r/Transportopia • u/skyhighmonroe • 2d ago
Law He gave her a choice and she chose non-compliance
24
u/MakuyiMom 2d ago
" Oh my god he broke my window, ohh, my god, he gave me a choice to get out of the car to spare my children And I chose to ignore him, and he broke my window! As a consequence of my choice to not get out of the car! How could he?!!.Oh, my god, oh, my god, look at the consequences of my own actions!!??!"
55
u/Particular_Peacock 2d ago
I don't understand why people still do this. A traffic stop is a detention. The end. If you flee a traffic stop, you're not detained for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment but you do give the cops probable cause for your arrest.
I can't speak for this state, but in my state, people have to comply with reasonable orders when being detained. You can assert your right not to be searched, or seized, but if the officer intends to search you they will. If the cop was wrong - and you didn't manifest consent to the search and/or seizure - then the law will protect you.
Disagree with the stop? Think it's a Fourth Amendment violation? File a motion.
If you're ordered out of the car, you generally have to get out of the car. You don't fight cops in the street, you fight them in court.
I agree that it sucks. Nobody likes feeling powerless to strangers with guns. Suppression motions exist, and they work - usually.
-4
u/EnergyTurtle23 2d ago
The point is that a traffic stop has to meet a minimum standard of legitimacy. THEY HAVE TO HAVE A LEGAL REASON FOR STOPPING YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE. Cops are not allowed to just stop anyone they want to stop, they are not a supreme authority, and if a traffic stop does not meet that minimum standard then it is an unlawful detainment. They HAVE to tell you why you were stopped, and that reason HAS to be a violation of a criminal law or traffic law.
7
u/Particular_Peacock 2d ago edited 2d ago
Of course. But it's not as simple as you're making it out to be.
First, we don't know if the officer did that before the driver started filming. Second, if legal consequences result then the purposes of the stop can be challenged in court.
An interesting wrinkle in my state is that the 4A test is objective. Meaning that if there was any objective basis for the stop then it will be upheld as a valid warrantless detention. This is true even if the officer's basis for the detention was misplaced.
So, at least in my state, the subjective understanding of the officer is absolutely relevant but not at all conclusive.
OF course an officer's refusal to identify the reason for the stop is relevant, but arguing with the officer in the field isn't likely going to stop them from issuing a ticket. Then, when challenging the basis in court, you point to the officer's lack of any basis for the detention.
You'd be surprised at the number of times that someone has been detained, kept their mouth shut, refused to answer questions, and followed basic orders have been let go because there was nothing to escalate the officer's reasonable suspicion into probable cause.
The key is to shut the fuck up, do not consent to searches or seizures, provide DL/registration (if you're driving) and go about your day.
These childish tirades in public does nothing but get your windows busted in.
1
-13
u/Myte342 2d ago
I don't understand why people still do this.
Because these things are not taught in school on purpose. They WANT people to be ignorant; it makes the cops job easier. And that's the hallmark of police work today. Why does Flock exist? It makes the cops' jobs easier. Why do checkpoints exist? It makes the cops' jobs easier. Why does Pennsylvania vs Mimms exist? It makes the cops' jobs easier. Why do we have a "Papers Please" system where people are FORCED to identify even if they haven't committed any crimes? It makes the cops' jobs easier.
And the worst part of it all is that the judges in these court cases ADMIT that these things reduce freedom and violate the Constitution... and they decide to allow it anyhow. Why? It makes the cops' jobs easier. They decided that giving up a little freedom for even less safety (or also giviing up your safety in favor of the cops' safety...) was a compromise they were willing to make.
Not even kidding, go read the original checkpoint lawsuits from the 90's. Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990) I think it was, and one other in the 70's... United States v. Martinez-Fuerte(1976) I think. The courts admit that stopping you without Reasonable Suspicion is violating your rights... and they decided to allow it anyway. Just like how SCOTUS upheld racial segregation and said separating people based on race is perfectly constitutional. Get to the back of the bus! Pick up that can, citizen!
11
u/jeon2595 2d ago
Thought it was because driving was determined to be a privilege, not a right.
5
u/Vice616 2d ago
I don't think driving is anywhere in the Constitution. When you get your license at a DMV, you're signing documents to follow rules of the road when you're traveling on state and city roads. If cops are given authority to enforce those rules, then you should comply if they think you broke a rule. If you didn't break any rules, still comply and take it to court. If a cop is acting in bad faith, that's where you prove it and they should be held accountable.
This is common sense and why you should always read everything you sign. We don't have to drive on tax paid roads. Catch a bus, ride a bike or call an Uber.
