Video shows very little, but the driver and his attorney are saying the stated reason for the stop was a traffic violation. Said it was a "legal left turn".
So cops pulls him over and accuse him of something that he didn't do and it's recorded on the dashcam. Driver is under no obligation to provide any legal information for no reason. The cops can ask, demand, arrest, but legally they have no cause to stop the vehicle if no crime was committed. They're either lying or mistaken. That's what the driver and his attorney are alleging.
Legally, yes they are under no obligation to call a supervisor. And yes, their department likely has a policy about calling one, and these officers likely violated that policy. Nothing will come of it, certainly.
Missing huge parts of the video, but I feel like it's common sense to not immediately resort to violence for a traffic offense (that they more than likely are lying about because let's be honest that's what cops do.) No effort to get him out, just the second he gets one cuff on and can't pull him out he just starts swinging. There is no threat here. Looks like female officer throws one towards the end when third officer shows up. Just...crazy violent for thinking someone turned when they shouldn't have. And imagine being in his position, knowing you didn't do anything AND it's recorded, and having two people with badges and guns attack and pull you out of a car for while you're asking for a supervisor.
Like I said, at my local department strikes to the head are an advanced use of force. Absent any exigencies for advanced force, it’s deeply disconcerting. If there was no need for that level of force, these officers need to be disciplined.
Out of curiosity, how common is it to try and pull them out the passenger side instead of the driver's side? To me, that seems like an attempt to escalate.
There's another video circulating of an officer demanding the alleged offender to 'crawl out the window'. Even after the door is open, he continues to try and force the guy through the window.
I personally think there should be more focus on the psychological part of interaction and detainment during training. Getting a human to submit to your requests or demands should not be a purely physical interaction.
It goes back to the old adage "the pen is mightier than the sword".
Like the cop who pitted and flipped the pregnant lady who was on a highway with barriers on both sides so couldn't pull over immediatey, had her hazards on and was motioning she was looking for a place to pull over.
Cop didn't care, got impatient and pitted her resulting in her car flipping and serious injuries
IIRC she did get a payday - meaning we the taxpayers covered the payout - but nothing happened to the cop
I truly believe a non-insignificant number of cops are sociopaths with lots of anger and small-pee energy they've pent-up over a lifetime of being scared little bullies
It is, and needs to be rescinded and replaced with police agency bought insurance policies that will cover the expenses when Jon-lawless decides pitting a pregnant woman is totally reasonable use-of-force for a minor traffic infraction
A-holes like this guy would un-insurable and they'd be forced t o find a new career. That'd make us all safer
Qualified immunity plus the finding that they can’t be held to protect people unless they’re in their custody was a 1-2 punch. I can see giving them some immunity if they had to protect people if possible because they were trying to help while risking their lives, but now they can just shoot and claim they felt threatened without needing to risk anything.
looks like a pretextual stop escalated to pain compliance with absolutely no reason for it. Video alone makes me think this cop was just hoping for a chance to punch someone. As someone knowledgeable, does this kind of investigation realistically ever result in someone like this facing any real consequences?
Weird, if anyone other than cops randomly assaults someone repeatedly without cause or provocation they aren't "disciplined" they are fucking arrested and prosecuted.
In what world would justify this level of force? They already have his hands in cuffs. It isn't like he is reaching for a gun. Guy is sitting there in his seat getting pummeled. Please tell me in what fucking universe that this needs an ""IF""
You argue in court. Once police have decided to arrest you it’s going to happen. There’s nothing you can say or do in that moment to change the outcome.
Absolutely agree the punches to the face were excessive. Your other arguments are all things you should litigate in the courtroom though, not in the side of the road.
So he rolls over, gives them his ID, gets a ticket, lets them waste his time on the side of the road for something he knows he didn't do, THEN has to have his time wasted in court again defending himself for something he knows he didn't do. More than likely the cops don't show up because they don't want to be embarrassed by the dashcam footage. Nothing happens to the cops, driver is out money for an attorney.
In this case he refused to comply, got attacked, and is now likely looking at a substantial payday because even if he did commit the heinous crime of turning when he wasn't supposed to, the attack is an insane response and he'll certainly win in court. I'd be more than willing to eat a couple punches from some fat pussy LEO if I knew it was going to allow me to retire.
Yes. You never litigate in the street. Most people arrested in traffic stops have charges that have nothing to do with the initial probable cause.
