Army officer sues Virginia police over violent traffic stop

[Hot Sauce]

A prime example of what happens when a bunch of assholes get together.

This is a pretty accurate description of the optics.

He appeared to be a scared young man who didn't understand why he was being held at gunpoint, which is liable to make a person scatter-brained. However, whether he thought he had good reason to, or not, he did resist both passively at first, and actively when they tried to cuff him. For that alone, they could have charged him if they wanted to.

He had his hands out of the window in a way that both of them were out and he thought it was self-evident to the cops that he was not a threat.

From the bodycam perspective though, you could not see both hands clearly, hence their thinking he isn't complying while he's thinking he is. That appears to me to have been one of the crucial factors in the continued escalation.


I have no insight into how normal a thing the options conversation is, so those with more experience please chime in and inform me...

The way the ranking cop at the end gave the him the two options really made my antennas perk up:
1. we can not charge if you don't make an issue of it, or
2. we can charge you and you can make an issue of it.

Something seemed off about it. The soldier does not understand what is being communicated either, at first. He says that it's not much of a choice, no one is going to willingly encourage the authorities to charge them with a crime.

It seemed like a quid-pro-quo was being proposed, under duress of being detained and cuffed at that. It didn't come across as proper. Am I wrong, or blissfully unaware of something?

Whether they choose to charge him or not is in their discretion. Neither course of action AFAIK impacts his ability to file a formal complaint (or sue, as is actually happening) over how he was treated.

[TGS]

I have a feeling that Lt's CoC is probably just thrilled with all this attention.
His Company Commanders ass is probably hanging in shreds, and that shit will roll down hill.
Ain't often you see an officer give "Terminal Lance" a run for his money.

My thoughts exactly.

I don't know how the Army does things, but I've seen officers in the USMC lose their commissions for less. I once saw an officer lose his commission for no reason other than being at a house party that generated a noise complaint, and upon police response it was discovered that were were people in a room smoking pot. The USMC officer hadn't been part of such activity, and even according to the police wasn't even in that room when he was documented on the police report, but simply by being there it was assumed that he displayed poor judgement incommensurate to a commissioned officer and was sep'd from service.

[/U]The way the ranking cop at the end gave the him the two options really made my antennas perk up:
1. we can not charge if you don't make an issue of it, or
2. we can charge you and you can make an issue of it.

Something seemed off about it. The soldier does not understand what is being communicated either, at first. He says that it's not much of a choice, no one is going to willingly encourage the authorities to charge them with a crime.

It seemed like a quid-pro-quo was being proposed, under duress of being detained and cuffed at that. It didn't come across as proper. Am I wrong, or blissfully unaware of something?

Whether they choose to charge him or not is in their discretion. Neither course of action AFAIK impacts his ability to file a formal complaint (or sue, as is actually happening) over how he was treated.

You're 100% right, and a reason alone to fire that particular cop.

[wvincent]

displayed poor judgement incommensurate to a commissioned officer.

That right there^^.
Yet, if the Governor gets involved and makes him his "poster child" for police reform, that dude will be untouchable. And that's the true shame.

Nobody was in their best light in that encounter.

[Spartan1980]

Gee, and here I thought it was reasonable to safely proceed to a well-lit area before pulling over. At least, that's what I have been told before.

Hands out of the window, how is he supposed to release his seatbelt without being shot by what he probably perceives as a couple of trigger-happy cops?

My guess: The relevant jurisdiction for that police department should warm up its checkbook.

Since this is in general I'll go ahead and add my two cents.

Agreed 100%. With the way that older cop was acting I wouldn't have got out either. No way I woulda reached to unbuckle. I however would have told him why, so there's that. But the cop sprayed the guy out of pure frustration in my opinion and at least in my parts, that's not an approved use of force, at least in this specific incident I don't believe it would be. Uncooperative and combative are two different things in my view. Cop was all about "do as I say" when the guy clearly couldn't comply with commands given. LT was uncooperative he was NOT combative in the context of posing a threat.

