User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/16/2024 9:31:20 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's pretty obvious the pic is intentionally hyperbolic (anabolic?). The only people who don't "get it" are the ones who are butthurt about it.] Your guy doesn't comprehend the case law he is citing. Mims requires officer safety to be a prerequisite issue during a traffic stop investigation to elevating it a removing the occupants & conducting a search. Notice how he doesn't cite ay issues of officer safety in his report, nor does he even mention it in the interaction in the cam. He misinterprets the ruling in the case that he cites as allowing a broad license to conduct a removal & search. That's not what Mims says. The vid demonstrates emotion & ego overruling substance & circumstance. Sorry, but your buy got this one wrong. Here's another gem:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ihJnerdDs4Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: His video stills piss me off. It's always a shirtless cop in a bullet proof vest that has nothing to do with the video. Quoted: That’s the clickbait part of the video to draw You in Do you seriously think a cop is going around like that? Quoted: Quoted: It’s all about the clicks. Then the usual suspects flock to it like yellowjackets to an open can of coke. And the usual cock-gobblers show up as well. It's pretty obvious the pic is intentionally hyperbolic (anabolic?). The only people who don't "get it" are the ones who are butthurt about it.] Quoted: I know the officer in the video personally and will attest to the fact that he is a really good guy and deserves the opportunity for all of the facts to come out before the masses begin to rattle their pitchforks. I obviously was not at this scene and I have not spoken to him about the incident, but knowing him and his character, I would assume there is much more to this story. I would be interested in seeing the body cam footage of the entire stop, not just the footage where the guy in the vehicle started to record. Regardless of all of this, I feel that the comments about roid-raging and suggestions to the officer's steroid use were uncalled for. The guy loves to work out and frequents the gym often; the change in his physique being attributed to steroid use is reckless conjecture. Your guy doesn't comprehend the case law he is citing. Mims requires officer safety to be a prerequisite issue during a traffic stop investigation to elevating it a removing the occupants & conducting a search. Notice how he doesn't cite ay issues of officer safety in his report, nor does he even mention it in the interaction in the cam. He misinterprets the ruling in the case that he cites as allowing a broad license to conduct a removal & search. That's not what Mims says. The vid demonstrates emotion & ego overruling substance & circumstance. Sorry, but your buy got this one wrong. Here's another gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ihJnerdDs4Penn v Mimms removal is almost always reasonable. To search occupants post-removal from vehicle requires RAS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2024 10:23:44 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then officer good guy assaulted someone because he didn't understand the law. Good thing then that ignorance of the law is an excuse if you are paid to enforce the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2024 10:26:31 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Penn v Mimms removal is almost always reasonable. Unless, of course, you end the traffic stop before beginning the removal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2024 10:30:54 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tyrant cops should be dropped off in Ukraine |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2024 10:53:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've never paid sprayed anyone because I was a bad reader. I’m not sure I know anyone that has paid sprayed someone. So that is good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 12:05:46 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unless, of course, you end the traffic stop before beginning the removal. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Penn v Mimms removal is almost always reasonable. Unless, of course, you end the traffic stop before beginning the removal. Correct. As in this instance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 12:09:08 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unless, of course, you end the traffic stop before beginning the removal. Meh, the stop is over when the cop says so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 12:35:56 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s funny how little guys always assume big guys are on steroids. “Do work, son.” If you're going to pop off with boomer core internet tough guy bullshit at least watch the video first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 1:39:09 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Meh, the stop is over when the cop says so. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Unless, of course, you end the traffic stop before beginning the removal. Meh, the stop is over when the cop says so. Meh, no. Case law says otherwise: A stop may “last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the initial purpose of the stop…Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.” A traffic detention must last no longer than necessary to resolve the suspected traffic violation, either by warning, citation or hearing an explanation from the driver. The detention and investigation must be reasonably related to the initial reason for the stop, unless other factors support additional reasonable suspicion (United States v. Hill, 852 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2017); United States v. Gil, 204 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 951 (2000)). Any further detention must be supported by reasonable suspicion of more serious criminal activity. Stupid tricks such as walking away & then turning back to ask more questions after already issuing a ticket have been ruled to be a 2nd interaction attempt not justified by the original RS stop. In this case, there was nothing stated in the interaction or articulated in the written report to justify the