Urban Ag said:

---

People are so stupid. I bet my lifetime success rate is 90% for being pulled over and not ticketed. Although I have to admit I think I've been pulled over once in the last 10 years. But I got pulled over frequently enough when I was younger.

It's so freakin easy to just be polite and helpful and move on down the trail.

I call it the Ned Flanders method.

---

Same here...I remember one time when I was younger the cop was going the other way and I IMMEDIATELY pulled over to the shoulder and watched him make a u-turn and I think he was surprised he didn't have to chase me at all. Ended up with a warning.

More recently I got pulled over and I hadn't had a ticket in over 15 years and casually mentioned it to the officer. Again I received a warning. I also pulled over immediately that time too.

I've even pulled over to the shoulder when it wasn't even me they were after and blew past me.

THEY HATE TO CHASE, it ticks them off big time.

With whatever respect is due, you're not helping yourself here. Your comments are pretty much just reinforcing the mindset of many that cops are just bullies getting off on the power, with egos to match.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I do agree that being pulled over for no headlights during the daytime when it's not raining is complete BS. They were looking for easy money on the ticket or something more.

Good news is the cop is going to be fired and the city/officer is going to be sued.

---

I doubt he gets fired, but he may at least get suspended without pay, which doesn't happen if the driver just complies and goes to court. He could easily get out of the ticket, but that's hours of his time wasted going to court and waiting to be seen when it shouldn't be. Even if he files a complaint with the department for the obviously illegal stop, an official slap on the wrist and an unofficial, "Good job," are probably going to be the result. Filing a civil rights lawsuit for the stop isn't going to get anywhere without significant damages either.

This is why we shouldn't have an expectation of blind compliance with blatant abuses of authority. We need a higher expectation for the use of that authority and stronger consequences for its misuse.

---

So we should just be able to pick and choose whe to comply with law enforcement?

It's a ****ing traffic stop. Just don't be an idiot.

Tom Fox said:

---

Brother Shamus said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Yes, it's all his fault for not complying with jackbooted thug making up a reason to pull him over (and probably search him and his vehicle). We can't possibly expect a cop to hold himself to the law and respect this guy's civil rights. JFC courts allow them pretextual stops and he couldn't even do that! And yet, you still expect the driver to just bend over and take it.

**** that.

---

On the side of the road? You're GD right I do. You fight in court, not in the street.

He doesn't have to consent to any search but absolutely must provide his DL as the driver on a traffic stop. His actions created the justification to have him exit the vehicle.

---

Silence statist.

---

Happy to snatch you out through you broken driver's window too.

---

It's a wonder so many people have such a low opinion of police when this level of benevolence towards the general public...

cecil77 said:

---

With whatever respect is due, you're not helping yourself here. Your comments are pretty much just reinforcing the mindset of many that cops are just bullies getting off on the power, with egos to match.

---

Disagree. He's being blunt about the legalities, and citing relevant case law, of what can be done in traffic stops. He himself said punching the guy was over line and the officer should be fired.

But everything else was justified.

It's an illegal traffic stop. Maybe you should expect the cop to do his job and follow the law instead of the driver to just suck it up.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

It's an illegal traffic stop. Maybe you should expect the cop to do his job and follow the law instead of the driver to just suck it up.

---

So we should just be able to tell an officer the stop is illegal and he has to shrug and we are on our way?

cecil77 said:

---

With whatever respect is due, you're not helping yourself here. Your comments are pretty much just reinforcing the mindset of many that cops are just bullies getting off on the power, with egos to match.

---

Don't care. The message that you comply on the street needs to be preached. You cannot win on the street. The system is predicated on that fact.

I am a criminal defense attorney and after I watch my clients idiotic video, I tell him next time stfu, give your license, be polite, and don't consent to anything. This is not a complicated formula.

Juries hate this roadside argument bs. It doesn't play well where I live at all.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

It's an illegal traffic stop. Maybe you should expect the cop to do his job and follow the law instead of the driver to just suck it up.

---

That is a courtroom not roadside determination.

Tom Fox said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

With whatever respect is due, you're not helping yourself here. Your comments are pretty much just reinforcing the mindset of many that cops are just bullies getting off on the power, with egos to match.

---

Don't care. The message that you comply on the street needs to be preached. You cannot win on the street. The system is predicated on that fact.

I am a criminal defense attorney and after I watch my clients idiotic video, I tell him next time stfu, give your license, be polite, and don't consent to anything. This is not a complicated formula.

Juries hate this roadside argument bs. It doesn't play well where I live at all.

