Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

AR Cop Sued for Flipping Pregnant Woman’s SUV B/C She Didn’t Pull Over Fast Enough

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post

    Can you direct me to it? I am missing it.
    It's in the OP, but after reading it again, I'd say it's boilerplate written a while ago and not tailored to this particular case.

    Over the past five years Arkansas State Troopers have documented a 52 percent increase in incidents of drivers making a conscious choice to ignore traffic stops initiated by the troopers. Instead of stopping, the drivers try to flee. In more populated areas of the state, the incidents of fleeing from troopers have risen by more than 80 percent. The fleeing drivers pull away at a high rate of speed, wildly driving, dangerously passing other vehicles, showing no regard for the safety of other motorists, creating an imminent threat to the public.

    The Arkansas State Police began using the Precision Immobilization Technique (PIT) over two decades ago. Trooper recruits while attending the department’s academy receive comprehensive initial training in the use of PIT. All incumbent troopers receive recurring annual training in emergency vehicle operations which includes PIT instruction.

    There’s a fundamental state law none of us should ever forget. All drivers are required under Arkansas law to safely pull-off the roadway and stop when a police officer activates the patrol vehicle emergency lights and siren. The language of the law is crystal clear. Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle displaying the signal to stop, the driver must pull-over and stop. *(see Arkansas statutes ACA §27-51-901 & §27-49-107)

    Should a driver make the decision to ignore the law and flee from police, state troopers are trained to consider their options. Based on the totality of circumstances a state trooper could deploy spike strips to deflate the tires of the vehicle being pursued, execute a boxing technique to contain the pursuit slowing the driver to a stop, execute a PIT maneuver or terminate the pursuit. Most Arkansas State Police pursuits end without a PIT maneuver being utilized.

    PIT has proven to be an effective tool to stop drivers who are placing others in harm’s way. It has saved lives among those who choose to obey the law against those who choose to run from police. In every case a state trooper has used a PIT maneuver, the fleeing driver could have chosen to end the pursuit by doing what all law-abiding citizens do every day when a police officer turns-on the blue lights – they pull over and stop.
    Last edited by Stoic; 06-10-2021, 11:58 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Stoic View Post

      It's in the OP, but after reading it again, I'd say it's boilerplate written a while ago and not tailored to this particular case.

      Over the past five years Arkansas State Troopers have documented a 52 percent increase in incidents of drivers making a conscious choice to ignore traffic stops initiated by the troopers. Instead of stopping, the drivers try to flee. In more populated areas of the state, the incidents of fleeing from troopers have risen by more than 80 percent. The fleeing drivers pull away at a high rate of speed, wildly driving, dangerously passing other vehicles, showing no regard for the safety of other motorists, creating an imminent threat to the public.

      The Arkansas State Police began using the Precision Immobilization Technique (PIT) over two decades ago. Trooper recruits while attending the department’s academy receive comprehensive initial training in the use of PIT. All incumbent troopers receive recurring annual training in emergency vehicle operations which includes PIT instruction.

      There’s a fundamental state law none of us should ever forget. All drivers are required under Arkansas law to safely pull-off the roadway and stop when a police officer activates the patrol vehicle emergency lights and siren. The language of the law is crystal clear. Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle displaying the signal to stop, the driver must pull-over and stop. *(see Arkansas statutes ACA §27-51-901 & §27-49-107)

      Should a driver make the decision to ignore the law and flee from police, state troopers are trained to consider their options. Based on the totality of circumstances a state trooper could deploy spike strips to deflate the tires of the vehicle being pursued, execute a boxing technique to contain the pursuit slowing the driver to a stop, execute a PIT maneuver or terminate the pursuit. Most Arkansas State Police pursuits end without a PIT maneuver being utilized.

      PIT has proven to be an effective tool to stop drivers who are placing others in harm’s way. It has saved lives among those who choose to obey the law against those who choose to run from police. In every case a state trooper has used a PIT maneuver, the fleeing driver could have chosen to end the pursuit by doing what all law-abiding citizens do every day when a police officer turns-on the blue lights – they pull over and stop.
      None of this seems applicable here. She wasn't "pull[ing] away at a high rate of speed, wildly driving, dangerously passing other vehicles" etc. And this bit leaves out the part about having to immediately pull over when it is safe to do so.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by seanD View Post

        I think they are trained this way. It's the "militarization of police" problem. Maybe not specifically in how he initiated the maneuver, but they're trained to be aggressive and treat citizens like their the enemy. Check out this video...

