Fergurson

[WalkingWolf]

No, of course not. What a repeat offender who resists arrest deserves is a good butt wooping to convince him that the laws of a civil society apply to all of us and if he doesn't like the laws on taxes or cigarette sales, the proper course is to convince his fellow citizens and/or legislators to change the laws, not to violate them and then resist arrest.

Unfortunately, instead of just a little lesson on civility, he got himself dead. I'm not sure whether to blame the officers using excessive force and/or resorting to force prematurely, or to thank them for cleaning out a bit of the shallow end of the gene pool.

In all fairness, I really do have some concerns about this case. But if you want to resort to bumper-sticker "logic", I can return the favor.

Suicide by cop.

Suicide by cop.

Suicide by cop.

Suicide by cop.

A man with serious health problems chose to resist arrest rather than complying with officers and working it out in court?

Still sounds like suicide by cop to me.

Tragic case, no doubt. But what are we to do if a man is bound and determined to end his own life?

Violate the law, repeatedly, and resist arrest when you know full well you have physical disabilities that make any kind of physical struggle especially dangerous and what I supposed to say when the fully predictable physical struggle results in serious injuries or even death to the person who instigated the struggle?

A society unable or unwilling to enforce its laws, has no laws.

Physical resistance against a cop on the street is tantamount to suicide by cop. Take it to the judge, legislature, or even media.

Charles

The bold is what turns the public against police, it is a disgusting attitude. The courts deal out the butt whippings, not the Gestapo. I hope you were joking when you posted it, if not shame on you.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Well, when pulled over by the cops now I keep my gear shift in drive ... not park ...

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Don't worry about David, JT he has already saved the world many times from the police.

He is a expert on the matter of disobeying and not doing what the police want.

So knowing this the officer would meekly let him drive a away knowing they would lose any battle legally or physically they started.

 

[marshaul]

So knowing this the officer would meekly let him drive a away knowing they would lose any battle legally or physically they started.

Exactly.

 

[OC for ME]

Yeah - - right!
The first thing the LEO will do is to tell you to put it in park and/or turn off your engine. What will you do then? Defy a "police order"?
And if/when you "drive off", you either get shot in the back (hhmm - does this idea have a downside?) or you get additional charges of "assaulting an officer" with your vehicle!

Let us know how that works out for you - - if you can.

Where is it written into your state's laws that your vehicle must be in park after being detained on the side of the road by a cop? In MO I can find no such legal burden placed on the detained citizen. Where does a cop in your state derive the authority that makes that request a lawful order?

 

[WalkingWolf]

Yeah - - right!
The first thing the LEO will do is to tell you to put it in park and/or turn off your engine. What will you do then? Defy a "police order"?
And if/when you "drive off", you either get shot in the back (hhmm - does this idea have a downside?) or you get additional charges of "assaulting an officer" with your vehicle!

Let us know how that works out for you - - if you can.

At least in Virginia shooting in the back could result in a Criminal conviction. In small cases we see justice handed to officers that act negligently. So far South Carolina and Virginia has taken action, not holding my breath though for other states.

This problem could easily be solve in a few years by civil rights leaders. Change the slogan from "No justice, no peace" to No justice, no vote" would do it, and stick to it. Put Hilliary's feet to the fire if she wants to be president. 12% of the vote could easily sway an election, all needs to happen is deny the vote to politicians that do not support throwing criminals in jail. ALL CRIMINALS, and any official that covers up or shirks their responsibility to act should be terminated by law.

 

[Primus]

Where is it written into your state's laws that your vehicle must be in park after being detained on the side of the road by a cop? In MO I can find no such legal burden placed on the detained citizen. Where does a cop in your state derive the authority that makes that request a lawful order?

I'd bet you a box of donuts a jury would see it as a reasonable request when its explained a) it's not normal behavior to leave vehicle in drive when pulled over for any length of time (say 10ish minutes) an officer could testify whats "normal" behavior based on training ajd experience or say.... Couple thousand other traffic stops b) it's a reasonable safety measure for all involved to avoid an accidental slipping of foot off brake and car rolling, either hitting the officer or igniting a chain of events, and finally c) leaving vehicle in drive and refusing otherwise is usually (again from experience) an indicator someone is going to run when you exit and approach (so you have to run your fat a** back to cruiser and Bo Duke across the hood. They don't like fair chases... ).

