"Army lieutenant "should have just complied"

Then he wouldn't have a lawsuit...

I feel like this whole thing could have been avoided had the Lt. been given a chance to identify

then the officer

sees he is in uniform
just purchased the vehicle(should then negate the reason for PC)
knows his name, rank, and where he lives

The cops seemed all too excited and ready to leap to use of force when the only provocation seems to be the 2 min drive and failure of the driver to leave the vehicle

As others have said...I would have a hard time moving my hands outside the visibility of the officers...so If I wasn't already unbuckled I would be extremely hesitant to try that and get out with 2 firearms trained on me.

I think perhaps the public and the police at large need a reset and retraining moment.

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.

---

This is it, 100%. Very well said. I'd go as far as to say regardless of how good InfantryAg is at his job that him, and cops like him, are much much worse for society than the smaller percentage of truly bad cops out there. Everything he's saying in this thread is despicable, the hoops he's jumping through to justify these cops actions are mind boggling.

Dude, regardless of what the blue wall has told you, you don't have to protect them! Criticism of them is not criticism of you. Hold your peers to a higher standard. The general public isn't the enemy!!

InfantryAg said:

---

These officers TTPs were flawed. I don't like it when cops are yelling, because it looks like they are not in control, and obviously they shouldn't have given contradictory commands. But their actions were within the realm of reasonableness, they cannot be expected to be perfect, only reasonable.

Most drivers aren't pulled over and treated like the enemy, you just don't see those videos on youtube or the news.

If this driver had stopped sooner, this wouldn't have escalated. If he stopped where he did and had complied, this wouldn't have happened.

When he failed to comply, what would you have done to get him out of the vehicle?

---

There is nothing reasonable about giving contradictory instructions at a citizen with firearms pointed at them. Your realm of reasonableness must be Narnia.

Progress can't be made in these situations because people like you double down on dumb and refuse to acknowledge a few realities:

1) Acceptable conduct/interaction from a citizen varies from officer to officer. If one citizen pulls over immediately in a tight or precarious spot, an officer may get emotionally charged for putting their life in danger. If another citizen puts their hazards on, drives until they can find a safe and well lit area, and even calls into dispatch, the officer might still be pissed and emotionally respond because they aren't controlling the situation (yes this has happened)

2) The expectation for a citizen to do everything emotionally calm and perfect in a tense encounter with a firearm, but not place the burden of the responsibility on the officer is ludicrous. This is coming from a person who starts a traffic stop with his hands outside of the window with license in hand and windows down so that they can see I'm not a threat. No way I'm pulling my hands back inside for my seatbelt in that situation. Tanya posted a vid earlier in the thread that showed an idiot officer shooting a guy retrieving his license. The only reason that guy lived was because the officer's shooting skills were parallel to your reasoning skills.

I do my best to let any officer that pulls me over that I am not a threat, and I sincerely want both of us to go home safely. But it has to be acknowledged that there are differences between professional LEO's and losers with a badge.

These cops were unprofessional idiots barking bad instructions. They let emotion supersede professionalism. Any cop that thinks this was remotely acceptable should go back to the same remedial cop training that these two idiots should.

Bankeraggie said:

---

We both know what qualified immunity is. Make a bad cop potentially financially liable for their actions. I think you go a step further. Put the unions on the hook. Their thin blue line thinking would get real reasonable if their $$ were in play.

And how many stops are made involving an AR? Mayberry RFD does not need an MRAP. I don't care if they get it cheaply or not. It creates a mindset.

A mindset of us versus them where a former infantry officer, turned cop, might very well adopt and then defend in other cops. Force submission and compliance.

Of course big cities need SWAT and appropriate tools. Just every cop and every department in America doesn't need every toy out there. Again, it creates a mindset.

Every police department should be subject to civilian oversight. Every body can moment subject to review by a board. Your cam is out, your shift is over.

If there is nothing to hide, why would this be an issue?

---

I know what QI is, it sounds like you don't. Bad cops are financially liable for their illegal actions. QI does not protect someone if they commit a criminal act.

Not sure what you mean by stops involving an AR. Drivers having an AR, cops having an AR? What difference does that make? There are long guns being used on the streets by criminals every day. If an active shooter happens or a terrorist attack, you want a cop to respond with what?

