Ridiculous Police News (Specific events)

[Ksandra]

I've seen reports that the encounter was actually closer to around 15 minutes of the guy refusing to show ID to the cops, but your link only starts about 2 minutes before they break the window. Maybe I'm just full on tinfoil hat, but it feels like people are purposely provoking the police (hence the tons of video footage out there), but they very rarely show the beginning of the encounter and just the "OMG, the cops are picking on me" moments.

irrelevant imo.

Think about it. It takes two minutes into the video before the cop breaks the glass. Let's say, the first 15 min of the video the guy reaches behind him 10 times and acts like a raving lunatic. But then acts calm for two minutes straight, why break the glass THEN, instead of before?

I could maybe MAYBE see it if he reached to the back and the cop did it right away to stop him. But, no, wait two minutes? Reality is the cop was pissed and had enough. But then admit that's why you did it, don't throw in you thought he had a gun. That's just bullshit.

[Thunder]

So isn't the issue that cops are just regular guys who are about as insecure, angry, ill-tempered, frustrated, etc as the next person?

I was on the other side of the argument but I don't get why a cop should be held to a higher standard than a regular person who also gets upset, lashes out, and then tries to weasel out of it. If they were held to a higher standard people would, imo, be literally idiots for going into that job market

Yeah, I get that their mistakes, lashing out, impatience, etc costs people money, physical health, and mental health. But SOMEBODY's going to be the one with the badge on and until police officer isn't a job people can get into right out of high school that somebody's going to be an ordinary person who makes mistakes, doesn't have saintly patience, and imo generally sucks.

Idk how the prestige can be raised for cops (I see the same issue with teachers in america and europe outside of the north/east countries) without getting away from the gov. being behind it. Which would be ludicrous to propose. There's just no reason to hire better and pay more when you're the only game in town and you can only use taxpayer money or donations

[Qalbert]

jesus christ

[NynJa]

Theyre held to a higher prestige because they have the power to turn your life around and stick your ass in jail for months or years (if black: execute you in broad daylight).

[Thunder]

You mean standard. There's as much prestige for being a cop as there is a teacher, firefighter, plumber, or electrician.

If you want to hold them to a higher standard than a regular person (actually hold them to it, not like it is now) then why would anyone be a cop? You're making shit money relative to the amount of work you need to put into being someone who doesn't get angry or make mistakes on the job

[BaneTheBrawler]

because that's what being a professional is. if you don't hold yourself to a higher standard you're just a layman.

[Nephlite]

because that's what being a professional is. if you don't hold yourself to a higher standard you're just a layman.

Can't stress this enough. We can handle a massive amount of abuse before shit goes wrong. Those who don't need to get weeded out.

On that same token, regardless of how you feel the police can conduct themselves, you can't reasonably expect anyone, regardless of training, to take so much abuse before you have to respond to their behavior.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b8d_1413049025

Case and point. At a certain point, that person has to go to jail for resisting an officer and refusing to show identification. What do you do? Verbals eventually do not work and people just don't listen. I say police don't do things as much as people think, but from my experience, this is almost routine behavior to resist like this. Don't take my word for it though, I'm just some guy.

[Acevalefor]

And that is a problem. I do not believe you should have to identify yourself unless it is pursuant to an arrest or part of a criminal investigation where you are suspected of criminal activity. Not just "we might arrest you" but "we are going to arrest you for this specific crime". Being a passenger in a car is not a valid reason for an officer to demand identification. I have personally challenged this and the officer backed down. This was in Oregon, to cover the "different states" thing. I am not resisting an officer unless that officer has reason to arrest me before he ever asks for ID. The Officer cannot create or escalate a situation to create the circumstances for resisting arrest.

This is in my perfect free world of course.

[Salodin]

And that is a problem. I do not believe you should have to identify yourself unless it is pursuant to an arrest or part of a criminal investigation where you are suspected of criminal activity. Not just "we might arrest you" but "we are going to arrest you for this specific crime". Being a passenger in a car is not a valid reason for an officer to demand identification. I have personally challenged this and the officer backed down. This was in Oregon, to cover the "different states" thing. I am not resisting an officer unless that officer has reason to arrest me before he ever asks for ID. The Officer cannot create or escalate a situation to create the circumstances for resisting arrest.

This is in my perfect free world of course.

