How not to get shot by the police

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, he didn't say anything about guns, taxes, or how he loves local government and hates federal government.

No, it's about not having to submit to the cop's authority. You're thinking of right wing crap, not sovereign citizen crap.

Well, first, where does he say sovereign citizen movement? Second, he does say "militia." Militia are known for guns. So we've got no evidence of guns and in fact we've got evidence of no guns where they ought to be if he were in the militia. So far as sovereign citizens, many are anti-tax and pro-local sheriff. We don't have that. There is a lot pointing to a teenager, though. Like "What do you mean?" and "Stop yelling at me, gosh."

 

[abaddon]

No, it's about not having to submit to the cop's authority. You're thinking of right wing crap, not sovereign citizen crap.

Describe what you imagine that you know about sovereign citizen crap. You have a fascinating way of just filling in the blanks of what you don’t know with authoritative pronouncements based on imaginations, and I'm thinking this is another example of that.

I listened to what Deven was saying in his encounter with Sgt. Frost, and I’ve been familiar for years with what’s posted on Youtube about constitutional rights when confronted by the police. So it was very quickly and extremely obvious that Deven was mimicking “flex your constitutional rights” vids readily found on the Net, esp. Youtube.

It’s not only not wrong to study the topic and to want to flex your rights, as anyone who doesn’t is a lousy citizen. Deven’s only mistakes were 1) not double-checking that info and making sure it applied in his state, because some of it (not all!) was incorrect (e.g. he got both the “I’m recording this for your safety and mine” and “you have to tell your badge number when I ask” bits right but got the “you can’t open my door” bit wrong); and 2) he was too bull-headedly flexing his rights with a belligerent asshole who was out to prove his superiority, as is typical with road rage drivers -- even the subdued “calm sounding” ones (and also like them a total hypocrite, as the officer was the one guilty of the crime he’d pulled the kid over for... another point where Deven was correct).

That anti-government extremists like sovereign citizens or militia groups came to mind before “ugh another citizen trying to ‘flex his rights’ but not being quite factually accurate’’ is yet another of several of Sgt Frost’s failures to be a reasonable human and police officer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, it's about not having to submit to the cop's authority. You're thinking of right wing crap, not sovereign citizen crap.

Describe what you imagine that you know about sovereign citizen crap. You have a fascinating way of just filling in the blanks of what you don’t know with authoritative pronouncements based on imaginations, and I'm thinking this is another example of that.

I listened to what Deven was saying in his encounter with Sgt. Frost, and I’ve been familiar for years with what’s posted on Youtube about constitutional rights when confronted by the police. So it was very quickly and extremely obvious that Deven was mimicking “flex your constitutional rights” vids readily found on the Net, esp. Youtube.

It’s not only not wrong to study the topic and to want to flex your rights, as anyone who doesn’t is a lousy citizen. Deven’s only mistakes were 1) not double-checking that info and making sure it applied in his state, because some of it (not all!) was incorrect (e.g. he got both the “I’m recording this for your safety and mine” and “you have to tell your badge number when I ask” bits right but got the “you can’t open my door” bit wrong); and 2) he was too bull-headedly flexing his rights with a belligerent asshole who was out to prove his superiority, as is typical with road rage drivers -- even the subdued “calm sounding” ones (and also like them a total hypocrite, as the officer was the one guilty of the crime he’d pulled the kid over for... another point where Deven was correct).

That anti-government extremists like sovereign citizens or militia groups came to mind before “ugh another citizen trying to ‘flex his rights’ but not being quite factually accurate’’ is yet another of several of Sgt Frost’s failures to be a reasonable human and police officer.

It was fundamentally incorrect--there's no state where you can refuse to hand over your license at a traffic stop.

 

[Toni]

Describe what you imagine that you know about sovereign citizen crap. You have a fascinating way of just filling in the blanks of what you don’t know with authoritative pronouncements based on imaginations, and I'm thinking this is another example of that.