        (warning there is objectionable language)


        Yeah, he's being uncooperative, but listen how they talk to this guy. Like authoritative robots. "You're fixing to ride the lightening, son"? I mean, what is that? I think the problem is that a lot of these guys are ex-vets and they think they're still in Fallujah dealing with terrorist insurgents.
        I am assuming "Ride the lightning" is referring to being tazed. I have no problem with cops being authoritative, that's their job. You won't get cooperation from an uncooperative person by being nice to them. If they are being combative or uncooperative, then the officer has to take charge.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

          It's certainly a textbook case of why we need to end qualified immunity for cops.
          Qualified immunity doesn't cover the cop endangering the life of someone by being stupid. And it sure doesn't protect the police department if they are teaching the cops to do something like pulling a pit maneuver on someone who was obviously doing exactly what she was supposed to be doing.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            None of this seems applicable here. She wasn't "pull[ing] away at a high rate of speed, wildly driving, dangerously passing other vehicles" etc. And this bit leaves out the part about having to immediately pull over when it is safe to do so.
            Right. It looks like they pulled out their generic response for when people complain about PIT maneuvers.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Stoic View Post

              Right. It looks like they pulled out their generic response for when people complain about PIT maneuvers.
              This all seems lawyer inspired. It is like they were told to admit nothing for fear it might open the door to a whole lot of lawsuits or something. A let 'em prove it in court approach

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                This all seems lawyer inspired. It is like they were told to admit nothing for fear it might open the door to a whole lot of lawsuits or something. A let 'em prove it in court approach
                The deep pockets are the state police. So any lawsuit is going to go after the state police and the state itself. seems to me that by trying to justify the cop's use of the pit maneuver, the state police is unintentionally saying they are responsible for his actions. The fact that there is evidence that they have advised motorists to turn on their flashers and keep left until it is safe to pull over makes their defense of his actions even dumber. That's why I said she is gonna win big. All they have to show is that it was dangerous for her to pull over (or even that she believed that) and followed the SP's advice and then show that the police has a dangerous policy in place to pit maneuver motorists who don't pull over immediately but are not fleeing.

                I am betting they settle.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                  The deep pockets are the state police. So any lawsuit is going to go after the state police and the state itself. seems to me that by trying to justify the cop's use of the pit maneuver, the state police is unintentionally saying they are responsible for his actions. The fact that there is evidence that they have advised motorists to turn on their flashers and keep left until it is safe to pull over makes their defense of his actions even dumber. That's why I said she is gonna win big. All they have to show is that it was dangerous for her to pull over (or even that she believed that) and followed the SP's advice and then show that the police has a dangerous policy in place to pit maneuver motorists who don't pull over immediately but are not fleeing.

                  I am betting they settle.
                  It is a no-win here for the police. The smart thing to do was to try to make it go away as quietly as possible (offered to settle), but their attitude has only served to draw attention to it. Instead of just a black eye or bloody nose they're going to end up getting pumpkin-headed (beat so badly that the swelling makes them unrecognizable even to close relatives).

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                    I am assuming "Ride the lightning" is referring to being tazed. I have no problem with cops being authoritative, that's their job. You won't get cooperation from an uncooperative person by being nice to them. If they are being combative or uncooperative, then the officer has to take charge.
                    Totally disagree. In this situation, when it was obvious he wasn't a threat (since they wouldn't have approached his window), do you act like a human being and talk to the guy, or do you keep acting like a authoritative nazi? You can certainly choose the latter but then the consequence of that is causing a large segment of society to turn against you and view as an enemy instead of a civil servant. Then if that happens, your job becomes much more complicated and riskier.
                    "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      This all seems lawyer inspired. It is like they were told to admit nothing for fear it might open the door to a whole lot of lawsuits or something. A let 'em prove it in court approach
                      Which, from a purely legal perspective, is precisely the right thing to do. Publicly admitting guilt basically hands the plaintiff a blank check, which nobody ever wants to do. Let the lawyers fight it out and determine a "fair" settlement.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                        Which, from a purely legal perspective, is precisely the right thing to do. Publicly admitting guilt basically hands the plaintiff a blank check, which nobody ever wants to do. Let the lawyers fight it out and determine a "fair" settlement.
                        Years ago on the old Cagney and Lacey TV show there was an episode where during a shoot out with bad guys an innocent bystander was wounded and one of the stars apologized to their mother (not a whole lot more than an "I'm sorry") and their captain read her the riot act because she had just admitted responsibility for the shooting.

