Officer pulls firearm, instead of taser

If you think the seat belt law is for revenue, written for the police’s convenience, or just the man stepping on your rights, well sorry that’s all pretty ignorant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eightmillimeter

If you think the seat belt law is for revenue, written for the police’s convenience, or just the man stepping on your rights, well sorry that’s all pretty ignorant.

---

So what is it for then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Averageman

What would my driving habits have to do with getting pulled over for
A) a tail light being out.
B) Having a plastic cover over my rear licence plate to keep the plate clean and visible?

---

A tail light being out is generally a pretty objective reason to stop a vehicle, compared to the fairly subjective 'I saw him swing wide on a turn' without video evidence to back it up.

Yes, or no, was your tail light out, and was your tag covered by a film with any tint in it? If they were you were in violation. If you need me to explain why it is required that your tail lights function, or why the state doesn't want you to obscure your tag, well, shit, I don't really have the patience.

In any event, let's say I saw you do something that made me think maybe you are impaired, something as innocent as swinging a little wide on a turn. My job is to follow you and use the vehicle in motion cues to either develop reasonable suspicion that you are impaired and need to be stopped, or to assure myself you are good to go without being stopped.

You take the ball out of my hands when you reach your home before I can make that determination. If you have a tail light out and I'm not to the point I'm satisfied you are not impaired, I'm probably going to make contact in your drive way. Why be such an asshole? Because I know that impaired drivers are responsible for over 25% of the traffic fatalities each year. I also know that the average person arrested for DUI has committed the offense two dozen or more times in the previous twelve months. Based on that, I'm not satisfied with I'll get you next time, we are going to talk face to face about your light/tag. That is me, I'm completely willing to admit their are asshole officers, just as there are asshole citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Averageman

The relevance is that you can and should be able to do any dumb and dangerous thing you choose to do, that is right up and to the point where the .gov creates a fine for a victim less crime. Then you better show your documents be humble and bend over and grab your ankles.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Averageman

Please don't try and tell me you're fining me for not wearing a seat belt for my own safety and in the meantime all of those other activities are perfectly legal.

---

Got to be honest with you, the seat belt tickets I wrote were all 'in lieu of' tickets, as in 'I'm writing you for the seat belt, and giving you a warning on the speed tonight.....' I tried to focus enforcement action based on what action I thought would ensure compliance with the law for the rest of the trip. Except impaired, impaired always need to go to jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Averageman

Again, see the above, if you're interested in interjecting the legal system in to my safety, there are a lot of other and even more intrusive steps you could take by making "Laws" for my own good and my safety, why not just go full bore and eliminate cigarettes and alcohol and save a lot more lives?

---

There is a societal cost associated with all the things you mention. We limit exposure to second hand smoke by not allowing smoking in restaurants, etc. We limit exposure to the effects of alcohol by having age restrictions, driving while impaired laws, and making it illegal to be drunk and disorderly.

These are efforts to focus on protecting the rights of all, while not crushing the individual's rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Averageman

What are you going to do when they decide you need to protect Citizens from their own firearms? Just like a seat belt Law, if it would ever pass, would you enforce that Law, if not why not?

---

I'm retired. There is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, there is no Constitutional right to drive unbelted. But, answering your question, if I was working and the 2nd Amendment was repealed by the people of the United States, I'd have to do some thinking about my response. On the one hand, the majority of my fellow Americans apparently support such an action, on the other hand, my right to defend myself is inalienable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Averageman

Yes, but everyone should have the right to go to hell in any way they choose as long as it doesn't directly harm others. So if you decide to partake in potentially harmful activities, does the State have the right to step up and step in when your actions produce no harm to others?

---

I don't believe so, but once again, there are societal costs. Living in a society is always going to involve some degree of compromise, the goal is to make that compromise as minimal as possible. Some folks just don't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Averageman

Clearly She was inept,or untrained and dangerous to the other who serve around her. It's pretty simple. She's either lying to avoid possible prosecution or dangerous to work around.

---

I don't think so, she made a completely explained mistake that more experienced officers have also made. I would be willing to bet that not many officers experience such a rapidly evolving situation in their first tours of duty. It is obvious that the judge who dismissed the charges felt her actions weren't beyond the pale.

Crazy bitches...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Joym4HBiZn0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsbhike

So what is it for then?

---

Wrong question. The correct question is why people don’t want to wear it. The only reason people cite is because someone else says they have to, so therefore they don’t think they have to.... I don’t understand how people find this so repulsive, inconvenient, instructive.

But if I’m driving fine then it doesn’t apply to me...

Seriously, yes it does, you’re in a moving car therefore physics applies to you. I’ve spent the last 8 years downloading crash data from cars, most of which were driving “just fine” right up until that sudden velocity change and crippling or fatal injury.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 26 Inf

A tail light being out is generally a pretty objective reason to stop a vehicle, compared to the fairly subjective 'I saw him swing wide on a turn' without video evidence to back it up.

Yes, or no, was your tail light out, and was your tag covered by a film with any tint in it? If they were you were in violation. If you need me to explain why it is required that your tail lights function, or why the state doesn't want you to obscure your tag, well, shit, I don't really have the patience.

In any event, let's say I saw you do something that made me think maybe you are impaired, something as innocent as swinging a little wide on a turn. My job is to follow you and use the vehicle in motion cues to either develop reasonable suspicion that you are impaired and need to be stopped, or to assure myself you are good to go without being stopped.

You take the ball out of my hands when you reach your home before I can make that determination. If you have a tail light out and I'm not to the point I'm satisfied you are not impaired, I'm probably going to make contact in your drive way. Why be such an asshole? Because I know that impaired drivers are responsible for over 25% of the traffic fatalities each year.
But clearly exiting with grocery bags, handing over licence and registration weren't enough. If we're that close and you can't detect my sobriety or lack there of what kind of professional are you?
I also know that the average person arrested for DUI has committed the offense two dozen or more times in the previous twelve months. Based on that, I'm not satisfied with I'll get you next time, we are going to talk face to face about your light/tag. That is me,
I'm completely willing to admit their are asshole officers, just as there are asshole citizens.
Thank You.
I don't think so, she made a completely explained mistake that more experienced officers have also made. I would be willing to bet that not many officers experience such a rapidly evolving situation in their first tours of duty. It is obvious that the judge who dismissed the charges felt her actions weren't beyond the pale.
That simply doesn't work in the field when lives depend upon it does it?
Although I've never served in Law Enforcement, I have had 21 years in the Military and 14 years as an in bedded Civilian and Subject Matter Expert, instructor/trainer in CONUS and OCONUS Military units.

---

I've served as a Marksmanship Instructor, a Senior Range Safety and a Master Gunner, training Soldiers to be safe and effective with firearms has been a big part of my life, I've also nearly escaped being shot in the head in 2011 by a Soldier who negligently discharged a a M2. You might not think I've got the experience to know or identify someone who is dangerous and untrained with a weapon or a weapon system, but really, I am.

I edited your text a bit for my own convenience, not because I don't have a debate for your points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jpmuscle

You understand how probable cause works right?

Making BS stops is different than actually citing for bullshit stats.

I’ve pulled folks on bullshit stuff before. They come back no wants, no warrants, no JTTF hits. Ok sir/ma’am have a nice day drive safe. I don’t like paperwork and I wasn’t going to waste time on BS paperwork.

---

So if the stops are BS are you infringing on their Constitutional rights and if you did so what was the effect on people who had essentially been subject to your BS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eightmillimeter

Wrong question. The correct question is why people don’t want to wear it. The only reason people cite is because someone else says they have to, so therefore they don’t think they have to.... I don’t understand how people find this so repulsive, inconvenient, instructive.

But if I’m driving fine then it doesn’t apply to me...

Seriously, yes it does, you’re in a moving car therefore physics applies to you. I’ve spent the last 8 years downloading crash data from cars, most of which were driving “just fine” right up until that sudden velocity change and crippling or fatal injury.