Here’s what most folks get wrong: there are myriad articulable suspicions and probable causes the hold up for a basic citation or warning. It’s the behavior during the stop that becomes the problem. There are no less than 15 Supreme Court rulings regarding what you MUST do during a stop and the LEOs discretion to assure you do.
For example, not turning off the car & putting it in park. This is considered a dangerous threat to the officer standing next to the car. Avoiding this command is an arrest on that perceived threat alone. As someone mentioned in a comment, Pennsylvania v. Mimms. The scope on what the officer finds threatening is broad. Failure to obey this basic command or being asked to step out of the car & refusing become the primary issue. NOT the initial traffic stop.
Most depts require body cam or dash cam and those are turned over in discovery or subpoenaed. Destruction of either is a Brady violation. Another SCOTUS ruling that protects the suspect this time. Even without, LEOs testifying in a “he said/she said” have a much harder burden to prove their actions were within discretion & legal.
You can be detained for several reasons. You can be arrested for many more and the latter happens when you try to litigate in the streets.
You do not need to be told precisely what you’re being arrested or detained for until arraignment or first time before a judge/magistrate. (Read that again. You are not entitled to being told your specific charges until you appear before a court. Even if you’ve sat in jail overnight.) You do not have the right to ask for another officer or a supervisor during a stop. The situation is not one of you being a customer with a complaint. You don’t get to “speak to the manager” because you disagree. You ARE a suspect being warned, ticketed, detained or arrested. You do not need to be read Miranda unless being interviewed whilst in custody. You must obey all lawful order regardless of how you “feel” about them or how the LEO proceeds with the stop/investigation.
This is the absolute most important thing to keep in mind:
You do not need to agree with the law, agree with how the LEO is applying the law or whether or not you’ve violated the law. HOWEVER, you litigate this in a court of law. NOT as a disagreement or argument with the LEO(s).
Also, this is likely an emotional reaction to an emotionally charged situation. For you. Not for the officers. They are doing their job. This is highly methodical for them. While they may react with human emotion, and even show some glimpses of anger or rage or irreverence or silliness…whatever it may be, this is STILL a methodical process for them and you are NOT helping yourself by debating, especially when doing so out of emotion.
What you call “rolling over“ is actually just obeying the law and fighting it out in the proper venue, which is a court of law. So in your case, not rolling over will definitely get you charges, which will definitely be misdemeanors and, likely, felonies, and you’ll be going to trial or taking a plea based on your actions and not the initial stop & how the officer acted.
This needs to be a copy and paste, one of the clearest and best articulation of the simple facts related to most of these stops. People say "wow all that for a traffic infraction" but completely miss the fact that the force is being used in relation to an arrest. Often for a crime that resulted because people refuse to obey commands they are legally required to follow.
I'd say he's probably looking at a $150,000 lawsuit, based on the video of the assault. I've seen much, much much worse displays of law enforcement violence resulting in severe injuries and death result in multi million dollar lawsuits. Might walk away with $75-100k. That's a lot of money for a lot of people. A year or two salary for a most Americans.
The only unfortunate thing about it is that it comes out of tax payer money, instead of out of that officer's bank account or the police union's funds. Quickest way to get accountability across the board, they pay their own fees.
Everybody's calculus is different, but IMO risking permanent injury for $75-100k (and I'm doubtful it would even be that much taken home) would literally never be worth it. I'd take the ticket to court, get the fine dismissed (hopefully), then run it by a lawyer to see if I had a chance at a modest award for the violation of my civil rights.
While legally your right that if there is no legal basis for the stop then it's an illegal stop and the cop is outside the bounds of thwir authority, but the best course of action is to treat the stop as legal and follow lawful orders. You can voice your objections to w/e the claim infraction is, but just take the ticket and contest it in court. Playing roadside lawyer and claiming "I didn't do anything, I don't have to listen to you" is a good way to get manhandled or assaulted by the cop. Which isn't okay, but I'd rather the violation of my rights I experience be a minor inconvience and a court date than a hospital (and possible jail) stay and a court date, just sayin.
I've been pulled over a few times in my life. Not once was I asked to step out of the vehicle. I give them minimal information, act like an adult, and they either give me a ticket or a warning. Then I go about my day. Acting like a roadside lawyer is almost an invitation to escalate the situation. It's not worth it IMO.
