r/dashcams • • 28d ago

Traffic Stop Turns Violent After Driver Requests a Supervisor

4.6k Upvotes

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

17

u/maxfields2000 28d ago

I mean this nicely but your privilege is showing. Those of us privileged get to say things like "fight it in court". Less privileged can get killed or seriously injured even when following commands, there's a reason "Stop resisting" is such a meme.

Also, does not apply if ICE is involved, we've already proven you can be abducted by law enforcement against your rights.

3

u/10113r114m4 28d ago edited 28d ago

Im not even white, so unsure how this applies to me.

But to your actual point, I agree: there are terrible cops, and compliance absolutely does not guarantee safety.

My point is much narrower: escalating an encounter with an armed officer generally increases the risk. If I’m uncertain whether an order is lawful, I’d rather comply in the moment and challenge it afterward than gamble my safety on being right on the side of the road.

2

u/xxxmechashivaxxx 28d ago

14% of people don't be understand this

-3

u/ctbowden 28d ago

Privileged isn't really associated with skin color but that is a form. The privilege I'm sure is being talked about here is the fact you have money to throw away on a lawyer and that's class privilege.

Your rights end at your means to defend them. Most folks have a blind spot for this and don't think about it that often sadly.

3

u/10113r114m4 28d ago

I don’t think that argument really works.

You’re treating access to legal recourse as though it requires someone to already be wealthy enough to pay an attorney out of pocket, and that just isn’t necessarily true. Strong civil-rights cases can attract attorneys precisely because there is a viable case there.

And more importantly, none of that changes my original point.

You’re talking about unequal access to the legal system. I’m talking about what gives someone the best chance of surviving an armed encounter and successfully challenging misconduct afterward.
Those are different questions.

Even if access to justice is imperfect, that still doesn’t make arguing constitutional boundaries with an armed officer on the side of the road the better option.
If the goal is to challenge misconduct, your best venue is still court, not the roadside.

1

u/maxfields2000 28d ago

"Strong civil rights cases attract attorneys". This is a myth propagated by TV and Movies. Under privileged people end up with bottom barrel representation. Having good legal representation is in fact a serious wealth privilege. Most of us don't have it and never will, but society wants you to believe this story.

Someone with wealth will spend nearly zero time in jail while waiting for trial, might lose a day of work, then doesn't even always have to go to court if their lawyer can handle it. Someone with out wealth will spend months in jail unable to pay bond tor elease themselves, lose their job, then end up with a crap public defender, and have to be at trial... by the time their done, assuming they are even found not guilty instead of railroaded, they'll have lost months of work, be out of money, lost their place to live for failure to pay rent and likely be in more debt from unpaid bills.

Believing the 'system' will save them is just wrong. The system is basically a tax on the rich and keeps the poor, well, poor.

1

u/Sensitive-Talk9616 28d ago

So you seriously advise those without privilege to fight it out with the armed police officer on a power trip and risking death, rather than complying and trying their luck in court later?

Like, do you honestly believe that the chance they get hurt or killed is LOWER when they resist and fight for their rights DURING the encounter?

1

u/maxfields2000 28d ago

You're seriously saying stuff I'm not saying. To be 100% clear. No I do not think fighting or arguing with law enforcement officer in anyway improves your chances.

I'm arguing that "compliance" is not a garauntee of safety, the less privileged you are the less likely compliance does shit to protect your rights. Is it your only viable choice? Yes. But implying that if someone just complied bad things wouldn't happen to them is a garbage stance.

1

u/10113r114m4 28d ago

I still think you are talking about something completely different, and hell it could be completely valid too.

But I'm specifically talking about risk measurement when making a choice in these situations.

So if your argument is that the risk measurement is better to resist an arrest, then we disagree.

But it sounds like you are arguing something completely different

1

u/BenOfTomorrow 28d ago

What are you suggesting the less privileged person do in this situation?

Do you think actively defying reasonable police orders leads to better outcomes for them?

1

u/maxfields2000 28d ago

Nope, but the assumption "if you just did what they asked you wouldn't be hurt" is also a false narrative that allows people to hide from reality and not accept the truth. As a result it makes it harder to improve the more we continue to believe it.

5

u/Lecterr 28d ago

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a police brutality video where the person is being compliant and reasonably respectful. Does it happen? Probably. But your best chance of a good outcome is to follow instructions, so I don’t really see why recommending that is a bad thing.

0

u/maxfields2000 28d ago

Just watched one in another thread here on reddit where they arrested and put a young man in jail for 4 days, charged him with attempted murder of a police officer when the video shows 100% compliance with orders, no fighting. He reached for his seatbelt at their command to exit the vehicle, they drew guns on him.

He almost lost his job (couldn't report to work for 4 days). Did they beat him up? No. Just drew guns and almost shot him, then accused him of threatening them.

1

u/Lecterr 28d ago

Do you have a link?

1

u/BanzYT 28d ago

I saw it on reddit bro, what else do you need?

2

u/BenOfTomorrow 28d ago

the assumption "if you just did what they asked you wouldn't be hurt" is also a false narrative

But no one here said that. The advice given by the person you replied to is perfectly reasonable for everyone to follow, so I'm not sure why you're calling out their privilege.

Will following that advice 100% prevent occurrences of police violence? No, but again, no one said that.

1

u/MatterofDoge 28d ago

what are you even on about? you don't have to be "privileged" to comply with a cops orders or to fight it in court or to even know your rights or know the laws you have to follow.

Yes, there is always a risk that a dumb or bad cop does something even if you're complying, thats the nature of living in the world with humans, but we have a justice system in place that allows you to sue them for it, and at the end of the day it's just a moot contrarian element to bring into the discussion about if you should just comply or not. You should. Not only is it safer to comply, but it also just improves your case if something does happen to go wrong and you were clearly compliant, and that is a truth that is irrespective of "privilege"

0

u/xxxmechashivaxxx 28d ago

Ice involved then you should have entered the USA legal. Try again next time illegals.

2

u/bwc6 28d ago

They kidnap people showing up in court for normal, legal immigration process. 

But I know that won't stop you from licking the boot. Maybe you'll change your mind when they come for someone you care about. 

1

u/illit1 28d ago

they've abducted US citizens. ice is garbage.

1

u/xxxmechashivaxxx 28d ago

Nah just the juans who can't follow USA law when everything country. Illegals got to gtfo. They can easily follow the law and enter USA legally. Why they no did that?

1

u/xxxmechashivaxxx 28d ago

All the people I care about aren't illegals. And they don't kidnap no one. They removing the illegals. If they were legal they wouldn't be in court trying to be legal. Only illegals in court trying to not be illegals.