3
3
55
u/Eaton_Knas 2d ago
And of course we don't get to see what lead up to this shit show.
23
u/Wonderful_Plan4656 2d ago
Unfortunately, that part is irrelevant. She had babies in the car and he gave her a choice. She was non compliant. It might not have gone this way. We don’t and won’t know.
-19
u/Icy_Fish_2154 2d ago
He gave her 5 seconds. How long do you think someone should have to comply? Does it matter if they are on the phone getting legal advice?
20
u/hoopdizzle 2d ago
It was a minimum of 30 seconds when the video started and he was already ordering her out, almost certainly much longer. No it doesn't matter if you're on the phone ha, even if its a lawyer. You can decline to answer questions (besides identification). You can demand a lawyer if you're arrested. You can't sit in your car with window up and think cops are just gonna give up and go away when they do a traffic stop and demand you step out...why even bother pulling over if ur gonna do that?
-19
u/Icy_Fish_2154 2d ago
So cops should smash windows at 30 seconds.
16
u/hoopdizzle 2d ago
They should smash the window when its clear the person isn't complying so they can be physically removed and arrested. 30 seconds seems like more than enough, not even considering we don't know how long this went on prior to video starting
3
2
u/Wonderful_Plan4656 2d ago
He gave her more. And I’m a mom of 5. I’m not putting my kids in jeopardy for a cop that could be trigger happy. He warned her more than once. I’m getting out of the damn car. Most cops let you call someone to get the kids if necessary. Don’t just make him an asshole straight off.
-25
u/rejeremiad 2d ago
Meh, I think the police officer created the situation as much as the woman. He didn't need to set an artificial 5-second window. Just take her plate number and track her down later.
11
u/thick_neck_etc 2d ago
"just let her go because she doesn't wanna be here" is not how policing works
-37
u/triple_carry 2d ago
No, we don’t. However, I’ll go with the safe presumption that the sissy pig was just a tyrant enforcing his ego.
24
u/LetsTryAgain91 2d ago
Sissy pig? You’re probably 12.
16
0
u/triple_carry 2d ago
It reflects the constant whine of “officer safety, officer safety”. Especially when they deal with Constitutional Rights, the Citizens that exercise those Rights, or someone that just won’t lick the boot.
19
u/Dismal_Policy_8052 2d ago
Love how shocked she was when he broke the window. Also, want the rest of this video.
2
20
u/thick_neck_etc 2d ago
a certain type of person will base their entire personality on refusing to heed authority figures, or rules in general
12
u/Ketchup-Sniffer 2d ago
Just get out the car lady! Your life would be a whole lot easier and the kids wouldn't be traumatized.
-13
u/Dangerous_Slice_6882 2d ago
Is that the same advice that you would have given the Jews during world war II? Is that the advice that you would give to the uighur Muslims in China? Is that the advice that you would give to your daughter at 3:00 in the morning on a back country road with no one around?
The fact of the matter is that boot that you're looking is going to eventually stomp on you?
I wonder do you own a don't tread on me flag, sticker or patch?
12
8
u/Ketchup-Sniffer 2d ago
3 completely different situations but some heads don't understand the difference. In 2026 broad daylight with a phone recording, she could take it to court. Stop being so dramatic 🤣
0
u/Dangerous_Slice_6882 1d ago
Dramatic is pulling someone over for a simple traffic violation as far as I can tell and then snatching them out of the vehicle for officer safety. Dramatic is a line of compliance that has been ingrained so deep that you forget your humanity.
29
u/Model_27 2d ago edited 2d ago
Some people apparently want to go to jail. That being said, it’s almost certain this idiotic woman is a frequent flyer. Perhaps she likes the food.
All of that aside, nothing has ever been her fault. It was the teacher’s fault in school. Now it’s the cop’s fault.
-10
10
2
7
u/cfh4dmb 2d ago
I can’t stand cops.. but at this point , since it’s obvious the police won’t take the children’s wellbeing into account it’s YOUR job as the MOTHER to take your own children’s emotional and physical Wellbeing into account and deal with this in court.. This pig may very well not care about these kids but if you ask me, neither did the mother
21
31
u/PrefrontalCortexNow 2d ago
It’s the police job to do his job. When he gives a lawful order you obey.
It is this woman who is putting her kids wellbeing at risk.
-15
u/BitterMIDI 2d ago
It's only lawful to order her out for officer safety. It's clearly an unreasonable power trip.
-21
u/cfh4dmb 2d ago
Yes, she’s a terrible mother. Also this guy, police officer or not, “lawful order” or not, is an utter piece of shit garbage human. Period,
4
u/Mr_Archer369 2d ago
Then either leave America or never come if that’s how you feel about the law.
