News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, I saw that after I replied. That doesn't change the fact that ID is only required if the stop itself is lawful. Officers can't just pull anyone over because they "feel like it," otherwise the traffic stop itself is unlawful.
Obviously he would have had a much better time if he complied, but that's a pragmatic solution, not a legally required one. Unless the officers can show to a court what offense warranted the traffic stop in the first place, failure to identify is not by itself an offense.
Failure to use headlights during "inclement weather," and failure to wear a seat belt.
Is that bullshit? Yeah, arguably so. He'd have had a pretty good chance of beating it in court. Cops also show a marked statistical tendency to pull over black people more than white people, and the statistical tendency only shows up during the day and evaporates for traffic stops conducted at night, which makes it pretty hard to argue that it's any kind of correlation other than causation. So yeah, you could definitely say the initial stop was bullshit.
Unfortunately, a traffic stop for specifically identified infractions is absolutely a lawful stop even if it's kinda bullshit. And the guy really screwed himself over by refusing to ID, obstructing their attempts to get him out of the car, and then resisting them arresting him, all of which are unambiguous crimes which it's gonna be a lot more difficult for him to argue his way out of in court that the initial "inclement weather" bullshit. Maybe he can make something out of the fact that they used excessive force once he started obstructing, but more likely he's just going to be screwed. It's not like the system gets less racist if you're a giant unnecessary pain in the ass about it.
Bleh, you're right, they did provide the infraction, even though it was BS (it was cloudy, but it was not raining). I still think the excessive force gives him a pretty decent chance at winning.
I suppose I was making a more general argument that may or may not apply to this case. I am just uncomfortable telling people "just comply, or you'll make things worse," even if pragmatically that might be true.
Yeah, I get that. A lot of it depends on the details. If ICE is arresting your family for literally nothing at all, and you may never see them again, then yes, not complying is going to make things worse, but it's hard for me to say that people "should" comply for that reason. Fuck 'em.
This is not that. This is just a bullshit traffic stop. I get that the frustration comes from the racism inherent in the system, it's not just the traffic stop, but you gotta be smart about when and how to resist. Getting stubborn and hostile with some random traffic cop and getting tons more charges thrown at you as a result is not going to undo the racism. It also bugs me that people (look around this thread) have some kind of idea that they're legally in the right if they decide to start arguing with the cops in this way, which... if you're going to decide to do that (either when getting the ticket or with ICE or anywhere in between), you should have a clear eyed understanding of what you're getting yourself into.
Basically, I definitely don't think it's a good thing people on the internet telling each other how it works and setting up for more things like this to happen to drivers who don't expect how it is going to play out.
No court will side with a suspect for demanding a reason and refusing to comply until given one they agree with. That's a recipe for idiots and armchair lawyers asserting their "rights" incorrectly. Look up sovereign citizens. They are always horrifically wrong on the law yet still demand the law they broke or to get a supervisor.
Any court would maintain the status quo that any traffic stop should be presumed lawful until proven otherwise in court. This includes your obligation to provide license, registration and/or insurance (depending on state), and to exit the vehicle for "officer safety". That last one is one of the worst ones protecting bad cops. Used legitimately it makes the stop safe for everyone. Used by some power tripping asshole it's their easiest path to making the stop violent.
Ding ding ding
The system still has some massive problems. If your goal is less police brutality and reform of the system, though, committing crimes in front of the police and refusing to cooperate with them in any way unless they use force is not going to be a real good way to go after that goal.
I've seen situations that are way worse than this one. One guy got spooked (like legitimately spooked, you could tell he was for-real scared that the cops were going to do something to him) when he got stopped for an open container in the car. They asked him to get out of the car, he took off instead, crashed his car, foot chase, they tackled him, he ended the night with a bunch of felonies and his car totaled. That's one reason I think this stuff is so absurd and dangerous when people say it on the internet; sometimes it translates to real world behavior too. You could tell that he was influenced by it, and that's part of why he thought stomping on the gas and making the situation a hundred times worse was the right play.