InfantryAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

Finally found your original post...
If you have a license plate and the plate matches the car and the car comes back not stolen, less of an issue. If there is no plate I could get shot and dispatch would only know the make and color of the vehicle. Who doesn't have a plate, that is unusual. Why are your windows tinted that dark (legal in TX, but not VA). Are you driving a couple of blocks to the next gas station or are you driving a mile down the road, passing other options? No one certain thing dictates what is wrong or right, it's based on the whole circumstance. I try to make stops where it is safest for everyone. Often the drivers don't know my reasoning.

As for being scared, I've had two instances overseas where I thought I was 100% about to be killed. I don't operate on fear. If I was scared, I wouldn't be pulling over shady cars at 2 am in the bad parts of town. That doesn't mean I am going to minimize my risk of being killed, or having to kill someone else.

And you don't have any "right" to find a well lit place, that I'm aware of. How far does this go? Drive to the next town, 20 miles away?

---

Just out of curiosity, if you were trying to stop a vehicle for a minor traffic violation and they drove slowly to a well lit parking lot ahead, when you realized that the driver was a woman and nobody else, except maybe kids, were in the car with her, would you be more likely to let it slide?

---

Not sure what you mean by let it slide. If it seemed reasonable I wouldn't have a problem with it. If she drove past a bunch of lit parking lots, I would question what she was doing. People drive slowly and then take off, all the time.

If I don't have any indications of any other serious criminal activity I let everyone "slide." I am only looking for felonies. Other cops do other stuff.

---

That makes sense.

I just meant it as "not be upset".

By the way, a few years ago we heard a police chase in my county on the scanner. After a bit, as the vehicle passed one deputy, he radioed in, "It's just the _______ girl. She doesn't even know anyone is chasing her." He turned his lights on and she pulled right over.

More info needed. Complete video from the beginning of the encounter would be a nice start. Why did they want him out of the car? Warrants? This post shows a lot of nothing without context.

From a distance, it seems like traffic stops have become less about vehicle and transportation safety and more about public control and what else can I find on this person.

InfantryAg, I understand and do not envy the dangerous decisions you have to make on a daily basis, but some of your responses have been semi red-flags for me because it seems like traffic stops are less about the traffic violation and more about everyone's a criminal what might be there for me to find based on your comments.

InfantryAg is the reason why reasonable people will always be suspicious of cops. I am sure he is legit and professional 100 percent of the time (no sarcasm), but the way he excuses bad cop behavior and puts the honus on the citizen is why people like me pull their hair out when going back and forth.

Any other profession INCLUDING the military (I am an ex-paratrooper) myself, has accountability towards how they conduct themselves in public. If infantryag is doing an AAR, it is beyond me how he cannot admit this is a very flawed police stop from beginning to end. This is the police logic that is the roadblock to moving onto the modern times of police practices being very public.

I get it, policing is dangerous, but you cannot pull over every citizen and treat them like the enemy. Humans are going to react with fear when a weapon is drawn on them, and those citizens will make mistakes and possible irrational decisions because of the needless escalation by police actions like this one.

InfantryAg just seems to cling to these unreasonable views and tries to use "appeals to the extreme" to justify those views. One point I just want to drive home, this video does ZERO service to the policing profession. I would venture to guess a large majority of conservatives, and (obvious liberals) would land on this opinion. Your views on what is reasonable and unreasonable need to change, or you might find yourself on the wrong end of a lawsuit eventually. Take it for what it is worth, I am sure you are a good man, and officer, but views like you have at least in this context are just dangerous.

There is no "time limit" or "distance limit". Its a common sense based on all available information limit. Want to take your position literally like you appear to want to do? Driving on one of our beautoful always under construction highways with no shoulders and barriers 1-2 feet from each side of the car. Want that car to stop immediately? Hell no. Why? Common sense. If a car is getting pulled over for routine traffic violation, slows down, puts on hazards, pulls over at first available spot and immediately puts hands out the window, that is almost on its face someone wanting to comply and should be treated so accordingly. If they speed up, create a chase, pass multiple exists, have stolen plates, even if put hands out the window, treat them like the *******s they are. So the time/distance limit will not be a hand guide behind the "**** to put in your report" chapter. It is based on common sense. And if a cop doesn't have that, then give the coo a job that does not require a gun

Wrangler said:

---

More info needed. Complete video from the beginning of the encounter would be a nice start. Why did they want him out of the car? Warrants? This post shows a lot of nothing without context.