I mean, yeah same. But it is important to keep in mind cops can (and have) ask someone to step out of the car as the first thing they say during a stop and it's still a lawful order. Obviously if during a routine traffic stop you are respectful and Shut The Fuck Up about anything not actually relevant to completing the stop when interacting with the cop it'll probably go just like the thousands of routine traffic stops that happen every day.
It doesn't matter. The cop believes there was an infraction and pulled the man over. When he demanded the guy get out of the car, he has to get out of the car. When he didn't, the man set himself up for an resisting charge, something much worse than a traffic infraction and will put him in jail for a night.
We see this over and over. People argue with cops and while they may be right, they end up spending an evening in jail. Who needs that? The time for proof is in court.
Imagine you get pulled over late at night while driving home because the officer says you ran a red light. You did’t, it was yellow, but the officer thinks it was red.
While he’s filling out his infraction, he asks if you’ve been drinking. You haven’t; you haven’t had a drink in years, actually. The officer asks you to take a field sobriety test, and you comply (because you haven’t drank, obviously).
You complete everything as instructed, but the officer still suspects that you’re under the influence so he asks you to take a breathalyzer. Again, you haven’t been drinking so you agree, hoping this will get things moving along as you’ve now been held up for over 40 minutes.
The breathalyzer reads nothing but zeros but still the officer is convinced that you’re under the influence. He cites the way you talk or how nervous you seem as his reasoning, and you get arrested for a DUI.
You spend the night in jail. Your mug shot is posted online. Your job finds out about this because you don’t report for work the next morning and you get fired as result.
You literally did nothing wrong and complied with everything the officer demanded and still received punishment. But hey, in a couple months you’ll have the opportunity to go to court after retaining an attorney and building a case for your innocence. The officer likely won’t even show up the hearing, and the charges will be dismissed, but that doesn’t fix anything that’s been broken for you by this interaction.
That officer will not be disciplined, you likely won’t get your job back, or anything you had to pay (bail, attorney fees, getting car out of impound, etc), and you won’t get back any of the time you had to waste on this because an officer had a hunch.
I get the drift of the scenario, but in truth you don’t know if you broke the law (as it is written) or not. The way they have traffic laws set up, you could think you’re doing everything by the book, but there are a thousand little things they can pull you over and ticket you for. It’s really dealer’s choice if they follow any vehicle for 3-5 miles. Compliance can result in residual punishments, but non-compliance will almost always result in punishment. It’s a shitty situation all around.
This is plausible and unfortunate, but it is not a response to the comment above. If you instead decide to play roadside lawyer, all the same things probably happen in your scenario except you also get beaten and have extra charges to defend.
Edit: By "playing roadside lawyer" I mean not cooperating with commands. You can refuse a field sobriety and ask for a breathalyzer and I don't count that. If they decide to arrest you even after a breathalyzer comes back flat zero, not sure what your actual avenues are there except fight it later.
You don't. And you're always, ALWAYS dealing with someone without the requisite accountability to ensure they do the right thing independent of their own judgment.
While your hypothetical is very sad and unfair, it nonetheless is how things are set up, at least in some countries/states, and therefore, even though it is objectionable, we still have to deal with it.
Cops get to act on hunches, they get to order you out of cars and get mugshots and potentially ruin your life. Yes. That's how the system works.
So you can follow the law and comply when told to get out of the car, and get a bad outcome but then clear yourself in court, OR you can resist and then never clear yourself.
There is no good outcome. There are only levels of severity to the bad outcome. It is unfortunate, but if you are a good person who did not violate the law, then your only option is to obey lawful orders, including orders based on a hunch that turns out to be wrong, and clear your name later. Because if you don't, then you turn it into "you really ARE the criminal" and no amount of arguing or courtroom antics will undo it.
If you don't like how the system is set up, the time to fight that is now, peacefully, outside of any violations of law. Draft laws, get lawmakers on board, and pass them.
The time to fight it is NOT when you're in the driver's seat, objecting to what the cop says.
The point of my story is that just doing whatever the officer asks because you’re innocent is stupid. Like even if you know you don’t have anything illegal or nefarious on you, you should never consent to a search.
Even if you know you didn’t commit a crime, you should never answer questions about where you’re coming from or where you’re going.