---

I agree with all of that. However the you seem to still reflect the power mindset. Maybe you just accept it as "the way it is". IMO there needs to be a ..." but it really shouldn't be that way." The officers making stops need a different mindset, one geared to justice as opposed to compliance. The "comply." (period) mindset is not optimal for police or society.

Quote:

---

That is a courtroom not roadside determination.

---

The point is you should condemn the officer for the illegal stop, and lecture on that as much as the compliance part.

The cop was dumb to make an illegal stop. But you don't fight dumb with even more dumb.

Yeah I'm going to propose something for posts like this.

First thing you type out is how many times you've been arrested.

cecil77 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

With whatever respect is due, you're not helping yourself here. Your comments are pretty much just reinforcing the mindset of many that cops are just bullies getting off on the power, with egos to match.

---

Don't care. The message that you comply on the street needs to be preached. You cannot win on the street. The system is predicated on that fact.

I am a criminal defense attorney and after I watch my clients idiotic video, I tell him next time stfu, give your license, be polite, and don't consent to anything. This is not a complicated formula.

Juries hate this roadside argument bs. It doesn't play well where I live at all.

---

I agree with all of that. However the you seem to still reflect the power mindset. Maybe you just accept it as "the way it is". IMO there needs to be a ..." but it really shouldn't be that way." The officers making stops need a different mindset, one geared to justice as opposed to compliance. The "comply." (period) mindset is not optimal for police or society.

Quote:

---

That is a courtroom not roadside determination.

---

The point is you should condemn the officer for the illegal stop, and lecture on that as much as the compliance part.

---

That is my job in the courtroom but I don't get to do that if my client acts like this idiot. There doesn't need to be a nuanced argument if you are the one stopped. Do exactly as I stated earlier.

If you resist arrest in Texas, the statute states that the underlying reason for the contact or arrest doesn't even have to be lawful for you to be guilty of resisting even an unlawful arrest.

Why would the legislature write the law that way? Easy answer, they want you to comply on the street and fight it out in court.

Homeboy just wanted a big payday. Looks like he'll get it.

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

With whatever respect is due, you're not helping yourself here. Your comments are pretty much just reinforcing the mindset of many that cops are just bullies getting off on the power, with egos to match.

---

Disagree. He's being blunt about the legalities, and citing relevant case law, of what can be done in traffic stops. He himself said punching the guy was over line and the officer should be fired.

But everything else was justified.

---

Except the stop which was the impetus for all this in the first place...

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

With whatever respect is due, you're not helping yourself here. Your comments are pretty much just reinforcing the mindset of many that cops are just bullies getting off on the power, with egos to match.

---

Disagree. He's being blunt about the legalities, and citing relevant case law, of what can be done in traffic stops. He himself said punching the guy was over line and the officer should be fired.

But everything else was justified.

---

Except the stop which was the impetus for all this in the first place...

---

And? The law allows for every action the officer did, even for an unlawful stop.

2000AgPhD said:

---

Homeboy just wanted a big payday. Looks like he'll get it.

---

Correct

And you still haven't answered my question…

Urban Ag said:

---

People are so stupid. I bet my lifetime success rate is 90% for being pulled over and not ticketed. Although I have to admit I think I've been pulled over once in the last 10 years. But I got pulled over frequently enough when I was younger.

It's so freakin easy to just be polite and helpful and move on down the trail.

I call it the Ned Flanders method.

---

90% warning rate is pretty good. I got 4 tickets the first 22 times I got pulled over. I lost count after that but my ticketing rate is almost twice yours.

Teslag said:

---

The cop was dumb to make an illegal stop. But you don't fight dumb with even more dumb.

---

If you don't, he's just going to keep making illegal stops. Now he's potentially facing a lawsuit and internal discipline.

Only because he struck him. If he had just busted the glass and snatched him out it would have been found "within policy." And the interfering charges would have stuck.

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

With whatever respect is due, you're not helping yourself here. Your comments are pretty much just reinforcing the mindset of many that cops are just bullies getting off on the power, with egos to match.

---

Disagree. He's being blunt about the legalities, and citing relevant case law, of what can be done in traffic stops. He himself said punching the guy was over line and the officer should be fired.

But everything else was justified.

---

Except the stop which was the impetus for all this in the first place...

---

And? The law allows for every action the officer did, even for an unlawful stop.

---

The expectation should be on the cop to only make lawful stops, not the citizen to submit to the cop's obvious unlawful fishing expedition. What's the point of requiring probable cause for a traffic stop if there's no consequence for simply making it up?

Stop making excuses for bad policing.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

The cop was dumb to make an illegal stop. But you don't fight dumb with even more dumb.