---

Someone posted a link to the resulting lawsuit.

Basically, the vehicle was brand new and he didn't have a regular tag yet. He did have the dealer's tag attached to the window. Other than maybe having too much tint, I don't know why they wouldn't have seen it.

DisAg said:

---

InfantryAg is the reason why reasonable people will always be suspicious of cops. I am sure he is legit and professional 100 percent of the time (no sarcasm), but the way he excuses bad cop behavior and puts the honus on the citizen is why people like me pull their hair out when going back and forth.

Any other profession INCLUDING the military (I am an ex-paratrooper) myself, has accountability towards how they conduct themselves in public. If infantryag is doing an AAR, it is beyond me how he cannot admit this is a very flawed police stop from beginning to end. This is the police logic that is the roadblock to moving onto the modern times of police practices being very public.

I get it, policing is dangerous, but you cannot pull over every citizen and treat them like the enemy. Humans are going to react with fear when a weapon is drawn on them, and those citizens will make mistakes and possible irrational decisions because of the needless escalation by police actions like this one.

InfantryAg just seems to cling to these unreasonable views and tries to use "appeals to the extreme" to justify those views. One point I just want to drive home, this video does ZERO service to the policing profession. I would venture to guess a large majority of conservatives, and (obvious liberals) would land on this opinion. Your views on what is reasonable and unreasonable need to change, or you might find yourself on the wrong end of a lawsuit eventually. Take it for what it is worth, I am sure you are a good man, and officer, but views like you have at least in this context are just dangerous.

---

Blue star. This

WestTexAg12 said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Wow...some of you guys are insane with your COMPLY rants.

Cop was entirely in the wrong and WAY TO aggressive.

Based on the details provided he was wrong to pull the person over in the first place (he had a plate) and drove an additional 60 seconds to a lit area...see that all the time and 60 seconds to pull over isn't unreasonable.

Tinted windows is not a reason to draw on a civilian.

Driver did nothing wrong. That cop made wrong decision after wrong decision and yall are laying almost all the blame on the driver.

I'd have been terrified to.

---

He did not have a visible plate. Look at the video and tell me you can see the plate, inside the back window. If someone doesn't stop for 60 seconds, that is a chase. If someone doesn't stop where you try to stop them, that is reason for suspicion. Because of these reasons it was a high risk traffic stop and weapons must be drawn.

Driver literally did everything wrong.

---

You are an idiot. If I have a chance to pull over in a well lit area rather than a dark street, I'm doing it.

---

The LT DID pull over in a well lit "safer" place for his wellbeing. He was asked numerous times to get out of his vehicle. He ignored both officers and went into his passive/aggressive "why me I've done nothing wrong" mode. Let's say you were the responding officer. How many times would you have asked him to get out of his vehicle before the hair on the back of your neck started alerting you to the fact that something is not right about this situation? When bullets' started flying at you from the LT's vehicle? . If that's what it would take you should probably not seek a career in LE. It's fairly clear that the outcome was pretty much a result of the poor choices the LT made

Looks like a good stop. Appropriate use of non lethal force to gain compliance from the suspect.

Bravo to the men in blue.

Quote:

---

Any other profession INCLUDING the military (I am an ex-paratrooper) myself, has accountability towards how they conduct themselves in public.

---

As does the public....there is no double standard.

Troutslime said:

---

Quote:

---

Any other profession INCLUDING the military (I am an ex-paratrooper) myself, has accountability towards how they conduct themselves in public.

---

As does the public....there is no double standard.

---

Blue star this

Rattler12 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Quote:

---

Any other profession INCLUDING the military (I am an ex-paratrooper) myself, has accountability towards how they conduct themselves in public.

---

As does the public....there is no double standard.

---

Blue star this

---

Except the cops have QI and the civilian doesn't....so there is actually.

lb3 said:

---

Looks like a good stop. Appropriate use of non lethal force to gain compliance from the suspect.

Bravo to the men in blue.

---

Something tells me the Constitution and therefore the courts will say different. As a staunch conservative and veteran, US Constitution > everything else. Could be wrong though, we shall see, we shall see...

