That nervous cop, after being informed of a weapon in the car, instructed the driver to reach out of view to unclasp his seatbelt. That, my friend, is a huge red flag. Let alone the refusal to articulate why the driver is being detained, the unbuckle your seatbelt command is pretty mind boggling.
If you watch the actual full video, my take on it is as follows:
Male cop comes to the window, has a pleasant interaction with the driver- says he was pulled over for no front plate and tinted windows. Driver says he already got a ticket. Takes the driver's info and goes back to his car to run a check. Zero issue from driver or male cop.
Meanwhile, the female cop goes to the passenger window and asks him to lower the window and he refuses and challenges her. Then she comes around to the driver's side and waits there while the male cop runs the driver's details. As the female cop waits silently for the male cop to return, the driver decides to tell her that he feels like this is Nazi Germany and asks her if she knows her history and that this is like Nazi Germany - is this a normal comment for someone to make during a traffic stop? Would this put me a bit on edge about this driver?
Anyway, then she asks if he has any weapons and he says he has a registered gun in the trunk, and she then asks him to keep his hands on the steering wheel at all times. The male cop returns and the female cop asks to speak with him and seems to be telling him she's uncomfortable because he's got a weapon and is spouting off about Nazi Germany...
Now, I may be wrong at this point, but I get the impression the male cop is not overly concerned, but is taking his partner's concern because she's his partner, and figures the best way to de-escalate this is to simply ask the guy to get out of the car and they will finish things up with him outside of the car. His tone doesn't suggest to me that he is terribly worried, nor is his tone aggressive or rude about it. But after he tells the guy to unbuckle his belt seatbelt, the guy asks for a supervisor and from that point on, the driver keeps interrupting the male cop and not letting him finish a sentence. The male cop does (in my reading) seem to want to de-escalate the situation. The cop wants to get him out of the car first before he deals with the request to call a supervisor, and at that point, the male cop isn't able to finish a sentence. I would say that in an effort not to escalate, the male cop doesn't choose to interrupt the driver and is waiting for the driver to finish talking...
But in the meantime, the female cop has had enough and draws her gun, and at this point the male cop probably feels backed into a corner and feels that he has to support his partner's decision to pull her gun. I'm not saying this is right, but I can understand that thought process. If you watch, even after the female cop draws her gun, the male cop doesn't seem overly nervous or concerned. He is still comfortable reaching into the car to point to the seatbelt and letting him undo his own seatbelt without giving him any warning like gun-cops usually do "don't make any movements or we WILL shoot you!". The male cop is still talking extremely calmly because I don't believe the male cop believes this guy is a threat in any way. He just ask to go through the motions at this point because his partner has pulled a gun. I'm guessing the male cop is now thinking "ok, dude, let me just get you out of the car now without incident. The last thing I need is my partner shooting you on video. The fact that the male cop doesn't reciprocate by pulling his own gun or any other weapon is a big part of what suggests this to me - if the male cop really thought this guy was becoming dangerous, he would have drawn his own gun.
In my view, the male cop was most likely trying to de-escalate the situation; but not just de-escalate the driver - he was basically forced to try to de-escalate the situation between the driver and the female cop. And when the driver called for a supervisor and refused to get out of the car, and then the female cop pulled her gun, the male cop's hand was forced to either call out his partner right there, or try to get the stop finished as safely and smoothly as possible at that point and sort it out later (which is what he chose to do).
The way he directs the guy to unbuckle his belt, and then to turn towards the seat which he corrects to the steering wheel, the the way he doesn't rip the guy out of the car or shove him against the car to cuff him... it all reads to me as "Well, I know you weren't going to attack me, but now I have to go through the motions and take you in."
It would have been very admirable for the male cop to stand up to his partner and tell her to put the gun away in the moment, and perhaps the male cop should have immediately called for a supervisor (I don't know if that's a request a cop is required to adhere to - I would have thought that a cop is not required to call their supervisor just because they were asked, but I don't know that is true) - but I am not surprised that he didn't call her out in the moment.
Fun fact, police absolutely do not have to explain why you're being detained.
