Lawsuit: Virginia police officers threatened man during stop

[CJD]

(04-15-2021, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It may the first thing you see, but the first thing you hear is the initial officer ordering him to show his hands around ten times.  He's not reissuing the command because the Lt. is complying.  So, before you "see" anything you have two repeated acts of non-compliance, failing to pull over (which we have addressed) and repeatedly failing to follow instructions to show his hands.  If the initial officer wasn't justified in thinking the stop was high risk initially the repeated non-compliance subsequent would rather justify his thinking, at least in the moment.

Like I said, we didn't see what he was doing. Maybe the cop said "show me your hands" so he put them up (like "I surrender") inside his car. Maybe he was just confused and scared because they were already barking orders at him before even approaching him. Maybe he put one hand out. Maybe he tried to talk to them (like a normal person would) thinking it was a misunderstanding. There are hundreds of reasons why someone wouldn't immediately just stick their hands out of their car after being pulled over that aren't aggressive or hostile actions. 

I've been in a car that has been pulled over a total of 3 times in my life. All three times it was night time. All three times, the cop approached the driver side window. All three times the cop was calm, polite, asked for what you'd expect a cop to ask for, we would have some mild conversation, then he'd ticket/give us a warning and leave. I've never had a gun pulled on me, especially not from the very outset of the interaction and I've never had a police officer yell at me. I don't know what I'd do in that scenario but it likely would not be a perfect interaction from my part. You can see even after he has his hands out of the car, the man is begging the cops to just calm down and talk to him. But the police continue to escalate more and more and more and more to the point where they're literally just assaulting him. "He didn't open his door while doing nothing else hostile or aggressive, so we maced him" is not a thing that any one should even think about defending.

Quote:As stated, this was wrong, but it comes after repeated non-compliance with lawful orders.  Let's not pretend that this was the first thing that happened, because it wasn't.  Not even close.


I'd like to think you wouldn't be in that position to begin with because you'd have complied with initial instructions.  You're also ignoring his refusal to leave the car because, as he stated, he "doesn't have to".  This is false.


Again, you ignore the undeniable fact that this "threat" came well after repeated non-compliance.


Again, you ignore the undeniable fact that he was repeatedly non-compliant well before the "threat" was made.  He tried to argue and debate with the officers over what he would and would not do.  I've acknowledged wrong doing by one of the officers.  None of you on the other side of this argument have acknowledged any wrongdoing by the Lt., or how he greatly contributed to this scenario.  If you think the police were initially wrong to initiate a high risk stop, fine.  But the Lt's actions subsequent would have gone a hell of a long way towards justifying their initial impression of the situation.

I am not ignoring his non-compliance, I am contextualizing it. Like I said, if I was in this situation I would think these cops are insane and out for blood. They are not behaving like human beings and they definitely weren't treating him like a human being. They were treating him like a criminal piece of garbage, so it's not surprising that he wouldn't do everything they said.

We could say "he should have just done everything the police said" and, you are correct, the stop would have gone much more smoothly than it did here. But that hypothetical completely cuts human emotion out of the interaction and that's not something I'm willing to do when we're literally talking about a life or death situation for this man. You can't expect someone to behave rationally when you are threatening their life. I know you said he was "non-compliant" before the threat, but you're referring to the verbal threat. They had already threatened his life before they said a single word, as far as we can tell, by pulling their guns on him before even approaching the car. As soon as a cop pulls his gun, that's the threat. It can be nothing other than a threat. "I am prepared to kill you if I don't like what you do, so think very carefully about your every action during this incredibly high stress moment because every movement may be your last if I'm a twitchy person." is the message that is conveyed by a drawn weapon. That alone is enough for some people to completely shut down and not think or act properly.

This is exactly why I think open carry should be illegal in all states. The sight of a gun is a tangible, real and active threat to every person in the vicinity. It should be a last resort to pull a gun, not the opening move. So I'm not ignoring his non-compliance, I am understanding why he was non-compliant in the face of a mortal threat.

Quote:Not following initial instruction is unreasonable.  Let's go with your position in full, that the Lt. was in fear for his life from the very beginning, well before a "threat" was made.  If you're worried about being shot by police, why would you ignore around ten commands to put your hands out the window of your car?  You yourself stated you would make your hands visible and then not move them at all, for any reason.  While I understand the logic of that position if you are legitimately in fear for your life your whole position falls apart for the Lt. when he initially refuses to even show his hands.  What would you, as an LEO, think about someone who refuses to show their hands, what are they doing with them?  What are they preparing to do with the hands they refuse to show you despite being ordered to do so numerous times?  Your argument about being in fear falls apart from the very beginning because refusing to show your hands is not the action of a person who is afraid of being shot.

In one of the times that I was pulled over, the police asked for my driver's license. I gave it to them and they walked back to the car. I realized that they didn't ask for, and I didn't provide, my proof of insurance. For a brief moment, I was about to stick my arm out of the window with the POI in hand and say "hey, do you need this?" but I stopped myself because I knew that sudden motions could be misinterpreted by anyone and when that anyone has a gun, they could shoot you. I literally imagined myself sticking my arm out the window and my hand being shot off. That thought went through my mind. So I didn't move. So yes, I think him not sticking his hands out of the window, even when it was commanded, does not disprove the defense that he was in fear of his life. He has probably been trained through years of experience and stories about police that they treat sudden movements, even ones they command, as a threat and they MAY act on it. Maybe he was scared he'd put his hands out too fast and they'd "misinterpret" his actions and "think" they see a gun in his hand and open fire. No matter how slow he does it, he can't control their perception of his actions. Especially since they are already at 100, possibly unhinged and dangerous. 

This all ties back into the power dynamic between cops and the people they pull over. The person who is pulled over has no power. The cop has all of the power. While his statements of not wanting to come out of the car may have been technically illegal (The whole "what do you have to do when a cop approaches you" is a much debated topic and I think the written laws and the applied rules are often not the same), they are understandable given this gigantic disparity in power between the two parties.

When there is such a large power disparity, it is the responsibility of the ones with the power to control the situation. (We could have a broader conversation about power dynamics and how they affect interactions between different types of people and what the expectations of the powerful and powerless parties are, but that could begin to get a bit non-sequitur). These police CLEARLY did not, from the very outset. So you may interpret this as me not understanding what you're saying, but I do understand that he "did not comply" with the police. I just disagree that he should be expected to to the degree that you expect. If he were hostile and aggressive and attacked them, sure, use force. But he showed no signs of being a threat, even in his non-compliance, because he clearly just wanted to talk them like humans and he expected to be treated like a human as well. In fact, I think him mentioning that he was a veteran was his attempt to snap them out of their rage. Maybe if he humanized and related himself to them, they'd realize how irrational and dangerous they were acting and calm down.

Unfortunately for him, the police did not have that same desire.