This is the problem. The cop didnt have to back down, he could have asked you to get out, and if you resisted he could have arrested you.

If you don't agree with it , fine, but you don't get to go picking and choosing which laws to follow no matter how ridiculous you may feel it is. If you're disobeying a law, there are consequences (if the cop chooses to enforce them).

[Meresgi]

And that is a problem. I do not believe you should have to identify yourself unless it is pursuant to an arrest or part of a criminal investigation where you are suspected of criminal activity. Not just "we might arrest you" but "we are going to arrest you for this specific crime". Being a passenger in a car is not a valid reason for an officer to demand identification. I have personally challenged this and the officer backed down. This was in Oregon, to cover the "different states" thing. I am not resisting an officer unless that officer has reason to arrest me before he ever asks for ID. The Officer cannot create or escalate a situation to create the circumstances for resisting arrest..

It's well within their fucking rights to demand ID from you, especially after making a traffic stop. They didn't just stop you on the street for no reason, even if you were not the driver you are still in that vehicle. I would assume it looks mighty suspicious to them when you don't want to even tell them who you are first of all. Most of these guys are doing a 9-5 (or w/e their shift is) job and you're just being a fucking dick to them. There's no reason you can't pull out your wallet and just show him the ID and give him a thank you and a nod. Like Salodin said, he could have made you get out and against the car, frisked you and made your life and the driver's a living fucking hell, especially by taking it out on the driver and pegging him for every fucking infraction he could under the sun.

[Nephlite]

And that is a problem. I do not believe you should have to identify yourself unless it is pursuant to an arrest or part of a criminal investigation where you are suspected of criminal activity. Not just "we might arrest you" but "we are going to arrest you for this specific crime". Being a passenger in a car is not a valid reason for an officer to demand identification. I have personally challenged this and the officer backed down. This was in Oregon, to cover the "different states" thing. I am not resisting an officer unless that officer has reason to arrest me before he ever asks for ID. The Officer cannot create or escalate a situation to create the circumstances for resisting arrest.

This is in my perfect free world of course.

During a traffic stop, you are required to provide your driver's license (I.D.) as it's a requirement to be carrying a driver's permit if you're operating a motor vehicle. If you do not, you can be arrested. Some states allow you to receive a citation if they verify you do have a driver's license and it's valid, but that's very rare. The police can also tell you to step out of the vehicle, and in fact, can have all the occupants step out of the vehicle. Pennsylvania V. Mimms is the brief on this. The officer also has the right to identify everyone in the vehicle if he so chooses.

Also, resisting an officer is synonymous with failure to obey a lawful order. He doesn't have to have a reason to arrest you before giving the order. As long as he's within his jurisdiction, on duty, and the request is not unreasonable or does not put you in reasonable danger, it's a lawful order.

[archibaldcrane]

His request was lawful not because the guy was simply a passenger, but because the guy was breaking the law regarding wearing your seat belt.

That's why he was required to identify himself. Saying "my name is John Smith" is sufficient (if that's your name).

[Acevalefor]

1. In the case I was speaking of, I was a passenger in the car. Not the driver. It was enough that I told him I was a legal US citizen and I had done nothing wrong. He was reasonable and respectful just as I was.
2. I wasn't a dick to anyone, so chill Meresgi.
3. The officer can only have one or all of the occupants step out of the vehicle if it is reasonable, necessary, and safe to do so. It has to meet all three of those requirements.
4. Every one of you missed the part where I said I disagreed with some identification laws and it was in my own perfect world where I only have to identify myself if I have done something illegal.

I haven't had any problems declining to answer questions when asked. I don't have to tell you (the officer) where I am going, where I am coming from, who I know there, or any other information not related to why you pulled me over. You pulled me over for having a headlight out. Write me the fix-it ticket and we can both be on our way. I have never been pressed and the situation did not escalate because I answered with a polite decline to give him (her in one case) that information. I understand they are trying to gather information for various reasons. It is voluntary though.

Also, resisting an officer is synonymous with failure to obey a lawful order. He doesn't have to have a reason to arrest you before giving the order. As long as he's within his jurisdiction, on duty, and the request is not unreasonable or does not put you in reasonable danger, it's a lawful order.