---

So freedom be damned because by God you know better and you will ticket me for my own safety. Or maybe to impress your Boss about my safety and in the meantime generate enough revenues to justify your wages.
As I have stated before in this this thread, the motorcycle passes you without a seat belt or a helmet, all the laws of physics still apply and yet laws of physics be damned that SOB is legal.
Your arguments aren't supporting my desire to support Law Enforcement.
BTFW I hope you don't need my or "Our" help anytime soon, but Keep on Trucking Baby.
That kind of attitude certainly lets me know who will be on my doorstep when guns are outlawed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Averageman

But, was all of this, over a BS seatbelt law really worth it?

---

The female officer didn't attempt to taze him because he didn't wear a seat belt. She ended up shooting him because he body slammed a fellow officer and then proceeded to hammer fist about his head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big A

I'm gonna remember you said this when they start kicking in doors and confiscating guns after they pass a nationwide ban.

---

You want to go all 1776 on some municipal LEO's over a traffic citation? :blink:

Comparing a routine traffic stop on a public roadway to armed intrusion into a private residence to confiscate firearms is a bit of a stretch. Now if they pulled him over and just shot him for the hell of it over a no seat belt violation then I could see your point but that is not what happened here. No matter one's personal views on seat belt laws does not justify assaulting a peace officer or anyone for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dano5326

Lot's of noise to signal in this post.

However inane the laws are, that is a legislative issue of broader perspective likely to do with child safety & government incurred health cost of the uninsured, the time suck of getting pulled over doesn't warrant anyone to violence.

My take after participating in, witnessing, or attempting to repair as a first responder hundreds of instances of violence.

The initial officer that got grappled was face down in a position of tremendous disadvantage, being hit from the top rear in a way he could not defend against, with face inches off the pavement. Another blow to his head/neck could easily kill or permanently disable him. People are killed and paralyzed via blunt force strikes quite frequently. The pavement presenting a countercoup surface greatly increases the likelihood. Additionally, the officer underneath the suspect could easily have had his service weapon used against him, the other officer, and the public within a 1/4 to 1/2 second.

There is a fair argument that a Taser would have been the wrong decision. In my, and many others, experience they are not a reliable and repeatable means of stopping someone fast. If you have a time & distance, likely numerical, advantage it can be useful as a step in escalation of force. But perhaps not the right choice here with a very bad outcome to the disadvantaged officer possible inside of a second. A small physically weak officer who cannot or will not effectively intervein physically also, obviously, limits use of force options. Policy may also prevent less than lethal (intended) kinetic blows via baton or boot.


If that police department authorizes deadly force against imminent death or bodily harm, against imminent harm as most PD policy does, I would imagine deadly force intervention is justified.

---

Outstanding post, worded it better than I ever could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eightmillimeter

Wrong question. The correct question is why people don’t want to wear it. The only reason people cite is because someone else says they have to, so therefore they don’t think they have to.... I don’t understand how people find this so repulsive, inconvenient, instructive.

But if I’m driving fine then it doesn’t apply to me...

Seriously, yes it does, you’re in a moving car therefore physics applies to you. I’ve spent the last 8 years downloading crash data from cars, most of which were driving “just fine” right up until that sudden velocity change and crippling or fatal injury.

---

The seat belt itself is a great idea in most cases, although I have known 2 people who would have likely been more seriously injured or killed if they had been wearing theirs.

The "law" part of that is a crock though and was what the question was asked for.

Seatbelts save lives. Period. As a subspecialty surgeon who handles facial trauma as part of my day job, I see this first hand. I take call at a level 1 trauma center and can say unequivocally that the patients I see who come to the ED after an MVC fare much better when wearing a seatbelt. Think rollover MVC....restrained people typically suffer relatively minor injuries, while unrestrained are typically completely F’d - like subdural or subarachnoid bleed, devastating facial and skull base fractures, long bone fractures, etc. F’d for life.