removal of driver, per Mimms. Lacking articulable justification to play detention games here makes the decision arbitrary & capricious. Maybe do some reading on the subject before commenting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 1:49:31 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know the officer in the video personally and will attest to the fact that he is a really good guy and deserves the opportunity for all of the facts to come out before the masses begin to rattle their pitchforks. I obviously was not at this scene and I have not spoken to him about the incident, but knowing him and his character, I would assume there is much more to this story. I would be interested in seeing the body cam footage of the entire stop, not just the footage where the guy in the vehicle started to record. Regardless of all of this, I feel that the comments about roid-raging and suggestions to the officer's steroid use were uncalled for. The guy loves to work out and frequents the gym often; the change in his physique being attributed to steroid use is reckless conjecture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 6:40:13 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Meh, the stop is over when the FIFY. That's why the thread title references the already deemed unconstitutional "Kansas Two Step" In the "two step", KS Highway Patrol pretends to end the detention and start a "new encounter" two seconds later which they claim is voluntary. Here we skip pretending to start a voluntary encounter and jump straight to forcibly extending the involuntary traffic stop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 7:46:00 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Meh, the stop is over when the cop says so. LOL congratulations on “ignorant post of the day”. Considering all the other candidates you should be proud! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 8:00:27 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Meh, no. Case law says otherwise: Stupid tricks such as walking away & then turning back to ask more questions after already issuing a ticket have been ruled to be a 2nd interaction attempt not justified by the original RS stop. In this case, there was nothing stated in the interaction or articulated in the written report to justify the removal of driver, per Mimms. Lacking articulable justification to play detention games here makes the decision arbitrary & capricious. Maybe do some reading on the subject before commenting. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Unless, of course, you end the traffic stop before beginning the removal. Meh, the stop is over when the cop says so. Meh, no. Case law says otherwise: A stop may “last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the initial purpose of the stop…Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.” A traffic detention must last no longer than necessary to resolve the suspected traffic violation, either by warning, citation or hearing an explanation from the driver. The detention and investigation must be reasonably related to the initial reason for the stop, unless other factors support additional reasonable suspicion (United States v. Hill, 852 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2017); United States v. Gil, 204 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 951 (2000)). Any further detention must be supported by reasonable suspicion of more serious criminal activity. Stupid tricks such as walking away & then turning back to ask more questions after already issuing a ticket have been ruled to be a 2nd interaction attempt not justified by the original RS stop. In this case, there was nothing stated in the interaction or articulated in the written report to justify the removal of driver, per Mimms. Lacking articulable justification to play detention games here makes the decision arbitrary & capricious. Maybe do some reading on the subject before commenting. Let’s wait til body cam footage is released. I’m not convinced the search and seizure of prescription meds was illegal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 8:01:40 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FIFY. That's why the thread title references the already deemed unconstitutional "Kansas Two Step" In the "two step", KS Highway Patrol pretends to end the detention and start a "new encounter" two seconds later which they claim is voluntary. Here we skip pretending to start a voluntary encounter and jump straight to forcibly extending the involuntary traffic stop. I’m not convinced. I’m waiting for body cam footage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 8:31:14 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I bet it does too. I don't like the disingenuous representation of a real event especially one that involves police work, possible felonies and possible civil rights violations. I generally find the actual content largely useful. I think the click bait reorientations undermine legitimacy. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I bet that drives clicks. I heard some YouTube marketing guy talking about it the goofy images and ridiculous titles must make money I don't like the disingenuous representation of a real event especially one that involves police work, possible felonies and possible civil rights violations. I generally find the actual content largely useful. I think the click bait reorientations undermine legitimacy. Does legitimacy and truth of message make much of a difference if you're preaching from the mountaintop and no one hears it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 8:51:47 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That guy isn't in the video Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: It’s funny how little guys always assume big guys are on steroids. “Do work, son.” Just the screen shot of his arm screams steroids. There's steroid big, and natural big, that's steroid big. That guy isn't in the video Looks AI generated. I don’t know any southern WV cops that are contenders for Mr. Universe |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 8:52:05 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m not convinced. I’m waiting for body cam footage. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: FIFY. That's why the thread title references the already deemed unconstitutional "Kansas Two Step" In the "two step", KS Highway Patrol pretends to end the detention and start a "new encounter" two seconds later which they claim is voluntary. Here we skip pretending to start a voluntary encounter and jump straight to forcibly extending the involuntary traffic stop. I’m not convinced. I’m waiting for body cam footage. You are assuming that body cam video is actually available. There seem to be a lot of "malfunctions", both human and equipment, in these incidents. And your personal friend may be an upstanding individual among friends but a roided-out maniac when dealing with "civilians". I've seen it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 11:13:49 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Meh, the stop is over when the cop says so. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Unless, of course, you end the traffic stop before beginning the removal. Meh, the stop is over when the cop says so. Then he was extending the traffic stop beyond the time required to complete the stop? That's also unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 12:12:51 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then he was extending the traffic stop beyond the time required to complete the stop? That's also unconstitutional. Let’s wait to see bodycam-cruiser footage, as well as more info on RAS for investigatory detention post initial stop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 12:15:17 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL congratulations on “ignorant post of the day”. Considering all the other candidates you should be proud! Thank you. Unlike many posters here, I don’t rush to judgement - nor do I participate in the rabid, anti-leo crusades in which many of you participate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 12:16:50 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are assuming that body cam video is actually available. There seem to be a lot of "malfunctions", both human and equipment, in these incidents. And your personal friend may be an upstanding individual among friends but a roided-out maniac when dealing with "civilians". I've seen it. Machines malfunction. We are nothing but machines, albeit very complex machines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 12:21:22 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let’s wait til body cam footage is released. I’m not convinced the search and seizure of prescription meds was illegal. How about let’s not wait and discuss this now? If/when the cam footage is released we can then re asses and discuss any new information then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 12:23:44 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How about let’s not wait and discuss this now? If/when the cam footage is released we can then re asses and discuss any new information then. Have at it. I’ll reserve judgement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 12:26:57 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let's wait til body cam footage is released. I'm not convinced the search and seizure of prescription meds was illegal. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Unless, of course, you end the traffic stop before beginning the removal. Meh, the stop is over when the cop says so. Meh, no. Case law says otherwise: A stop may "last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the initial purpose of the stop Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are or reasonably should have been completed." A traffic detention must last no longer than necessary to resolve the suspected traffic violation, either by warning, citation or hearing an explanation from the driver. The detention and investigation must be reasonably related to the initial reason for the stop, unless other factors support additional reasonable suspicion (United States v. Hill, 852 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2017); United States v. Gil, 204 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 951 (2000)). Any further detention must be supported by reasonable suspicion of more serious criminal activity. Stupid tricks such as walking away & then turning back to ask more questions after already issuing a ticket have been ruled to be a 2nd interaction attempt not justified by the original RS stop. In this case, there was nothing stated in the interaction or articulated in the written report to justify the removal of driver, per Mimms. Lacking articulable justification to play detention games here makes the decision arbitrary & capricious. Maybe do some reading on the subject before commenting. Let's wait til body cam footage is released. I'm not convinced the search and seizure of prescription meds was illegal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 12:28:09 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know the officer in the video personally and will attest to the fact that he is a really good guy and deserves the opportunity for all of the facts to come out before the masses begin to rattle their pitchforks. I obviously was not at this scene and I have not spoken to him about the incident, but knowing him and his character, I would assume there is much more to this story. I would be interested in seeing the body cam footage of the entire stop, not just the footage where the guy in the vehicle started to record. Regardless of all of this, I feel that the comments about roid-raging and suggestions to the officer's steroid use were uncalled for. The guy loves to work out and frequents the gym often; the change in his physique being attributed to steroid use is reckless conjecture. He was just the 'bad apple" of the day, tomorrow will be another "bad apple"! Everyone gets a turn!!!! The problem with the 99%, they call the ever changing 1% brother... The only thing reckless about this interaction was your unhinged friend. Whether it was because of roids, stupidity, animosity, malice, contempt, or simply having a bad day, your friend is the 1% and here you are co-signing his bullshit... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 12:30:01 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Clickbaiters should be flogged Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: His video stills piss me off. It's always a shirtless cop in a bullet proof vest that has nothing to do with the video. Come and flog me then tough guy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 12:36:11 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Penn v Mimms removal is almost always reasonable. To search occupants post-removal from vehicle requires RAS. Because the reasonable officer standard is absurd. If it’s almost always reasonable to remove occupants because you believe they are both armed and dangerous, then mass hysteria has set in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 12:39:41 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let’s wait to see bodycam-cruiser footage, as well as more info on RAS for investigatory detention post initial stop. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Then he was extending the traffic stop beyond the time required to complete the stop? That's also unconstitutional. Let’s wait to see bodycam-cruiser footage, as well as more info on RAS for investigatory detention post initial stop. Let’s just skip to the end where the department investigates themselves and finds no wrongdoing and the taxpayers pay a significant settlement for the officers’ unconstitutional acts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 12:43:27 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Come and flog me then tough guy. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: His video stills piss me off. It's always a shirtless cop in a bullet proof vest that has nothing to do with the video. Come and flog me then tough guy. I know a girl that will do that, but she ain't cheap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 12:43:49 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because the reasonable officer standard is absurd. If it’s almost always reasonable to remove occupants because you believe they are both armed and dangerous, then mass hysteria has set in. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Penn v Mimms removal is almost always reasonable. To search occupants post-removal from vehicle requires RAS. Because the reasonable officer standard is absurd. If it’s almost always reasonable to remove occupants because you believe they are both armed and dangerous, then mass hysteria has set in. The point is, young officers are taught, hey PA v. Mimms says you can remove people from the car. Then they want everyone to respect their authority, as they think it is. It's not always a bright line. Which is why cops should ask themselves, do I really need this ID? Do I really need this person out of the car? If you don't have a reason, maybe you should just go on w/ your life and do something useful. Honestly that would solve 90% of these encounters before they even begin. Such as here, ok warning ticket for left of center. See you later... guy goes to work & officer does something else. Problem solved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 1:12:28 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The point is, young officers are taught, hey PA v. Mimms says you can remove people from the car. Then they want everyone to respect their authority, as they think it is. It's not always a bright line. Which is why cops should ask themselves, do I really need this ID? Do I really need this person out of the car? If you don't have a reason, maybe you should just go on w/ your life and do something useful. Honestly that would solve 90% of these encounters before they even begin. Such as here, ok warning ticket for left of center. See you later... guy goes to work & officer does something else. Problem solved. I’ve noticed that too. Most of these videos are of officers that go to substantial to enormous WORK to fuck up. I don’t get it. Meanwhile some drunk needs pulled off the road, some kid is lost, some woman is getting beaten up by someone who said he loved her. Yet here we are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 1:20:30 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let’s wait to see bodycam-cruiser footage, as well as more info on RAS for investigatory detention post initial stop. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Then he was extending the traffic stop beyond the time required to complete the stop? That's also unconstitutional. Let’s wait to see bodycam-cruiser footage, as well as more info on RAS for investigatory detention post initial stop. Lets wait to watch the department tap-dance to avoid releasing anything they aren't forced to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 1:25:08 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because the reasonable officer standard is absurd. If it’s almost always reasonable to remove occupants because you believe they are both armed and dangerous, then mass hysteria has set in. Assuming the officer/deputy/trooper articulates that he felt his life was in danger (not happening here on the roadside, might still be claimed in this case in a court deposition but it would be a hard sell), black robed copsuckers are reluctant to second guess the judgment of the guy who claims he was only trying to get home alive. Unfortunately, that all too often applies to murdering non-resisting citizens because you don't know for sure that they aren't a threat (Roger Fortson, Andrew Finch, and arguably Daniel Shaver, but I'd say Shaver was obviously not a threat). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 1:27:38 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The point is, young officers are taught, hey PA v. Mimms says you can remove people from the car. Then they want everyone to respect their authority, as they think it is. It's not always a bright line. Which is why cops should ask themselves, do I really need this ID? Do I really need this person out of the car? If you don't have a reason, maybe you should just go on w/ your life and do something useful. Honestly that would solve 90% of these encounters before they even begin. Such as here, ok warning ticket for left of center. See you later... guy goes to work & officer does something else. Problem solved. Didn't John Brian Esquire say this guy was on a drug interdiction team? Picking somebody to search, and establishing a reason to pull them over so you can search them, is their version of being useful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 1:32:29 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let’s wait til body cam footage is released. I’m not convinced the search and seizure of prescription meds was illegal. I just went back and looked at the cell phone video. The only thing I see on the centerline of the deputy's torso is the zipper pull for his ballistic vest. I'm thinking there is no video of the traffic stop portion of the interaction, unless it's from a dash cam (but with the windows rolled up and the A/C on, you won't hear a word of the discussion from a dash cam). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 1:32:49 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lets wait to watch the department tap-dance to avoid releasing anything they aren't forced to. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Then he was extending the traffic stop beyond the time required to complete the stop? That's also unconstitutional. Let’s wait to see bodycam-cruiser footage, as well as more info on RAS for investigatory detention post initial stop. Lets wait to watch the department tap-dance to avoid releasing anything they aren't forced to. It will all be released. But they will try to fuck this guy on the criminal charges first. If they do, then they're in the clear probably. They already got him suspended from his job, working as a nurse at a fucking nursing home. So yeah they will destroy your life to get themselves in the clear. He should beat the charges, but they may try to coerce him into pleading to something first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 1:32:53 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Assuming the officer/deputy/trooper articulates that he felt his life was in danger (not happening here on the roadside, might still be claimed in this case in a court deposition but it would be a hard sell), black robed copsuckers are reluctant to second guess the judgment of the guy who claims he was only trying to get home alive. Unfortunately, that all too often applies to murdering non-resisting citizens because you don't know for sure that they aren't a threat (Roger Fortson, Andrew Finch, and arguably Daniel Shaver, but I'd say Shaver was obviously not a threat). Based on what was in the report (and maybe more importantly what was not) as well as the repeated references to Mims in the video, a judge might not feel too friendly towards the officer claiming his life was threatened. What transpires between handing over the ticket, and the demand that the passenger exit the vehicle that led the cop to believe he was in danger? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 1:36:54 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It will all be released. But they will try to fuck this guy on the criminal charges first. If they do, then they're in the clear probably. They already got him suspended from his job, working as a nurse at a fucking nursing home. So yeah they will destroy your life to get themselves in the clear. He should beat the charges, but they may try to coerce him into pleading to something first. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Then he was extending the traffic stop beyond the time required to complete the stop? That's also unconstitutional. Let’s wait to see bodycam-cruiser footage, as well as more info on RAS for investigatory detention post initial stop. Lets wait to watch the department tap-dance to avoid releasing anything they aren't forced to. It will all be released. But they will try to fuck this guy on the criminal charges first. If they do, then they're in the clear probably. They already got him suspended from his job, working as a nurse at a fucking nursing home. So yeah they will destroy your life to get themselves in the clear. He should beat the charges, but they may try to coerce him into pleading to something first. Hopefully, but there sure seem to be a lot of convinient malfunctions. Also, I'm becoming more of the opinion that there should be recourse in extracting similar punishment to what was exerted on the citizen. Maybe if they have to live with the thought of getting stopped, ripped out, etc, bad cops would be less inclined to be the bad apples. That goes for the DA as well, regarding such chickenshit charges as carrying his own prescription. When there is no personal feedback, there clearly isn't incentive enough to behave. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 1:39:38 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The point is, young officers are taught, hey PA v. Mimms says you can remove people from the car. Then they want everyone to respect their authority, as they think it is. It's not always a bright line. Which is why cops should ask themselves, do I really need this ID? Do I really need this person out of the car? If you don't have a reason, maybe you should just go on w/ your life and do something useful. Honestly that would solve 90% of these encounters before they even begin. Such as here, ok warning ticket for left of center. See you later... guy goes to work & officer does something else. Problem solved. Is this rhetorical? Of course they need that ID. They need every ID within 100 yards of their location. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 1:46:00 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is this rhetorical? Of course they need that ID. They need every ID within 100 yards of their location. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The point is, young officers are taught, hey PA v. Mimms says you can remove people from the car. Then they want everyone to respect their authority, as they think it is. It's not always a bright line. Which is why cops should ask themselves, do I really need this ID? Do I really need this person out of the car? If you don't have a reason, maybe you should just go on w/ your life and do something useful. Honestly that would solve 90% of these encounters before they even begin. Such as here, ok warning ticket for left of center. See you later... guy goes to work & officer does something else. Problem solved. Is this rhetorical? Of course they need that ID. They need every ID within 100 yards of their location. Ironically, in this particular video, the officer never requested this guy's ID, who was a passenger. Step 1. Mace; Step 2, obtain ID. Step 3, run the dog around the car, lol. This is also the same jurisdiction (4th circuit) where there was recently an opinion re: passengers having the 1A right to livestream a traffic