San Bernardino, where a terrorist attack happened (and a school shooting), has a population of 215,000. Columbine had a population of around 25,000 when it had an active shooter, Parkland FL had around 24,000. So you have to be an urban area to have access to a tool that could save lives?

What mindset is created by a tool? San Marcos used their MRAP to rescue kids during the flooding a few years ago. Scary...

The only mindset of us against them I have is us against the criminal element. When a car full of gang members shoots up a neighborhood, killing a 10 year old girl, on her way to get ice cream, I don't think they should get a free pass to drive around in a stolen vehicle, loaded with long guns, as they prey on innocent people. One of the fourteen children murdered in DC in 2019.

Even when overseas I never had a mindset of us against them towards the populace. You're making gross assumptions, not based in fact.

Since you're so much into judging entire groups of people by the actions of a few, why don't we talk about bankers. Banks have had more corruption and harmed people more than cops could even imagine.

I don't judge a profession by 2 idiots. But when other cops pile in to defend idiot behavior, it certainly doesn't help the perception of the profession. That's the whole point. You guys do really suck at calling each other on their ****

These cops are idiots and they're giving conflicting orders If you comply with all the orders they are giving on the order they are giving them you're gonna get shot . Put your hands out the window. Turn the car off. With my hands out the window. Get out of the car! [With my seatbelt on?] Keep your hands were I can see them. Well **** how do I get out of the car and you can still see my hands..wtf. Learn how to give order even. Especially if not following these orders results in death.

I agree 100%. If citizens and cops can't agree on the handling of a situation like this, that speaks way louder than the situation itself.

The 2 cops

This is why I have a profound respect for law enforcement, and why I know that this Windsor Police incident is not the norm. My hope is the majority of good law enforcement says enough is enough and start holding the minority of bad law enforcement accountable.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-mexico-police-officer-fatally-shot-in-the-head-during-routine-stop-in-february-video-shows

Sadly the above story will be a small blip compared to this Windsor story. That's another problem IMHO, ****ing corrupted media, but I digress.

Looks like an Antifa meeting in here

Maybe I haven't made myself clear in this myriad of posts on this thread.

This stop was legal, the officer had PC to make the stop.

There were indicators that this car was being used in criminal activity. The drivers actions could be construed as evasive or buying time for an unknown reason. All of this taken together could justify the 1st officer calling for a "felony" traffic stop. The second officer is called to backup for this felony traffic stop.

Felony, or high risk traffic stops are conducted with weapons drawn, and the driver and passengers are verbally told what to do, step by step, to exit the vehicle and then are walked back towards the officers vehicles, where an officer takes them into custody, one at a time. That is standard procedure for a high risk traffic stop.

The driver is required by law to exit the vehicle, if an officer commands him to.

When the driver refused to obey the commands, the officers then had to move towards the car and extract him. They were not good at that and you can certainly consider them to be jackasses, but that's not illegal. They were lucky their conflicting, unclear commands didn't cause an unnecessary use of force.

They are justified in using force to affect an arrest. At this point he can be arrested for failure to obey a lawful command, at a minimum. In Texas he could be arrested for his traffic infractions also, not sure about VA or other states. The officers could have physically removed him, or pepper sprayed him or tased him.

I can understand the driver not wanting to move, but at some point (4 minutes into the video) before the driver is pepper sprayed, the guns are holstered. He had no reason not to get out at that point. He continued to not comply with a lawful order. A couple of minutes later the door is open, he has been sprayed and he is still refusing to get out. When he finally does get out he continues to resist the officer and has to be forced to the ground.

If the driver had complied, this would have never become a dangerous situation. Even if the officer was wrong, fight it in the courts. Because of the drivers actions, guns were drawn. Because of the drivers non-compliance, guns continued to be drawn. Because of the drivers non-compliance, he was pepper sprayed. Because of his non-compliance he was physically forced to the ground.


My questions:

Obliviously he needed to clarify his commands, this is a training issue. The driver could have also pointed out the conflict, instead of whining about how he didn't have to get out. Aside from this and some dumb comments and loud yelling on the one officers part, the officer who responded to a felony traffic stop, what is illegal or wrong with this stop (till the end of the video, I don't know what happened afterwards)? I don't care about you feelings, I am only interested in actual facts.

