Picard said:

---

This is the kind of cops you get when the good ones are vilified into retirement or otherwise leaving the profession.

---

Yes this can be the case unfortunately. Not sure Florida has this specific problem.

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.

---

Having to pay your ass to defend my right to get groceries is ridiculous.

For what it's worth, this is my neck of the woods. The Sheriff, TK Waters, has done a respectable (even commendable) job thus far. He has not suffered fools lightly, regardless of which side of the badge they're on.

I am confident that he and his staff will investigate this event fully, and will be very transparent in what happened and any consequences that may result.

Pardon the interruption. You may now resume your ranting and raving.

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.

---

we know who didn't watch the video, or even read the posts on this thread past the first one.

Captain Pablo said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Why would the window be up in the first place? When an officer approaches the vehicle, you roll the window down!

---

The arrestee said the window was broken

---

Well it is now.

cecil77 said:

---

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.

---

Apples to oranges. I fully support punishing excessive force severely but still think the law dictating voluntary compliance on the street is the only viable option.

94chem 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.

---

Having to pay your ass to defend my right to get groceries is ridiculous.

---

lol. Total straw man. And not even a very good one at that

Smashing him into the ground, grinding shards of glass into him, and telling him to stop resisting. None of that was justified. They're just adding extra charges off-camera that he'll have to pay to fight. Im sure there will be a half dozen "assault of a peace" officer felonies tacked on. He'll be facing 40+ years if he's in the wrong county. They could set bail at $500K if they wanted to, and house him in a different state. Tom Fox knows everything I said is correct.

Captain Pablo said:

---

94chem 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.

---

Having to pay your ass to defend my right to get groceries is ridiculous.

---

lol. Total straw man. And not even a very good one at that

---

Maybe not, but it's like everytime you take up jogging, you're supposed to consult your physician. Except the law profession is different. You can't even exercise your constitutional rights without bribing the court by hiring one of the people they will listen to. Magic how you hand over your life savings and the judge is ready to cut a deal.

I've repeatedly told you how to behave on a traffic stop in this thread. Sign the traffic ticket and if your conscience moves you to fight back, I'll happily represent you at a class c jury trial and drag my nuts across the officer's face..

Top result from Google.

https://jmarshlaw.com/can-you-refuse-to-exit-your-vehicle-when-ordered/

Tldr: if police say get out of the car, you get out of the car. Article cites Pennsylvania v Mimms and Maryland v Wilson.

To the street law folk, when it says "lawful" that's decided by a judge, not the citizen. What happens if that if the stop is deemed unlawful (for example, no headlights, but it's clearly daylight and not raining)? Well, then you get to file a civil rights complaint and get paid.

In this instance, breaking the window and ejecting the driver is not going to be a valid civil rights complaint because it is within the cops powers and expected authority.

These powers are generally granted due to the "what if he has a gun" question, whether likely or not, because that's the type of case that usually makes it to SCOTUS.

Yup, stop was questionable at best. Had he complied, it's a $100 no headlight ticket, easily dismissed by him just showing up to court. Assuming "they smelled marijuana" and the stop goes further, a lawyer makes this go away with almost no effort.

One change in the law id really like to see is that attorneys fees and reasonable expenses be covered in clearly incorrect stops like this. That simple fix gives the "but the corrupt cops cost me time and money" side a very solid reason to stop arguing on the roadside and make everyone a ton safer.

Tom Fox said:

---

I've repeatedly told you how to behave on a traffic stop in this thread. Sign the traffic ticket and if your conscience moves you to fight back, I'll happily represent you at a class c jury trial and drag my nuts across the officer's face..

---

Much appreciated.

-------------

One change in the law id really like to see is that attorneys fees and reasonable expenses be covered in clearly incorrect stops like this. That simple fix gives the "but the corrupt cops cost me time and money" side a very solid reason to stop arguing on the roadside and make everyone a ton safer.
---------------------

Yeah, it would minimize the extortion tickets given in counties far away when they know the defendant will just pay.

Also, I hate that they are allowed to beat the hell out of him off camera, add a bunch of fabricated felonies, and find a judge who got elected for being "tough on crime" to make it stick, even though he's clearly been subdued.

I agree that fighting the battle on the side of the road is a very bad idea. The best you can do is invoke the Fifth and refuse to talk. Provide your license as required, and just shut up at that point, if you're determined you're not going to play ball with the cops.

That's one reason why I enjoy watching silent auditors on YouTube. Unlike a lot of the loudmouths who try to initiate violent encounters with the cops, the ones who keep quiet put all the pressure on the police to comply with the Bill of Rights. Don't make their jobs easier by adding fuel to a fire.

OP's account is sus

I just want to know how the driver doesn't even flinch when the window is broken.

94chem said:

---

Smashing him into the ground, grinding shards of glass into him, and telling him to stop resisting. None of that was justified. They're just adding extra charges off-camera that he'll have to pay to fight. Im sure there will be a half dozen "assault of a peace" officer felonies tacked on. He'll be facing 40+ years if he's in the wrong county. They could set bail at $500K if they wanted to, and house him in a different state. Tom Fox knows everything I said is correct.

---

I'll take, "Things That Will Never Happen," for $800, Alex.

