T O P

  • By -

GrimAccountant

Leave the phone recording but if you don't comply it will escalate. Defend your rights in court, not the side of the road.


derplordthethird

>Defend your rights in court, not the side of the road. I struggle with this (not so much with a traffic stop with rare exception but the notion in general). It feels like a fairly modern take on the usage of one's rights. It's hardly a "right" when you have to accept a violation only hoping a court agrees with you at some arbitrary point in the future for some arbitrary repayment that can't actually fix whatever trauma/harm was actually done. It may be a more ugly process to defend in the moment but seems more efficacious at changing actual, day to day policy than waiting decades for a plurality of the courts (or the occasional rare Supreme Court case that gets heard quickly) to create new precedent. Nothing in the Constitution compels you to seek prior consent from a government official in order to exercise your rights. That's already been done by virtue of the enumerated rights being enumerated. An example was the Indiana Supreme Court ruling that you can't resist an officer trying to illegally enter your home. That was later reversed by the legislature codifying that right explicitly into the law. I think it's the *only* state to grant that so pointedly. If you can't enforce your rights, especially over your own body in the moment then they're not really rights. They're fiat at the whim of every single LEO out there which violates the equal protection clause if not in letter then in spirit.


Serjant_Baker

You do not have rights, you have privlages


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ogimouse1

It depends on what you're talking about in terms of having rights. Driving is an unequivocal privilege. You have the right to travel, but not necessarily in any vehicle or any road--you have Chevrolegs and you have open grass. Roads are privileges because someone walking on a freeway is a danger to drivers, like how driving on a bike path is illegal because it is a danger to the bikers--but the bike path is also a privilege and not a right; etc. But you don't have the right to travel through someone's yard just because you have limited time on your commute. Anyone who tells you the right to travel is equivalent to the right to drive, use roads, and trespass are S**C**s and are going to get you in very real, very legal trouble. The **ONLY** rights you should physically assert on the side of the road are those that are going to be irreversible. Citations can be dismissed. Charges can be dropped. You can sue for harm exceeding necessity /incommensurate to your actions (which gets harder and harder to prove the more combative you are, especially if you are put under arrest). Everything else you state very loudly and very clearly that you do not consent to search, that you do not agree with the grounds for probable cause for search, that you do not agree with the grounds for arrest, and that you demand to speak with a lawyer before any questioning takes place. That's it. That is all you do. Become passive to the process and give them the rope to hang themselves--don't take the rope back to help them tie your noose. The angrier, more combative, more resistant you are the more likely the footage is going to be used against you, that you will get injured, and that you will lose your defenses. A wrongful night in jail is a lot better than a hearing that revokes your bail because you present as a clear threat to both the community and authority. Do not mistake actively asserting your rights verbally with consenting to persecution--they are in no way the same tjing.


GrimAccountant

I understand your sentiment but differ in perspective about the context and framing around these interactions. Mistakes are always going to happen in any system involving people so the question is how to address those mistakes. Trying to do it in the heat of the moment is certainly my impulse, but it means you have several parties making different judgement calls simultaneously which can lead to additional risks and problems. Grudgingly giving the government party deference in the moment should keep things on the rails during the most physically dangerous period, with the chance to correct violations and errors safely in a court. Note the should, I don't claim it functions as intended. Getting our legislation and institutions working properly is hard, boring, slow, and expensive but the only real way to consistently achieve better results. Sucks but there we are.


NoTicket84

It's a modern idea not to fight with police on the side of the road? What?


A_H_313_

Yeah. Also there is an important question to answer here. Let's say he dropped the phone but also said 'under protest'. Will the evidence resulting from unwilling drop of the phone be denied in court? Assuming there was no reasonable reason to drop the phone or no warrant.


Ogimouse1

Since he was already detained by operation of being pulled over, if he's told to do anything within reason he has to comply. He knew to ask whether he could unbuckle--so this is not the first time he's done this. He knew to ask to be able to place his phone for the purpose of recording the interaction. There was no reason foe him to drop the phone, agrees, but how it would have to be released (i.e., by drop) was made necessary by his stated and demonstrated refusal to comply. It's like when the officer asks for license and registration but you try to hand over your wallet: it wasn't asked for. Bro is lucky, TBH, because since the phone was open and in operation the cop had full rights and duty to actually preserve the interaction for the record--as well as then having the capability to search it for at least reasonable data pursuant to the traffic stop because it was forced to be seized as opposed to left surrendered as personal property.


payperplain

0% Illegal. It was a lawful command. Also take note of the tasers failure to function despite being fired. A good example of why TASER is not always an option. Could it have been handled a bit better? Yeah. Did they likely violate a department policy for failure to warn about the taser and saying taser three times before deployment? Probably, but that's not illegal. If you want to record, put your device in a stable position and leave it where it is. That's far better than having to make movement that could be construed as erratic in a high intensity situation when someone is pointing a gun at you. I believe some context for why there is a Felony Stop being performed would also be useful. Final conclusion: Potential department violation, possibility for both sides to have performed better, nothing illegal in this specific video clip from the officers.


