Black Dog Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 A right to smoke a cigarette in public? In the privacy of your own vehicle? Yeah that's still a right. You need to pick your battles and follow up later on through the legal process. The more people do that, the less enthusiastic cops will be to abuse their power. Which presupposes that everyone has the wherewithal to pursue a legal case, as well as the (huge, enormous) assumption that a cop would actually be held accountable in any meaningful way (other than incurring costs to be paid by the taxpayer). But again, this is beside the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 She had the right to remain silent. Not sure how that applies to this discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 Not sure how that applies to this discussion. She didn't mind waiving that right, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 She didn't mind waiving that right, right? First of all, she wasn't read her rights. Second of all, you can't remain silent when asked to identify yourself to a cop. Third of all what bega the escalation was the cop asking her to put out her smoke. So what is this nonsense about her right to remain silent, since what transpired has nothing to do with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 No it's not. Nor is asking somebody to stop talking on their phone during a stop. But if one feels that way, then challenge it in court afterwards. It's smart to pick ones battles. Under what law can the officer legally ask the person to put out their smoke in their own car? Nah, forget it, you won't actually answer this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 Not putting a cigarette out while in your own car requires the threat of being tasered? No, pulling out the taser is where the idiocy starts. It is clear he considered her agitated because she WAS agitated. So he asked her to step out of the car and away from any potentially hidden weapons. I've seen cops do this a zillion times, but in this case she refused to get out of the car, so he tried to pull her out and she resisted and he then pulled a taser. I see nothing really wrong with any of that. Interesting though you seem to lend more credence to his claim of a kick in the shin that you can't see, and ignore what is quite clearly unnecessary escalation in the video, which you can see. It seems logical, based on her behaviour to that point, and the fact we next see her face down on the ground with two cops over her. As for the cop and escalation, while I agree that he didn't put much (any) effort into de-escalating the situation, I still primarily blame her for escalating in the first place. She acted like a moron. As someone suggested earlier, you don't poke the bear with the stick when he's not in a cage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 Under what law can the officer legally ask the person to put out their smoke in their own car? Nah, forget it, you won't actually answer this. Police are given wide latitude where there are safety fears involved. If he felt she was agressive and agitated, and wanted her out of the car where he could keep a better eye on where her hands were it was entirely reasonable to want her to put out the cigarette first. Cops will always try to get a lit cigarette or cigar out of someone's hands in situations where there is the potential for a physical confrontation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 It is clear he considered her agitated because she WAS agitated. So he asked her to step out of the car and away from any potentially hidden weapons. I've seen cops do this a zillion times, but in this case she refused to get out of the car, so he tried to pull her out and she resisted and he then pulled a taser. I see nothing really wrong with any of that. It seems logical, based on her behaviour to that point, and the fact we next see her face down on the ground with two cops over her. As for the cop and escalation, while I agree that he didn't put much (any) effort into de-escalating the situation, I still primarily blame her for escalating in the first place. She acted like a moron. As someone suggested earlier, you don't poke the bear with the stick when he's not in a cage. In both cases he over stepped his authority, and broke the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) The officers command (repeated several times) to exit the vehicle were lawful and backed up by the U.S. Supreme Court. This, and her subsequent assault on a police officer were more than enough to warrant her arrest, which she resisted (yet another crime). Edited July 29, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) The officers command (repeated several times) to exit the vehicle were lawful and backed up by the U.S. Supreme Court. This, and her subsequent assault on a police officer were more than enough to warrant her arrest, which she resisted (yet another crime). Nope. In contravention of the USSC. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf He's got some 'splainin' to do. Edited July 29, 2015 by On Guard for Thee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) Routine traffic stop and perp arrest....Bland is only making news because she killed herself. Officers have little to no warning that they are dealing with the mentally ill. Edited July 29, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Routine traffic stop and perp arrest....Bland is only making news because she killed herself. Officers have little to no warning that they are dealing with the mentally ill. Arrested for not signalling a lane change. Talk about mentally ill... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 And what's your point? Yep, some people will abuse their power. And??? As I said earlier, the point was that not all of the words that come out of a policeman's mouth are "lawful orders" despite what cops and their cheerleaders hear would have you believe. Bryan had earlier made this point, and the cops caught going through womens' private photos to forward them to their buddies was a prime example of police misrepresenting a "lawful order" for purely malicious purpose. I agree. And a ticket and on her way is all it would've been if she just put the cigarette out. You gotta pick your battles. It's like when I'm coming back from Michigan and I get some a-hole customs agent. I can comply with his rudeness and time wasting suggestions, or I could confront the rudeness and risk him pulling me aside and totally searching my car for no reason. I agree with all that, and that's certainly my outlook when I interact with the cops. I also appreciate that you're the only one of the pro-cop crowd willing to concede that Officer Encinia was being a jerk regarding the cigarette. Extinguishing a cigarette, even if I smoked, wouldn't be something I'd make an issue of. But how far would you let them push it before you resisted? If the cop says "extinguish that cigarette" ... sure, no problem. What if the cop says "I want to search your vehicle"? What if the cop says "give your phone" ? What if the cop says "give your phone and open the lock-screen"? What if the cop says "let me in, I want to look around your apartment"? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) As I said earlier, the point was that not all of the words that come out of a policeman's mouth are "lawful orders" despite what cops and their cheerleaders hear would have you believe. Bryan had earlier made this point, and the cops caught going through womens' private photos to forward them to their buddies was a prime example of police misrepresenting a "lawful order" for purely malicious purpose. I agree with all that, and that's certainly my outlook when I interact with the cops. I also appreciate that you're the only one of the pro-cop crowd willing to concede that Officer Encinia was being a jerk regarding the cigarette. Extinguishing a cigarette, even if I smoked, wouldn't be something I'd make an issue of. But how far would you let them push it before you resisted? If the cop says "extinguish that cigarette" ... sure, no problem. What if the cop says "I want to search your vehicle"? What if the cop says "give your phone" ? What if the cop says "give your phone and open the lock-screen"? What if the cop says "let me in, I want to look around your apartment"? -k Thats why its a good idea to do some studying. Again thats what court is for. Ive read around that cell phones are the new frontier for privacy. Thats why my phone is pass locked. I know if i was in the girls shoes of my photos being shared like that, my lawyer would be getting a phone call... Edited July 29, 2015 by blueblood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Great strategy...insist on that the next time one is playing 'murican with 'murican cops. Hell, tell them you are "from Canada" and be sure to point out how things are done "up there". That will surely win them over and make them accept one's lack of compliance with a lawful order to exit the vehicle. A few pages back you posted a link to the "Why'd You Stop Me" organization. I assumed you wanted us to read about it. Did you actually read it yourself? If you actually bothered reading it, you'd notice that your "the cops don't have to tell you anything; shut up and obey" stuff is pretty much the opposite of what he's teaching. The part of the message directed at civilians is, yes, "listen to the officer." The other part of the message, the part that you missed, is directed towards law enforcement officers, and that message is "people will cooperate with you if you communicate with them instead of acting like a big jackass on a power-trip." -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Thats why its a good idea to do some studying. Again thats what court is for. Ive read around that cell phones are the new frontier for privacy. Thats why my phone is pass locked. yes, yes. You mentioned you have your phone lock-screen on earlier. Good for you. We're all very proud of you. So, suppose the cop asks you for your phone, and asks you to unlock it so that he can search the contents. Are you going to comply, or are you going to tell him to go get a warrant? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 yes, yes. You mentioned you have your phone lock-screen on earlier. Good for you. We're all very proud of you. So, suppose the cop asks you for your phone, and asks you to unlock it so that he can search the contents. Are you going to comply, or are you going to tell him to go get a warrant? -k I'd calmly tell him he would need a warrant and let that be that. If its taken from me and not given back and theres no reason why, im having a chat with his supervisor and maybe a lawyer. Point is im not going to lose my shit and look for an excuse to get arrested for an actual crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 A few pages back you posted a link to the "Why'd You Stop Me" organization. I assumed you wanted us to read about it. Did you actually read it yourself? Of course I read it...duh ! I also pointed out that many U.S. police departments are trying to address the "us vs. them" issue. So what was your point again ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Of course I read it...duh ! I also pointed out that many U.S. police departments are trying to address the "us vs. them" issue. So what was your point again ? I guess this case set that clock back a few years eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Of course I read it...duh ! I also pointed out that many U.S. police departments are trying to address the "us vs. them" issue. So what was your point again ? That it's completely contradictory to the crap you were posting earlier about how expecting cops to explain themselves would undermine their authoritah. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 That it's completely contradictory to the crap you were posting earlier about how expecting cops to explain themselves would undermine their authoritah. I'm sorry...perhaps you don't understand how such seemingly opposite concepts can and do exist in the very same universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 I just think it's amusing when they're both coming out of the same mouth, yours in this case. You've been pushing this "respect mah authoritah" crap all thread (and in every other police thread ever), and yet you posted the link for WYSM and want to tell it like you're on board with efforts to end the "us vs them" mentality in law enforcement. It makes your sincerity a little suspect. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 I just think it's amusing when they're both coming out of the same mouth, yours in this case. You've been pushing this "respect mah authoritah" crap all thread (and in every other police thread ever), and yet you posted the link for WYSM and want to tell it like you're on board with efforts to end the "us vs them" mentality in law enforcement. It makes your sincerity a little suspect. Only because of your own biases. Police departments are very much aware of the competing interest....officer safety/security and citizen rights. It's not a new concept. Hell, we even have Canadians talking about their "Miranda" rights from watching so much American TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 People have real rights, not fictional "free man on the land" rights, when interacting with police. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 People have real rights, not fictional "free man on the land" rights, when interacting with police. Sure they do...but the courts have long upheld infringing such rights based on circumstances....police stops....FAA airline safety/security...minor children....etc. Any idiot who starts screaming about their rights at a routine traffic stop is just asking for a trip "downtown". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.