I listened to what Deven was saying in his encounter with Sgt. Frost, and I’ve been familiar for years with what’s posted on Youtube about constitutional rights when confronted by the police. So it was very quickly and extremely obvious that Deven was mimicking “flex your constitutional rights” vids readily found on the Net, esp. Youtube.

It’s not only not wrong to study the topic and to want to flex your rights, as anyone who doesn’t is a lousy citizen. Deven’s only mistakes were 1) not double-checking that info and making sure it applied in his state, because some of it (not all!) was incorrect (e.g. he got both the “I’m recording this for your safety and mine” and “you have to tell your badge number when I ask” bits right but got the “you can’t open my door” bit wrong); and 2) he was too bull-headedly flexing his rights with a belligerent asshole who was out to prove his superiority, as is typical with road rage drivers -- even the subdued “calm sounding” ones (and also like them a total hypocrite, as the officer was the one guilty of the crime he’d pulled the kid over for... another point where Deven was correct).

That anti-government extremists like sovereign citizens or militia groups came to mind before “ugh another citizen trying to ‘flex his rights’ but not being quite factually accurate’’ is yet another of several of Sgt Frost’s failures to be a reasonable human and police officer.

It was fundamentally incorrect--there's no state where you can refuse to hand over your license at a traffic stop.

Well he forgot his driver's license at his girlfriend's house, so he couldn't hand it over. BTW,this happens in every state in the union and usually does not result in anyone being yanked from their car, tased and then murdered.

And should not have happened here.

 

[abaddon]

It was fundamentally incorrect--there's no state where you can refuse to hand over your license at a traffic stop.

Why not a response more directly to the “sovereign citizens” thing that you were on about and that I challenged? You’ve been saying Deven was spouting sovereign citizen’s garbage for a couple weeks now. I described what he was actually spouting. The first time we argued it, in the other thread, you just re-asserted your assertion. Now you give a 'civilian's still wrong anyway' response, demonstrating how your 'style of argument' is rigged so the police always come out as right in pretty much anything they do.

Rather similarly, so are a lot of investigations into police shootings.

Civilians are not safe enough from police. They shouldn't have to be so subservient as your OP suggests to survive a minor traffic stop. And police need to be more answerable for all of their mistakes when those mistakes contribute to the escalation of events to where someone's shot. Just pointing again and again at what the civilian got wrong should not deflect from the officer's mistakes.

-------------

And what's said here is important:

... this happens in every state in the union and usually does not result in anyone being yanked from their car, tased and then murdered.

And should not have happened here.

Being wrong about what the officer can or cannot do shouldn't justify or make irrelevant the officer's role in escalating tensions.

Actually the officer could have shown a good faith effort at establishing he's not a threat to the civilian. He failed miserably. He wanted to see Deven's papers, and Deven was within his rights to know the officer's proof of identity too. But Sgt Frost played a game of words to evade giving his badge number. It's plain the civilian was fearful that the officer was not playing by the rules... and, he wasn't! The officer was out of bounds from the start. That Deven didn't get it right about what all the rules are doesn't finalize who fucked up here. The officer didn't get the rules right either.

 

[laughing dog]

It was fundamentally incorrect--there's no state where you can refuse to hand over your license at a traffic stop.

Since Deven did not refuse to hand over his license, I fail to see why there is any discussion about that. Furthermore, I believe it used to be the case in Mn that while you were supposed to have your driver's license on you when you drove, you were not penalized for failing to carry the license if you could produce it within a certain amount of time. Whether my memory is correct or whether that is still the case, I cannot say for sure.

 

[arkirk]

WHATEVER YOU DO: Do not shout in the cop's face: "Tarrantino was right! You guys are a bunch of murderers." That may just precipitate some actions to prove he is right. That is still no guarantee if you are black or brown.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It was fundamentally incorrect--there's no state where you can refuse to hand over your license at a traffic stop.