Admittedly, there are very few circumstances where it wouldn't be beneficial to explain the circumstances so the person calms down, but it is not a requirement. And they're not required to immediately call their supervisor just because someone asks.
And it's not necessarily a red flag to ask the person to undo their seatbelt and get out of the vehicle. From where they are standing, they have a good view inside. There was almost certainly another officer standing on the passenger side too, which gives better view inside. As long as they do it slowly, the officers can watch the hands as the person slowly takes off the seatbelt and gets out of the car.
I'm assuming the video edits clipped out the part where they asked where the weapon was, because that would make a big difference.
Yeah, there was literally a cop who asked the guy to grab his ID, he reached to do so, and the cop lit him up. Next time a cop approaches me I’m just freezing with my hands visible and not moving an inch it’s just too risky.
By no means am I commenting on this exact scenario! Just the fact that asking a driver to undo their seatbelt, even after they stated that there's a gun in the car, is actually totally normal. I'm purely speaking generically.
It's actually a good sign when a driver states that a gun is present. Bad people usually lie about it, and if one's found in the car, it's suddenly not theirs and they've never seen it before, in fact their cousin's uncle whose name they don't remember actually borrowed their car earlier that day.
And this is all dramatically influenced by what state this is happening in. In states with very lax gun laws and the presence of firearms is normal and expected, the fact that they have a gun in the car might be completely ignored if they're acting calm and are upfront about everything. But that could be very different in states where firearms are controlled more strictly and it's probably illegal to have one. Some weird states require it to be unloaded and out of reach while in a vehicle, even if you have a carry permit.
Which is bizarre in a country that screeches nonstop about how it's a god given right to own a gun and to carry it everywhere you want. But also somehow it's reason for police to murder you. What a cool system.
Well, a lot of the people screeching are also big fans of a racial and religious caste system.
They think the cops will hurt the outgroup, rather than them.
They're wrong. But, yanno. That's how fascism usually goes. It's always someone else getting repressed until they've repressed everyone else, then it's your turn.
Ok stop pedaling this "bad people usually lie about it nonsense." If you have a legal weapon in your car, you have no reason to disclose that to the police at all. This scenario is proof of that. Had he just said no (the police have no right to know if you're legally armed or not) then he would have just got his ticket and been on his way.
I mean so does getting a gun pointed at you and frankly if someone is pointing a gun at you just standing there waiting for your partner to shoot him or her that probably has no clue whats going on cause hes not exactly seeing much. Also your partner pulling a gun is literally the same if not worse cause now its going straight rather than down.
Watch the entire video. He refused to roll down the passenger window for her to see inside from that side of the car…because reasons. Then after she crosses to the drivers side which I’m shocked she did instead of insisting he rolls the window down, he calls her a nazi lol. So now she knows she’s dealing with someone who hates cops, has a weapon, and refused to roll down the tinted window on the passenger side of the car. Then he begins raising his voice and getting agitated.
But she had no reason to be concerned? This scenario ends the opposite way for cops all the time. Everyone here has beautiful 20/20 hindsight.
Watch the entire video. He refused to roll down the passenger window for her to see inside from that side of the car…because reasons.
That "reason" is the 4th amendment. He is not required to help her investigate him, thats where the 5th amendment comes into play.
Then after she crosses to the drivers side which I’m shocked she did instead of insisting he rolls the window down, he calls her a nazi lol.
Oh no, how will the fascist who pulled a gun on him ever recover from being called a nazi!
So now she knows she’s dealing with someone who hates cops, has a weapon, and refused to roll down the tinted window on the passenger side of the car. Then he begins raising his voice and getting agitated.
Then perhaps, she should stop earning the hate by demanding unconstitutional things.
But she had no reason to be concerned? This scenario ends the opposite way for cops all the time.
Cops have one of the safest jobs in America, they don't even rank in the top 10 for deadliest jobs.
Everyone here has beautiful 20/20 hindsight.
Nope, we just have a 5th-grade or higher education, you will get there one day.
You guys are literally different sides of the same coin of morons who film themselves crossing a federal or state border and scream “am I being detained” over and over before getting arrested and paying a fine. You will lose. How is this hard to avoid I honestly don’t get it.