stop (from inside the vehicle during the actual stop). I probably should have mentioned that, as they shot down all the bullshit officer safety excuses they were throwing out there, as far as generalized traffic stop dangers. The constitution isn't suspended just because there is a traffic violation detainment. That isn't game on to do whatever you want, for as long as you want. You can do things, but there need to be particularized reasons, not just general fear and officer safety concerns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 2:55:01 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ironically, in this particular video, the officer never requested this guy's ID, who was a passenger. Step 1. Mace; Step 2, obtain ID. Step 3, run the dog around the car, lol. This is also the same jurisdiction (4th circuit) where there was recently an opinion re: passengers having the 1A right to livestream a traffic stop (from inside the vehicle during the actual stop). I probably should have mentioned that, as they shot down all the bullshit officer safety excuses they were throwing out there, as far as generalized traffic stop dangers. The constitution isn't suspended just because there is a traffic violation detainment. That isn't game on to do whatever you want, for as long as you want. You can do things, but there need to be particularized reasons, not just general fear and officer safety concerns. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The point is, young officers are taught, hey PA v. Mimms says you can remove people from the car. Then they want everyone to respect their authority, as they think it is. It's not always a bright line. Which is why cops should ask themselves, do I really need this ID? Do I really need this person out of the car? If you don't have a reason, maybe you should just go on w/ your life and do something useful. Honestly that would solve 90% of these encounters before they even begin. Such as here, ok warning ticket for left of center. See you later... guy goes to work & officer does something else. Problem solved. Is this rhetorical? Of course they need that ID. They need every ID within 100 yards of their location. This is also the same jurisdiction (4th circuit) where there was recently an opinion re: passengers having the 1A right to livestream a traffic stop (from inside the vehicle during the actual stop). I probably should have mentioned that, as they shot down all the bullshit officer safety excuses they were throwing out there, as far as generalized traffic stop dangers. The constitution isn't suspended just because there is a traffic violation detainment. That isn't game on to do whatever you want, for as long as you want. You can do things, but there need to be particularized reasons, not just general fear and officer safety concerns. I was mostly shitposting, but his order of operations was a bit suspect. The 4th circuit opinion on the livestreaming is interesting. Have there been previous opinions from other courts on it? No doubt officers aren't fond of it, being a stream to offsite could be considered a "loose end". |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 3:45:58 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know the officer in the video personally and will attest to the fact that he is a really good guy and deserves the opportunity for all of the facts to come out before the masses begin to rattle their pitchforks. I obviously was not at this scene and I have not spoken to him about the incident, but knowing him and his character, I would assume there is much more to this story. I would be interested in seeing the body cam footage of the entire stop, not just the footage where the guy in the vehicle started to record. Regardless of all of this, I feel that the comments about roid-raging and suggestions to the officer's steroid use were uncalled for. The guy loves to work out and frequents the gym often; the change in his physique being attributed to steroid use is reckless conjecture. Feeling anabolic about response. Maybe you should try be the most violent best version of yourself. Your friend gives cops a bad name. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 2:33:41 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let’s wait til body cam footage is released. I’m not convinced the search and seizure of prescription meds was illegal. Quote HistoryQuoted: Let’s wait til body cam footage is released. I’m not convinced the search and seizure of prescription meds was illegal. If they are taking prescribed meds, then where's the illegality? The pill box - is that sufficient PC? Is the mere possession of a firearm satisfactory grounds for PC? (Pro tip: Research before responding). Quoted: Machines malfunction. We are nothing but machines, albeit very complex machines. How cliche of you. I bet everything else was working fine. Gun? Radio? Patrol cam? Check. Pepper spray? Check-check. Body cam? Oops! Keeping speed detectors calibrated is a legal requirement, or else a case gets thrown out. I treat body cams the same way. Didn't work in this case? Oh well, there goes that one. Unredacted/unedited cam evidence cuts both ways. As it should. I'm fine with it. But police don't always seem to be at select times, & this will always make the voracity of their charge(s) suspicious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2024 4:43:42 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The point is, young officers are taught, hey PA v. Mimms says you can remove people from the car. Then they want everyone to respect their authority, as they think it is. It's not always a bright line. Which is why cops should ask themselves, do I really need this ID? Do I really need this person out of the car? If you don't have a reason, maybe you should just go on w/ your life and do something useful. Honestly that would solve 90% of these encounters before they even begin. Such as here, ok warning ticket for left of center. See you later... guy goes to work & officer does something else. Problem solved. Part of the problem is, IMO, that cops are taught to NEVER back down, and ALWAYS defend other cops. Part of it is asserting authority, and part of it is “if you’re not a cop you’re little people “. This is how we get the escalations that end up in huge civil payouts and ACAB. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