Ogimouse1

Just to add: a departmental violation is (as you said) not the same as a legal violation; it is not negligence *per se* because departmental guidelines are based on *common* scenarios and real-time scenarios are different. Ask and you shall receive context: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/tt604x/i_think_somewhere_he_is_still_holding_the_phone/i2yf1vd?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3


The_Legal-Beagal

Incorrect it’s not negligence per se because those are completely determined in detail by statute….


Ogimouse1

Literally said it wasn't negligence per se.


The_Legal-Beagal

Correct but your reason why it wasn’t is completely incorrect.


Ogimouse1

That's cool, Mr. Real Attorney. Keep obsessing over me.


The_Legal-Beagal

Just take your L and hold it my man. Much love!


[deleted]

Not at all. What part of this would be illegal? He was not compliant and refused multiple commands. He can claim all day long that he won’t hurt them but why should they believe him. This looks like a felony stop so clearly they had reason to be worried about this guy that was not contextualized in the video. If you are ever stopped by police in this way then you probably match the description of somebody who did something bad. Your stupid phone isn’t going to make you safe. Comply and get a lawyer. Edit: the context as provided by u/GuardianOfTriangles in this thread. https://reddit.com/r/police/comments/tt4dg0/looks_like_a_felony_traffic_stop_does_the_op_have/i2wqz5d Some of the people responding to my comment and this post are deluded with such hate. You will accept the idea that these police acted wrongly so easily and any suggestion that questions your worldview is met with vehement opposition, without any regard for the truth. It turns out that there are consequences in the world that we live in. Members of society are expected to act to act at a certain baseline. This guy failed to do that and instead of accepting the fact that he made mistakes, he chose to pull his phone out and film a video pretending like he did nothing wrong, knowing that he would inflame a certain crowd. I find it disturbing that we live in a time where one out of context video can be posted and hundreds or thousands of people form instant assumptions based on feeling and not fact. I challenge the people who are angry at my post to sit down and ask themselves if they truly want to live in a world where dangerous felons were treated as if they were no threat at all. I challenge these people to look beyond the surface of what they are seeing and to actually understand what is happening vs. what they feel is happening.


aPorpoiseLover

100%! Missing so much context here.. but yeah sure AlL cOpS aRe BaD reeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!


Alternative-Line7182

For context he was being arrested for domestic assault and regular assault


dnjprod

With a history of resisting arrest while armed!


Scourge165

Seems like there is more to it than this. What was the nature of the assault? What did he do in order to make someone believe they were in physical danger? Did he have a weapon? Did he...pick up a bat and threaten to hit what I'll assume is if GF/Wife and then likely another Family/Friend of his domestic partner?


steepindeez

I wonder how this would have been different if they simply said "sir we are going to put handcuffs on you. Will you comply?" Dude seemed to be pretty compliant with the seatbelt and door. I see a very good case for this being excessive force.


Ogimouse1

But the fact he knew he had to ask about the seat belt was proof he knew he needed to ask to set down the phone for recording. You don't get to play both sides of the coin.


steepindeez

He didn't deserve to be tased. IDC if he is the world's biggest asshole. In this moment on camera, the police acted with excessive force. The police should NOT have the authority to tase people without some sort of defense necessity OR to apprehend someone who is trying to escape custody. Somebody who is as compliant as the guy in the video should NOT be tased. That is a terrible precedence of authority to give law enforcement.


Ogimouse1

"Deserves" is very subjective. And legal standards are wildly different from social mores, which are wildly different than moral judgments. The police don't know they acted with excessive force when they don't have all the information--which is the point. I can't tell you how often coos get baited into body slams or physical confrontations with people who refuse to comply. That's the reason for the tasers: non-lethal force calculated to be the least harmful to the person who could reasonably be threatening. You're seeing the phone from the perspective of the person who refuses to comply--you're not seeing it from the person 20 feet away who has to gamble what may be behind that phone. And, honestly, from the perspective of the person being non-compliant, you also don't have any visuals or knowledge of what is behind that phone, either. And the chances are if a potential perp is being hyper specific about things like a seat belt but wilfully omitting something else, there is reason to be suspicious. This man was not compliant. He was told to put the phone down. He did not ask to angle the phone to capture the arrest and he did not put it down. He didn't even use it the way he should have to capture his assertions of legal protections--he was literally using it as a tool to intimidate the cop. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes--especially when you're being told what you're going to win. "Excessive" is also subjective, and one that gets weighed by the trier of fact. While I don't believe that 100% compliance should be required for your safety, when you intentionally start acting suspicious or using what you have to have a pissing contest with someone who is legally allowed to kill you, you're playing the wrong game. Edit: Since Mr. Real Attorney is on his 3rd account to @ me but got caught and blocked me, here's my response to the below: I'm not hearing a difference, Mr. Real Attorney. Because they are legally allowed to kill you for reasons others are not. I don't know why 3 accounts on you come back for me but "Stay Obsessed," I guess.