Well he forgot his driver's license at his girlfriend's house, so he couldn't hand it over. BTW,this happens in every state in the union and usually does not result in anyone being yanked from their car, tased and then murdered.

And should not have happened here.

Most people don't spout a pile of legal BS when caught without their license.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It was fundamentally incorrect--there's no state where you can refuse to hand over your license at a traffic stop.

Since Deven did not refuse to hand over his license, I fail to see why there is any discussion about that. Furthermore, I believe it used to be the case in Mn that while you were supposed to have your driver's license on you when you drove, you were not penalized for failing to carry the license if you could produce it within a certain amount of time. Whether my memory is correct or whether that is still the case, I cannot say for sure.

Keeping challenging the cop's authority to demand it amounts to refusing to hand it over.

And when you refuse to comply at a traffic stop you're going to jail.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Since Deven did not refuse to hand over his license, I fail to see why there is any discussion about that. Furthermore, I believe it used to be the case in Mn that while you were supposed to have your driver's license on you when you drove, you were not penalized for failing to carry the license if you could produce it within a certain amount of time. Whether my memory is correct or whether that is still the case, I cannot say for sure.

Keeping challenging the cop's authority to demand it amounts to refusing to hand it over.

And when you refuse to comply at a traffic stop you're going to jail.

Emphasis added. According to Minnesota state law, while a person is supposed to hand over their license when requested by an officer, they are only tentatively charged for non-possession of the license. They have all the way up to the date of court to prove they had a license at the time of the driving. They can produce the license in court and there will be no conviction. Thus, no jail time for conviction.

See 2015 Minnesota Statutes, 171.08 LICENSEE TO HAVE LICENSE IN POSSESSION.

It could be the same in Michigan.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So it's possible that as soon as Deven's girlfriend showed up with Deven's license, Sgt Frost would have to dismiss the charge.

or it would have gotten dismissed later any time up to the point of a court hearing.

I will see if Michigan statute is online for this...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Michigan statutes appear to be different:

257.311 Possession of operator's or chauffeur's license or receipt when operating motor vehicle required; display; identification.

Sec. 311.

The licensee shall have his or her operator's or chauffeur's license, or the receipt described in section 311a, in his or her immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle, and shall display the same upon demand of any police officer, who shall identify himself or herself as such.

However, it is only a misdemeanor and since Deven simply forgot it but still had a valid license, since this would be his first offense, a judge would never send him to jail for forgetfulness. Likewise, once the girlfriend showed up with Deven's license, it would put Sgt Frost in a position of having to make a choice to pursue a charge that wouldn't really get anywhere and is unnecessary.

Jail time is likely not going to result from this. More likely scenario is he could get a $100 fine.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

By the way, my daughter called me once from when she was stopped by police. I had to bring proof of insurance to the site where she was. Officer never charged her for not having it since it was unnecessary. Police officers encounter this thing all the time.

A phone call to get a license or insurance is common enough.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Keeping challenging the cop's authority to demand it amounts to refusing to hand it over.

And when you refuse to comply at a traffic stop you're going to jail.

Emphasis added. According to Minnesota state law, while a person is supposed to hand over their license when requested by an officer, they are only tentatively charged for non-possession of the license. They have all the way up to the date of court to prove they had a license at the time of the driving. They can produce the license in court and there will be no conviction. Thus, no jail time for conviction.

See 2015 Minnesota Statutes, 171.08 LICENSEE TO HAVE LICENSE IN POSSESSION.

It could be the same in Michigan.

I didn't say "no license", I said "refuse to comply."

You don't accept the ticket, you're going to jail. Tickets are really just a very abbreviated bail procedure--you don't bail out, you're in jail until your ticket is heard.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

By the way, my daughter called me once from when she was stopped by police. I had to bring proof of insurance to the site where she was. Officer never charged her for not having it since it was unnecessary. Police officers encounter this thing all the time.

A phone call to get a license or insurance is common enough.