No.... The above 3 facts/assertions weighed against "I don't want to cuz you can't make me and there isn't no law that does done makes me has to!! ".

Like I said a jury would find it a reasonable request if it was ever brought up.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I'd bet you a box of donuts a jury would see it as a reasonable request when its explained a) it's not normal behavior to leave vehicle in drive when pulled over for any length of time (say 10ish minutes) an officer could testify whats "normal" behavior based on training ajd experience or say.... Couple thousand other traffic stops b) it's a reasonable safety measure for all involved to avoid an accidental slipping of foot off brake and car rolling, either hitting the officer or igniting a chain of events, and finally c) leaving vehicle in drive and refusing otherwise is usually (again from experience) an indicator someone is going to run when you exit and approach (so you have to run your fat a** back to cruiser and Bo Duke across the hood. They don't like fair chases... ).

No.... The above 3 facts/assertions weighed against "I don't want to cuz you can't make me and there isn't no law that does done makes me has to!! ".

Like I said a jury would find it a reasonable request if it was ever brought up.

That is not what he asked!

 

[OC for ME]

I'd bet you a box of donuts a jury would see it as a reasonable request ...

Your response does not address my question. If a cop values the law, then if no indication that...oh, never mind.

You don't get it and you were not placed on this earth to get it...I get that.

Manual transmission...

Anyway. A jury would needs to be instructed that there is no law and the cop not "liking" this fact and his experience don't mean jack if the detained citizen don't "run." Any charges derived from he not liking it would place he and the state at risk for criminal and civil liability. The words used in statute or, the lack of words at all, really do mean things.

 

[WalkingWolf]

And let's not forget that removing hands from the steering wheel to move the shifter would be considered furtive movements. And like reaching for a wallet could get the citizen shot. A good defense attorney could question the officer about furtive movement. Since we are playing what ifs.

 

[Primus]

Your response does not address my question. If a cop values the law, then if no indication that...oh, never mind.

You don't get it and you were not placed on this earth to get it...I get that.

Manual transmission...

Anyway. A jury would needs to be instructed that there is no law and the cop not "liking" this fact and his experience don't mean jack if the detained citizen don't "run." Any charges derived from he not liking it would place he and the state at risk for criminal and civil liability. The words used in statute or, the lack of words at all, really do mean things.

Well of its a manual transmission its completely moot point.

Can an officer ask you to step out from the road way for your safety? Yes. But how? Its not written anywhere. Its not written you have to comply. But its seen as reasonable.

My point is your demand to see that exact request in legalese isn't going to happen. There are literally thousabds of requests not spelled out that are lawful depending on the situation. Kind of (but not the same) as if it isn't illegal then its legal type deal. Except because its police and they do require authority to request it, it falls on would a reasonable person agree and acknowledge that the police have the authority to ask something even of its not spelled out in law. As I said rightly compared to amount of infringement or burden on the citizen.

So burden to put the car in park (if it has park since we have to spell that out) compared with safety aspects previously mentioned. The safety aspects would win every time.

 

[OC for ME]

Well of its a manual transmission its completely moot point.

Can an officer ask you to step out from the road way for your safety? Yes. But how? Its not written anywhere. Its not written you have to comply. But its seen as reasonable.

My point is your demand to see that exact request in legalese isn't going to happen. There are literally thousabds of requests not spelled out that are lawful depending on the situation. Kind of (but not the same) as if it isn't illegal then its legal type deal. Except because its police and they do require authority to request it, it falls on would a reasonable person agree and acknowledge that the police have the authority to ask something even of its not spelled out in law. As I said rightly compared to amount of infringement or burden on the citizen.

So burden to put the car in park (if it has park since we have to spell that out) compared with safety aspects previously mentioned. The safety aspects would win every time.

A cop can ask me anything. The lawfulness of the request will be decided later.

Arrest. 544.180. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.

There is no "detainment" in MO. I'm wondering what having extracted from my vehicle has to do with a burned out tail light.

I am far safer in my vehicle that out of it. You claiming I am safer out of my vehicle than being in it is rejected. A cop deciding what is safe for me is the epitome of arrogance.