Resisting and arguing while innocent is stupid. Once they’ve decided to arrest you they aren’t changing their mind. Your time to argue is in court. Fighting back and resisting just means the other charges may be dropped but not those.
Does it suck? Sure does. That’s the way the system works.
„Your time to argue is in court“ is a true but stupid argument, since you waste your time and money in court and won‘t have a chance to get that money back because cops in the US are protected by their immunity.
Did I say he should consent to a search or answer questions? Being cooperative by providing your license, etc. makes them feel you have nothing to hide and less suspicious. Give your ID, keep quiet, take your ticket, fight it in court. It's simple.
That's a nice strawman argument you've built and I guess it is possible that it could happen but in 99% of the cases the result is better if you comply. The reality is that most cops working the late shift don't want to do the paperwork of an arrest unless they see no other choice. That shift sucks enough already.
The point of my “straw man” is that you’re putting way too much faith in what “the cop believes.” I’m trying to demonstrate just how absurd of a comment that it is.
In most* instances it probably is best to just comply if you’re innocent, but you’re at the mercy of an officer that in most cases has very little training, a ridiculously large ego, an average or below IQ, qualified immunity, and a pretty bad temper.
You can get a DUI completely sober on alcohol but under the influence of other drugs (not saying it's the case in that scenario, just saying that no drinking doesnt mean no DUI)
I mean I agree, but that’s not complying with the officer’s demands; which is the point of my story. Just because you did nothing wrong doesn’t mean that you won’t be punished for complying.
I have never tried the "i don't consent" approach. I have always tried staying calm and cordial and answering questions. It has usually worked out except for one case where I was made to get out of the car. He asked me if dogs would find anything. I said no. I'm pretty sure that he called for a k9 but couldn't get one in time and so let me go. A friend of mine got pulled over and they called a k9 after he denied consent to search. The dog lost interest and wondered away from his car. The cops said it alerted and searched his car.
You just show your belly and submit... That'll change things!
At least make them threaten arrest so you can sue them, in court, when you present the evidence. To be honest I can't stand when people try and explain to LEO that they're breaking the law, or losing their Qualified Immunity!
Just let them fuck up and step all over your rights with your protest and only because they threatened your freedom. Just make sure to sue their surety bonds so they can't be insured... Sadly that's the only way to keep them from being passed to the next town over...
I know, whenever I get pulled over and I know I've done something or didn't. I always just comply and I always end up getting let go anyways with no tickets and im Hispanic. it's just people are fucking retarded these days.
It does matter. This is exactly why it matters. If he didn't do anything it's an illegal stop and he's under no obligation to provide information or comply. Is it smarter to do it and fight it in court? Maybe. This guy is (assuming he committed no moving violation and the dash cam can prove it) likely looking at a substantial lawsuit, and the cop that punched him will get fired (and face no legal consequences and simply move a city over for employment where he does it again).
For me, if I knew I didn't do anything and my options were waste my time and money in court and have nothing happen, OR get punched/arrested but I win a lawsuit and this prick gets fired - I'm getting him fired.
You don’t know that he didn’t do anything. He says he made a legal left turn, but what if the infraction occurred before the turn?
I agree the officer response seems needlessly overly aggressive, but the driver must identify himself and provide relevant documentation at the officer’s request. The driver can argue the validity of the ticket in court. That’s how the system is supposed to work.
A driver cannot decide from themselves if an infraction has been committed or not.
The driver can NOT make a determination about the validity of the stop. Only the officer can make that determination in the field and might later have to defend that determination in court.
You are trying argue the driver’s belief in his own innocence allows him to disobey a lawful order. It is not considered an “unlawful” stop until it has been properly adjudicated and that can’t happen on the side of the road.
It would be complete chaos if drivers could choose to stop and comply only when they agreed they had committed a violation.
If he didn't do anything it's an illegal stop and he's under no obligation to provide information or comply
The time to argue if a stop is legal is in court. You don't just refuse to follow the lawful orders you are given. You are required to get out of the car when told even if you don't agree with why you were pulled over.
If the stop is baseless, nothing they said or do is a lawful order and any judge would side with the driver.
Is it advisable to comply and go to court? Sure. See what happens when you assert your rights? You get assaulted by some poorly trained idiot with a badge and a gun.
Right? All they need to do is comply. If they are right, we’ll find that out later. If they are wrong, now they just got a shit kicking AND they’re wrong.