Why do any of you think he doesn't have to comply with lawful orders? Don't tell me because he was scared of the guns, he continued after they were holstered.

Do you think this guy would let one of his soldiers not comply with a lawful order from him?

If you have a child who refuses to listen to you, how long do you let that go on?

black_ice said:

---

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?

---

West Hollywood is policed by LA County Sheriff.

I haven't heard of any fake cops in WeHo, just role play in patent leather.

You are right. A bunch of bankers should have gone to prison. Especially following the subprime mortgage disaster.

I'm guessing if they gave less money to politicians, more would have gone to jail.

I get where you are coming from. Cops look out fir each other. It just came out in Boston the PD covered up for a child molester for two years or more.

Who was he? Head of the police union. They protected a child molester. Like you are defending these clowns. You are on the other side of the line you have likely never seen a cop do wrong. There is nothing to say to you. I'm just glad they didn't kill the Lt and you'd still be defending that they were afraid or in high school the Lt smoked pot.

Bankeraggie said:

---

You are right. A bunch of bankers should have gone to prison. Especially following the subprime mortgage disaster.

---

you act like they put a gun to peoples heads and made them buy home with ****ty loans that they didnt understand

Oh and on qualified immunity. You really aren't saying my definition was wrong? The hurdle to pass is obscene.

I will point no further than the 2015 Lech family incident.

A dangerous shoplifter stole a belt. He ran and was pursued by our saviors. He ran into a private home. It was not his home and had no relation to him.

The Greenwood Village Colorado police force, aching to use their toys that make them feel like men, literally destroyed the house over the next several hours. They used explosives and a battering ram mounted on an armored vehicle. Had they had the ability, they probably would have called in an air strike.

The cops did 450,000 worth of damage to this family home. The courts said no payment to the innocent homeowner because .. qualified immunity.

So give me a break on that. That law needs to change years ago. When cops are out there in a circle jerk blowing up private property, they should have to personally pay up.

I'm going out on a limb here. Maybe just maybe they would blow less **** up chasing a guy who shoplifted a belt.

No hedge. Are you unfamiliar with what happened? The issue was when those bundles of mortgages were packaged and sold. The contents of those bundles was often not even close to what was represented.

The crisis if you really want to talk about it. Was not a subprime issue. Most primary residence buyers did nit default, regardless of credit tier. What you saw was A credit suburbanites buying and trying to flip houses. When the flip option dried up, they defaulted. It was non owner occupied that was the issue.

yea big banks should have been punished more severely but lets not pretend that the average consumer is innocent

I completely agree with you. People all over the country flat out lied on mortgage applications, sometimes again and again. Ridiculous.

Bankeraggie said:

---

You are right. A bunch of bankers should have gone to prison. Especially following the subprime mortgage disaster.

I'm guessing if they gave less money to politicians, more would have gone to jail.

I get where you are coming from. Cops look out fir each other. It just came out in Boston the PD covered up for a child molester for two years or more.

Who was he? Head of the police union. They protected a child molester. Like you are defending these clowns. You are on the other side of the line you have likely never seen a cop do wrong. There is nothing to say to you. I'm just glad they didn't kill the Lt and you'd still be defending that they were afraid or in high school the Lt smoked pot.

---

You are way over the line here and it's absolutely inappropriate what you are trying to suggest.

Bankers launder money for cartels and child traffickers. Does that mean you would never see anything wrong with other bankers also (just in general)?

And is it fair that I throw out that bankers partake in the most evil of crimes then in the same breath claim that you defend bankers always?

Disgusting.

Eta: I flagged your post. You showed up late to this thread and just posted nothing but personal accusations and garbage. And I hope to never have the privilege of banking with you. You certainly don't keep your composure even when little is required of you to do so. And I definitely can't imagine you carrying a badge and a gun, you would never hack it.

hedge said:

---

Bankeraggie said:

---

You are right. A bunch of bankers should have gone to prison. Especially following the subprime mortgage disaster.

---

you act like they put a gun to peoples heads and made them buy home with ****ty loans that they didnt understand

---

Good gosh, you really don't understand what that was all about.

InfantryAg said:

---

Maybe I haven't made myself clear in this myriad of posts on this thread.

This stop was legal, the officer had PC to make the stop.

