Well you're going to be in a world of hurt then because officers have authority to detain you and if you don't comply it'll get bad for you very fast. Doesn't matter if you don't like it
The founding fathers would not have supported either policing or long prisons as institutions, but would have instead relied on a militia system and corporal punishment.
However, those things are not the current law. Dialectic is correct. Pennsylvania v. Mimms applies here.
Actually, I think that if the car is already running, the safest course of action is to floor the accelerator. There’s no way that remanding yourself into the custody of a hostile armed stranger is safer than forcing them to pop off shots at a moving target. Isn’t that what they always say about kidnapping? Better to fight/run, regardless of the weapon, than to allow yourself to be tied up and moved to a second location?
Obviously, there are different behavior expectations with a cop than with a stranger, but if we’re talking only in terms of “I believe this person would shoot at me, and I have no other information about their authority, expectations, or intentions,” I doubt that surrendering is the safer choice.
With an armed attacker it's a 50-50 choice. There's no way to know they won't shoot you at the first sign of resistance. Your safer bet is to get out of the car if you think they intend to steal it. If they are attempting to focus on attacking you, then you should drive away. if they try to push you further into the car so that it's a kidnapping, then fight to the death.
Here we have a weaker officer so is more reliant on her tools (gun) meets a person that refuses to comply. So yeah ends with at least one shooting.
I have the same criticism for a lot of male officers as we all remember the infamous acorn cop, they REALLY aren't hiring the best or just competent in some areas..
That's what you get when you defund the police. The ones who are competent quit because they can get more elsewhere and then training gets slashed so they get shit training.
Regardless of your position on the validity of cops and their jobs, this is what you get when you half ass it like they have been. If you want to reform police, more money is required and if you want to get rid of them get rid of them completely. This halfway nonsense just gets people killed.
Which is why BLM did a 180 on police body cameras and now oppose them, allegedly due to privacy issues, but we all know it's really because without them they get to lie and the media will back them up.
As long as they were actually thieves. this looks like a pullover of a suspect after an incident was called in. it's quite possible that she got the wrong car, especially given the incompetence displayed in this video. Innocence until proven guilty exists to reduce punishing innocent people, especially when death is on the line.
now if they were caught directly in the act, I agree. shoot the bastards before they can get away.
Innocence until proven guilty, as a principle, applies to court proceedings. Due process.
Resisting arrest, means you haven't been taken into custody yet. The first step of being processed.
What this looks like to me is everyone involved thinking the rules don't apply. Couple of hoes think they get to run away from the law, and weak females unfit to actually be officers.
"DIE hires shouldn't be allowed to even have citizenship, let alone be law enforcement.
But that isn't actually relevant to what I said.
Because it still isn't reasonable to claim your right to due process was violated when you were in the act of trying to avoid being processed to begin with.
What's your reply when these same subhumans start arresting people on political charges for a new world order?? Should've just complied and let the law sort it out?
That's why I'd like a little bit more context leading up to the clip to see if things hadn't already escalated. If he'd tried to run someone over just before the clip starts then drawing the gun gets more justifiable.
I've seen enough body cam footage to know some people's interactions are just wild, they flip back and forth from obviously trying to murder someone to throwing their hands up and "I dindu nuffin, why are you being violent mister officer?!" like they expect everyone in the situation to have lost their object permanence.
I'm pretty sure that was not an appropriate time to draw a gun. Their hands were visible the entire time, and they clearly did not start driving until after she drew. not only that, the shot that she took was one handed and she clearly wasn't aiming. finally, I know a vehicle is deadly force, but they we're definitely trying to get away, not run someone over.
and the cherry on top, the cop is supposed to instruct you to turn off your vehicle before they approach.
Irony being that they can claim "deadly force" for you driving a vehicle within a "not even close" range near them, but her 1h nearly blind firing at them (while their foot is on the peddle to keep that car flying forward) is totally legit and not a danger to anyone at all so the cop can be absolved.