There is another of the many problems with police and the laws that govern their actions. You can create an illegal action out of thin air if you so choose. If an officer walks up to me and orders me to show him identification, At that moment I am breaking the law in your town if I so much as tell him I don't have ID and question why he wants to know who I am. MOST cops would never do this shit and would have a reasonable answer. After the reasonable answer, I would comply, but we have spoken time and time again about cops being human, having a bad day, etc. It can happen and it's bullshit. In fact, there is a link somewhere in this thread where a guy was arrested for resisting arrest. Really?

I have had an officer demand my identification with his hand on his gun (holster unsnapped partially drawn) before. I didn't dare take my hands off the steering wheel. I told him my name, told him I was fearful for my life because he had his hand on his gun, and asked why he pulled me over. He refused to tell me and demanded ID. I requested a supervisor at that point. In my head, I was trying to figure out how I could gtfo if he drew his gun on me. It was tense for a couple minutes but he held his peace until another officer rolled up and showed the nervous rookie how to talk to people and be reasonable. Turns out they were looking for a bunch of kids who were shooting cars with paintball guns in the neighborhood. That was really hard for him to tell me apparently. And a 30-year-old male with a female passenger and small kids in a mini-van look a lot like a bunch of teenagers in a SUV..... I could not imagine how that incident would have gone down if I was black.

[Nephlite]

His request was lawful not because the guy was simply a passenger, but because the guy was breaking the law regarding wearing your seat belt.

That's why he was required to identify himself. Saying "my name is John Smith" is sufficient (if that's your name).

Exactly. You don't have to present I.D. in this case, simply telling us who you are is sufficient, just like a regular street contact (unless your jurisdiction requires you to carry I.D. at all times).

I haven't had any problems declining to answer questions when asked. I don't have to tell you (the officer) where I am going, where I am coming from, who I know there, or any other information not related to why you pulled me over. You pulled me over for having a headlight out. Write me the fix-it ticket and we can both be on our way. I have never been pressed and the situation did not escalate because I answered with a polite decline to give him (her in one case) that information. I understand they are trying to gather information for various reasons. It is voluntary though.

Absolutely 100% correct, and the correct way to do so. Don't be an ass about it, be respectful, and most of the time, you'll be free to go without any problems.

There is another of the many problems with police and the laws that govern their actions. You can create an illegal action out of thin air if you so choose. If an officer walks up to me and orders me to show him identification, At that moment I am breaking the law in your town if I so much as tell him I don't have ID and question why he wants to know who I am. MOST cops would never do this shit and would have a reasonable answer. After the reasonable answer, I would comply, but we have spoken time and time again about cops being human, having a bad day, etc. It can happen and it's bullshit. In fact, there is a link somewhere in this thread where a guy was arrested for resisting arrest. Really?

There's a difference between a lawful order and a reasonable one. I can lawfully tell you to move along, but under the 4th Amendment, I cannot reasonably (or lawfully) demand your I.D. without reasonable suspicion. This is a tricky business where many laws conflict, converge, and parallel each other on the basis of context and within reason. If you unlawfully disobey my command to move along, and I can reasonably articulate the circumstances behind the order and you refuse, you just committed the act of "Failure to Obey". It's not about making up illegal actions out of thin air. It happens just that quick and without any context behind the order.

I have had an officer demand my identification with his hand on his gun (holster unsnapped partially drawn) before. I didn't dare take my hands off the steering wheel. I told him my name, told him I was fearful for my life because he had his hand on his gun, and asked why he pulled me over. He refused to tell me and demanded ID. I requested a supervisor at that point. In my head, I was trying to figure out how I could gtfo if he drew his gun on me. It was tense for a couple minutes but he held his peace until another officer rolled up and showed the nervous rookie how to talk to people and be reasonable. Turns out they were looking for a bunch of kids who were shooting cars with paintball guns in the neighborhood. That was really hard for him to tell me apparently. And a 30-year-old male with a female passenger and small kids in a mini-van look a lot like a bunch of teenagers in a SUV..... I could not imagine how that incident would have gone down if I was black.

There's no obligation for the police to tell you why they stopped you. I can request your I.D. while you're driving and not tell you why. This is a common misconception about traffic and I dunno who started it, but it's wrong. You handled the situation very well, though and I don't blame you for doing so. It's not you that get's shot. It's the ones who go crazy and make sudden/unexpected movements during a stop that gets shot the most.

Also: I always have a hand on my gun when I approach a vehicle. Vehicle shootings on the approach are the most common OIS.

[Acevalefor]

I don't blame you for approaching a vehicle with your hand on your gun. We have had 3 OIS in the last year in the Portland area where the officer was killed. 2 of them were regular traffic stops. Where I had the problem was; his gun was partially drawn already and he would give me no indication as to why he was behaving that way. It was all made clear and I understood his nervousness after the other officer approached the vehicle (he was cautious but did not have his holster unsnapped), identified himself, asked for ID and, while I was getting my ID, explained why I was pulled over. It was excellent deescalation and professionalism.

There's a difference between a lawful order and a reasonable one. I can lawfully tell you to move along, but under the 4th Amendment, I cannot reasonably (or lawfully) demand your I.D. without reasonable suspicion. This is a tricky business where many laws conflict, converge, and parallel each other on the basis of context and within reason. If you unlawfully disobey my command to move along, and I can reasonably articulate the circumstances behind the order and you refuse, you just committed the act of "Failure to Obey". It's not about making up illegal actions out of thin air. It happens just that quick and without any context behind the order.

And that is much different than walking up to a guy sitting on a park bench, demanding he turn around and assume the position, then tackling him when he gets confused and doesn't respond fast enough for you. After tackling him, the officer can be heard telling him to "stop resisting, I'm arresting you for resisting arrest." All while the officer has the guy pinned to the ground with his arms under him, now with the help of other officers and the guy cannot put his arms behind his back because he has 400 lbs. of officer laying on him. In that altercation, the police created the circumstances that lead to the arrest of an innocent citizen.

If I challenge your orders for no reason other than I have my camera out and want to catch you doing something wrong, You have every right to be a dick to me and put me in cuffs for failure to obey. If I simply ask you why I can't stand in Pioneer Courthouse Square or why I have to tell you who I am, that is not resisting as you already know. You get what I am saying though. I don't have to explain any more. I know how to speak to someone politely and professionally.

[Quicklet]

unless your jurisdiction requires you to carry I.D. at all times

A quick google search suggests that no such constitutional law exists. Obviously driver's license is required for driving, and other forms of ID may be legally required as proof of identification in some instances, but I have never heard of any laws that would allow an officer to arrest a pedestrian or passenger for not having a physical ID on them. The closest I can think might be the Arizona immigration law which was ruled mostly unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Of course, you still have to identify yourself to an officer, but that's different from them having a valid reason to detain/arrest you for not showing ID (not that they can't just make up some other reason if they want to detain someone).

[Ghost_Wheel22]

I don't blame you for approaching a vehicle with your hand on your gun. We have had 3 OIS in the last year in the Portland area where the officer was killed. 2 of them were regular traffic stops. Where I had the problem was; his gun was partially drawn already and he would give me no indication as to why he was behaving that way. It was all made clear and I understood his nervousness after the other officer approached the vehicle (he was cautious but did not have his holster unsnapped), identified himself, asked for ID and, while I was getting my ID, explained why I was pulled over. It was excellent deescalation and professionalism.

Opened strap and/or hand on gun =/= partial draw

[Acevalefor]

Opened strap and/or hand on gun =/= partial draw

I know this. It was partially drawn. He had his hand on the gun and pulled it partially out of holster, finger on trigger guard half a second from being ready to fire.

[Nephlite]

A quick google search suggests that no such constitutional law exists. Obviously driver's license is required for driving, and other forms of ID may be legally required as proof of identification in some instances, but I have never heard of any laws that would allow an officer to arrest a pedestrian or passenger for not having a physical ID on them. The closest I can think might be the Arizona immigration law which was ruled mostly unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Of course, you still have to identify yourself to an officer, but that's different from them having a valid reason to detain/arrest you for not showing ID (not that they can't just make up some other reason if they want to detain someone).

Yup. At least in America, it's very, very rare. I think the only exceptions are Military installations, Protected Federal Lands, and tribal areas.

[notorious bum]

As Denver faces a string of police brutality cases, a federal jury has awarded a historic $4.6 million in damages to the family of a homeless preacher killed while he was in the booking area of the Denver jail. Marvin Booker died after he was grabbed and then piled on by a team of officers who handcuffed him, put him in a chokehold and tasered him. The coroner ruled his death a homicide, but prosecutors declined to charge the deputies involved, and Denver Sheriff Department officials never disciplined them, saying Booker could have harmed someone and that force was needed to restrain him.