And... if you believe the police, they stopped him for an expired sticker. The stop should have gone like this... "Sir, I stopped you for an expired sticker. I can see that it is not expired. Sorry for the inconvenience. You can be on your way. "
If the cop knowingly acts this way on camera then holy **** the things he must do otherwise have to be horrendous.
My wife got stopped for an expired sticker by a police in Virginia once. She was treated differently - I wonder why.
Agree this officer is out of control and needs to be fired. One still has to wonder what got this cops ire up in the first place. (Conveniently not recorded) Going by the mouth and hand in the face, it isn't difficult to imagine some form of disrespect brought it on. Respectful compliance is the safest way to deal with potentially idiotic cops.
This but nope. They had to be like "I sMeLl WeEd". No weed was found btw. So easy for Cops to just violate our basic civil rights and we have fake Libertarians like @Os Trigonum b****ing about cancel culture and bootlicking for authoritarian police practices.
The disrespect was the driver saying they have no reason to search his vehicle (Constitutionally he is correct) and have him come out of the car. They pulled the "I sMeLl WeEd" playbook (no weed was found) . They just wanted to give the dude a hard time and when he didn't comply with the hard time you can tell in the officer's face emotes that his ego couldn't handle it.
Yes. An LEO asking you to step out of your car is a lawful order. This was one of the issues that came up regarding the Sandra Bland case. Going for the neck isn't necessarily excessive. You can go after someone's neck without choking as the base of the neck is a control point to move the body. It's not clear from the video after he grabs Derrick what happens next.
It's the part where an officer can tell people to get out of their car and search their vehicle for willy nilly reasons that people are upset. Currently in the US, we give law enforcement the power to circumvent the 4th amendment. How? We allow officers to justify a search based on a subjective smell. See usually when you give a power to an authoity figure, there has to be a mechanism to CHECK that power. Can you tell me the check there is on officers abusing the "smell" loophole for the 4th amendment? You can't because there isn't. There is no check on that power. A smell is subjective. There is no way to prove that a officer was lying about a smell. Therefore any officer any time can pull the "I can smell weed" card with impunity. Therefore our 4th amendment rights basically don't exist in this country. All that needs to be done to circumvent it is state "I smell weed". Also, this cop even if he didn't violate any laws because of the horrible precedent we have set for society, the officer was unbecoming when he showed pleasure in hurling violent threats at him. He should be fired and he most likely did lie about smelling weed but hey, there is no way to prove that huh? **** the 4th amendment right? Just **** it in the *******. Don't even lube up.
Just to answer this and other posters. To repeat, yes it is a lawful order to step out of your car as much as it is the order to pull your car over. In the Sandra Bland case there is plenty of argument that the behavior of the LEO there was excessive but not the order for her to get out of the car. The basis for her arrest stems from not complying with that order and there is no question that is lawful. In these cases whether the LEO should've pulled the person over, should've ordered them over are certainly up to debate. In this particular case I can agree that the LEO probably shouldn't have ordered Derrick out of the car for something like expired plates but that doesn't mean that once the order is given it should be complied with.
His reason to pull out was because the cop smelled weed. Coops tend to smell weed at the most convenient times.
It's in the 4th amendment probable cause is the basis for search and I agree it is abused a lot. The problem though with just saying that we should have no probable cause is the situation where an LEO hears someone screaming they are being murdered in their house can they enter the house without a warrant. The check has always been suing the authorities who conducted the search under the basis that there was no probable cause. I agree that the, I smell weed, probable cause is very abused and I'm all for legalization of mar1juana which would take that argument out.. Barring of course making someone undergo a DUI test for suspicion of being high. Following on that if ordering someone out of the car wasn't a lawful order how could DUI tests be conducted if the suspect just decides to stay in their vehicle. Also ordering someone out of the car is more than just to search the car or conduct DUI tests. It is also to prevent the suspect from trying to flee the scene in their car.
You can have probable cause without smell being one of those probable causes. Probably causes should have the ability to be tested in a court of law. Smell can't be tested. You can't prove a cop lied about smelling weed. Therefore they can violate the 4th amendment with impunity. Answer this. What check is there on law enforcement abusing the "I smell..." reason to search? If there is no check, then no one should be defending their right to have that power. You still are missing the point. Why should those cops be afraid of him fleeing? The cop shouldn't have asked him to step out in the first place. And not only that he was unbecoming in his attitude giving threats that were out of anger and ego issues rather than trying to actually problem solve the situation. He shouldn't be a cop. These are the cops that need to get out. You talked about police reform being required. This is part of it.
To the argument that the LEO should be fired just for getting angry and using very threatening language this is one where we have to be careful. If that is the argument is that anytime an LEO get's angry and say's stuff like this they should be fired there might be very few LEO left. This is a very stressful job and one where oftentimes the people who they interact with are trying to provoke them. In some ways I look at this as the defund / disband the police argument. There is a knee jerk reaction, "the old rules don't apply.." If the new rules are essentially a zero tolerance policy that LEO can't get mad, or at least show anger.. I'm not sure that's going to help and likely will result in a far bigger backlash towards the movement of LE reform. Every situation is different. In this case to me what is more important unfortunately we can't see. If this LEO did start choking Derrick or hold him in a compliance position (like how George Floyd was held) to punish him I would completely agree he needs to go and should be brought up on charges. All I can see from the video is a suspect that is not complying but doing so peacefully and an LEO that is losing his patience first verbally and then uses force to remove the suspect from the car. It is legal to remove someone from their car even using force if they don't comply. It would be excessive though to beat or choke a nonviolent suspect.