1) I wouldn't do anything other than a little training with the younger officer, he clearly was a lot more reasonable of the two and really didn't commit a serious foul as I see it.
2) The older guy probably shouldn't be fired, but he'd be riding the crappiest desk in the basement storage I could find for a not inconsequential period of time, then he'd get some really serious training if he hadn't filed his retirement papers.

The LT may have been looking for a payday. The city should write that check and make this go away as fast as possible. I saw nor heard anything to tie a racial component to it, so if he sued on those grounds I'd tear up the check. Plenty of derp on both sides here but LEOS are supposed to be held to a higher standard. It's applicable here and I think some forget that.

[DDTSGM]

So, since I didn't watch all 34 minutes of the video, I have some questions regarding it's content:

1) What was the search of the vehicle based on?

2) Officers, do you routinely OC folks, take them to the ground, handcuff them and then release them w/o charges?

Pretty sure the city is going to pay up for the Tactical Timmy action. Regardless of whether the LT was trolling for victimhood.

[DDTSGM]

Weapons drawn is SOP during a felony stop, which this started off as.

If you think VSP would put up with that guy’s shit, you are mistaken.

[DDTSGM]

I'll be honest that I felt a similar reaction.

Playing barracks lawyer on the side of the road is not "reasonable", in reference to you defending him "asking the police reasonable questions". You don't have a right to conduct court on the side of the road; you are legally obliged to obey the officer's commands, and no, they don't owe you an explanation to your satisfaction before you have to do anything.

The problem with 'I don't owe you an explanation' is that often, as in this case, it ends up causing the officer a lot more headache than giving a short reasonable explanation would have.

Absent exigent circumstances, an officer should be able to succinctly explain the purpose and lawfulness of his reasonable requests. If the subject doesn't comply the officer is building solid ground to stand on for subsequent actions.

This wasn't an exigent circumstance, regardless of the officer's desire to make it one.

[willie]

There are many minority persons who fear the police. That might be an explanation for the Lt's behavior. Or he just might be stupid. The old cop should have known how to deal with people who are scared or stupid or both.

When I travel, I use a radar detector and drive under the speed limit by a couple miles per hour. I do this to avoid interaction with cops. Since 1972 I have had one ticket. I ran a red light in my home town. I knew the cop who wrote the ticket. I worked at the jail and told him to write it. I got stopped two years ago near the Louisiana border at 2am. I was going 1 or 2 mph over the speed limit because the sign changed abruptly. The man chatted with me. I showed him my carry permit. He asked to search my vehicle. I refused. He asked why. I replied that I did not know him, his chief, or his mayor. I said that there was no trust between us. I asked to leave. I left. When one travels, he passes through numbers of different police jurisdictions that vary in leadership talent, training levels, hiring criteria, and overall quality. These facts constitute the basis for my concern. I'm neither stupid nor afraid. I would have complied with the Virginia officers. Too I would have stopped immediately. But I think the older man used poor judgment.

[TGS]

The problem with 'I don't owe you an explanation' is that often, as in this case, it ends up causing the officer a lot more headache than giving a short reasonable explanation would have.

Absent exigent circumstances, an officer should be able to succinctly explain the purpose and lawfulness of his reasonable requests. If the subject doesn't comply the officer is building solid ground to stand on for subsequent actions.

This wasn't an exigent circumstance, regardless of the officer's desire to make it one.

How many times have you seen an explanation magically make a person comply? That's not usually how that works.

[perlslacker]

So you think that these cops are racist? Then by this logic who in the south would NOT be racist? Only people whose fathers and grandfather were not from the south?

I’m not going to make a blanket statement like “everyone in the South is racist.” That’s silly.

But acting like the 40s or 50s is a bygone era with no bearing on thoughts or actions today seems a little silly too.