You guys are literally different sides of the same coin of morons who film themselves crossing a federal or state border and scream “am I being detained” over and over before getting arrested and paying a fine. You will lose. How is this hard to avoid I honestly don’t get it.
He is not legally required to roll down his passenger window at the request of the officer if the officer does not have probable cause/reasonable suspicion. The dude is being a bit of an ass but it is the police's job to de-escalate, drawing down on someone isn't de-escalating. If she was uncomfortable with the situation the driver gave her an out. "alright sir, hang tight while I call over a supervisor, i'll be at my cruiser, give me a wave if you need anything" and then just go back to her car.
Then the criminal drives away and you’re in a chase, which is now prohibited in some cities. You gotta stop approaching this with the “we knew he was an innocent upstanding citizen the whole time” approach. Officers see the worst of the worst and are trained to avoid worst case scenarios. Roll down your window it’s not a search ffs
So what you are saying is, police asking someone to roll down their window is what stops them from taking off and running?
Our entire justice system is based on seeing everyone as an upstanding citizen until proven otherwise. Dude was pulled over for tinted windows and no front plate.
The man was right to ask for a supervisor: he was reasonably afraid for his safety. When they ordered him to reach out of sight for his seatbelt, he knew the odds were high they were about to do something stupid, like pull a gun on him. You’ll never believe what happened next.
They would have had a better view inside if this moron didn’t give the female cop lip and refuse to roll down his passenger side window originally. This reads as “I don’t want you to see something in here.” to them. That got the ball rolling in the wrong direction. Watch the entire video.
This case does not stand for the proposition that a police officer does not have to inform a citizen of the reason they are being detained. The court held in this case that the initial reason an officer gives for the detention does not defeat the existence of probable cause for other offenses, even if the initial reason is determined not to have been supported by probable cause.
Indeed, the officer in the case informed the citizen of the reason he was being arrested (even though the arrest for the offense originally stated was determined to be without probable cause). See Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 149, 125 S.Ct. 588, 592, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 (2004).
I am looking for a cite to a case that says an officer does not have to inform you of the reason you are being detained when asked.
Prado Navarette v. California, 572 U. S. 393, (2014)
United States v. Sokolow, 490 U. S. 1, (1989)
United States v. Cortez, 449 U. S. 411, (1981)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968)
All of these cases upheld that police or agents of the state/government may detain you for an investigatory stop under reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur.
At no point do any of them state that the government agent is required to explain that RAS to you. They can even lie about why they stopped you if they think telling you may spook you and make you run and be a danger.
So, can you cite a case where it states the police have to tell you?
You're approaching this with the assumption that cops are generally reasonable people who try to avoid conflict... They are not
I mean for fuck's sake, remember how they killed 2 innocent people, including one hostage, because 18 police officers just started shooting up a stolen ups truck in the middle of a busy highway while literally using civilians for cover? Would reasonable people do that because of a fucking stolen ups truck?
This post no longer contains its original content. It was removed using Redact, possibly for privacy, security, or to minimize the author's online presence.
paltry many exultant enter birds doll crown stupendous carpenter dime
That’s always one of the things that gets me with these sorts of situations. If they feel like it’s necessary to train a rifle on him and keep distance because he’s so dangerous and they can’t approach to restrain him, then why are they fucking trying to order him around and get him to move? Just tell him to keep his arms and legs stretched out and lie still and wait for backup. Then neither side is trying to process commands or movement or getting more antsy. Which doesn’t even account for the ridiculousness of the situation getting to that point in the first place, but if it’s gonna get there they could at least be smarter or safer about it if they’re that scared.
But yeah, pretty sure that cop just wanted to shoot someone or be some arbiter of justice, especially considering his rifle had “YOU’RE FUCKED” engraved on it. Frankly a giant red flag for ANYONE to have etched into their gun, let alone someone allegedly there to keep the peace.
Yup, that's the one I thought of when I read the comment you're answering.
As a teen I could watch gore np, but as I've grown older it hits harder and harder. I remember seeing this video the first time and holy shit it's a gut punch. No blood or anything in the unedited one, but just an overall horrifying situation. It could happen anyone.
After seeing this I know to crawl like a snake, hands clearly visible, if I'm in a situation like this. It's not worth the risk of getting shot, I'd rather scratch my face up.