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Quote:

---

Any other profession INCLUDING the military (I am an ex-paratrooper) myself, has accountability towards how they conduct themselves in public.

---

As does the public....there is no double standard.

---

Blue star this

---

Except the cops have QI and the civilian doesn't....so there is actually.

---

Not in NYC anymore =(

Rattler12 said:

---

WestTexAg12 said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Wow...some of you guys are insane with your COMPLY rants.

Cop was entirely in the wrong and WAY TO aggressive.

Based on the details provided he was wrong to pull the person over in the first place (he had a plate) and drove an additional 60 seconds to a lit area...see that all the time and 60 seconds to pull over isn't unreasonable.

Tinted windows is not a reason to draw on a civilian.

Driver did nothing wrong. That cop made wrong decision after wrong decision and yall are laying almost all the blame on the driver.

I'd have been terrified to.

---

He did not have a visible plate. Look at the video and tell me you can see the plate, inside the back window. If someone doesn't stop for 60 seconds, that is a chase. If someone doesn't stop where you try to stop them, that is reason for suspicion. Because of these reasons it was a high risk traffic stop and weapons must be drawn.

Driver literally did everything wrong.

---

You are an idiot. If I have a chance to pull over in a well lit area rather than a dark street, I'm doing it.

---

The LT DID pull over in a well lit "safer" place for his wellbeing. He was asked numerous times to get out of his vehicle. He ignored both officers and went into his passive/aggressive "why me I've done nothing wrong" mode. Let's say you were the responding officer. How many times would you have asked him to get out of his vehicle before the hair on the back of your neck started alerting you to the fact that something is not right about this situation? When bullets' started flying at you from the LT's vehicle? . If that's what it would take you should probably not seek a career in LE. It's fairly clear that the outcome was pretty much a result of the poor choices the LT made

---

Exactly.

I don't think that pulling over in a well lit parking lot to be very unreasonable, but his refusal to comply with the lawful orders of the police is a legitimate cause for alarm.

I want to elaborate on a point Tanya made.

When I used to live in Denver, there was a rash of fake cops pulling over women and sexually assaulting them in rural counties in Northern Colorado.

These guys had cop looking cars with red and blue lights and some of them even had fake uniforms and badges.

At that time, they gave out out some pointers about how to figure out if a cop was legit. And obviously the Colorado cops advised driving to a well lit area, etc.

So, to Tanya's point, that is a valid concern for females for sure.

eric76 said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

WestTexAg12 said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Wow...some of you guys are insane with your COMPLY rants.

Cop was entirely in the wrong and WAY TO aggressive.

Based on the details provided he was wrong to pull the person over in the first place (he had a plate) and drove an additional 60 seconds to a lit area...see that all the time and 60 seconds to pull over isn't unreasonable.

Tinted windows is not a reason to draw on a civilian.

Driver did nothing wrong. That cop made wrong decision after wrong decision and yall are laying almost all the blame on the driver.

I'd have been terrified to.

---

He did not have a visible plate. Look at the video and tell me you can see the plate, inside the back window. If someone doesn't stop for 60 seconds, that is a chase. If someone doesn't stop where you try to stop them, that is reason for suspicion. Because of these reasons it was a high risk traffic stop and weapons must be drawn.

Driver literally did everything wrong.

---

You are an idiot. If I have a chance to pull over in a well lit area rather than a dark street, I'm doing it.

---

The LT DID pull over in a well lit "safer" place for his wellbeing. He was asked numerous times to get out of his vehicle. He ignored both officers and went into his passive/aggressive "why me I've done nothing wrong" mode. Let's say you were the responding officer. How many times would you have asked him to get out of his vehicle before the hair on the back of your neck started alerting you to the fact that something is not right about this situation? When bullets' started flying at you from the LT's vehicle? . If that's what it would take you should probably not seek a career in LE. It's fairly clear that the outcome was pretty much a result of the poor choices the LT made

---

Exactly.

I don't think that pulling over in a well lit parking lot to be very unreasonable, but his refusal to comply with the lawful orders of the police is a legitimate cause for alarm.

---

The PC was for no license plate, the PC was satisfied by the investigation when he pulled over the vehicle and saw the temp tags were there. At that point, there is no reason to detain them any further as he was not suspected of committing a crime or traffic violation. Now if police wanted to ID him etc, go for it, the officer has full discretion to do so. There were ZERO reasons to ask the driver to exit the vehicle, and ZERO reasons to draw guns on him.