---

If you don't, he's just going to keep making illegal stops. Now he's potentially facing a lawsuit and internal discipline.

---

Only because the cop punched him.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

With whatever respect is due, you're not helping yourself here. Your comments are pretty much just reinforcing the mindset of many that cops are just bullies getting off on the power, with egos to match.

---

Disagree. He's being blunt about the legalities, and citing relevant case law, of what can be done in traffic stops. He himself said punching the guy was over line and the officer should be fired.

But everything else was justified.

---

Except the stop which was the impetus for all this in the first place...

---

And? The law allows for every action the officer did, even for an unlawful stop.

---

The expectation should be on the cop to only make lawful stops, not the citizen to submit to the cop's obvious unlawful fishing expedition. What's the point of requiring probable cause for a traffic stop if there's no consequence for simply making it up?

Stop making excuses for bad policing.

---

Where am I excusing it? Cops should follow the law. But they are human and sometimes **** up. The solution to that doesn't involve you also ****ing up and breaking the law too.

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

With whatever respect is due, you're not helping yourself here. Your comments are pretty much just reinforcing the mindset of many that cops are just bullies getting off on the power, with egos to match.

---

Disagree. He's being blunt about the legalities, and citing relevant case law, of what can be done in traffic stops. He himself said punching the guy was over line and the officer should be fired.

But everything else was justified.

---

Except the stop which was the impetus for all this in the first place...

---

And? The law allows for every action the officer did, even for an unlawful stop.

---

The expectation should be on the cop to only make lawful stops, not the citizen to submit to the cop's obvious unlawful fishing expedition. What's the point of requiring probable cause for a traffic stop if there's no consequence for simply making it up?

Stop making excuses for bad policing.

---

Where am I excusing it? Cops should follow the law. But they are human and sometimes **** up. The solution to that doesn't involve you also ****ing up and breaking the law too.

---

And without seeing the officers report we are not sure that the only reason was the headlights.

Tom Fox said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

With whatever respect is due, you're not helping yourself here. Your comments are pretty much just reinforcing the mindset of many that cops are just bullies getting off on the power, with egos to match.

---

Disagree. He's being blunt about the legalities, and citing relevant case law, of what can be done in traffic stops. He himself said punching the guy was over line and the officer should be fired.

But everything else was justified.

---

Except the stop which was the impetus for all this in the first place...

---

And? The law allows for every action the officer did, even for an unlawful stop.

---

The expectation should be on the cop to only make lawful stops, not the citizen to submit to the cop's obvious unlawful fishing expedition. What's the point of requiring probable cause for a traffic stop if there's no consequence for simply making it up?

Stop making excuses for bad policing.

---

Where am I excusing it? Cops should follow the law. But they are human and sometimes **** up. The solution to that doesn't involve you also ****ing up and breaking the law too.

---

And without seeing the officers report we are not sure that the only reason was the headlights.

---

Both sides were stupid.

But the headline is dumber. The man wasn't punched for not having his headlights on. He was punched for being a little b*tch and not cooperating with the officer.

Like someone said: Take your ticket, de-escalate, and take it to court. Would have probably been thrown out.


SO: How long did the guy refuse to open his window (allegedly broken and not able to roll down)? How long did he refuse to open his door? How long did he refuse to exit the vehicle?

BUT: He can't just sit there all day. Cops were right to get him out of the vehicle. He wouldn't comply with getting on the ground so he got punched in the face.

HOWEVER: The cop did not need to push the guys face after he broke the window. He should have just opened the door, released the seatbelt, and removed the man from the car. Then, just handcuff him and put him in a car. He didn't need to be put on the ground.

CONCLUSION: Cop went too far, stop was stupid, but the morons who don't comply with simple commands like roll down your window or open your door don't get much sympathy from me.

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

With whatever respect is due, you're not helping yourself here. Your comments are pretty much just reinforcing the mindset of many that cops are just bullies getting off on the power, with egos to match.

---

Disagree. He's being blunt about the legalities, and citing relevant case law, of what can be done in traffic stops. He himself said punching the guy was over line and the officer should be fired.

But everything else was justified.

---

Except the stop which was the impetus for all this in the first place...

---

And? The law allows for every action the officer did, even for an unlawful stop.

---

The expectation should be on the cop to only make lawful stops, not the citizen to submit to the cop's obvious unlawful fishing expedition. What's the point of requiring probable cause for a traffic stop if there's no consequence for simply making it up?

Stop making excuses for bad policing.

---

Where am I excusing it? Cops should follow the law. But they are human and sometimes **** up. The solution to that doesn't involve you also ****ing up and breaking the law too.