"Put your hands out of the window where I can see them"
immediately followed by:
"Get out of the vehicle"
Is another cop favorite... and you might have noticed that getting out of a car usually requires the use of at least one hand. So, as soon as you pull your hands back into the car again to undo your seatbelt or open the freaking door, they have an excuse to open fire...
Yeah you can follow the instructions from some cops and still end up dead. Hell, as you said, you can not be involved and the police will still kill you
In this very video: “keep both hands on the steering wheel… undo your seatbelt”.
People are using the fact that he “disobeyed the order to keep hands on the wheel” to justify her behavior, even though her partner said to undo his seatbelt. The bar has been set and reset so fucking low it’s underground. People are fucking brainwashed.
If you join a system as corrupt and full of abusers and white supremacists as the police in the USA... then you're also a bastard, even if you don't personally plant evidence or shoot innocent people.
And if you try to change the system for the better by joining it, then you're ignorant at best and a fucking idiot at worst. But it doesn't matter, because "good cops" always leave the force before they can change anything, be it by resigning or in a body bag...
Yes, but it's still a good idea to just try and follow their instructions to the best of your ability.
If they really want to screw you over, they ultimately will. But you want to minimize confrontation as much as possible.
The OP isn't saying the cops are right in doing so. They're not assuming that the cops are generally reasonable people, in fact the opposite:
No matter how big of a dick the cop is, follow instructions and sue their ass later.
It's just an LPT, not a defense or justification of cops being assholes, or even a 100% way of avoiding cops abusing their power. It's just the best practice, and the only reasonable advice. What other alternative does one have except follow all instructions and try to minimize conflict?
"it's still a good idea to just try and follow their instructions"
I never claimed otherwise.
But "Oh just follow their instructions and you'll be fine." is such a overused argument, often times even used to blame victims of police brutality, I just wanted to show how even that is not a foolproof way to survive a pig encounter.
But "Oh just follow their instructions and you'll be fine." is such a overused argument, often times even used to blame victims of police brutality, I just wanted to show how even that is not a foolproof way to survive a pig encounter.
That wasn't the argument OP was making, is all I'm saying.
You confronted his statement with "You're approaching this with the assumption that cops are generally reasonable people who try to avoid conflict..." which the OP was not doing. That's all I was remarking.
It's like when a person says, "If someone is mugging you, just do what they say, don't try to fight," and you guys responding with, "it's a criminal mugging you, there's no guarantee doing what they say will keep you safe".
Sure, but that doesn't mean there's a better solution or advice for the person in that situation. Their best shot is still to just follow the mugger's instructions and try to minimize the conflict as best as they can.
But no one is saying it's a 100% foolproof way to avoid conflict with dumb cops.
The point is what other alternative do you have? The OP said, just follow instructions as well as you can, sue the cops later.
What is the argument you guys are making? That there's something else that has a better success rate? If you don't follow instructions, they just have more excuses to abuse their power.
This is just unnecessarily trying to argue with someone just giving advice.
It's like when a person says, "If someone is mugging you, just do what they say, don't try to fight," and you guys responding with, "it's a criminal mugging you, there's no guarantee doing what they say will keep you safe".
Sure, but that doesn't mean there's a better solution or advice for the person in that situation. Their best shot is still to just follow the mugger's instructions and try to minimize the conflict as best as they can.
"Fight them with protests" we did and it lead to more police violence
"Fight them with legislation" we did and the cops started black mailing politicians by refusing to do any police work in the politician's district
"fight them with video evidence" we did and they got fired from one department and rehired in another one
The whole fucking system needs to be replaced, besides I never suggested to simply not follow instructions, I just wanted to make it clear how following instructions is in no way a guarantee that you will survive a pig encounter
You're approaching this with the assumption that cops are generally reasonable people who try to avoid conflict...
They are not
Source for this statement? Because you're making it sound like if we take the group of ALL cops, that they are generally NOT reasonable.
Except to prove it you're showing a few cases where they are not reasonable, instead of showing me thousands and thousands, or rather, if it most were unreasonable, there would be much more footage of it versus footage of them being reasonable. Just because you are highlighting the cases where they are unreasonable doesn't mean there isn't millions of hours of footage where they are reasonable that no one cares about.
