thing is that I want to say when I took Crim Pro -- around the time of Wilson, that was an exam question. Just can't remember.

Prof. Kerr had some interesting posts re: the stop, 1st amendment implications (which he admits 1st amendment is not his expertise) and lawful orders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-traffic-stop/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...order-problem/

Giantrobo 07-24-15 06:44 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel (Post 12544650)
Yeah, not committing suicide could probably help with that "not dying" bit, too.

And so would Cops not being Pussy Bitches who get Butthurt when a Civi dares to ask questions or get a little agitated. But of course the responsibility is never with the cops....




We had another similar incident down here in one of Birmingham's suburbs a few weeks ago. A black female was picked up on robbery charges, and while she was in the jail she hung herself ( STORY HERE ).

Her mom made all sorts of accusations about the police killing her. Of course, the "Black Lives Matter" crowd went nuts, because an accusation is as good as proof. They staged a big protest outside of the jail last week. Only when they didn't provoke any response whatsoever, they decided to move a few blocks over and stand in the road blocking one of the major highways, which finally got several of them arrested.

As it turns out, there was actually a video showing her hanging herself. So at least some of the idiot conspiracy theorists are shutting up (temporarily).



Again, the reason why Blacks go to "Cops did it" first is because in the not too distant past COPS HAVE FUCKIN' DONE IT.

Giantrobo 07-24-15 06:49 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by Red Dog (Post 12544665)
CM is certainly right about the black letter - Mimms. The interesting thing about Wilson is that Kennedy was a dissenter (and Breyer/Ginsburg were in the majority). Kennedy is generally a law & order conservative. Funny thing is that I want to say when I took Crim Pro -- around the time of Wilson, that was an exam question. Just can't remember.

Prof. Kerr had some interesting posts re: the stop, 1st amendment implications (which he admits 1st amendment is not his expertise) and lawful orders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-traffic-stop/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...order-problem/



So in short: Bland did not have to put out her cigarette. She likely had to exit the car, although it’s possible to that she didn’t have to because the officer was ordering her out of the car for reasons of retaliation — a possibility that might have been raised later in court, but wouldn’t persuade the officer.
Shit. No wonder both Cops and Citizens get so confused.

CaptainMarvel 07-24-15 07:56 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by Giantrobo (Post 12544709)
And so would Cops not being Pussy Bitches who get Butthurt when a Civi dares to ask questions or get a little agitated. But of course the responsibility is never with the cops....

:lol: Which side is dodging responsibility now, when even suicides are blamed on the police? Jesus.


Again, the reason why Blacks go to "Cops did it" first is because in the not too distant past COPS HAVE FUCKIN' DONE IT.
Hey, keep irrationally, falsely crying wolf over and over until you're totally discredited. That's certainly fine by me. I already see through it, but maybe more will catch on. :thumbsup:

Red Dog, those are some novel arguments by Professor Kerr. I'm not sure they're at all feasible to apply though.

There's a reason why there are so many bright line rules on crim pro issues relating to policework, and that's because courts tend to want to give police (who aren't typically lawyers) a useable framework from which to operate. Sometimes it cuts against us (eg. Miranda) and sometimes for us.

I'm not even sure there's a feasible way to tidily separate speech. If a driver starts gesticulating wildly and screaming, "fuck the police" over and over during a traffic stop, that's certainly expressive political speech, but it's also behavior that should rightfully place an officer on guard that this person may be combative or a threat, and it will rightfully be factored into a "totaility of the circumstances" analysis if force ends up having to be used. But if the officer adjusts his approach in response, he's opening himself up to a "chilling" argument?

I don't think the Court would go for that. But with the current Court, who the hell even knows anymore. :lol:

Red Dog 07-24-15 08:31 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 
I don't think it would apply unless there was disorderly conduct arrest. Moot point now. But food for thought.

To me it comes down to does being in car make a difference. As opposed to a pedestrian. Or even moreso, on your own property (the infamous Gates deal - complete BS). When it comes to speech, I think Cops are going to do what they feel is 'right,' and then let the courts settle it. And they'll have the back of the DA.

But you know my opinion on Terry and its progeny. I accept it, but I don't have to like it. There's nothing "bright line" about that. I wish there were.

I actually find Miranda (and Dickerson) wrong constitutionally, but think it should be SOP regardless.

Josh-da-man 07-24-15 09:33 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by Red Dog (Post 12544760)
To me it comes down to does being in car make a difference.

Traffic stops certainly seem to give the police a lot of leeway for fucking with people, from wanting to perform searches to suspecting people are under the influence to handing out tickets for infractions.

A-aron 07-25-15 05:47 AM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 
When Bland gets pulled out of the car, she appears to be holding her phone in an awkward position - not like she was talking on the phone, but more like she was recording.

To me, this is part of the problem. When someone is pulled over they immediately start recording - almost like they are hoping something to happen so they can get 1 million views on YouTube.

Spike Lee's tweet is only fueling the fire ... being respectful to police is something EVERYONE needs to do. If you get pulled over, roll your window down and put your hands on the wheel as they approach your car. This isn't difficult, people.

Here is another video - the man is clearly being told to back up

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6nfFw3LYEn0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

How many times do you need to be told to back up before you actually back up? It isn't like you can see the taser pointed at you. Just step back. Geez.

Philzilla 07-25-15 06:14 AM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 
I't hilarious to see how quick the media has abandoned this story, almost as fast as all Sandra Bland's friends and family, who were all over tv after her suicide, you know the day she was supposed to start her "dream job", abandoned her. Almost as fast. At least the media answered the phone.
On to the next sensation.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:42 AM.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.