 

[The Truth]

Looks like some things are "falling into place" to protect people such as Primus:

https://news.yahoo.com/court-traffic-stop-ok-despite-mistake-law-153424505--politics.html

"Police can use evidence seized during a traffic stop even if it turns out the officers initially pulled a car over based on a misunderstanding of the law, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The 8-1 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts said that such a stop does not violate the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches."

 

[The Truth]

Here's another gem. Let's play "find a way to blame the victim."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/12/justin-cosma-ferguson-police_n_6316630.html

"Lawsuit Settled Involving Ferguson Officer Who Allegedly Choked, Hog-Tied A 12-Year-Old"

 

[Primus]

A cop can ask me anything. The lawfulness of the request will be decided later.

There is no "detainment" in MO. I'm wondering what having extracted from my vehicle has to do with a burned out tail light.

I am far safer in my vehicle that out of it. You claiming I am safer out of my vehicle than being in it is rejected. A cop deciding what is safe for me is the epitome of arrogance.

What?

Who said anything about you being out of the car? Please connect the dots....

I was still on park or no park.... Are you referring to my reference to out of the road request? That was a general example meant to illustrate my point of there being many "lawful orders" that are not spelt out in legalese. No more no less.

 

[Primus]

Looks like some things are "falling into place" to protect people such as Primus:

https://news.yahoo.com/court-traffic-stop-ok-despite-mistake-law-153424505--politics.html

"Police can use evidence seized during a traffic stop even if it turns out the officers initially pulled a car over based on a misunderstanding of the law, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The 8-1 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts said that such a stop does not violate the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches."

People such as what? That are dedicated family men? Guys who volunteer time and services to their community? Gun guys? Short guys? White guys? Combat veterans? College students/graduates?

 

[utbagpiper]

The bold is what turns the public against police, it is a disgusting attitude. The courts deal out the butt whippings, not the Gestapo. I hope you were joking when you posted it, if not shame on you.

What is deserved, and who should mete it out are two different things. I've NEVER suggested cops should violate rights nor otherwise act as judge, jury, and executioner. And with that settled, I doubt anyone on this list who is fully honest hasn't often thought that what some low-level scofflaw really needed or deserved was a bit of a butt whooping. Or did the RKBA community suddenly get populated by those who were aghast that Singapore might actually cane someone for vandalism?

I do believe that duly passed laws of the land should be, must be obeyed until such time as we change them. I believe "civil disobedience" while carrying a gun is foolish, counterproductive, and very dangerous. If someone is going to engage in civil disobedience, I believe that non-violence, non-resistance is the only course acceptable.

I don't care for some of the military tactics used these days. Even though I do not support legalizing pot nor other recreational drugs, I see no need to kick in doors over a few plants for personal use. But when a crime does come to the attention of the police, I expect them to be able to effect arrests even if someone doesn't want to be arrested. If compliance is not forthcoming with verbal orders, some moderate force is warranted.

"Halt! Or I'll yell 'halt' again," isn't all that funny.

I don't know whether the cops used excessive force in this case or not. I do know that anyone with health conditions that make any kind of force dangerous who gives cops any reason to use any force at all is a damned fool and if not "suicide by cop" then something darn close.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

repeat offender of selling individual smokes ... excellent. Hitler would be proud.

Wow. Immediate invocation of Godwin's law.

You lose.

Charles

 

[WalkingWolf]

Wow. Immediate invocation of Godwin's law.

You lose.

Charles

Telling others they lose is as dumb as claiming to win. It is only in your mind.

 

[utbagpiper]

Telling others they lose is as dumb as claiming to win. It is only in your mind.

And comparing anyone here to Hitler is more stupid than either and a whole lot more offensive.

But that didn't seem to bother you nearly as much as me typing "you lose".

Why?

"You lose" is quite commonly typed when someone is so immature as to randomly bring up Hitler or the Nazis. It doesn't mean anyone has "won". It means the person invoking Hitler/Nazis has removed himself from all serious consideration in the discussion. It is shorthand for "If that is the best you've got, there is clearly nothing lest to discuss with you." Given my well known penchant for verbosity, I should think you, of all our posters with a gift for brevity, would appreciate rather than condemn such usage.

Charles