Army officer sues Virginia police over violent traffic stop

Exactly. And to complicate the matter for themselves, they presented absolutely no evidence for conducting a felony stop by letting him go after the altercation happened

 

I agree with most of your post. The only quibble I have is that I'm not sure there was an explicit threat to kill him ever made. Maybe I missed it, but "ride the lightning" was clearly a Taser reference. The closest they got to a threat to kill him was the junior cops drawn sidearm, but that's common enough during traffic stops, particularly felony stops, that I don't think it's quite accurate to describe it as them threatening to kill him. Did I miss some other incident where their threat was more explicit?

 

The question I posed to rahl was relevant to rahl's claim that "they were not detaining him". What you brought up is indeed irrelevant to that question.

See my previous statement.

I haven't insisted the latter be ignored. It's irrelevant to the former. Why do you insist on ignoring that? Even rahl backtracked on his initial claim.

No ****. It's irrelevant to the question of whether he was detained or not. The issue of legality is separate. Please tell me you now understand that.

I understood it before. What you fail to understand is the irrelevance of your straw man to the question of whether Mr. Nazario was detained or not. Are you clear yet? How many many more times do I need to explain the obvious to you?

No ****, Captain Obvious.

No ****, Captain Obvious.

It never did, but it's clear someone needs to explain to you what a STRAW MAN is.

For the love of honesty, intelligence and reading comprehension, let's get something clear right now. The statement you put in quotes is a fabrication of your own making, not a statement, assertion or position of my own.

Second, you inserted the term "legal" into a question I posed to rahl where the term "legal" is nowhere to be found.

Third, to suggest that I made such a statement is dishonest at best.

I don't really know how I can explain to you more simply that there is a difference between 1) the question of whether one is detained or not and 2) the question of whether one is detained legally or not. It's real simple. This shouldn't be difficult for anyone.

 

The moment you point a gun at someone, you are threatening to kill them. Period. I'm sorry, we can disagree about a variety of subjects, but I'm not budging on this one. I don't understand how anyone who has ever studied firearm safety, even for half a day, ever could.

They approached the car with weapons drawn and pointed at the cab. Having tinted windows isn't justification for that.

 

This was in relation to the legality of the command. So, yes, if honesty is going to enter the discussion, the legality of the detainment matters.

If you have some sort of play conversation going on that has nothing to do with the justification of these actions, that's cute, and you are free to have it. When you are able to meet us back here in the topic, the legality of the detainment actually matters. We don't care about whatever play scenario you are toying with. We are trying to join about the real world. Why do you find it so offensive to be asked to join us?

The legality of his detainment matters. I refuse to believe that you are incapable of understanding that facts matter.

If you are capable of discussing the events in question in a topical way, feel free to join us. Yes, the legality of the detainment matters if you are going to pretend to be interested in such a topic. If you can't talk about this stop and the legal details of it, feel free to start another thread talking about something else entirely. We'll be back here talking about the subject. Join us any time.

 

Yep if I am in my plain black Sonata of which there are many out there and blue lights come on behind me I may have no idea why they are ordering me to stop including a child has just been kidnapped and the kidnapper is driving a black Sonata. I don't get to make that call simply because I think I am driving the speed limit and have done nothing wrong.

 

They had not seen the temp tag behind the blacked out windows that is ALL they needs to detain him until they could verify ownership. As I realated earlier I was pulled over about two years ago the night I had just purchased a new vehicle and my tag was CLEARLY visiable. I was polite and cooperative and was on my way in about 10 minutes after I showed my purchase documents which the dealer had advised me to keep in the car until I had registered and gotten my permanent tag as THE POLICE MAY PULL YOU OVER TO CHECK.

And BTW the legality of the stop is something you bring up with the judge.

 

The tags were visible by the time they pulled him over. And quit pretending your experience here is relevant, unless the police approached your window pointing a loaded gun in your face and told you that you needed to fear them even if you obeyed their commands. Is that what happened? Did they charge at you threatening to kill you? Is that what you are now going to change your story to include?

 

The question posed in response to rahl's claim that "they weren't detaining him" has to do with the question of were they detaining him or not. That's it. This isn't difficult. Yes, if honesty is going to enter the discussion, you're going to have to acknowledge that it is separate from the question of whether the detention was legal or not....which wasn't the question I asked rahl, and wasn't the question he conceded.

The only play conversation going on here is the one you're having with your little straw man. When you're willing and/or able to respond to what I've actually posted, we can have a real conversation.

