Unlawful arrest or idiot who can't follow lawful commands?

[gimmie11s]

i guess i just would've gotten out of the car so they could make sure it wasn't me, then they could carry on to the more important matters.

do agree they were on the aggressive side, but i can't imagine how infuriating it is to interact with people who could easily help/narrow down the field of suspects, but instead choose to make things more difficult for all involved

It is not your job or mine to "help" in their investigations. Would I help and have I? Yes. However, you are not required to.

EVERY LEO signs an oath to protect YOUR human rights. The fact that MANY of them have no idea how any of this works or which 5 freedoms the 1st amendment protects is terrifying. Good luck having them uphold your 4A rights as seen in this video.

 

[TAF]

So if this guy was the suspect did the police handle this situation correctly or should they have let him go after he refused to comply?

ONLY thing that MADE him a probable suspect was his skin color. ALL other descriptions didn't fit. If they would have approached him like a human being and conversed with him, instead of "PUT YOUR HANDS AT 10 & 2" and start pulling open his car doors and grabbing at him...

But I guess that's just the way you short-dicked badged and tool belted morons like to "run your streets"...it's disgusting how arrogant those clown costumes make you.

 

[jvandy50]

It is not your job or mine to "help" in their investigations. Would I help and have I? Yes. However, you are not required to.

i get that, but it seems the decent and easy thing to do. i would be of the mindset of not wanting to actually look guilty, since i wasn't(which i don't think this guy did, looked more surprised and wrongly accused)...but you start refusing and pulling out the rulebook, you are playing with fire whether it's legal or not

 

[ZYBORG]

This thread… LOL…. Guys are ****ing clueless…. I figured that out of a California resident, but out of the others…. Forget about it!

RIP, sweet America. RIP.

 

[gimmie11s]

i get that, but it seems the decent and easy thing to do. i would be of the mindset of not wanting to actually look guilty, since i wasn't(which i don't think this guy did, looked more surprised and wrongly accused)...but you start refusing and pulling out the rulebook, you are playing with fire whether it's legal or not

Won't get any disagreement out of me on that one. Sad it's that way, but true.

 

[gimmie11s]

This thread… LOL…. Guys are ****ing clueless…. I figured that out of a California resident, but out of the others…. Forget about it!

RIP, sweet America. RIP.

Your disdain for fellow American's Freedoms is akin to that of a communist.

Is it because Williams is black?

 

[Blk04L]

Was there ever a video proof of the cops seeing that guy on camera after a robbery or was that just BS to intimate him? If there was no video at all, or the person on the video looked completely different then that's BS and should be punishable.

 

[ZYBORG]

Some of you fellas might need a refresher:

 

[tones_RS3]

I'm surprised the police didn't ask for the person's ID. I think that's one of the first things they do, but I'm not a police officer, just what I have seen from watching many bodycam videos on Youtube.

 

[svtfocus2cobra]

How can you not understand the bare basics of laws and law enforcement as a full grown man that has lived in this country for X amount of years, successfully?

There was an active investigation going on due to burglary in the area. To the cops, the guy matched the description (whether you agree with that or not, it does not matter). Guy was being actively investigated for a crime. This makes the cops commands lawful. When one is given lawful commands by the police, one obeys commands (whether you agree or not).

You can try to explain whatever your situation is, WHILE OBEYING lawful commands by the police. You dont get to resist, you dont get to dictate how the encounter will go. You are not in command. Cops are. They represent the law and disobedience can carry dyer repercussions.

The investigation required him yo be drug out when he decided to ignore the officers commands. While trying to dictate terms of the encounter and passively resisted.

Charges were valid. They were like dropped to appease the Karens and SJWs and avoid yet another tantrum by the antifa, BLM types.

I can see the merits of both sides, honestly. But when you approach someone who is an innocent bystander and you assume guilt and then violate their rights, I have to wonder about the process. Does that make it okay to violate anyone and everyone's rights as long as it is being done in the name of crime fighting? If so then we are in for a ride as the government goes on a national crime fighting spree and we are all game for arrest and questioning. That's extreme, I know, but if that is the standard then the standard is easily broken to get what you want as an officer.

Our rights are supposed to be set in stone yet an instance of a crime by someone completely unrelated means your rights are on standby. Would you ever agree to relinquishing your 2nd ammendment rights against your will when you did nothing wrong? This is a tough one for me but I lean more towards rights trump all. You better have more than suspicion to arrest an otherwise innocent person.