It's perfectly fine... for a cop... to have a gun on someone who's already committed a crime. There's no reason to assume that they don't have a gun stashed somewhere else.
and the cherry on top, the cop is supposed to instruct you to turn off your vehicle before they approach.
???
Most of the time a cop can't instruct you to turn off the car before they approach. You're thinking of a felony stop where the cops all get out, point guns at the driver, and start barking orders from afar.
There's a difference between what a cop can do and what a cop should do. drawing a gun on a perp who is complying with a traffic stop and has their hands up is a great way to get them to freak out and escalate the situation into a dangerous one, as exemplified by this clip.
Regarding turning off your car, it's on the test to get your driver's license in most States. if you get stopped by a cop, you are supposed to keep your hands on the wheel and turn off the car. if you don't do this, they will instruct you to do so over the megaphone before they step out of their car.
the purpose for this is to prevent exactly what happens in this clip.
It's not required by state law in my state, and I normally see people not turning off their car on most traffic stops. Most of the time, turning off your car is nice thing to do, not a requirement.
There's not enough clip here, but the if the officer gave a lawful order to exit the vehicle and the suspects didn't comply then it's resisting and now she has to arrest you because you're an idiot. If you drive away then that is felony eluding, and if you almost hit her and others with your deadly weapon (car) she can shoot you
Don't be a retard
Edit: oh and it's established case law now that officers can shoot you in the back if the believe you're a threat
they clearly weren't fleeing until she Drew on them. before that their hands were up and visible. I agree resisting a lawful order it warrants an arrest, but does it warrant deadly force?
I think the issue is that by the time she made the decision to fire, there was no longer a deadly threat, because they had already fled. I suspect it was an ND.
#1 - It looks like a negligent discharge. I don't even know she was pointing her weapon. So yes she should lose her job. I'm none too keen on ND's. If you get caught as a civilian doing it, you can expect criminal charges and a seizure of all of your firearms; so I'm not going to have any sympathy.
#2 - Pennsylvania v. Mimms says get out of the car. You're just gonna have to get out of the car, even if the cop is wrong.
#3 - Don't commit felonies to avoid misdemeanors. Fleeing from the police is likely going to be a felony in a lot of places. Don't do it.
Of course she should be fired, she's a female police officer.
She should have never been hired in the first place.
Whatever took place in this video is irrelevant because she's a woman, and therefore it would be like hiring a big child to be an armed authority figure.
And I give the couple in the car the benefit of doubt because they are white. So no, I don't think that even a male police officer should've drawn. If the occupants of the car were black, then drawing the gun would be justified (and even firing it).
Well you're going to be in a world of hurt then because officers have authority to detain you and if you don't comply it'll get bad for you very fast. Doesn't matter if you don't like it
You mean arrest?
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Fedposting
The founding fathers would not have supported either policing or long prisons as institutions, but would have instead relied on a militia system and corporal punishment.
However, those things are not the current law. Dialectic is correct. Pennsylvania v. Mimms applies here.
Your concept of British Law was already binned by the British much more aggressively.
Even if they weren't a cop, you probably should if the gun's already pointed at you.
Most people would because they don't want to die.
Frankly, that's how I know most people saying "the cops are a gang" aren't telling the truth. You wouldn't argue with an armed gunman.
Actually, I think that if the car is already running, the safest course of action is to floor the accelerator. There’s no way that remanding yourself into the custody of a hostile armed stranger is safer than forcing them to pop off shots at a moving target. Isn’t that what they always say about kidnapping? Better to fight/run, regardless of the weapon, than to allow yourself to be tied up and moved to a second location?
Obviously, there are different behavior expectations with a cop than with a stranger, but if we’re talking only in terms of “I believe this person would shoot at me, and I have no other information about their authority, expectations, or intentions,” I doubt that surrendering is the safer choice.
