This.... this to some of you is why the city is forced to pay out millions... because they never fucking learn and simply do the same shit over and over again...
Virginia police officers sued after altercation with Army 2nd lieutenant
- Thread starter userque
- Start date
This.... this to some of you is why the city is forced to pay out millions... because they never fucking learn and simply do the same shit over and over again...
If a police officer orders you to exit your vehicle during a traffic stop, you're legally required to do so. If they order you to exit your vehicle 20 times and you refuse, you have no one to blame but yourself when they forcibly remove you.
That guy seems like a psychopath. He should've been fired and criminally charged.
News flash: It's a crime to disobey lawful orders.
Police officers don't just get to willy-nilly make citizens exit their vehicles because 'they said so.'
Victim got pepper sprayed.
Officer lost job.
Officer known to world as an asshole.
Officer's family feels like shit too.
Victim gets huge settlement/judgment for disobeying an officer's bullshit order.
Do the math.
If an officer ordered you to suck his dick, what would you do?
Relax, you don't have to tell us. Rhetorical question.
But, hey; to each his own. Feel free to obey every unlawful order you're given, preferably in a country where White privilege doesn't apply. Perhaps then, you'll have a better understanding.
Last edited:
You forgot to comment on this video. Why wasn't this guy pepper sprayed and "forcibly removed?"
Did he disobey police orders too?
Did he also threaten the officer(s)?
The order was lawful. The Supreme Court has ruled that police have the right to order people to get out of their vehicle during a traffic stop.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/519/408/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/106/
He should've been pepper sprayed and forcibly removed. I have to wonder what happened to him once the police caught up to him down the road, but the video cuts off.
Please explain how your 1977 case applies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_v._Mimms
Your other case/ruling "Held: An officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop." [emphasis added]
The stop was, or should have been, completed once the officer exited his vehicle, and was able to see the temporary plate on the victim's vehicle; as I've previously stated.
The relevant question is not what happened later on ... down the road ... after he refused orders during a prolonged discussion about why he wouldn't comply, after it was known he had a weapon.
But instead, the question is, how do you explain away what happened during the initial contact--like you did in your initial post.
We are comparing what happened during the initial contact of the 2nd Lt, vs what happened during the initial contact with the White guy.
I've never studied Virginia law, but it's pretty universal that license plates have to be illuminated well enough to be read from 50 feet away at night. Mounting a temporary tag behind a tinted window would've been in violation of these laws. The stop wouldn't have been considered "completed" from a legal standpoint until they told him he could leave.
I have no love for cops. I've been pulled over multiple times because they claimed they couldn't tell if I was wearing my seatbelt. But it's important to know what rights you have during a traffic stop. Staying in the vehicle when ordered to exit isn't one of them.
All these events have one common thread that runs through them
It is a chronic condition the occurs in every stop that goes bad
It is Systemic Resistance
Once stopped by the police the suspect thinks it is a courtroom where you get to cross direct the actions of the police in real time ...Do what the police says, if you get a bad cop and you stay calm ,knowing it is on tape you will get a settlement
It is a chronic condition the occurs in every stop that goes bad
It is Systemic Resistance
Once stopped by the police the suspect thinks it is a courtroom where you get to cross direct the actions of the police in real time ...Do what the police says, if you get a bad cop and you stay calm ,knowing it is on tape you will get a settlement
Doesn't matter. You cited Supreme Court cases, without having studied appellate law.
Source regarding Temporary Plates?
Source?
Source? [EDIT: With regard to an unlawful stop]
The discussion is not about a lawful stop, that hasn't concluded. It's about an unlawful stop; or a lawful stop that should have been concluded.
Source, as it relates to my above reply?
You don't have to follow an unlawful order.
Exaggerated Example To Illustrate The Point
If a Vegas cop seriously ordered you to do the chicken dance while you were being detained on the strip, for a burned out taillight; would that be a lawful order? Would you follow it?
In that same scenario, would it be lawful for the cop to order your beautiful wife to come sit in the front seat of his squad car with him, as you dance the night away?
Oh, so now you get to choose which unlawful orders you "must" follow? Or do you simply just comply?
Sandra Bland
If you don't an unlawful order, you may end up like Sandra Bland. She refused to follow an unlawful order.
Her family settled for almost 2 million, reportedly. Probably would have been more today.
I've questioned/instructed an officer three times in my life, on orders I knew were unlawful. All three times, they backed down.
The Point
My point is, and was, that citizens are not required to follow unlawful orders. Why citizens are walking around believing something so silly is beyond me.
Now That That's Hopefully Clear
Disclaimer: Obviously, it is usually better to obey, and initiate legal action later. You have to decide for yourself, based on the circumstances.
Last edited: