Army officer sues Virginia police over violent traffic stop

[Borderland]

Id like to see the video of a cops reaction if a guy said I didnt stop because I was afraid of being raped.

I carry a rape whistle for situations like that.

[HCM]

Id like to see the video of a cops reaction if a guy said I didnt stop because I was afraid of being raped.

Here you go:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr...g-civil-rights

Jury convicts former officer for violating civil rights
McALLEN, Texas - A former local police officer has been convicted of sexually assaulting two men while in his custody, announced Acting U.S. Attorney Jennifer B. Lowery.

[Trooper224]

I just watched the available video. I really didn't want to, but I've read enough bullshit in this thread that I felt the need to comment.

Let's look at two aspects here: legalities and personal behavior.

Legalities:

Registration: the stop pretext was no registration or improper display of same, both of which are violations and valid reasons for a traffic stop. The reg wasn't displayed in the right place. The typical statute for this will read as, "registration must be displayed upon the vehicle in the place designed for it" or some similar verbiage. This makes the display of the temporary tag illegal. Is it commonly done? Of course. In fact, it's routine. Temp reg. can be damaged by weather or stolen, so this is common. However, commonality does not excuse a violation. From a moving vehicle, at night, you wouldn't have been able to see it, or tell what it was. I saw this many, many times and I stopped vehicles for it many times. Fortunately none of those incidents ever rose to this level of community clusterfuck.

Failure to stop on command: some how, somewhere, people have formed the opinion that compliance is optional. This is not the case. When you see the flashy flashy lights in your rearview you pull over. You don't get to refuse legal commands unless you feel good about it. People have heard, "If you don't like it, proceed to a well lit area where you're more comfortable." Sports fans, this is encounter group wisdom, not legal precedent. The democratic process is not in play on the side of the road. Ultimately, you comply or you get complied, that's the way it is. Now, that being said, I believe the statement was, the Lt. went for a mile before stopping. A mile in a vehicle in motion isn't that far. I had countless vehicles fail to immediately stop for all sorts of reasons over the years. From semi-drivers who had the stereo blaring and weren't paying attention, to someone having a medical emergency, not to mention the usual drunks and thugs. That the Lt. stopped in a well lit and public area should have been an indicator of possible intent and the threat level should have been judged accordingly. One of the biggest issues I see with current LE practice is the propensity for officers to go from 0 to 100 as their defualt response to nearly everything. To be a real cop you've got to have some iron in your soul and some ice in your viens. I don't see much of that anymore.

Felony Stop: the term is a descriptor not a definition. The technique can be called a felony stop, hot stop, high risk stop, etc. A felony offense doesn't have to be present for this technique to be utilized. Any time an officer has reason to believe the situation may rise above the level of a standard, or "routine" incident to use a lousy term, the procedure can be and should be used. This is a terrible example of a felony stop, but we'll get to that later. I used to teach this subject matter and performed it almost on a nightly level in the latter stages of my career, so I'm more than a little familiar with the process.

Personal behavior:

There are no innocent parties here, only varying degrees of douche bag.

The young Lt. was not in fear for his life. If you believe that you really need to pull your head out of whatever alternate reality it's stuck up. I've dealt with enough people who are genuinely in fear for their lives and shared that feeling enough that I know what it looks like, this wasn't it. He decided to get his "Man of color" 'tude on, pure and simple. He wasn't being belligerent or hostile, he simply wasn't complying. He saw this as an opportunity to get his fifteen minutes of civil disobedience cred and seized upon it for all it was worth. Even when he was at gunpoint, point blank, he wasn't in fear. He knew the cops didn't have grounds to shoot him and weren't likely to do so. Again, I've seen this countless times over decades of experience. All he had to do was comply. He could have filed a formal complaint in the aftermath, or even file a law suite from that alone if he felt the need. But, he simply made the wrong decision and got jammed up for it. Objectively, everything he got he deserved. He also played the military card, which makes him an A+ asshole as far as I'm concerned. The young man has a big chip on his shoulder and I hope his command knocks it off for him. I wouldn't be surprised to find he has incidents of disrespect towards authority in his service jacket.

Just so I can show I'm objective, let's pile on the cops and in this case it's quite easy to do, because this was real Keystone Cops shit right here.