Some of you guys I swear would gladly destroy our constitution to justify anything and everything police do. It is possible to love your civil servants and love the constitution. They are not binary...

The first command I hear is "put your hands out the window." Followed by "put your hands out the window. Turn the vehicle off". Immediately. Back to back.

Soooo. What is it? Reach in and turn the vehicle off or keep hands out the window?

Then the dummy cop says it agin. "Put your hands out the window and turn the vehicle off"


So which is it? Pray tell


Then a little later come the get out of the car comments. Well, decent chance that door is locked and would require putting hands in car to unlock without ability to open from outside....

So...which is it? The first commands were keep hands oht the window

Then repeated...immmediately back to back...keep hands out the window. Get out of the car NOW.

So...which is it?

I would've asked questions to exactly that. This is part of our responsibility.

Yeah im sure "hey you stupid cop you just gave me contradictory demands. Wtf do you want me to do while you continue to yell contradictory demands with a weapon pulled" would go over well. Haha. And with these dummy cops, no matter how polite that question was asked (even with no real opportunity to ask), they would have perceived it as I phrased

HollywoodBQ said:

---

I want to elaborate on a point Tanya made.

When I used to live in Denver, there was a rash of fake cops pulling over women and sexually assaulting them in rural counties in Northern Colorado.

These guys had cop looking cars with red and blue lights and some of them even had fake uniforms and badges.

At that time, they gave out out some pointers about how to figure out if a cop was legit. And obviously the Colorado cops advised driving to a well lit area, etc.

So, to Tanya's point, that is a valid concern for females for sure.

---

What about for beta males being raped by fake cops?

Funny. I see a guy who could've stepped out immediately when asked.

All I know....resisting request only pressurizes the moment. If you get beat getting out then.....well if you resist more and more it may likely get physical.

At some point it is better to patient, get that guys badge number for a later conversation with the police and go home alive.

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

There is no "time limit" or "distance limit". Its a common sense based on all available information limit. Want to take your position literally like you appear to want to do? Driving on one of our beautoful always under construction highways with no shoulders and barriers 1-2 feet from each side of the car. Want that car to stop immediately? Hell no. Why? Common sense. If a car is getting pulled over for routine traffic violation, slows down, puts on hazards, pulls over at first available spot and immediately puts hands out the window, that is almost on its face someone wanting to comply and should be treated so accordingly. If they speed up, create a chase, pass multiple exists, have stolen plates, even if put hands out the window, treat them like the *******s they are. So the time/distance limit will not be a hand guide behind the "**** to put in your report" chapter. It is based on common sense. And if a cop doesn't have that, then give the coo a job that does not require a gun

---

That is my point. One minute and 40 seconds in a city seems excessive. It took that long to find the first available spot? It probably wouldn't have been suspect except combined with the no license plate and window tint, the cop decided it was a high risk traffic stop. Other cops wouldn't have. The cop conducting the stop gets to decide, based on his training and experience. His decisions don't have to be perfect, they have to be reasonable, and from the trained officer's perspective, not the layperson.

From the VERY first cop interaction, it is yelling immediately back to back inconsistent demands with a weapon pulled. With repeated, consistent, yelling of inconsistent demand. How anyone could say what a civilian should do is ridiculous. Hell the cops cant even clarify whT they want him to do. I

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

From the VERY first cop interaction, it is yelling immediately back to back inconsistent demands with a weapon pulled. With repeated, consistent, yelling of inconsistent demand. How anyone could say what a civilian should do is ridiculous. Hell the cops cant even clarify whT they want him to do. I

---

The officer with the bodycam that you are watching arrived later to the scene. I think many are not realizing this.

There is a lot that happened before the video begins. Everyone should just relax and avoid taking this so personally.