There were indicators that this car was being used in criminal activity. The drivers actions could be construed as evasive or buying time for an unknown reason. All of this taken together could justify the 1st officer calling for a "felony" traffic stop. The second officer is called to backup for this felony traffic stop.

Felony, or high risk traffic stops are conducted with weapons drawn, and the driver and passengers are verbally told what to do, step by step, to exit the vehicle and then are walked back towards the officers vehicles, where an officer takes them into custody, one at a time. That is standard procedure for a high risk traffic stop.

The driver is required by law to exit the vehicle, if an officer commands him to.

When the driver refused to obey the commands, the officers then had to move towards the car and extract him. They were not good at that and you can certainly consider them to be jackasses, but that's not illegal. They were lucky their conflicting, unclear commands didn't cause an unnecessary use of force.

They are justified in using force to affect an arrest. At this point he can be arrested for failure to obey a lawful command, at a minimum. In Texas he could be arrested for his traffic infractions also, not sure about VA or other states. The officers could have physically removed him, or pepper sprayed him or tased him.

I can understand the driver not wanting to move, but at some point (4 minutes into the video) before the driver is pepper sprayed, the guns are holstered. He had no reason not to get out at that point. He continued to not comply with a lawful order. A couple of minutes later the door is open, he has been sprayed and he is still refusing to get out. When he finally does get out he continues to resist the officer and has to be forced to the ground.

If the driver had complied, this would have never become a dangerous situation. Even if the officer was wrong, fight it in the courts. Because of the drivers actions, guns were drawn. Because of the drivers non-compliance, guns continued to be drawn. Because of the drivers non-compliance, he was pepper sprayed. Because of his non-compliance he was physically forced to the ground.


My questions:

Obliviously he needed to clarify his commands, this is a training issue. The driver could have also pointed out the conflict, instead of whining about how he didn't have to get out. Aside from this and some dumb comments and loud yelling on the one officers part, the officer who responded to a felony traffic stop, what is illegal or wrong with this stop (till the end of the video, I don't know what happened afterwards)? I don't care about you feelings, I am only interested in actual facts.

Why do any of you think he doesn't have to comply with lawful orders? Don't tell me because he was scared of the guns, he continued after they were holstered.

Do you think this guy would let one of his soldiers not comply with a lawful order from him?

If you have a child who refuses to listen to you, how long do you let that go on?

---

Two things. Dude complies none of this is being talked about.

Number 2. There was a stand down last week where everyone was addressed by SecDef during stand down that when he was young he had seen this "phenomenon" before. (I believe this is the word he used). He implied that stand down was targeted towards White Patriotism and Nationalism and that they were out to oppress ALL MINORITIES. It was THOSE white Military vets and police in the ranks who were now the new KKK. THEY HAVE TO. IDENTIFIED AND ROOTED OUT.

This lieutenant could of gotten out, not said he feared for his life and the only thing he forgot to say is "I can't breath". Meet the new poster child of a victim being almost killed by MAGA cops. We will find out those cops fly the American Flag at home, voted for Trump and participated in a rally. Possibly FB photos of them at a rally having a good time with other racist white people.....wearing red, white and blue.

This is not being played because there was concerned for the Lt. or that the video shows a near miss moment where death could have occurred. Nope this fits the narrative of the stand down like a glove and it will be replayed at the end of 2021 as a pivotable point of some race related moment.

You were doing 30 over and didnt get a ticket? So difference being you broke the law the other guy didnt. That's speed if true is actually a felony. The driver in the video asked for a reason he was pulled over and never received it. The subsequently sprayed, threatened and assaulted. Again you had a violation and walked away the other guy had none and went to jail. Also if he complied with all the orders which were conflicting then he's logically not complying. Keep your hands out of the vehicle doesn't mean reach for your seatbelt. The biggest factor in why you got away with a felony and the other guy going to jail likely has little to do with your compliance.

Btw the worst I got away with was 17 over but there were no orders other than license and registration please.

Turn off your vehicle. Roll down your windows place your hands outside the vehicle. One giving commands approach stay on left the other officer on right looks @a distance into the vehicle. Conversation ensues . Drive away.
There's policies and procedures which they didnt follow. They first should do there job properly before you expect compliance. They couldn't see in the vehicle but never asked for the windows down. What good is him getting out going to do if there's armed individuals inside. Furthermore, what kind of dog is inside . What happens if it jumps out of this open door and mauls an officer for perceived threat to its owner.