                        Normally I don't cite TV shows as examples, but this episode stirred up a debate at the time about whether that was true -- and apparently it was.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by seanD View Post

                          Totally disagree. In this situation, when it was obvious he wasn't a threat (since they wouldn't have approached his window), do you act like a human being and talk to the guy, or do you keep acting like a authoritative nazi? You can certainly choose the latter but then the consequence of that is causing a large segment of society to turn against you and view as an enemy instead of a civil servant. Then if that happens, your job becomes much more complicated and riskier.
                          I don't know what the initial reason for pulling him over was, but at the beginning the guy says they are doing a felony stop. Not some traffic violation. They only approached the window with their guns drawn. Despite repeatedly being told (and one of the officers even pleaded with him) he refused to follow the officer's orders to get out of the car. I see nothing wrong with how they handled him. All he had to do was get out of the car like they asked him to.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                            I don't know what the initial reason for pulling him over was, but at the beginning the guy says they are doing a felony stop. Not some traffic violation. They only approached the window with their guns drawn. Despite repeatedly being told (and one of the officers even pleaded with him) he refused to follow the officer's orders to get out of the car. I see nothing wrong with how they handled him. All he had to do was get out of the car like they asked him to.
                            The officer that approached the window had a taser not a gun, so obviously the driver wasn't a threat, unless the officer is an idiot. Like I said, as a cop you can certainly choose to approach it with that type of aggression where it's not necessary. But then you risk the public's scorn as a consequence. The left already views cops as enemies (for the wrong reasons), so the objective would be to not increase that animosity where it's not necessary.
                            "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                              I don't know what the initial reason for pulling him over was, but at the beginning the guy says they are doing a felony stop. Not some traffic violation. They only approached the window with their guns drawn. Despite repeatedly being told (and one of the officers even pleaded with him) he refused to follow the officer's orders to get out of the car. I see nothing wrong with how they handled him. All he had to do was get out of the car like they asked him to.
                              An officer in the US military understands authority and chain of command. To be this non-compliant is a deliberate act to provoke a response like this. He was recording the whole time. He was treated with the same disrespect he gave. He knew better.
                              "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                              "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by seanD View Post

                                The officer that approached the window had a taser not a gun, so obviously the driver wasn't a threat, unless the officer is an idiot. Like I said, as a cop you can certainly choose to approach it with that type of aggression where it's not necessary. But then you risk the public's scorn as a consequence. The left already views cops as enemies (for the wrong reasons), so the objective would be to not increase that animosity where it's not necessary.
                                The other officer had his gun drawn (the one with the camera filming) - And they don't pull a gun on a driver without a reason. Like I said, it was a felony stop. You have no idea why they pulled him over. But they obviously thought he was a threat, thus the gun being drawn. I think they handled it well. The guy should have obeyed. They gave him many chanced to do so and he continuously refused to comply. If I had officers with guns drawn on me, I would comply immediately, especially if I had not done anything wrong. I wouldn't want to make them angry or give them any reason to shoot me. I sure wouldn't argue with them.

                                You also have no idea what they might have found in his truck after arresting him. He could have had a weapon in there. Buying time till he could grab it and shoot his way out or drive off. All we know is what the clip shows. Unless you some other information?


                                here is a video of a pretty similar situation, with the police trying and trying to be polite, but the guy not cooperating, finally they get aggressive and pepper spray him, and try to drag him out of the car, and while pepper sprayed, the suspect still manages to grab a gun and shoot both officers. Things can turn around in a split second. And being nice doesn't work if the guy doesn't want to cooperate.



                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Reepicheep, Yesterday, 07:21 PM
                                9 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by Reepicheep, Yesterday, 01:13 PM
                                10 responses
                                78 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by MaxVel, Yesterday, 09:03 AM
                                29 responses
                                184 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post MaxVel
                                by MaxVel
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 06:59 AM
                                30 responses
                                139 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-22-2021, 05:50 PM
                                35 responses
                                193 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X