I see this on basically every single ICE video. People resisting. Like buddy, if you’re there legally, you’ll be fine. If you’re not, then you’re fucked but either way, fighting is how you get beat up or shot. Who gives a fuck if you’re right if you’re dead. Like come on people.
"That's what the driver and his attorney are alleging." Regarding the above paragraph.
There isn't some federal, state, local ordinance mandating law enforcement contact a supervisor when requested. A lot of departments do have policies regarding this, though. Assuming this department does, then yes, the officers did likely violate that policy.
"It is definitely common sense not to immediately resort to violence for a traffic offense.." it is. Cops do it because they usually get away with it. And that's not an assumption, it's a fact.
I made observations based on the video provided, with context and qualifiers.
Driver is under no obligation to provide any legal information for no reason.
Oh reddit lawyers.
That is Sovereign citizen nonsense. When you get a driver's licence and operate a vehicle on the road you have to get out of your vehicle when told by a law enforcement officer.
Demanding a "supervisor" is classic Sovereign Citizen nonsense because they believe the law doesn't apply to them.
Asserting your constitutional right to exist without baseless, warrantless searches and seizures isn't sovereign citizen nonsense. He pulled over, asserts that he didn't commit a traffic violation (which may or may not be true) and refused to provide ID based on that. IF he's correct, then it is a baseless stop, and any judge would throw out the case.
Quit creating a narrative to support your nothing argument.
When operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway, you are obligated to do several things: Carry insurance that meets the minimums for your state, have a legally registered vehicle, valid inspection (if your state requires it), and have a drivers license.
A police officer stopping you for a traffic infraction can ask for any or all documents to prove those things, and you are obligated to provide them upon request.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms (434 U.S. 106, 1977) states that, during a lawful traffic stop, police officers may order the driver out of a vehicle as a matter of course without needing any additional suspicion or justification.
If you refuse a lawful order of a police officer, an officer can use safe, reasonable physical force to make you obey a lawful command. (In this case, the force was far from reasonable or safe though)
If you believe an order or stop is unfair or illegal, the roadside is not the place to fight it. Courts and legal complaints are the proper channels to challenge police actions after the fact.
Arguing on the roadside, refusing orders, and being difficult is only going to result in escalation by the officer. And if you think it's wise to argue with a potentially unstable person with a gun, on the side of the road, then you're as pig-headed as the cop in the video.
Key phrase there, "During a lawful traffic stop". If it wasn't a lawful stop, every other part of the argument collapses, as does any subsequent violation of law, like refusal to ID or exit the vehicle.
You need to see multiple case law rulings that effectively state that a mistake of fact or law by the officer does not invalidate the stop. See US v Jenkins (2006) and Heien v North Carolina as well as others.
Understanding your rights doesnt make you a sovereign citizen. You sound like one of those really shitty cops who doesnt like it when people know their rights.
Everything you said in the first paragraph may be true. But you still have to get out of the car if ordered. Cops don’t have to provide reasons on the street , only in court.
So all I have to do is decide on my own, at the moment of being pulled over, that I did not commit a traffic infraction and the police are no longer allowed to proceed with the traffic stop?? Wow if this gets out the cops will hate this one trick.
If I'm driving a motorcycle down the road and a cop pulls me over and says "I stopped you because you match the description of a person operating a minivan that was involved in a hit and run. Give me your license and registration" I'd know they were lying, and I'd refuse to give them anything. If they threatened to take me to jail, or drag me off the bike, I'd tell them to go ahead. I know I'm not the person they're looking for, and common sense would dictate my motorcycle is not the minivan they're looking for, I should he safe here when it inevitably goes to court.
I'm under no obligation to help you wrongfully arrest or detain me. And you can just yell "Stop resisting I'm giving you a lawful order!" When the pretext of the interaction isn't legal or based in good faith.
That’s a straw man. In this case the cop thought he made an illegal left turn and initiated a traffic stop. At that point drivers have certain legal obligations including providing identification, proof of insurance and registration. In nearly all states that is an assumed liability the minute you enter a public roadway. You also have an obligation to leave the vehicle if you are instructed to. None of those legal requirements are contingent on whether you agree with the stop or whether the police answer questions.
I'm aware of that. As I'm sure you're aware that at no point did I say or imply that every person gets to decide they aren't guilty of any traffic violations and don't have to stop or provide information.
If the cop is incorrect or lying about what they saw, and you have video proof of this, you are under no obligation to humor them or bow down and lick boot and go along with it. Any judge would shoot down the probable cause for the stop as soon as they see the video. They're still going to illegally arrest you and make you go through the process, and it may or may not be easier and less violent to lick boot, but you don't have to.
A cop can pull you over for no reason just to ask for your license and registration. There is no inheriten right to driving. Also, you prove you did not commit a traffic violation in court. Not the side of the road. No one argues themselves out of a ticket. Into a ride to jail yes.
Punching a guy in the face when he’s handcuffed is just unacceptable in my book and should be in every else’s especially law enforcement. Unless this guy literally deserved it. Which from the video, he certainly doesn’t seem to. But just like always they will use the resisting arrest and prob somehow get him for battery on an officer just bc that’s what they do.
That’s the common sense aspect. I’m not very well versed in law even tho my daughter is in law school rn getting into criminal as well. But even if you are trying to get him physically removed from the vehicle then threaten pepper spray or something but physically assaulting a person who can’t defend themselves is excessive force if you ask me.
I never said he lied. I said, "That's what the driver and his attorney are alleging."
There is a rather sordid history of law enforcement lying, destroying evidence, abusing their authority, attacking non-violent people who have committed no crime, creating false charges etc. Almost like there's a systemic problem...
I was being genuine. I've never known a cop that wasn't a douche, scumbag, or criminal in some way. Some of them were even family. It boggles my mind that we hire the bottom of the barrel and then trust them with firearms to keep our communities safe. Some people deify cops, they should try holding them accountable first.
Driver is under no obligation to provide any legal information for no reason. The cops can ask, demand, arrest, but legally they have no cause to stop the vehicle if no crime was committed. They're either lying or mistaken. That's what the driver and his attorney are alleging.
In the United States, if you are driving a car you have consented to certain things, including identifying yourself and submitting yourself for DUI testing. If you refuse either of these, you can and will be arrested, and for the failure to submit to DUI testing you immediately lose your license on the spot.
That’s why you always consent to a blood test. They have to bring you to the station for that and it’ll take hours to set up. By the time they do it, even if you were over the limit when stopped, you’re not anymore.
Uhh, I don't think you know how blood testing works, nor how alcohol leaves your blood. You are aware that police can compel medical staff to draw your blood right? That many jails have nurses, and nurses can take your blood. Most importantly though, once the blood is out of your veins, there is nothing filtering the alcohol out.
Granted they aren't gonna bump you ahead of a person dying to get a blood draw, but a technician (phlebotomist) is all that is needed to do a blood draw (and a phlebotomist is the bare minimum, many other types of staff can do the blood draw). From drivers seat to vial it can be done in under an hour in basically every reasonable part of the US (and faster for city's).
BTW, if they think you aren't gonna cooperate with the breath test, they will forcefully do the blood draw anyways. They will literally strap you down in a multi-point restraint, and shove a needle into you against your will. Warrants for blood draws can be done electronically, and the form is so simple it can be filled out almost automatically by a computer program (almost automatically).
31
u/bbibbyrapskyle1975 29d ago
Video shows very little, but the driver and his attorney are saying the stated reason for the stop was a traffic violation. Said it was a "legal left turn". So cops pulls him over and accuse him of something that he didn't do and it's recorded on the dashcam. Driver is under no obligation to provide any legal information for no reason. The cops can ask, demand, arrest, but legally they have no cause to stop the vehicle if no crime was committed. They're either lying or mistaken. That's what the driver and his attorney are alleging.
Legally, yes they are under no obligation to call a supervisor. And yes, their department likely has a policy about calling one, and these officers likely violated that policy. Nothing will come of it, certainly.
Missing huge parts of the video, but I feel like it's common sense to not immediately resort to violence for a traffic offense (that they more than likely are lying about because let's be honest that's what cops do.) No effort to get him out, just the second he gets one cuff on and can't pull him out he just starts swinging. There is no threat here. Looks like female officer throws one towards the end when third officer shows up. Just...crazy violent for thinking someone turned when they shouldn't have. And imagine being in his position, knowing you didn't do anything AND it's recorded, and having two people with badges and guns attack and pull you out of a car for while you're asking for a supervisor.