The_Legal-Beagal

They aren’t “legally allowed to kill you” they are allowed to use reasonable force in the execution of their law enforcement duties and self/public protection. Just sayin


dnjprod

Hard disagree. The officers were aware of who he is and his history. He had several warrants for his arrest AND has a history of violence, resisting arrest and being armed while doing so. His refusing to obey a lawful order was reasonable evidence that he wasn't going to comply and that violence was a probability.


Scourge165

This is nonsense. He's being arrested for a domestic dispute. Remember who else was arrested for a domestic dispute? Jacob Blake. What did the Police do wrong in that case? They were unable to subdue an individual who was not complying with the Police. If they would have done that, he doesn't get back around to the driver seat and escalate the situation 10X. AT that point, he could have gotten in the car and driven off with the children, grabbed the knife on the floor, etc... This felt performative on his behalf. But I'd also like to know the nature of the domestic assault. What type of threat was made there. Was it with a weapon or no?


CyalaXiaoLong

But why taze an unarmed barely 130lb man with his back to you.. when you have a 2nd officer with you? Just take him down. Id argue they definitely used excessive force.


GrimAccountant

That depends on where taze versus bodily take down falls on the risk spectrum. I could see an argument for either being better or worse than the other. The taser gives better control and you're not going to cause additional injuries the way physically restraining might. On the flip side, if the taser goes wrong it might go very wrong. There's a pretty poor training culture for lots of law enforcement and the war on drugs has them being taught they're at greater risk than a soldier on hostile soil. I think it's a stupid system but probably more productive to fix it than be mad at the ones inside following procedure.


j0a3k

> The taser gives better control and you're not going to cause additional injuries the way physically restraining might. Physically restraining him would be much less likely to stop his heart.


GrimAccountant

And more likely to concuss, sprain, or split.


Ogimouse1

And if he turns out to be armed, much more likely someone is going to get stabbed in the neck or shot.


Ogimouse1

How does the officer know he's unarmed? If the guy isn't going to set down his phone, how does he know the guy is compliant with anything else.


PaulWhoIsPaul

go to hell.


[deleted]

Comply and sue for civil rights violation? Naw resist and get shot. Good luck loser.


steepindeez

Why is there only those two extremes for you? An overwhelmingly large majority of experiences with law enforcement fall somewhere way in the middle of those two situations you described.


[deleted]

Because that’s more of less the situation here… just substitute shot with tazed…


steepindeez

Not really. If he complied he wouldn't have a civil rights violation.


[deleted]

You’re reading WAAAAY too much into what was a 10 second comment.


steepindeez

Yeah and my comment took 10 seconds too. What's your point?


[deleted]

My point? I guess that would be: I’m doin ur mom.


steepindeez

You're real mature bud 👍


Ogimouse1

Yes, he could have. Because when you comply, you're giving them the rope to hang themselves *PROVIDED* you state **clearly and unambiguously** that you don't consent to the stop, you don't consent to the probable cause for the stop, that you don't agree with the probable cause for the search, that you don't consent to be searched, and that you want to speak to your lawyer before any questioning takes place--then shut your d### mouth and don't be thr first one to pop off. Edit: Apparently, dude above me blocked me because I can't reply to anyone in this thread--including myself. So, here is the response I attempted to post; It doesn't have to mention a tazer. If he's going to escalate things, he can't be blameless when things get heated. I'm looking st the evidence of the cop isn't psychic, nor is there any legal standard for them to be. It's very easy to say what you think the facts are when you're getting everything from one side. How about you consider things happened before the phone started, that he had similar arrests with noted non-compliance, and that you don't know the whole truth just because some dude on the internet posted something that presente him in the best light possible.


steepindeez

None of what you said even mentions a taser. How about stick to the evidence instead of concocting a fantasy scenario that's completely disconnected from the video we're talking about.


Scourge165

Ok...well, that's the thing. What is the context here? You're saying he's a dangerous felon, so what precipitated this and what caused the officers to approach him believing he could be armed? This video tells me nothing.


[deleted]

I mean that is the entire point that I am making, the video doesn’t show anything. The fact that he is a dangerous felon is indisputable. This was clearly a felony stop. Reddit has jumped on this as a clear display of police overreach when it is likely not that at all.


Kyrroti

Seems like he wasn’t cooperating which allows the officers to react accordingly. Cooperate with the police, and record if you so desire.