Okay, you find a vehicle that doesn't seem to have proper registration displayed. Okay, reason enough for a stop so we haven't gone sideways yet. You light the vehicle up, but it doesn't stop immediately. Okay, lots of reasons for that, some dramatic some not, but it should get you on point. Considering the offense, the distance traveled and where the vehicles came to rest I don't see anything here that rises to the level of a felony stop. It's a judgment call, but that's not the decision I would have made. I don't know what their department policy is on such things, but given the totality of the circumstances I just don't see this as a guns out incident at that point. You have to be willing to accept a certain amount of personal risk when you put on a badge. As Captain Kirk said, "Risk is our business." At this point I don't see anything that rises to the level of high risk, nothing that would warrant a felony stop. Now we reach the point where we just go completely off the rails. If this is your idea of a felony stop you're an absolute moron. Your department either needs to rewrite its policy if this is SOP, or it needs to send you back to school. The officers think this is risky enough for a felony stop so they do one, then completely fall apart when they don't get immediate and complete compliance. The young guy, let's call him "Officer Serving Since Tuesday" doesn't seem to really know what's going on. I don't know if he's new or still in training, but he just seems to be going along with the older guy we'll call "Officer Pornstache" (Leroy Jenkins was already taken). Pornstache decides "let's get it on" with a felony stop. Okay, you decide the risk warrants it, but when the violator isn't impressed by your massive upper lip coiffure and he doesn't comply, your answer is to just walk right up on the vehicle? Right. I can see that in court. "Officer Pornstache, you thought there was an element of risk so you performed a felony stop?" "Yes sir, for reasons of officer safety." "Then explain to us why it was risky enough for a felony stop, but then you proceeded to disregard your own safety and directly approach the vehicle." "Ugh....... reasons?"

At this point the LT. has both hands out of the window, yet Pornstache thinks it's necessary to just about shove his gun in the Lt's face. Tuesday seems to be in the mode of, "Pornstache has his gun out so I better too, or the guys'll think I'm a pussy." It damn near looks like he's flagging Pornstache at some angles. At this point it's obvious that physical force is going to be necessary. The Lt. just isn't playing so he's not coming out of the vehicle on his own. Using OC spray at this point is fine and probably within department policy. Personally, I've physically yanked more than one individual out of the window without resorting to OC or anything else. But neither Pornstache or Tuesday seem physically capable of that. Once he's out of the vehicle I see no legitimate control techniques. Stop yelling at him to get on the ground and damn well put him on the ground. Pornstache seems to be counting on guns and screaming to achieve an harmonious outcome. When that doesn't happen he doesn't seem to have a Plan B and looks like anything but a professional. Overall he just looks like a bully with a badge and Tuesday just seems kind of clueless. They may both be decent guys, but they portray themselves in the worst possible light, short of shooting the Lt. Tuesdays behavior may be defended by reasons of inexperience, but I see no legitimate defense for Pornstaches behavior. After all this bother and drama they choose not to arrest the Lt. This is perhaps one of their worst mistakes. I suspect that after they realize how this is going to go, they're attempting damage control by looking like something other than incompetent assholes, but that's the wrong play at that point. The pretext for the stop is presumably an infraction, but the resistance and obstruction are arrestable offenses. In the optics of a courtroom that will look like they know they screwed up and they're just trying to do damage control. I've seen this same decision making process occur out on the road and making an arrest is always preferable.


Summary:

No one is blameless in this incident. Everyone was an asshole, by virtue of their behavior or cluelessness. The Lieutenant may receive judicial punishment from his command and he should. He did everything but represent the service in the best possible light. Pornstache needs to be exiled into former copland. The man doesn't have the temperament for LE work. At the least Tuesday needs some retraining and a better FTO than Pornstache and he better walk on eggshells for the rest of his career. If he keeps his job, he just used his one get out of jail free card. Sometimes it's not a tragedy or an injustice, it's just a mass conflagration of assholes. That's just what this was.

[WobblyPossum]

@Trooper224 that’s a solid analysis I can agree with.

[whomever]

... People have heard, "If you don't like it, proceed to a well lit area where you're more comfortable."....