---

You ask where you're excusing it and then literally make an excuse for it. Why can you make that statement for the cop, but you can't seem to replace "cops" with "citizens" and make it in the opposite direction? Why is that you'll give cops leeway for ****ing up their job and yet **** all over a citizen standing up for his rights? Both are human and make mistakes, but you're only applying that grace to the professional who is trained to know better?

Tom Fox said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

With whatever respect is due, you're not helping yourself here. Your comments are pretty much just reinforcing the mindset of many that cops are just bullies getting off on the power, with egos to match.

---

Don't care. The message that you comply on the street needs to be preached. You cannot win on the street. The system is predicated on that fact.

I am a criminal defense attorney and after I watch my clients idiotic video, I tell him next time stfu, give your license, be polite, and don't consent to anything. This is not a complicated formula.

Juries hate this roadside argument bs. It doesn't play well where I live at all.

---

I agree with all of that. However the you seem to still reflect the power mindset. Maybe you just accept it as "the way it is". IMO there needs to be a ..." but it really shouldn't be that way." The officers making stops need a different mindset, one geared to justice as opposed to compliance. The "comply." (period) mindset is not optimal for police or society.

Quote:

---

That is a courtroom not roadside determination.

---

The point is you should condemn the officer for the illegal stop, and lecture on that as much as the compliance part.

---

That is my job in the courtroom but I don't get to do that if my client acts like this idiot. There doesn't need to be a nuanced argument if you are the one stopped. Do exactly as I stated earlier.

If you resist arrest in Texas, the statute states that the underlying reason for the contact or arrest doesn't even have to be lawful for you to be guilty of resisting even an unlawful arrest.

Why would the legislature write the law that way? Easy answer, they want you to comply on the street and fight it out in court.

---

What is your opinion of that determination?

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

The expectation should be on the cop to only make lawful stops, not the citizen to submit to the cop's obvious unlawful fishing expedition. What's the point of requiring probable cause for a traffic stop if there's no consequence for simply making it up?

Stop making excuses for bad policing.

---

Uh, you don't need PC to make a traffic stop, just reasonable suspicion.

It makes perfect sense from a public policy perspective. Same as disallowing voluntary intoxication as a defense.

Correct.

Tom Fox said:

---

It makes perfect sense from a public policy perspective. Same as disallowing voluntary intoxication as a defense.

---

From the viewpoint of a coercive government, sure. From the viewpoint of a justice based government, not so much. I understand the logic completely, there just needs to be more "fear" (for lack of a better word) on the part of the arresting officers, and less "I win, you lose" mindset. Remember the one (I think North Carolina) where the cop had the keys and license in his hands and the driver ran away? The cop shot and killed him, rather than just laughing at the idiot and picking him up at his leisure. It's the mindset of the cop of "compliance over all" that is just wrong. I understand it's a dangerous job, I also understand that cops have experience and can pretty much tell what their level of exposure is - they should modify their attitudes and actions accordingly.

Damn, this is some bullsheet. Only thing the kid did was DWB.

Martin Cash said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

The expectation should be on the cop to only make lawful stops, not the citizen to submit to the cop's obvious unlawful fishing expedition. What's the point of requiring probable cause for a traffic stop if there's no consequence for simply making it up?

Stop making excuses for bad policing.

---

Uh, you don't need PC to make a traffic stop, just reasonable suspicion.

---

Which didn't exist, and I'm not getting into a semantics debate. It's obviously daylight. It's obviously not raining. No reasonable person would say you have reasonable suspicion for pulling him over for not having headlights on when the requirements are objectively not met. That's like a cop pulling you over for speeding when he clocks you at 70 in a 75.

They may have suspected he was a drug dealer or had drugs in his car, but they used the headlights as a pretext for the stop because you can't tell either of those things from the outside of the vehicle unless he's got bags of dope or crack stacked in the backseat. Every cop in here defending this knows that and keeps dancing around it because it's a common tactic. They make a pretextual stop for some minor, legitimate infraction (which is legal), and then use that as an excuse to get a look through the windows of the vehicle (also legal). If they don't see anything outright, they'll ask for a search. If they're denied, they'll say they smell marijuana or alcohol and then use that as probable cause for a search (also legal). It doesn't matter how many times they're wrong, they can, and do, simply make it up because you can't record a smell on camera.

The root of the problem here is the cop trying to fabricate a reason for a fishing expedition and this guy not going along with it because it was objectively untrue. The expectation should be on government agents to abide by the law, not for citizens to blindly comply with government overreaches. End of story.