Lawsuit: Virginia police officers threatened man during stop

[CJD]

(04-15-2021, 07:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It'd amazing that you can ascribe so many reasons for him to not comply, but can't seem to fathom even one reason for the police to believe this was a high risk traffic stop.  You keep glossing over this point, he had to be instructed to show his hands around ten times before he finally complied.  Give him the benefit of the doubt for the first five, which is excessive, that still leaves five more before compliance. 



I've been in two instances in which the vehicle I was in was topped and the police had us at gun point.  In both scenarios everyone complied as instructed in a timely manner and they both ended completely peacefully with zero issue.




This statement is borderline insane and indicative of just how much anti cop propaganda has permeated our society.



There is zero logic to this.  If he really thought the police wanted to kill him, why would he not follow their commands and make them even more suspicious of him?



Ahh, human emotion for the guy pulled over, but not for the police who could very possibly have feared they were being set up.  I've mentioned before, and everyone ignores, an insane amount of felony arrests occur during routine traffic stops.  In fact, a traffic stop is one of the most dangerous things an LEO can do.



That's odd, because my friends and I managed to comply with officer's instructions under the exact same set of circumstances.



Except this guy didn't "shut down" he continued to argue with the officers and tell them why he refused to comply.




Got it, so now everyone has license to act a damned fool when held at gunpoint by law enforcement.  That kind of excuse making won't have any far reaching consequences at all.




Yes, it is always best to be slow and deliberate.  It is also best to follow all instructions in a timely manner without argument.

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.



Look, I get what you're saying.  However, if the police already believe the stop warrants high risk tactics then failing to comply only reinforces that position.  In both instances in which my friends and I were stopped the police were looking for another similar vehicle.  I know this because on one of them they flat out told me as they were wrapping up and the second because after they stopped us, we left our friend's house about ten minutes later and passed the exact same type of car pulled over by multiple units with gang members six gang members all on the curb cuffed up.  So, you have no idea why the police are responding the way that they are.  In 9,999 cases out of 10,000 if you've done nothing wrong and comply you'll leave the situation completely unscathed in any way.


Again, you assume a lot.  If the police feel the need to execute a high risk stop it's not your job to debate with them about why it's not necessary.  Just do what you're instructed to do.  You may have a point though, all the anti-cop propaganda may have affected this Lt. to the point where he's not able to act rationally when stopped by the police.

It isn't anti-cop propaganda to believe that police should treat people they pull over as humans. I did not see humane treatment in the video I saw, so I am judging it based on that understanding of the situation. You say I'm assuming a lot in favor of the one pulled over and not for the cops and you are correct. Like I said, the ones in power are responsible for the situation, not the powerless. If the police behaved humanely, I don't think this is news at all. The man would be "non-compliant" in the face of reasonable police work and he'd look like a fool. But they arguably did not approach him reasonably, they definitely did not treat him reasonably once they did approach him and now are being judged based on that.

You are hyper focusing on the high risk stop behavior. So, let's say they fear he is armed and dangerous. So they pulls guns on him immediately, yell immediately etc. Let's assume that this was 100% correct and in protocol. That still doesn't answer the question of why, once they identified that he was clearly not a threat (his hands were out, he was obviously not armed and was trying to speak to them calmly) did the police continue to be escalating, aggressive and violent, culminating in macing the man? Your argument for treating it as a hostile stop completely falls apart once they identified he was not hostile and still treated him as a hostile suspect.

Unless, of course, you are equating not doing everything the police say out of fear (as the man clearly stated once they actually approached his car) with violence and hostility.

Which I hope you understand is an absurd stance to take.

To me, it seems as though they were offended that he didn't comply with their commands, despite being completely non-hostile, so they assaulted him out of spite, not good police practice. And that tells me that the hostile approach was probably also unnecessary. You call it assumption. I call it interpolation. If they were aggressive and violent after identifying they weren't in danger, it's hard for me to believe that they ever actually believed they were in danger to begin with.

I will say that this applies mostly to the second police officer, the one whose camera footage we have. The first cop did actually seem like he was trying to de-escalate. He was doing it poorly, but he at least seemed to be trying. The second cop was the one who was escalating and ultimately the one who assaulted the man. But the first cop still did not reign in his escalating co-worker, so I can't fully excuse his behavior either.

Can you accept that olive branch?