- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Indiana cop fired after body slamming teenage girl
Posted on 4/21/24 at 12:13 pm to OzonaOkapi
Posted on 4/21/24 at 12:13 pm to OzonaOkapi
quote:First off. I don't think I've mentioned the 4th cause the 4th is BARELY in play here.
Hardly. I am pretty much a Fourth Amendment hardass. The problem is that you are a Fourth Amendment nutcase.
You have still never answered. Why doesn't the dumbass just tell her why she was pulled over. THAT ends this. What purpose is served? And why is his intransigence on this point no big deal when HE is supposed to be the professional but HER intransigence on wanting to know somehow justified violence?
1
Posted on 4/21/24 at 12:14 pm to Drizzt
Exactly. Dude probably got picked on in high school. Now he’s got a badge, gun, and anger issues. He should be in a different line of work. Guys like this tarnish the image of all the good, level headed officers out there.
Posted on 4/21/24 at 12:18 pm to Wishing Well
quote:Let's look at Indiana law:
You ask her for ID. She says she wants to know why she was pulled over first.
quote:
Indiana Code 34-28-5-3.5. Refusal to Identify Self
A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide ... driver's license ... to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
Posted on 4/21/24 at 12:21 pm to OzonaOkapi
quote:That doesn't answer the question.
Let's look at Indiana law:
Why didn't he simply answer her?
You're intentionally skpping over that.
If he answered her and she still doesn't provide it.........then you can talk to me about the law.
The whole, "I'm not gonna tell you WHY" shite is pathetic and the fact it's being trained is disgusting.
Posted on 4/21/24 at 12:22 pm to keakar
quote:You idiot. It's a 16 year old child. The cop is a paid professional civil SERVANT who is supposedly trained to deal with hardened criminals - not to mention little girls.
i see someone refusing to get out of the car as instructed.
cop assisted her in figuring how to get out of the car, and he got fired for it
frick the cops, but i cant say which one in this, between her and the cop, was in the wrong, unless we can hear the conversation they had, to see who was in the wrong.
It's unbelievable how deep the boot licking gene goes in some of you dullards.
Posted on 4/21/24 at 12:24 pm to OzonaOkapi
quote:and hey. OK. I'm gonna run with you on this one.
Let's look at Indiana law:
quote:
A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide ... driver's license ... to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
Welp officer, how bout telling me what the infraction is? Oh, what's that? You won't? Why not? Just because you don't HAVE to.
Yeah. That's real toddler shite there.
Her question is completely reasonable because guess what...............there HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN CASES where officers have pulled people over for NON-infractions before.
At which point, your precious citation goes to shite.
Which, by the way. Is why these assholes have been TRAINED to refuse to tell. This way, they can get the ID even if their reason is bogus.
Posted on 4/21/24 at 12:25 pm to Wishing Well
quote:So, your complaint is basically that the cop was not adequately-deferential to the driver?
Why doesn't the dumbass just tell her why she was pulled over.
He made a reasonable request to see her driver's license as part of a routine traffic stop. She responded by being argumentative and refusing to do that which she was REQUIRED to do by applicable Indiana law ... give him the license (see post above).
For the (what? fourth or fifth time?) he probably overreacted by jerking her out of the car, but her refusal to comply with a lawful request started events in their downward spiral.
Posted on 4/21/24 at 12:25 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
You idiot. It's a 16 year old child. The cop is a paid professional civil SERVANT who is supposedly trained to deal with hardened criminals - not to mention little girls.
It's unbelievable how deep the boot licking gene goes in some of you dullards.
I mean seriously. Their ENTIRE justification is, "well, the 16 year old girl didn't handle it perfectly".
Posted on 4/21/24 at 12:27 pm to OzonaOkapi
quote:What you call deferential is what normal people call human.
So, your complaint is basically that the cop was not adequately-deferential to the driver?
quote:and her request was also reasonable. Completely.
He made a reasonable request to see her driver's license as part of a routine traffic stop
quote:Only if she actually has committed a violation which, at that point, she doesn't know if she has........cause he won't tell her and because some fricking halfwits have decided THAT is a smart way to train cops.
she was REQUIRED to do by applicable Indiana law
So again. WHY THE frick does anyone think that's good training!!!!
Posted on 4/21/24 at 12:39 pm to Wishing Well
quote:
Qualified immunity needs to die.
The cop was fired. Qualified Immunity doesn’t apply in this case
Posted on 4/21/24 at 12:40 pm to Wishing Well
quote:
Only if she actually has committed a violation which, at that point, she doesn't know if she has........cause he won't tell her and because some fricking halfwits have decided THAT is a smart way to train cops. So again. WHY THE frick does anyone think that's good training!!!!
How do you know it was training instead of the cop being an a-hole
Posted on 4/21/24 at 12:44 pm to ChanceOfRainIsNever
quote:
The cop was fired. Qualified Immunity doesn’t apply in this case
Considering the level of overreaction he used to handle the situation the way he did, he should have been charged with battery. It's such a gross misapplication of force to handle a traffic stop for basically insolence. I mean he was admittedly prepared to let her off with a warning, but manhandled and arrested her because she didn't comply fast enough. Jesus Christ, what is the world coming to?
frick this guy. He's a piece of shite and anyone with a functional conscience can see he should at the very least be forced to serve community service for his actions.