InfantryAg said:

---

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

There is no "time limit" or "distance limit". Its a common sense based on all available information limit. Want to take your position literally like you appear to want to do? Driving on one of our beautoful always under construction highways with no shoulders and barriers 1-2 feet from each side of the car. Want that car to stop immediately? Hell no. Why? Common sense. If a car is getting pulled over for routine traffic violation, slows down, puts on hazards, pulls over at first available spot and immediately puts hands out the window, that is almost on its face someone wanting to comply and should be treated so accordingly. If they speed up, create a chase, pass multiple exists, have stolen plates, even if put hands out the window, treat them like the *******s they are. So the time/distance limit will not be a hand guide behind the "**** to put in your report" chapter. It is based on common sense. And if a cop doesn't have that, then give the coo a job that does not require a gun

---

That is my point. One minute and 40 seconds in a city seems excessive. It took that long to find the first available spot? It probably wouldn't have been suspect except combined with the no license plate and window tint, the cop decided it was a high risk traffic stop. Other cops wouldn't have. The cop conducting the stop gets to decide, based on his training and experience. His decisions don't have to be perfect, they have to be reasonable, and from the trained officer's perspective, not the layperson.

---

This is incorrect. Most case law is determined by "reasonable" actions. Not by police officers, by citizens. Or layperson's as you like to call them. In this case, the court would "probably" determine what a reasonable citizen would do when he is lit up in the middle of the night, in a city, when he suspects he has done nothing wrong.

Is it reasonable for that citizen to find a well-lit area to pull over to initiate with the officer the traffic stop? I would say yes, and I would lean that the court would too. Especially when pulling over within two minutes time of the officer initiating the traffic stop on the road.

The very first demand he is given is "get your hands out the window". He does just exactly that while the inconsistent demands continue while interspersed with "keep hands out the window" demands. This wa awful and active cops needs to call that insanity out

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Quote:

---

Any other profession INCLUDING the military (I am an ex-paratrooper) myself, has accountability towards how they conduct themselves in public.

---

As does the public....there is no double standard.

---

Blue star this

---

Except the cops have QI and the civilian doesn't....so there is actually.

---

I don't think that's where Troutslime was headed with his post

Ok so when a vehicle is pulled over like that for no License Plate and one is found, the stop is still good. It's called good faith. At that time an officer is supposed to hand over the documents obtained unless it has now turned in to another type of investigation, I.e. drugs, DWI or what have you. If the cop hands over the documents and is not investigating something mentioned above, it's turned in to a consensual contact. I get what IntantryAg is saying. I've been on patrol for close to 8 years. What we do is we take the totality of the circumstances in to account. That's the standard by which police officers are judged. While from the information I have seen I don't agree with what these officers have done, I can't definitively say they were wrong at this point because I don't have all the facts. When he talks about people taking too long, there are times when you see furtive movements and you know either they are going to run, fight, or they are attempting to destroy evidence generally so that does heighten your senses. Now for Tanya93. There is nothing wrong with going to a well lit place within reason if it's a block or two generally we won't care but if we are talking five minutes then we are looking at an evading situation. There is no black and white as cops. Everything is gray. Everything depends on the totality of the circumstances and we never know truly who we are pulling over. We can articulate that hey we are in an area with a high drug and violent crime rate and yes a minute would definitely raise my suspicion and alertness where as a minute driving off a high way or going a block to a more lit street in an area with a lower crime is more reasonable of that makes sense. I used to work on Odessa. I would have been much more suspicious over a couple blocks with a vehicle there in the area I worked then where I work now just due to the crime rate and type of crime I deal with. If that makes sense.

DisAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

WestTexAg12 said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Wow...some of you guys are insane with your COMPLY rants.

Cop was entirely in the wrong and WAY TO aggressive.

Based on the details provided he was wrong to pull the person over in the first place (he had a plate) and drove an additional 60 seconds to a lit area...see that all the time and 60 seconds to pull over isn't unreasonable.

Tinted windows is not a reason to draw on a civilian.

Driver did nothing wrong. That cop made wrong decision after wrong decision and yall are laying almost all the blame on the driver.

I'd have been terrified to.

---

He did not have a visible plate. Look at the video and tell me you can see the plate, inside the back window. If someone doesn't stop for 60 seconds, that is a chase. If someone doesn't stop where you try to stop them, that is reason for suspicion. Because of these reasons it was a high risk traffic stop and weapons must be drawn.

Driver literally did everything wrong.

---

You are an idiot. If I have a chance to pull over in a well lit area rather than a dark street, I'm doing it.