LeonardSkinner said:

---

94chem said:

---

Smashing him into the ground, grinding shards of glass into him, and telling him to stop resisting. None of that was justified. They're just adding extra charges off-camera that he'll have to pay to fight. Im sure there will be a half dozen "assault of a peace" officer felonies tacked on. He'll be facing 40+ years if he's in the wrong county. They could set bail at $500K if they wanted to, and house him in a different state. Tom Fox knows everything I said is correct.

---

I'll take, "Things That Will Never Happen," for $800, Alex.

---

Just be glad you haven't seen the system up close. It happens every day.

ABATTBQ11 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.

---

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?

---

Who said I'm giving him leeway? He should be fired for punching. But people make mistakes in their jobs. You don't fire them every time they do.

And you still haven't answered my question.

You can beat the rap, not the ride. Knowing when to fight is part of being a good fighter.

Why?

This is why I don't pull people over. Run a redlight, meh, just don't cause a wreak. Speeding, I'm going just as fast. No turn signal, who uses that function. Expired inspection sticker, government takes enough of our money. No seatbelt, your life not mine. I don't wear a seatbelt anyway. So unless a call comes across the radio, I'm breaking the laws just as everyone else is. Not even sure where my ticket book is.

Picard said:

---

This is the kind of cops you get when the good ones are vilified into retirement or otherwise leaving the profession.

---

These types of cops have existed as long as policing has taken place.

Logos Stick said:

---

Why would the window be up in the first place? When an officer approaches the vehicle, you roll the window down!

---

Unless it's that officer. Probably shouldn't even stop

Tom Fox said:

---

Now I've watched it. Officer absolutely should not have struck him and should be fired but he was justified in breaking the window and dragging him out.

---

He wasn't justified in stopping the guy in the first place. Driving without lights during the day time? FTS. The officer should be arrested for assault and battery plain and simple.

These cops violate the Roadhouse Rule: it's a job, it's not personal. Getting so emotional that you assault the driver means you don't have the temperament to be a cop.

This cop hasn't even been fired from what I see. This incident happened back in February.

Cop also apparently falsified his arrest report.

Bro can take a punch

Logos Stick said:

---

These cops violate the Roadhouse Rule: it's a job, it's not personal. Getting so emotional that you assault the driver means you don't have the temperament to be a cop.

This cop hasn't even been fired from what I see. This incident happened back in February.

---

Two tier justice system

TexAgs91 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

These cops violate the Roadhouse Rule: it's a job, it's not personal. Getting so emotional that you assault the driver means you don't have the temperament to be a cop.

This cop hasn't even been fired from what I see. This incident happened back in February.

---

Two tier justice system

---

Public Employee unions are strong

Couple of things after reading this and watching the video

1. If the rolls were reversed and the guy punched the cop they would have killed him. In this case, the officer MAY get fired. Abuse of power by police should come with mandatory prison time

2. I hate the whole idea of just comply and fight later, though it's certainly true. Even if the ticket is total bs for most people lost wages and legal costs are more than the ticket. There should be significant penalties for the officer and department if they lose a case that goes court and the defendent should be made financially whole for the costs to fight.

3. Almost very time I've ever been pulled over it's been justified. Regardless of justification, I chose to be pleasant af because it's the best chance at a free resolution to the situation

BCO07 said:

---

Couple of things after reading this and watching the video

1. If the rolls were reversed and the guy punched the cop they would have killed him. In this case, the officer MAY get fired. Abuse of power by police should come with mandatory prison time

---

That's a bit of reach, don't you think? MURDER doesn't even come with mandatory prison time.

94chem said:

---

LeonardSkinner said:

---

94chem said:

---

Smashing him into the ground, grinding shards of glass into him, and telling him to stop resisting. None of that was justified. They're just adding extra charges off-camera that he'll have to pay to fight. Im sure there will be a half dozen "assault of a peace" officer felonies tacked on. He'll be facing 40+ years if he's in the wrong county. They could set bail at $500K if they wanted to, and house him in a different state. Tom Fox knows everything I said is correct.

---

I'll take, "Things That Will Never Happen," for $800, Alex.

---

Just be glad you haven't seen the system up close. It happens every day.

---

One, I was a cop twenty years ago. So, yes, I have seen it.
Two, read my earlier post about the fact that I live where this happened. So, the suggestions that he could face a 40 year sentence, 500k bail, and being housed in another state are indeed bull*****

He has a non-zero chance of dying in the Duval County jail, but that's because it's old and overcrowded.

From a local source,
https://jaxtoday.org/2025/07/21/civil-rights-groups-condemn-violent-jacksonville-arrest/

"In a news conference Monday evening, Sheriff T.K. Waters said the department is reviewing whether any of the officers violated Sheriff's Office policies. He said one of the officers, identified as D. Bowers, has been stripped of his law enforcement duties until the department's review is done.

The State Attorney's Office has determined that none of the officers violated criminal law, Waters said."

"McNeil has no record of prior arrests in Jacksonville. He was jailed for one day, then was found guilty during a court hearing of resisting an officer without violence and driving with a suspended license. Charges of marijuana possession, driving without headlights in the rain and driving without a seat belt were dismissed, his court file shows."

I'm sure the reporter just had a couple of typos, and fully intended to write 40 years, $500k, and incarceration in Georgia.

Damn

Dude got a DWB.