With an armed attacker it's a 50-50 choice. There's no way to know they won't shoot you at the first sign of resistance. Your safer bet is to get out of the car if you think they intend to steal it. If they are attempting to focus on attacking you, then you should drive away. if they try to push you further into the car so that it's a kidnapping, then fight to the death.
Here we have a weaker officer so is more reliant on her tools (gun) meets a person that refuses to comply. So yeah ends with at least one shooting.
I have the same criticism for a lot of male officers as we all remember the infamous acorn cop, they REALLY aren't hiring the best or just competent in some areas..
Deputy Jesse Hernandez
Absolutely non-white
That's what you get when you defund the police. The ones who are competent quit because they can get more elsewhere and then training gets slashed so they get shit training.
Regardless of your position on the validity of cops and their jobs, this is what you get when you half ass it like they have been. If you want to reform police, more money is required and if you want to get rid of them get rid of them completely. This halfway nonsense just gets people killed.
I'd probably argue that body cameras did more to reform the police than ANY other initiative by politicians.
Turns out, it all being on camera really helps weed out some of the rotten apples.
It also showed how often the people crying brutality are full of shit.
Which is why BLM did a 180 on police body cameras and now oppose them, allegedly due to privacy issues, but we all know it's really because without them they get to lie and the media will back them up.
When they have all that equipment, the fact that a gun is her only available tool is a problem.
TASER TASER TASER!
Sam Hyde vindicated yet again.
It should be perfectly legal to shoot thieves. That'd solve a lot of problems.
As long as they were actually thieves. this looks like a pullover of a suspect after an incident was called in. it's quite possible that she got the wrong car, especially given the incompetence displayed in this video. Innocence until proven guilty exists to reduce punishing innocent people, especially when death is on the line.
now if they were caught directly in the act, I agree. shoot the bastards before they can get away.
Innocence until proven guilty, as a principle, applies to court proceedings. Due process.
Resisting arrest, means you haven't been taken into custody yet. The first step of being processed.
What this looks like to me is everyone involved thinking the rules don't apply. Couple of hoes think they get to run away from the law, and weak females unfit to actually be officers.
fair
Weak men create bad times.
Welcome to the Communist States of Bidenistan!
Sure, judge, jury, and executioner in the hands of a DIE hire based on nothing more than allegations. Sounds great. 👍
This woman could've made any number of mistakes in this process and the last thing we need is even more protection and authority for people like her.
"DIE hires shouldn't be allowed to even have citizenship, let alone be law enforcement.
But that isn't actually relevant to what I said.
Because it still isn't reasonable to claim your right to due process was violated when you were in the act of trying to avoid being processed to begin with.
What's your reply when these same subhumans start arresting people on political charges for a new world order?? Should've just complied and let the law sort it out?
Stop bootlicking, faggot
They do that already, and my reply is the same.
Kill them. Immoral authority is illegitimate, and illegitimate authority is no authority at all.
That's what should be done. And before too long, what will be done.
Thieves too. Lots of people deserve to die.
Shut up, pedo pajeet.
Looks like bullshit but I'd reserve judgement for a little more context than that 20 second clip.
Nah, she escalated to pulling a gun pretty much immediately. I'd haul ass out of there too in that situation.
As far as I'm concerned this is just more evidence that women should be explicitly barred from certain jobs.
That's why I'd like a little bit more context leading up to the clip to see if things hadn't already escalated. If he'd tried to run someone over just before the clip starts then drawing the gun gets more justifiable.
I've seen enough body cam footage to know some people's interactions are just wild, they flip back and forth from obviously trying to murder someone to throwing their hands up and "I dindu nuffin, why are you being violent mister officer?!" like they expect everyone in the situation to have lost their object permanence.
It's a woman cop. The additional footage is just going to confirm what we already know: that this is a woman moment.
I'm fine with her pulling the gun immediately. Fuck thieves who are still in a 4,000 lbs deadly weapon and could be concealing more weapons.