When someone fesses up to not having the paperwork. Devon didn't.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

(1) Deven stated, "I do not have my license, sir, I am going to get it."

Thus the phone call. No he was not calling militia buddies to come help him shoot the police officer.

(2) Non-compliance with a request for a driver's license is not against the law directly. It isn't anywhere in the Michigan state laws. Indirectly, refusal after several requests could possibly be construed as probable cause of not possessing the license on his person. Also, the fact that he said he did not have it but was going to get it adds to that strong likelihood.

When the officer stated that Deven was committing a misdemeanor by not providing the license it is the indirect likely conclusion that he did not possess one on his person while operating a vehicle that he was referring to.

That is why it mentions 257.311 in the report.

However, as noted, it is up to the officer to charge or not charge, to give time to get it or not. Police have a lot of discretion and often don't bother with silly things or unnecessary charges.

 

[arkirk]

How to not get shot by police: Be white or stay out of range of their firearms. Being white is not an automatic get out of being shot card either., but it does reduce the chances.

 

[fast]

How to not get shot by police: Be white or stay out of range of their firearms. Being white is not an automatic get out of being shot card either., but it does reduce the chances.

But couldn't that be a parenting issue? If 88% of black's behave in a negative manner because of their mother's and fathers neglectful failure to raise their children to be respectful to elders and authority even in the most trying times, then that could explain why even an otherwise racist cop would better treat a black person over a loud mouth white redneck when confronted with one of the 12%, even if the respectful black person was committing a traffic offense. Justification and race would not be irrelevant. We already know that it's wrong for an officer to make an example out of a foul mouth person, but we know they do it, so the question is why beyond the officers own lack of self control do they do it to more to blacks than whites? If it's skin color, that's one thing, but if my arbitrary percentage of 88% is correct, and if white's are unruly both in attitude and demeanor (oh say, a whole lot less of the time), then even if racism isn't nonexistent, it's not necessarily the primary provocation for the statistics we get, as it makes sense (statistically) to see far more instances of violence towards blacks than whites. It doesn't make sense in a world where officers can appropriately deal with the product of badly raised black people, so the justification to harm black's is not there, but to blame all the headache on racism can be a mistake.

Of course, I raise the very shameful idea that there is a large disproportionate gap between the behavior of whites and blacks and even go on to lay blame on parenting, but no one ever addresses this, so the hypothesis is never really covered. Sure, people skirt around some stereotypes, but with so much back and forth, it's kinda hard to get a convincing handle on what really lies at the heart of the issue.

I've spoken with what might be regarded as having a racist bent, but I just want the idea thrown out there. I'm not even entirely sold on the idea that a switch to a child versus time out is a strong factor. I've seen things in restaurants where a mother is extremely attentive to a child whereas others are sometimes oblivious to even where her child might fall. I have this crazy notion that a mother who truly loves her child to where she is so intuned to child's actions that she can intuitively sense a mishap that the child will grow up to obey simple traffic commands when an officer gives them, reasonable or otherwise. Maybe more white mothers love their children more than black mothers.

Anyway, arkirk, maybe being white does improve the chances, but is it because whites are whites, or is because more whites behave themselves, and is it because their momma's love them more?

 

[Juma]

How to not get shot by police: Be white or stay out of range of their firearms. Being white is not an automatic get out of being shot card either., but it does reduce the chances.

But couldn't that be a parenting issue? If 88% of black's behave in a negative manner because of their mother's and fathers neglectful failure to raise their children to be respectful to elders and authority even in the most trying times, then that could explain why even an otherwise racist cop would better treat a black person over a loud mouth white redneck when confronted with one of the 12%, even if the respectful black person was committing a traffic offense. Justification and race would not be irrelevant. We already know that it's wrong for an officer to make an example out of a foul mouth person, but we know they do it, so the question is why beyond the officers own lack of self control do they do it to more to blacks than whites? If it's skin color, that's one thing, but if my arbitrary percentage of 88% is correct, and if white's are unruly both in attitude and demeanor (oh say, a whole lot less of the time), then even if racism isn't nonexistent, it's not necessarily the primary provocation for the statistics we get, as it makes sense (statistically) to see far more instances of violence towards blacks than whites. It doesn't make sense in a world where officers can appropriately deal with the product of badly raised black people, so the justification to harm black's is not there, but to blame all the headache on racism can be a mistake.

