Officer pulls firearm, instead of taser

[HMM]

This right here is it:
I would like the judge to make him pay his ticket and tell him that if he wasn't acting like a dumbass he wouldn't have gotten shot.

Sure she made a mistake but she wasn't backing down from backing her partner up. And all the dude had to do was be polite and fight it later. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

Sadly that guy is still voting and being a drain on the economy....

[Averageman]

I would agree the guy was acting pretty hinky and likely had something to hide,
But, was all of this, over a BS seatbelt law really worth it?
They were running pretty close to having one Officer shoot another Officer over (as far as we know) a humbug no seatbelt law.
Here's the thing, if an Officer is going to put his life on the line, it ought to be worth a bit more than this example.

[AndyLate]

I would agree the guy was acting pretty hinky and likely had something to hide,
But, was all of this, over a BS seatbelt law really worth it?
They were running pretty close to having one Officer shoot another Officer over (as far as we know) a humbug no seatbelt law.
Here's the thing, if an Officer is going to put his life on the line, it ought to be worth a bit more than this example.

He didn't pull the perp over because of the seatbelt law, the seatbelt law allowed him to stop a suspicious car without a warrant or probable cause. Probably suspected the perp was riding dirty, had a warrant, suspended license, etc.

[Averageman]

That would be pretty hard to justify in court.
I suspected him of what?
I suspected him why?
Were the plates on the car a match to the vehicle?
Was the vehicle reported stolen?

Or was it just an excuse to write a ticket and generate some revenue?
All of that matters because otherwise you're on
some thin ice and someone is going to holler "Driving while Black."

[Hmac]

None of that matters. At the bottom line, a police officer thought she was using less-than-lethal force and mistakenly used lethal force. The stupidity of seat belt laws, the stupidity of the perp’s decision to assault a police officer, and his race are merely side issues. The issue is that we have (had) a police officer sworn to serve and protect the public who was so poorly trained that could make that kind of utterly fundamental mistake.

[BoringGuy45]

He didn't pull the perp over because of the seatbelt law, the seatbelt law allowed him to stop a suspicious car without a warrant or probable cause. Probably suspected the perp was riding dirty, had a warrant, suspended license, etc.

And he almost definitely did. At just about every traffic stop I either initiated or assisted with, everyone who refused to cooperate was hiding something, whether it was a drugs, a warrant, or a suspended license. Anyone willing to fight a cop usually knows that the cop is about to find something that'll lead to more than a ticket. Most people who are clean aside from the traffic violation just want to get their ticket (or, hopefully, warning) and be on their way.

[jsbhike]

He didn't pull the perp over because of the seatbelt law, the seatbelt law allowed him to stop a suspicious car without a warrant or probable cause. Probably suspected the perp was riding dirty, had a warrant, suspended license, etc.

So an officer in an extremely anti 2nd Amendment such as Maryland could use the seatbelt law to pull over a driver with a BCM sticker, plates from a fun friendly state, and similar.

[Honu]

So an officer in an extremely anti 2nd Amendment such as Maryland could use the seatbelt law to pull over a driver with a BCM sticker, plates from a fun friendly state, and similar.

IF you were breaking that law of no seatbelt then they could

do not break the law they cant well they can but if you can prove otherwise

[AndyLate]

So an officer in an extremely anti 2nd Amendment such as Maryland could use the seatbelt law to pull over a driver with a BCM sticker, plates from a fun friendly state, and similar.

You could just wear your seatbelt.

I think tint laws are more intrusive.

[jsbhike]

IF you were breaking that law of no seatbelt then they could

do not break the law they cant well they can but if you can prove otherwise

You could just wear your seatbelt.

So an officer can't just claim they thought they didn't see a seat belt in use?

Lap belt/no belt only vehicles? How about those? What ideas do you have in those instances where the officer is looking for firearms and furtive movements?

How about just lobby to do away with it since there isn't an issue with whole bus loads of people (young to old) getting drove around sans seat belts?