 

[2011fiveliter]

To those saying he did not fit the description of the possible perp. Why are you saying that? If I remember the video correctly, they said "A black man possibly in his 20s wearing a red shirt".
Police come up on a suspect sitting in a car in the area. You mean they can't start asking questions and try to ascertain, if this person is the perp. He was black, and by first glance you cant tell a person's age. Secondly, just because this person ended up being in his 40's does not mean he can't look younger than his real age. Just because this person had a black shirt on. Doesn't mean he couldn't change his shirt.
The LEOs articulated a reason to talk to this individual. This individual immediately was refusing to comply. If this individual simply complied and gave the officers his driver's license and allowed them to do their job. He could of moved on with his day in a matter of minutes. But no, he wanted to be hard. And found himself in a bad situation that could of been avoided. After a review of the video, the officers were justified in their actions and criminal charges were not filed. As a LEO that is all that matters. Who gives a shit if a person files a civil suit. At this point, the officer's will be covered by the agency or FOP. Like I said earlier, you can civilly sue anyone for anything. It means nothing.
The fact that this individual's charges were dismissed had nothing to do with a false arrest. People get off charges all the time and many times are guilty of the crimes.

 

[2011fiveliter]

I can see the merits of both sides, honestly. But when you approach someone who is an innocent bystander and you assume guilt and then violate their rights, I have to wonder about the process. Does that make it okay to violate anyone and everyone's rights as long as it is being done in the name of crime fighting? If so then we are in for a ride as the government goes on a national crime fighting spree and we are all game for arrest and questioning. That's extreme, I know, but if that is the standard then the standard is easily broken to get what you want as an officer.

Our rights are supposed to be set in stone yet an instance of a crime by someone completely unrelated means your rights are on standby. Would you ever agree to relinquishing your 2nd ammendment rights against your will when you did nothing wrong? This is a tough one for me but I lean more towards rights trump all. You better have more than suspicion to arrest an otherwise innocent person.

But just because an individual is detained or even arrested. That is not an assumption of guilt or an admission of guilt. It's called reasonable suspicion. Nothing more. That is why you have a court system, to prove guilt.

 

[ZYBORG]

I can see the merits of both sides, honestly. But when you approach someone who is an innocent bystander and you assume guilt and then violate their rights, I have to wonder about the process. Does that make it okay to violate anyone and everyone's rights as long as it is being done in the name of crime fighting? If so then we are in for a ride as the government goes on a national crime fighting spree and we are all game for arrest and questioning. That's extreme, I know, but if that is the standard then the standard is easily broken to get what you want as an officer.

Our rights are supposed to be set in stone yet an instance of a crime by someone completely unrelated means your rights are on standby. Would you ever agree to relinquishing your 2nd ammendment rights against your will when you did nothing wrong? This is a tough one for me but I lean more towards rights trump all. You better have more than suspicion to arrest an otherwise innocent person.

Bro, I keep hearing “violated his rights”…

No rights were violated….

This isnt one of those cases where cops just decided to **** with someone for the hell of it. if it was, i’d be the first to condemn the cops!

There is a particular set of rules, UNDER THE LAW, for this “unfortunate” instance…

There was an ACTIVE investigation for a BURGLARY in the area.

The guy siting there must have looked a bit off. He appeared to be out of place and somewhat matched the description. Looked young as **** at a glance, regardless of being 40.

They approached him in a careful manner as they should, while investigating a potentially hazardous situation (you know how that goes, bro!)

they informed him of what was going on and they gave him their reasonable articulate suspicion for their legal detainment.

At that point he was LEGALLY DETAINED. Guy HAD to comply, UNDER THE LAW. No rights were being violated, man.

He became combative and uncooperative, instead of complying with the LEGAL orders. He was defiant and tried to dictate the terms of engagement for the situation.
Bro, I know that you know (as previous combat arms), no way can you allow that. It could have became an extremely deadly situation. Unfortunately, you cant “cuddle” the suspect. You just cant. Cops handled the guy within the legal bounds allowed by law.

The guy escalated the situation due to his disdain for the cops authority. Him getting yanked out was his own doing!

Cops were serving the community. Thats what you have to do! They cant go around treating every potential suspect like their Massa. Lol.

Its takes Guard Dogs to protect the flock of Sheep from the Wolves. Unfortunately, every once in a while a sheep gets ”nicked”.

This is part of living in a civilized society. Most rational, logical people understand this.

I really dont know how else to break it down to people.

The narrative that BLM, antifa, liberal women, Demotards, MSM, social media has been pushing…That “Cops bad” has really ****ed with some of ya’lls brains.

Its absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for the cop force to be PERFECT. Thats what everyone seems to expect nowadays. Everyone is jumping at the chance to armchair quarterback while they have absolutely ZERO clue as to what it takes to do the job.

Take it from someone that has first hand experience as to what happens when the cop force does not enforce rule of law and is not respected within the community.

We are ****ing doomed. Social media has ****ed us.

