TexAgs thoughts on this one? Sorry if it's a double post.

A man in Jacksonville, FL was stoppedapparently for not having headlights on, though it was daytime.
The driver calmly asked what law he had broken.
Instead of providing an explanation or deescalating, the officer quickly escalated, smashed the window, and began striking him.
The officer never clearly stated the legal reason for the stop prior to the violence.

What is it with some cops that they go straight to violence over something as minor as a traffic stop? I get that policing is stressfulbut that doesn't justify acting like you're above the law. This man was calm, simply asking what law he broke, and got punched in the face for it.

Unions often shield bad officers, and even when they get fired, many just get rehired in another department. How is that okay?

This feels completely over the top. Broad daylight, no sign it was raining, and he was stopped for "not having headlights on." Watch it yourself and tell me this wasn't excessive. I believe the cops now have said he was reaching for a knife, but I didn't see any such thing happen. Yep, can apply the 24 (or is it 48) hour rule if you like…

https://metro.co.uk/2025/07/21/officer-smashes-car-window-punches-driver-stopped-not-headlights-23712420/

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

Haven't watched yet but if it is that sovereign citizen bs, getting punched in the face was justified:

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.

I know that because there are at least 3 officers there. This fool has been negotiating from inside his locked vehicle on the side of the road for quite some time. Give them your license and let them cite you. Then go to court and fight it. The end.

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

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

---

They asked him to step out.

Will watch later but three steps are usually
Ask you to do it
Tell you to do it
Make you do it

Tom Fox said:

---

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

---

They asked him to step out.

---

And? My response was to a question as to why the window was up

Anyway, the cop that punched him in the jaw is likely short timing and about to be charged with assault

Stop being obtuse. All four windows were not broken and all his doors locked. He was in full on FAFO mode.

You 100% are basing your opinion on a snippet of the stop. He also, in this, new why he was being pulled over.

Play the whole video, or don't make assertions negative or positive.

Everything was justified but the punch. The punch can and should get him fired.

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.

I know that because there are at least 3 officers there. This fool has been negotiating from inside his locked vehicle on the side of the road for quite some time. Give them your license and let them cite you. Then go to court and fight it. The end.

---

I watch the "Civil Rights Lawyer" YouTube channel a lot. He covers a lot of cases like these, I think having recently done one on this very guy.

He recently made a point about his channel. He said he's not trying to promote being an ass with the police. He encourages people, if pulled over, to be polite and cooperate with the police within reason. But still stand up for your rights - don't answer question you don't want to answer, do not give consent to search your car without a warrant, etc.

The point he is trying to make is once someone decides to start being an ass, they still have civil rights and due process. It does not justify the retaliatory actions and violence police sometimes use when dealing with a difficult person. Not someone who is a threat or behaving violent towards them, just being an ass.

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

And I said he shouldn't have punched him. But breaking out the window and snatching his azz through it is totally justified.

Yeah, the cop is getting fired for the punch. There were two punches actually. One right after cop broke the window and another when they were taking perp to the ground. Probably were more after that.

But this perp wanted a confrontation!! He was not following lawful instructions.

Tom Fox said:

---

Stop being obtuse. All four windows were not broken and all his doors locked. He was in full on FAFO mode.

---

You are confused. The question was not about whether other windows were broken, whether he should've left the vehicle, whether the doors were locked, or whether he did anything wrong at all. The question was specifically about why was the window up, presumably the driver's window. And the only information we have, is that the window is broken (allegedly)

All that other stuff is irrelevant to that specific question, but might be relevant to whether or not he broke any laws

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.

This is super easy: comply. Don't argue or resist or refuse instructions. Give the officers all the onus for justification of their actions. You let your lawyer and the law itself speak for you.

Also, some persons absolutely do not have the temperament for law enforcement. They are too volatile or quick tempered when frustrated by circumstances.

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.

When you defund the police, throw them in jail for anything and completely disrespect them on a daily basis this is the type of officers you can recruit.

I don't know anyone with a good head on their shoulders that wants to go into this profession.

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.

You can see why people are afraid of the police with this level of escalation. This is almost parody it is so over the top.

Guy should have gotten out of the vehicle but based on the actions of the cops, I understand the hesitation.

Need to pay cops better and significantly raise the standards to become 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

---

It is now.

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.

---

As soon as that window comes down or the door opens that guy is going to say, "I smell marijuana." You and I both know it because that's the only reason he's being pulled over for no headlights in broad daylight. This was a fabricated stop with no real basis to begin with. Even if he goes to court, that cop knows he isn't facing any kind of consequences for the illegal stop, so there's no reason for him to not do try it again. At least this way he's looking at some kind of discipline and the department is looking at a lawsuit.

Some people don't understand the old saying:

You might beat the rap. But, you're NOT going to beat the ride.

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.

At this point it's so easy to land a 50-100k payday from the taxpayers because cops don't understand the constitution.

You don't have to talk to the police, you only have to provide ID if it's a lawful stop, and the courts have ruled over and over again the police can only ask you out of the car for a handful of reasons.

Yet, when the police pull you over, and you exercise your 5th amendment rights, they retaliate by asking you out of the car, when you refuse they get violent. Then you get paid.

It's too easy to get paid at this point.

Pull them over. Write the ticket. Let them on their way.

ABATTBQ11 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.

---

As soon as that window comes down or the door opens that guy is going to say, "I smell marijuana." You and I both know it because that's the only reason he's being pulled over for no headlights in broad daylight. This was a fabricated stop with no real basis to begin with. Even if he goes to court, that cop knows he isn't facing any kind of consequences for the illegal stop, so there's no reason for him to not do try it again. At least this way he's looking at some kind of discipline and the department is looking at a lawsuit.

---

The SC has already said that the subjective motivations of the officer are irrelevant when stopping a vehicle for traffic.

The window always has to come down for a traffic stop. At the very least he must sign the citation or be arrested.

That is the law. If you don't like it change it.

And the Officer would be facing zero discipline if he just busted the window and drug him out. I was always more than happy to arrest you for interfering with public duties if you were not willing to just let me cite you.

itsyourboypookie said:

---

At this point it's so easy to land a 50-100k payday from the taxpayers because cops don't understand the constitution.

You don't have to talk to the police, you only have to provide ID if it's a lawful stop, and the courts have ruled over and over again the police can only ask you out of the car for a handful of reasons.

Yet, when the police pull you over, and you exercise your 5th amendment rights, they retaliate by asking you out of the car, when you refuse they get violent. Then you get paid.

It's too easy to get paid at this point.

Pull them over. Write the ticket. Let them on their way.

---

I could make a straight face argument that would survive legal scrutiny to have this particular person exit their vehicle under Pennsylvania v. Mims.

To issue a citation, you have to either roll your window down or open your door to sign the citation.

I'm sure they ran the plates before the stop. Might have had previous rap sheet.

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.

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.

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.