This post was edited on 4/21/24 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 4/21/24 at 12:45 pm to Dex Morgan
This guy was also apparently an Army veteran. So he will get double the hero worship by the Back the Blue crowd.
100 percent this shitbag has laid hands on a woman. Hope her family sues his arse and South Whitley for their last dime.
Bottom line, we have a paramilitary force for law enforcement that is woefully trained. Maybe if they held the few bad apples accountable and ended qualified immunity? Instead we get “have coffee with a cop” and other bs attempts at outreach and building relations
100 percent this shitbag has laid hands on a woman. Hope her family sues his arse and South Whitley for their last dime.
Bottom line, we have a paramilitary force for law enforcement that is woefully trained. Maybe if they held the few bad apples accountable and ended qualified immunity? Instead we get “have coffee with a cop” and other bs attempts at outreach and building relations
Posted on 4/21/24 at 12:55 pm to BuckyCheese
quote:
Been drug out of your car and tossed on the ground lately?
I've never been a HS girl, so no.
* But I've been pulled over a few times. Always complied. Never been dragged out. Never been body slammed by a cop.
This post was edited on 4/21/24 at 1:04 pm
Posted on 4/21/24 at 1:00 pm to BluegrassCardinal
Would he have did the same thing to a full grown man? Is it okay for the average person to assault someone for asking why you stopped them? Nothing justified his actions. Nothing. He should be locked up before he kills some innocent woman. The guy has an anger issue.
Posted on 4/21/24 at 1:10 pm to AUstar
quote:
I don't know what happened because we can't hear the conversation. But if he told her to step out of the car (and I suspect he did), she was obstructing by not doing so. When Police order you out, you have to get out. This is not speculation, it is clearly written in law.
Here you go:
quote:
An officer's authority to order a driver out of a vehicle at the officer's discretion comes from the US Supreme Court's ruling in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977). That authority was extended to include ordering a passenger out of a vehicle in Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997).
Note that the officer is not required to have probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of another crime before ordering a vehicle's occupant(s) out of the car. It is also important to note that the officer may order a vehicle's occupant(s) back into the vehicle, as well.
So, yes the Supreme Court settled this in the 70's for the driver and extended it to passengers in the 90's. If a Cop tells you to get out, it is a crime to refuse. And he can order you out just because he feels like it.
Unfortunately a lot of parents don't tell their kids this and we end up with situations like this. A lot of people are very ignorant of laws surrounding traffic stops.
A couple of things.
1. I'm willing to concede that the girl probably did mistakenly think she had a right to be told why she was being stopped before she was willing to follow orders. My read on the video is that that probably did happen.
2. However, that doesn't mean he has carte blanche to resort to any level of force to compel her to comply, and it also doesn't mean that he is under no professional obligation to attempt to peacefully diffuse the situation rather than being the one who escalates it to a violent conflict within seconds.
This was very poor police work. Probably doesn't rise to the level of justifying a successful lawsuit—assuming that the girl wasn't injured—but this guy absolutely needed to be fired. He clearly does not have the temperament for this job.
Posted on 4/21/24 at 1:31 pm to Wishing Well
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/21/24 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 4/21/24 at 1:37 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
An officer's authority to order a driver out of a vehicle at the officer's discretion comes from the US Supreme Court's ruling in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977). That authority was extended to include ordering a passenger out of a vehicle in Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997). Note that the officer is not required to have probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of another crime before ordering a vehicle's occupant(s) out of the car. It is also important to note that the officer may order a vehicle's occupant(s) back into the vehicle, as well.
All of the Sovereign Citizen types raging need to remember that driving has never been a right. Read your states driver manual. Paragraph One probably will inform you that driving is a legal privilege and always has been. So at minimum, if you’re pulled over and asked for drivers license and registration, legally you HAVE to provide it on demand. That’s the law and always has been.
Posted on 4/21/24 at 1:59 pm to BluegrassCardinal
quote:
Bottom line, we have a paramilitary force for law enforcement that is woefully trained. Maybe if they held the few bad apples accountable and ended qualified immunity? Instead we get “have coffee with a cop” and other bs attempts at outreach and building relations
The issue with training is that every state has their own standards. Within each state, every county, city and town has their own standards and policies for training in addition to how much money is budgeted for training. So that brings up a question do we need a national training standard for all law enforcement in the entire country? You won’t be able to do that without government intervention and with as jacked up as DC currently is, is that something we should want? What would the cost be and how do is it get implemented? Then if the Feds get involved you have to worry about DEI being a thing, about the Feds having a say in local policy thus opening up the lefts dream of a national police force. No thanks
As far as qualified immunity goes, how does opening up individual police officers to civil liability make everyone safer or the job better? Putting this situation aside because this cop did not handle the situation properly at all; if an officer acts within the law and within policy how does still making that officer open to being sued benefit anyone other than trial lawyers and activists
This post was edited on 4/21/24 at 2:03 pm
Posted on 4/21/24 at 3:08 pm to Tridentds
quote:
This shite would never happen to me or anyone in my family or anyone I know because we understand the police have a difficult job because of assholes that want to argue and not cooperate
I hope you are scraping your tongue regularly. Otherwise there's got to be at least a good quarter inch of boot polish residue buildup on it.
Page 12 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News