We all know the legality of his detainment matters, no one has argued otherwise, but there you are, having a play conversation with your straw man...

When you're done having your play conversation with your straw man and find yourself willing and/or able to respond to what I actually post we can have a real conversation.

 

The number one rule when approached by police with guns drawn is always make sure that your hands are visible to the officers at all times

 

Video footage that shows how well lit the area was where Nazario pulled over, which makes the tag clearly visible, as the windows in the rear were not illegally tinted.

 

only if you can't read. I clearly stated he was UNLAWFULLY detained.

Nothing in my post was incorrect.

no, it isn't.

as he was unlawfully detained, he had no obligation to follow the unlawful commands of the officer. Which is why he walked away and the officer is fired.

[UQOTE]Incorrect. It's already been demonstrated that they do.[/QUOTE]
no it hasn't, as you are incorrect. they do not.

 

That whole conversation was in relation to the SC decision, which involves LAWFUL detainment. I repeat: LAWFUL detainment. Once more for the people in the back: LAWFUL. Detainment. If the law is a "strawman" to you when it comes to this topic, consider a different topic.

Whether or not the detention was legal is THE ONLY RELEVANT CONSIDERATION. An illegal arrest only has any bearing on this discussion IF WE ARE CONDEMNING THE POLICE.

Illegal arrest = Police did a bad. Get it?

 

So what do you do if they give you a command that involves your hands no longer being visible, such as if they ask you to unbuckle your seatbelt?

 

Exactly. Now here is what happens when your hands become obscured as you are obeying an officer's command which in this case is to show your license:

 

I'd simply ask:
"Which do you want me to do, keep my hands visible or unbuckle the seatbelt?"

The solution to avoiding miscommunications that result in death or injury is making sure that everyone understands what is being required even if you have to repeat yourself clearly and loudly.

 

Can you read the tag? What does it say?

 

When you are dealing with people already threatening to kill you, who tell you that you need to fear even if you obey them, and who later go on to lie on their police report, how can you tell us that the only necessary solution was to ask for clarification?

 

It probably would have been a better solution than being argumentative. That doesn't excuse the cops' behavior, but if you're in Nazario's shoes, you can't control the cops. You only have control over your own actions, and Nazario's refusal to get out of his vehicle contributed to the escalation. I'd have loads more sympathy for him if he had been trying to de-escalate the situation, communicate the seatbelt issue clearly, and showed a willingness to comply with the order to get out of the vehicle. Instead it was "I'm not going to get out the vehicle" and "what's going on?"

 

Do you think the officer is blind?

 

You can't read it. That's why you avoided answering my question. If neither you nor I can read it in the video, you haven't given anyone a good reason to conclude that the officer could read it either. You just keep re-iterating this certainty that he must have been able to, even though you can't.

 

And what do you so when one officer is shouting exit the car and at the same time the other officer is shouting keep your hands outside the window? Those nervous officers were not listening to each other so doubt they would be listening to the occupant. Chances are that he would have been shot if he exited the car for disobeying the officer who shouted keep your hands outside the window

 

No, like our friend Condor, you are conveniently ignoring the contradictory nature of the instructions given to him. Watch the video again.........while one cop is yelling at him to “keep his hands out of the car”, the other one is screaming at him to “get out of the car”. As he tries to point out to them, he is now fearful of reaching in for his seatbelt. It’s not until one of the officers opens the door for him that he is in a position to safely reach for his seatbelt and exit the car.

All the cop had to do at the outset was to say something like “ok, I’m now giving you permission to reach in with one of your hands and release your belt”. Instead, we have a clearly out of control pair of cops shouting contradictory commands...

 

I'll ask again, do you think the officer is blind?

I didn't avoid anything. Do you think the human eye at 15 feet is better than a body cap with the lense size of a dime? lol

Again, we know the officer could read it, unless you want to claim he is legally blind. The area is extremely well lit, and the window tint is not illegal. The only possible way the officer could not have seen it, is if he was legally blind.

we know he could. That includes you knowing he could.

 

Really ? Where did you get that information. You’re watching way too much television. Nearly everything in law enforcement is written down.

“There are about 34,000 arrests each day in this country and well over 10 million a year,”

The majority of those don’t have a weapon drawn. Seriously, an average cop can go months, make a hundred stops and never draw his weapon. The majority of police can go an entire career and never fire their weapon.,


Really, drawing a firearm during a traffic stop is no where near common.