I have not only heard that, I heard it from the lips of the sheriff himself :-). He gave a widely publicized news conference and explicitly said it was just fine, if you had any doubt about the authenticity of the officer, to proceed at a normal pace to the nearest gas station or whatever.

This was in response to a not-a-cop weirdo pulling ladies over.

Someone quoted BB upthread giving some practical advice - this is more likely to be well received by the LEO if you are a lady, if he is driving one of the 'stealth' traffic enforcement cars, and so on. But I think when the sheriff explicitly says it's OK, you can't object too much when people do it.

That was our sheriff, not yours, but people move around and so on - if some sheriffs are saying it, it's going to be normalized to some degree.

Of course, if you avail yourself of that, it's smart to realize you are giving the officer reason for concern, and try your best to make the eventual stop go smoothly ... like for example doing what the officer says.

[Borderland]

The officer in question was fired. He can sue for his job but he likely won't get it back and it will cost him more than he makes in a year. The dumb shit lost. Maybe the LT lost also. I'm sure there will be review of his actions but a lose of his commission isn't going be as big of a problem for him, especially with the lack of an arrest record.

It all comes down to who got gamed here. My guess, The LEO.

[Trooper224]

I have not only heard that, I heard it from the lips of the sheriff himself :-). He gave a widely publicized news conference and explicitly said it was just fine, if you had any doubt about the authenticity of the officer, to proceed at a normal pace to the nearest gas station or whatever.

This was in response to a not-a-cop weirdo pulling ladies over.

Someone quoted BB upthread giving some practical advice - this is more likely to be well received by the LEO if you are a lady, if he is driving one of the 'stealth' traffic enforcement cars, and so on. But I think when the sheriff explicitly says it's OK, you can't object too much when people do it.

That was our sheriff, not yours, but people move around and so on - if some sheriffs are saying it, it's going to be normalized to some degree.

Of course, if you avail yourself of that, it's smart to realize you are giving the officer reason for concern, and try your best to make the eventual stop go smoothly ... like for example doing what the officer says.

Here's the deal: the sheriff doesn't make the law, he enforces, or rather he spends his time glad handing old ladies while his people enforce the law. Instead of simply appeasing the public with what is, quite frankly a boneheaded statement, he should have given a far more measured response. Cops are idiots too, especially the elected kind like most Sheriffs. There's no such thing as "my Sheriff". I didn't have the displeasure of working for one. I'm telling you how the law reads, anywhere, not what your bonehead politician with a badge told you at the prayer breakfast or news conference. If that's what you want to live by than expect things might not go your way.

Unfortunately, people have lost the rule of common sense. "Proceed to a lighted area" is fine, if you're on a dark road and a lighted gas station is up ahead. As I said, I didn't find this supposed failure to yield by the Lt. as a valid reason to amp things up to the level they reached. However, you simply will not be allowed to sail on for miles until you feel good about it. The common person seems to have lost the ability to differentiate.

[wvincent]

@Trooper224, I couldn't find that golf clap gif, so I just gave you one for "reals" for post #143.

[trailrunner]

I've heard several times over my lifetime that it would be acceptable to drive to a well-lighted public place. I also remember that if you were doing this, you should turn on your hazards, and maybe turn on your dome light. In my mind, I always thought this was acceptable practice.

I don't remember when or where I first heard that. I grew up and was living in San Diego during the time when Craig Peyer was pulling over women in secluded areas and causing a lot of fear among women in the area.

[Trooper224]

I've heard several times over my lifetime that it would be acceptable to drive to a well-lighted public place. I also remember that if you were doing this, you should turn on your hazards, and maybe turn on your dome light. In my mind, I always thought this was acceptable practice.

I don't remember when or where I first heard that. I grew up and was living in San Diego during the time when Craig Peyer was pulling over women in secluded areas and causing a lot of fear among women in the area.

But, you also have to understand there are limits to this. If the next place to pull over is five or ten miles away you won't make it, it's just that simple. Everyone has flashers and a dome light. Ever see a criminal turn on a dome light on a stop to make himself seem like an honest citizen? Didn't think so. If you're in an urban area and the next place is the stop-n-rob on the next block fine and well, but if it's the next town twenty miles up, no bueno. In the latter case the officer will assume you're fleeing for some reason and this will be logically justifiable. I fail to grasp why people have such a hard time grasping this very basic concept.