• doingthestuff@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    3 months ago

    I am a huge police accountability buff. But also, law matters, and court rulings matter. If police order you out of your car for their safety (in the US), you have to comply. If you do not, they are authorized to use force to pull you out and almost never do that gently. Cops absolutely use excessive force all the time, so not doing things that specifically give them permission would be smart. Him rolling up his tinted windows and refusing to get out of the car are what made this happen.

    • Tramort@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      They still need probably cause to force him out. They might have had it based on prior facts, but they might not have.

      Cops are way past getting the benefit of the doubt from me

      This looks like they were angry about an uppity black man.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        This. They cannot tell you to get out for speeding or some other minor offense. They need probable cause for that. Then while he was in handcuffs, one of these clowns punched him in the face.

        We need to end qualified immunity and start jailing these authoritarian tyrants.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            However, all other instances outside of those enumerated above appear to be unlawful reasons for ordering a passenger out of the car. For example, if the stop is concluded and the cop wants to talk to you about an unrelated matter. This would be an unlawful seizure. The Mimms case made it clear that while an officer may order an individual out of the car for legitimate safety concerns, the officer is not entitled to ask a driver out of the vehicle in every single instance in which he wants to speak with the occupants. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977).

            That’s literally you’re own link. Pulling a driver over on the highway and asking them to step out and move to the shoulder grass is fine. Asking them to exit the car, on a side street is not a safety issue.

            • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              If they can’t see in your vehicle, they can tell you to exit the vehicle. If you give off a hostile vibe they can tell you to exit the vehicle. Having overly dark tint creates a scenario where they cannot see what is going on inside the vehicle. I have seen cops pull out their guns and shout at people to get out of the car from 20 ft away because they couldn’t see inside. I’m not saying that’s the right response, I’m just saying that there are more court-accepted reasons that an officer can pull you out of your vehicle “for their safety”.

    • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Maybe, and I’m just spitballing here, but maybe for a simple speeding offense they didn’t need to drag him out of the car? Just because they are allowed to based on past court cases doesn’t mean they should use that for every issue they see.

      • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        There are a lot of people who want to end qualified immunity and reform many realities of policing today. I am describing the reality today. There’s a reason I say I’m interested in police accountability/transparency.

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Nice to finally see someone who knows Penn v. Mimms out in the wild.

    • crusty_baboon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      The time between them ordering him out of the car (not asking to roll down the window) and them forcing him out was a few seconds.

      • mrcleanup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The one I saw was longer, they knocked at least two different times and he kept telling them off.

        • crusty_baboon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          But they didn’t tell him to get out of the car yet. He should have rolled down the window yes, but that’s a separate issue than Penn vs Mimms.

          • mrcleanup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Sure, but once they establish a pattern of non-compliance it doesn’t reset with each new instruction. They expect he will resist getting out of the car based on his refusal to roll down the window. At that point they have to choose whether to get him out of the car quickly, or risk non-compliance issue with that, which could involve fleeing or hitting people with his car.

            When officer or public safety are at risk they will always choose to take someone into custody to stabilize the situation and then reassess from there.

            The situation with the window can’t be separated from the treatment with the door.

            • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              That is a policy of escalation, there is no reason to follow it. It just makes situations where this is more likely. It’s a miniscule increase in safety for an officer at a cost of massive risk to the public.

              • mrcleanup@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                That’s just naive. And that’s a big claim, a “massive risk” to the public, so back it up… Who got hurt in this instance?

                • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  The three people cops killed today, the at least double that of dogs, and had Hill nor been an nfl player on game day he would probably still be in jail.

                  • mrcleanup@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    So In this specific instance, the specific instance we are talking about, the instance that is the topic of this discussion, no one.

                    The obvious follow up question is, if he were rolling up the tinted windows so he could retrieve a weapon without the cop seeing, or if he had taken off at high speed in his little sports car and run a high speed chase before crashing, could multiple people have died?

                    I’ll just give you the obvious answer, “yes”.

                    The reason your answer is naive isn’t because cops don’t do terrible things, they do, and they should absolutely be held accountable. It is because cops are also often on unpredictable situations and if you can’t look at something like this and see where pulling him out of the car could be justified, you can’t argue in good faith where the line is between this and a true abuse of power.

                    And if you can’t do that, the people in power will never take your argument seriously, and your will continue to be largely ignored.

      • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The clip I saw at the link looked like it was edited right there, I’d love to see the raw video. It could have been too quick, it could have been longer. I don’t know.