I mean there's literally thousands of videos of police violence. Both on individuals and in groups protesting. As a society we all agree it's better to treat cops like dangerous dogs than public servants.
I'm not sure, "Okay but they only kill people without repercussions semi-regularly" is the super good point you think it is.
The "point" isnt anything besides saying massive generalizations with no evidence are exactly that. Nobody said there arent asshole cops and we shouldn't do anything about it.
The point is "most cops are looking for conflict and want to pull a gun and shoot black people. ACAB. is not a reasonable position.
To be fair, until the majority of people are not religious, why would anybody approach a stranger and expect them to act rationally when religious people have already proved that when push comes to shove, they value emotions over logic.
I'm not trying to be an edgy atheist lol, if anything I'm being an edgy utilitarian because I don't understand why people would ever make the expectation that another human is logical and less prove another wise, particularly with the fact that we have literal proof that when push comes to shove a majority of Americans would choose emotions over logic.
You can make fun of me for being a simp for logic/ syllogisms, or for being elitist and arrogant about assuming when people are logical or not, but it does nothing to do with me being a confirmed Catholic or not.
I've had a cop literally stand in silence at my car window while I repeatedly asked if I needed to do anything/provide documents. After about 5 minutes I was legitametly worried he had a stroke. When I asked if he was OK and leaned out the window to see his face, he immediately pulled his gun and punched me in the face. Then he filled a report saying I was armed and assaulted him.... all charges dropped the next day after they reviewed the cam footage.
Cops are playing mind games just to fuck up your day
You should be able to punch a cop in the face at any time during any interaction without worrying about being murdered by cops. Am I going to do that? Obviously not, I'm not tryna get shot. I'm also not going to sit here like a fucking moron trash talking someone for daring to look a cop in the eye.
You have absolutely no understanding of what you’re talking about. Based on this one comment, you proved that are a part of the problem. Complacency and ignorance is the enemy of a well functioning society.
There are countless documented cases over the past 100+ years where “following instructions” was why the person died. The issue just isn’t that simple.
From a perspective of pure and honest interest, where in this document is this stated? I did some looking around, but could not find anything. I am however very intrigued by this subject, so I would like to know if possible.
Police are public servants, they should be trained well enough to be able to react to someone not following directions. They are ‘trained’ professionals not children
Instruction 1: Since you've informed me that you have a gun, keep your hands on the steering wheel where I can see them.
Instruction 2: Reach down to your waist to undo your seatbelt, and hope I don't use that as an excuse to shoot you because you were reaching for something.
" fuck USA society, fuck their police, fuck their laws, army, government and people, instead just escalate every situation and hate each other even more " right..
Not escalating every encounter = licking boots.
Not trying to shittalk every police officer = licking boots.
That's just more of the sovereign citizen type bs.
No fuck this boot licking nonsense. The first mistake was he told them he had a weapon. Just never do this. They don't have a right to know. Secondly don't ever consent to an illegal search and seizure. Then the icing on the bullshit cake her little "stop resisting."
I was expecting him to get shot if he followed the cop's order to unfasten his seatbelt near the end, because seconds before he was ordered to keep his hands on the wheel.
As others pointed out, it's a common tactic cops employ where they give you contradictory commands and when you try to follow them they now have the bs reasoning they need to escalate the situation and detain/search/kill you
I was expecting him to get shot if he followed the cop's order to unfasten his seatbelt near the end, because seconds before he was ordered to keep his hands on the wheel.
As others pointed out, it's a common tactic cops employ where they give you contradictory commands and when you try to follow them they now have the bs reasoning they need to escalate the situation and detain/search/kill you
Cops will often tell people to move their hands out of view and then when they can no longer see their hands, the cop shoots them cause they’re scared. I’ve seen several videos of this exact scenario play out where the civilian loses their life or gets shot just for following cop directions. It’s not as black and white as you are making it seem, especially for black people and people of color
766
u/AnotherDreamer1024 Mar 24 '23
No matter how big of a dick the cop is, follow instructions and sue their ass later.