The issue is that she fired that weapon when there was no imminent deadly threat to her or anyone else.
I'm not fucking fine with it.
Women shouldn't be given a gun and state sanctioned authority to use it on citizens.
Women are fucking retarded children.
No, not women, just your mother for raising you like this.
I'm also fine with the female store keeps doing the same when thieves show up.
Nah she's a dumbass. That was just a random negligent discharge.
You're going to run me over is a little like that South Park episode with the hunters yelling the deer were charging them to shoot in self defense.
I'm pretty sure that was not an appropriate time to draw a gun. Their hands were visible the entire time, and they clearly did not start driving until after she drew. not only that, the shot that she took was one handed and she clearly wasn't aiming. finally, I know a vehicle is deadly force, but they we're definitely trying to get away, not run someone over.
and the cherry on top, the cop is supposed to instruct you to turn off your vehicle before they approach.
poor training all around.
Irony being that they can claim "deadly force" for you driving a vehicle within a "not even close" range near them, but her 1h nearly blind firing at them (while their foot is on the peddle to keep that car flying forward) is totally legit and not a danger to anyone at all so the cop can be absolved.
It's perfectly fine... for a cop... to have a gun on someone who's already committed a crime. There's no reason to assume that they don't have a gun stashed somewhere else.
???
Most of the time a cop can't instruct you to turn off the car before they approach. You're thinking of a felony stop where the cops all get out, point guns at the driver, and start barking orders from afar.
There's a difference between what a cop can do and what a cop should do. drawing a gun on a perp who is complying with a traffic stop and has their hands up is a great way to get them to freak out and escalate the situation into a dangerous one, as exemplified by this clip.
Regarding turning off your car, it's on the test to get your driver's license in most States. if you get stopped by a cop, you are supposed to keep your hands on the wheel and turn off the car. if you don't do this, they will instruct you to do so over the megaphone before they step out of their car.
the purpose for this is to prevent exactly what happens in this clip.
It's not required by state law in my state, and I normally see people not turning off their car on most traffic stops. Most of the time, turning off your car is nice thing to do, not a requirement.
Boooooootlickerrrrrrr
Sit down, fatty.
Diversity hires are always a massive liability. That’s why they couldn’t get hired via merit
There's not enough clip here, but the if the officer gave a lawful order to exit the vehicle and the suspects didn't comply then it's resisting and now she has to arrest you because you're an idiot. If you drive away then that is felony eluding, and if you almost hit her and others with your deadly weapon (car) she can shoot you
Don't be a retard
Edit: oh and it's established case law now that officers can shoot you in the back if the believe you're a threat
they clearly weren't fleeing until she Drew on them. before that their hands were up and visible. I agree resisting a lawful order it warrants an arrest, but does it warrant deadly force?
I think the issue is that by the time she made the decision to fire, there was no longer a deadly threat, because they had already fled. I suspect it was an ND.
#1 - It looks like a negligent discharge. I don't even know she was pointing her weapon. So yes she should lose her job. I'm none too keen on ND's. If you get caught as a civilian doing it, you can expect criminal charges and a seizure of all of your firearms; so I'm not going to have any sympathy.
#2 - Pennsylvania v. Mimms says get out of the car. You're just gonna have to get out of the car, even if the cop is wrong.
#3 - Don't commit felonies to avoid misdemeanors. Fleeing from the police is likely going to be a felony in a lot of places. Don't do it.
I have to weigh my disdain for female cops against my approval of shooting thieves.
Of course she should be fired, she's a female police officer.
She should have never been hired in the first place.
Whatever took place in this video is irrelevant because she's a woman, and therefore it would be like hiring a big child to be an armed authority figure.
And I give the couple in the car the benefit of doubt because they are white. So no, I don't think that even a male police officer should've drawn. If the occupants of the car were black, then drawing the gun would be justified (and even firing it).