I really do fear for this country. It has been pussyfied!

Good luck, everyone! I’m out.

 

[gimmie11s]

I can see the merits of both sides, honestly. But when you approach someone who is an innocent bystander and you assume guilt and then violate their rights, I have to wonder about the process. Does that make it okay to violate anyone and everyone's rights as long as it is being done in the name of crime fighting? If so then we are in for a ride as the government goes on a national crime fighting spree and we are all game for arrest and questioning. That's extreme, I know, but if that is the standard then the standard is easily broken to get what you want as an officer.

Our rights are supposed to be set in stone yet an instance of a crime by someone completely unrelated means your rights are on standby. Would you ever agree to relinquishing your 2nd ammendment rights against your will when you did nothing wrong? This is a tough one for me but I lean more towards rights trump all. You better have more than suspicion to arrest an otherwise innocent person.

Great post

 

[gimmie11s]

Bro, I keep hearing “violated his rights”…

No rights were violated….

This isnt one of those cases where cops just decided to **** with someone for the hell of it. if it was, i’d be the first to condemn the cops!

There is a particular set of rules, UNDER THE LAW, for this “unfortunate” instance…

There was an ACTIVE investigation for a BURGLARY in the area.

The guy siting there must have looked a bit off. He appeared to be out of place and somewhat matched the description. Looked young as **** at a glance, regardless of being 40.

They approached him in a careful manner as they should, while investigating a potentially hazardous situation (you know how that goes, bro!)

they informed him of what was going on and they gave him their reasonable articulate suspicion for their legal detainment.

At that point he was LEGALLY DETAINED. Guy HAD to comply, UNDER THE LAW. No rights were being violated, man.

He became combative and uncooperative, instead of complying with the LEGAL orders. He was defiant and tried to dictate the terms of engagement for the situation.
Bro, I know that you know (as previous combat arms), no way can you allow that. It could have became an extremely deadly situation. Unfortunately, you cant “cuddle” the suspect. You just cant. Cops handled the guy within the legal bounds allowed by law.

The guy escalated the situation due to his disdain for the cops authority. Him getting yanked out was his own doing!

Cops were serving the community. Thats what you have to do! They cant go around treating every potential suspect like their Massa. Lol.

Its takes Guard Dogs to protect the flock of Sheep from the Wolves. Unfortunately, every once in a while a sheep gets ”nicked”.

This is part of living in a civilized society. Most rational, logical people understand this.

I really dont know how else to break it down to people.

The narrative that BLM, antifa, liberal women, Demotards, MSM, social media has been pushing…That “Cops bad” has really ****ed with some of ya’lls brains.

Its absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for the cop force to be PERFECT. Thats what everyone seems to expect nowadays. Everyone is jumping at the chance to armchair quarterback while they have absolutely ZERO clue as to what it takes to do the job.

Take it from someone that has first hand experience as to what happens when the cop force does not enforce rule of law and is not respected within the community.

We are ****ing doomed. Social media has ****ed us.

I really do fear for this country. It has been pussyfied!

Good luck, everyone! I’m out.

Jesus H Christ.. cliffs anyone? He must have worked on this all night and finally enlisted the help of ChatGPT.

 

[SSSSSSSSSSSSVT]

Jesus H Christ.. cliffs anyone? He must have worked on this all night and finally enlisted the help of ChatGPT.

So your family member gets robbed and assaulted. Who do you call? What do you want them to do? Find who did it and deliver justice?

 

[gimmie11s]

So your family member gets robbed and assaulted. Who do you call? What do you want them to do? Find who did it and deliver justice?

Well sure, but my hope would be the police don't violate everyones rights in the process.

Unless that's what you guys want?

Vigilante justice is ok for the police to administer but not the average citizen?

 

[SSSSSSSSSSSSVT]

Well sure, but my hope would be the police don't violate everyones rights in the process.

Unless that's what you guys want?

Vigilante justice is ok for the police to administer but not the average citizen?

Asking the suspect to get out of the vehicle is not violating his rights. Never has been that way. Im not sure why you think it is.

 

[gimmie11s]

Asking the suspect to get out of the vehicle is not violating his rights. Never has been that way. Im not sure why you think it is.

Hold on a second. Of course it absotuley is an unlawful search (4A) if there is no RAS.

Now... in this particular case, there WAS RAS -- so I don't have issue with them "investigating". Problem is, they didn't even ask for his id before they started pulling him physically out of the vehicle then tying him up like a pig.

Their first action was to open his door and detain him while hes eating lunch! Without even ID'ing the guy.

 

[TAF]

ANYONE watching THAT video and finding the Police behavior “normal”, “appropriate“ or SOP, is a TRUE ”Menace to Society”!