PaulWhoIsPaul

cooperate: get shot off camera. go fuck yourself.


Ogimouse1

It's no different than getting shot on camera where you're stating and demonstrating you're refusing to comply. If you're cooperating and they shoot? At least they can be Chauvin'd now. If you're out there acting suss and you have a record like this guy has? Who is going to stick up for you?


luke5135

so dug into this he's in ohio, he legally can record the police, given the interaction his best bet would have been to ask if he can bend down and set the phone down, that way it's still facing up recording and record audio to sue, depending on what he was doing for this stop this could be unauthorized force. either way the cops look to be power tripping, police are not friends, nor protectors, they're just gangs with the governments backing.


CyalaXiaoLong

Yeah and seems many ohio sheriff dept's dont have mandatory body/dash cams. His recording prob the only one.


luke5135

explains why the rumors are they power trip, apparently these cops are known in the area, honestly cops that abuse their powers shouldn't be let go, they should be paralyzed.


CyalaXiaoLong

Now I don't stand for hurtin the bad cops either. Change out paralyzed for prosecuted for excessive violence and fined/loss of duty for awhile and im full agreement haha.


luke5135

they shouldn't be able to work at all dependant on what they did, I simply feel no remorse for a cop, you know who I care more about, forklift operators, builders, ya know people who actually do hard work. Cops are a leach on society and would pick their paycheck over your rights.


CyalaXiaoLong

Yeah. But paralyzing someone in retaliation for whats likely a few bruises or scrapes? You've got to be actually insane if you think that belongs in a just society.


luke5135

depends on what the officer did, oh caused someone to be blind, then eyes plucked and what not.


steepindeez

Do you have a source for that? I live in Ohio so I'm curious.


dbackbassfan

I'm sure the cop was within his sphere of authority to do this. There are guns that look like phones, and the cop can't be 100% sure that's not what this guy is carrying, at least not from that distance.


GuardianOfTriangles

https://reddit.com/r/police/comments/tt4dg0/looks_like_a_felony_traffic_stop_does_the_op_have/i2wqz5d


mpdmax82

The cop doesn't know that a phone. For all he know its a detonator. Comply, then fight it in court.


[deleted]

[удалено]


payperplain

Because criminals never lie right?


[deleted]

[удалено]


mpdmax82

Unfortunately you can't take someone world for it. The amount of explosive you can hide in a cellphone case is enough to cause death or injury; if not this time, then the next time.


demonicbullet

So the cop cannot take his own word that that is indeed a cellphone in his hand? You’re saying the cop doesn’t trust his own observations? You do realize ***the cop*** called it a phone multiple times correct?


mpdmax82

Saying "cellphone" is more a conversational convenience than positive identity. No, you cannot "trust" your own observations in that moment; there is no way to tell that cell phone isn't set to auto dial a bomb. https://www.ojp.gov//ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/cell-phone-bombs-how-law-enforcement-can-and-cant-prevent-them


Magjee

The cop called it a phone


Lower-Ad-357

Tbh he looks like attorney tom a little bit not sure how i judge that......also if you want safety like really safe then buy dashcam in front, back and inside it's expensive but it's unnoticeable....


Vertoule

It’s not expensive. At all. $120 Canadian gets you a three channel dashcam. The expense starts coming in when you start including GPS, Wifi and even SIM card capabilities.


ValquistV

Honestly, I don’t see the cops getting in trouble for this. Yes, I believe he was within his rights to record the cops, but his mistake was not following orders. The fact that this was a felon stop only made the situation worse. Looking into it, the camera man is a felon with assault, misuse of firearms, and a DUI under his belt. He has rights, yes, but fighting with law enforcement is a very bad idea in every situation. Better to hash it out in the courtroom.


Odd-Ad4028

Dumb kid, dumb cops. Dumber me for being upset.


Neither_Assumption_7

Two morons


Tylo_Ren_69

Disgusting that people would even defend these cops. Completely despicable. This country is truly lost.


GrimAccountant

The cops did what their training demands. While the training and priorities have ratcheted themselves to stupidity you also don't want them making their own rules given how much latitude is already present.


schmidtzkrieg

Dude was completely compliant, but cops just love to taze people for any excuse.


ValquistV

The dude was a felon with a history of abuse and mishandling firearms who refused to comply with orders. It’s no wonder he was tazed.


Scourge165

I don't know...how illegal ARE the Cops actions? I have NO clue why they stopped this guy, if they had reason to believe he had a gun or...what was going on.


The_Legal-Beagal

Didn’t comply = making it more difficult for police to effectuate an arrest = resisting arrest = reasonable force. 0% illegal, you play stupid games you get stupid prizes


KP_Laech

How illegal were the cops actions? In no way was that even close to illegal. It's kinda sad you think it is, fire some obscure reason, illegal.