Of course, I raise the very shameful idea that there is a large disproportionate gap between the behavior of whites and blacks and even go on to lay blame on parenting, but no one ever addresses this, so the hypothesis is never really covered. Sure, people skirt around some stereotypes, but with so much back and forth, it's kinda hard to get a convincing handle on what really lies at the heart of the issue.

I've spoken with what might be regarded as having a racist bent, but I just want the idea thrown out there. I'm not even entirely sold on the idea that a switch to a child versus time out is a strong factor. I've seen things in restaurants where a mother is extremely attentive to a child whereas others are sometimes oblivious to even where her child might fall. I have this crazy notion that a mother who truly loves her child to where she is so intuned to child's actions that she can intuitively sense a mishap that the child will grow up to obey simple traffic commands when an officer gives them, reasonable or otherwise. Maybe more white mothers love their children more than black mothers.

Anyway, arkirk, maybe being white does improve the chances, but is it because whites are whites, or is because more whites behave themselves, and is it because their momma's love them more?

Yes. This is racist.
1) you blame the victim.
2) you have no evidens whatsoever.
3) you suggest that people of a certain color treat their children differently than people of any other color.

Of course that is racist.

 

[fast]

But couldn't that be a parenting issue? If 88% of black's behave in a negative manner because of their mother's and fathers neglectful failure to raise their children to be respectful to elders and authority even in the most trying times, then that could explain why even an otherwise racist cop would better treat a black person over a loud mouth white redneck when confronted with one of the 12%, even if the respectful black person was committing a traffic offense. Justification and race would not be irrelevant. We already know that it's wrong for an officer to make an example out of a foul mouth person, but we know they do it, so the question is why beyond the officers own lack of self control do they do it to more to blacks than whites? If it's skin color, that's one thing, but if my arbitrary percentage of 88% is correct, and if white's are unruly both in attitude and demeanor (oh say, a whole lot less of the time), then even if racism isn't nonexistent, it's not necessarily the primary provocation for the statistics we get, as it makes sense (statistically) to see far more instances of violence towards blacks than whites. It doesn't make sense in a world where officers can appropriately deal with the product of badly raised black people, so the justification to harm black's is not there, but to blame all the headache on racism can be a mistake.

Of course, I raise the very shameful idea that there is a large disproportionate gap between the behavior of whites and blacks and even go on to lay blame on parenting, but no one ever addresses this, so the hypothesis is never really covered. Sure, people skirt around some stereotypes, but with so much back and forth, it's kinda hard to get a convincing handle on what really lies at the heart of the issue.

I've spoken with what might be regarded as having a racist bent, but I just want the idea thrown out there. I'm not even entirely sold on the idea that a switch to a child versus time out is a strong factor. I've seen things in restaurants where a mother is extremely attentive to a child whereas others are sometimes oblivious to even where her child might fall. I have this crazy notion that a mother who truly loves her child to where she is so intuned to child's actions that she can intuitively sense a mishap that the child will grow up to obey simple traffic commands when an officer gives them, reasonable or otherwise. Maybe more white mothers love their children more than black mothers.

Anyway, arkirk, maybe being white does improve the chances, but is it because whites are whites, or is because more whites behave themselves, and is it because their momma's love them more?

Yes. This is racist.
1) you blame the victim.
2) you have no evidens whatsoever.
3) you suggest that people of a certain color treat their children differently than people of any other color.

Of course that is racist.

I wasn't blaming the victim. I wasn't even blaming the victims momma. I was blaming the cop.