My wife knows that if she gets the blue lights to pull into a public, populated and well lit area. If that "area" is a mile away she'll phone 911 to alert the fuzz what is her plan.

The cops in the vid? *******s. My son told me that. He's a cop.

The "contradictory instructions were being given by the cop" angle is actually pretty irrelevant here. The LT showed he clearly had no intention of turning his vehicle off or releasing his seatbelt.
If he was really all confused about the instructions being given then instead of repeating "I did nothing wrong, I'm so scared right now" BS, he should have asked for clarification.

The only thing that matters here (to me) is that we have a(nother) person just blatantly disregarding instructions being given to him by the police. Sorry, but I'll just never understand that.

Ghost91 said:

---

The "contradictory instructions were being given by the cop" angle is actually pretty irrelevant here. The LT showed he clearly had no intention of turning his vehicle off or releasing his seatbelt.
If he was really all confused about the instructions being given then instead of repeating "I did nothing wrong, I'm so scared right now" BS, he should have asked for clarification.

The only thing that matters here (to me) is that we have a(nother) person just blatantly disregarding instructions being given to him by the police. Sorry, but I'll just never understand that.

---

Sure, officer can you clarify:

"You should be (scared)"

"You're about to ride the lightning"

You know, we use to conduct field interrogations in Viet Nam on individuals and one technique we employed was multiple "angry" team members barking out contradictory orders/questions and each would get mad when the individual didn't respond to their order/question. It can quickly overwhelm and confuse a person's senses. Add in a pointed gun and .... well, you know you'd **** your pants.

DisAg said:

---

OK to clarify, the other officer said it was normal for minorities and women to find a well lit area before pulling over. Not the actual officer who initiated the stop. My fault.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/lawsuit-virginia-police-officers-threatened-pepper-sprayed-army-officer-during-stop/2635589/

Here is the story.


This quote is damning tbh

Body camera footage shows Caron Nazario, who is Black and Latino, was dressed in uniform with his hands held in the air outside the driver's side window as he told the armed officers, "I'm honestly afraid to get out."


"Yeah, you should be!" one of the officers responded during the stop at a gas station.

---

After he was told for the 42nd time to get out

All you chest beaters sitting safely in front of your computer need to go down to your local law enforcement agency and sign up so you can tell them how it should be done and lead by example .....but I guess it's easier and safer just to set there and repeat what every T, D & H has already said for 12 pages. I guess that's better than doing nothing....but not much

No offense dude, but you're coming across like a chest beater with a superiority complex.

InfantryAg said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

I could see the temp tag in the split second the plate was shown in the video. I call complete bull**** on that excuse.

Not gonna get into the actions after, but that's a complete and utter made-up PC.

But....it's silly **** like this why I don't keep.front plates off, tint tails, cover plate with anything, etc. Hyper-sensitive cops trying to fill their quota.

---

There are not quotas, although their often are incentives in some departments. Still hard to pull someone over for a traffic infraction, when they haven't committed one.

I was originally looking in the window. Can't tell if that's a tag under the plate cover or a dealer vanity plate. Still illegal to cover it.

Anyway, plate covers prevent use of license plate readers, make it harder for laser radars to check speed, and can hide plates from toll road license readers. Also conceals fake plates and temp tags and make it harder for LE to run the plate when making a traffic stop. Why do we even have registration, if we are not going to enforce it?

If only we had some way, some kind of process to change these silly laws...

---

I guarantee that if you have more than a 5 minute drive to work, you commit at least 1 traffic violation every commute.

Checking in on this thread.

sort of what I expected.

Infantryag trying to 'splain stuff for folks, and they don't like it much.

pacecar02 said:

---

No offense dude, but you're coming across like a chest beater with a superiority complex.

---

Not me man. Acting like King Kong or God has never been my thing. But....but nice try though

fixer said:

---

Checking in on this thread.

sort of what I expected.

Infantryag trying to 'splain stuff for folks, and they don't like it much.

---

Kinda like arguing with your doctor about his diagnosis. "Son your arm's broke." "My arm is NOT broke it's just hanging there all funny looking and hurts like hell."