---

The LT DID pull over in a well lit "safer" place for his wellbeing. He was asked numerous times to get out of his vehicle. He ignored both officers and went into his passive/aggressive "why me I've done nothing wrong" mode. Let's say you were the responding officer. How many times would you have asked him to get out of his vehicle before the hair on the back of your neck started alerting you to the fact that something is not right about this situation? When bullets' started flying at you from the LT's vehicle? . If that's what it would take you should probably not seek a career in LE. It's fairly clear that the outcome was pretty much a result of the poor choices the LT made

---

Exactly.

I don't think that pulling over in a well lit parking lot to be very unreasonable, but his refusal to comply with the lawful orders of the police is a legitimate cause for alarm.

---

The PC was for no license plate, the PC was satisfied by the investigation when he pulled over the vehicle and saw the temp tags were there. At that point, there is no reason to detain them any further as he was not suspected of committing a crime or traffic violation. Now if police wanted to ID him etc, go for it, the officer has full discretion to do so. There were ZERO reasons to ask the driver to exit the vehicle, and ZERO reasons to draw guns on him.

Some of you guys I swear would gladly destroy our constitution to justify anything and everything police do. It is possible to love your civil servants and love the constitution. They are not binary...

---

There were TWO reasons to ask the driver to exit the vehicle, one for his safety and one for the safety of the officers and ZERO reasons to draw guns on him had he complied before being asked 42 times.

AggieKatie2 said:

---

From a distance, it seems like traffic stops have become less about vehicle and transportation safety and more about public control and what else can I find on this person.

InfantryAg, I understand and do not envy the dangerous decisions you have to make on a daily basis, but some of your responses have been semi red-flags for me because it seems like traffic stops are less about the traffic violation and more about everyone's a criminal what might be there for me to find based on your comments.

---

It depends. Every agency/ department and even officers are different. Some agencies place an emphasis on traffic enforcement for a variety of reasons. I know officers that will write citations all day long. Never been my thing, but they are not wrong in doing so.

Pre-textual stops are legal in the U.S. Criminal activities have indicators. Vehicles used in criminal activities have indicators also. That is what I look for, when I see a vehicle that has these indicators and it does an action that gives me PC to stop it, I am going to stop it. If I know a vehicle is probably involved in criminal activity and it doesn't give me PC for a stop, it gets away, so be it.

If a driver doesn't violate the law he shouldn't be pulled over. If people don't like the law, they should contact their legislatures. This is what happened in Virginia and many other states this last year. VA now has no more stops for tint, expired registration, odor of marijuana etc. You will crime rise significantly, as you have this last year.

Traffic stops are about public control, insofar as enforcing laws the public has passed (speeding, drunk driving etc). Pre-textual stops are about catching bad guys, not the average person. If I stop a car that has criminal indicators, and it's not a criminal, they go on their way. With me, they get a warning for their infraction. If a cop gives them a citation, it's not the cops making the laws.

Look at the amount of guns and drugs that are gotten through legal traffic stops. Look at the amounts of felons that are arrested through traffic stops. Look at the sex traffickers that have been caught through traffic stops. It is the single most effective way we have of catching criminals. And these days, there are lots more criminals out there than people realize.

Guys vehicle is on and seatbelt on. Two things the cops should know. And they are continuously yelling - woth weapons pulled - "keep your hands out the window" interspersed with demands that would require him to put his hands in his car. These idiot cops made it impossible to "comply with lawful demands". But keep getting more and more butthurt because the guy cant comply with their inconsistent demands

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

The very first demand he is given is "get your hands out the window". He does just exactly that while the inconsistent demands continue while interspersed with "keep hands out the window" demands. This wa awful and active cops needs to call that insanity out

---

Yes, cop was overwhelmed by the situation. Training issue that should be addressed. Still legal, but could have made the situation worse.

Still would have not been an issue if the driver had complied.

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

From the VERY first cop interaction, it is yelling immediately back to back inconsistent demands with a weapon pulled. With repeated, consistent, yelling of inconsistent demand. How anyone could say what a civilian should do is ridiculous. Hell the cops cant even clarify whT they want him to do. I

---

You guys telling a law officer how his profession should handle their business is about like me telling Htown98 how to cook.

Complies with WHICH demand? The first one? The one that kept getting demanded? Or the ones that would mean noncompliance with the first demand even while the first one kept being made?