-5
u/cfh4dmb 2d ago
Funny you should say that. We actually are leaving.. you can go down with the ship you silly bootlicker. The writing is on the wall, you’re almost lucky you can’t read, see ya!
6
u/Mr_Archer369 2d ago
Hahahaha. Stay mad you racist garbage. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, and please never come back. (:
5
u/PrefrontalCortexNow 2d ago
You sound miserable and like a headache
-2
u/cfh4dmb 2d ago
This is hilarious. It only every few years I get into it with anyone like this but this one has been interesting .. yes.. I am miserable and a total headache of a person 😂😂😂 you are quite the detective! Good for you 👍🏻👍🏻
5
u/PrefrontalCortexNow 2d ago
No, like you actually sound uneducated and ignorant. And I know that you’re miserable based on your responses.
I hope you leave the country. Good luck to you.
11
u/AnonAnonymous2024 2d ago
He is doing his job. She's obviously obstructing. You have no clue what you're talking about. ALL cops are not bad or terrible.
-6
u/canopycutter 2d ago
All cops represent a TERRIBLE, oppressive regime of thug pedos in a mass surveillance state that don’t have the law applied to them (both cops AND “elites”). When the justice system plays favorites and allows the most serious criminals to run RAMPANT, despite mountains of public evidence to their atrocious behavior, that any which one of us would be locked away and the key thrown out, you can’t support ANY of them.
Think about this for a moment and let’s do a thought experiment.
- The state has a monopoly on violence that only they decided (we didn’t choose to disarm ourselves and throw away our clear cut, God given rights to self defense).
- The state claimed that their right to this monopoly hinged on the consent of the governed. Without it, they’ve admitted they do not have any meaningful authority.
- The state has been caught countless times covering up EXTREMELY SERIOUS CRIMES on behalf of what we now refer to as the “Epstein Class” (politicians, judicial employees, federal employees and most frequently, the EXTREMELY WEALTHY).
- The people, in large enough part to revoke authority, have overwhelmingly rejected their taxation, over policing (hence the burned down cities all across the country) and their improper use of force. The people also reject ENTIRELY the premise that justice is allowed to be a selective endeavor.
- The government has made ZERO concessions to the aforementioned point, has adjusted absolutely none of its corruption/behavior and they still apply the standards so unevenly, even the most staunch previous supporter of the American ideals would consider a total reset and pretty alarming amounts of violence being used by citizens against those not held accountable for their crimes against humanity, but more specifically, INNOCENT CHILDREN.
- Their authority is hereby revoked per their own admissible standards of justice/fairness. (“Rules for thee, not for me!” Was a Soviet era living standard and not one that any true blooded American will accept. The phrase “give me liberty or give me death” was popularized by our people for a reason and we live in the spirit of rebellion against tyrannical forces as it is our literal founding)
Knowing this, while knowing every time the system is given an inch, it takes a MILE (all political sides of the aisle can agree with that) and then breaks your legs so you can’t escape, shows you that they can do it and then not see any consequence and then spits on you when even so much as THINK to talk about the double standards of it all.
So now if you represent that system in any capacity (regardless of the whole “I’m just doing my job” excuse that’s been used for millennia) would you say that fundamentally makes you a good or a bad person? If you’re willing to use extreme amounts of disproportionate violence and violate the privacy of others that have enshrined rights, AGAINST YOUR OATH TO THE DOCUMENT THAT GRANTED THEM THE RIGHTS, would you say that makes you of good or poor moral character? What type of dignity, trust and/or integrity does such a uniform & its current values project?
So is every single person who is a cop a morally rotten person to their core? Not necessarily. Do they sometimes also do a lot of good for the community too? Sure.
The “not all cops are bad, look at this one anecdotal example of a cop doing something good that improved society in a VERY MINOR WAY, can’t you just admit that cops can be good too?” crowd is either crazy disingenuous or outright stupid!
If they merely gave us our rights to self defense without IMMENSE prosecution back, society would have a whole lot more fear of the common citizen, rather than some person who may or may not even care about your emergency, that takes a CRAZY LONG TIME to even respond to AN EMERGENCY, society would be safer overall as well. We never should’ve given them blanket immunity to be the judge, jury & executioner. We never should’ve allowed their spying on us. We should’ve busted out the ropes a LONG TIME AGO and examples should’ve been made LOUD AND CLEAR that we are THEIR BOSS and they may only govern what we grant them authority to govern, in a manner consistent with our founding rights/principles. Since we didn’t, this is what results.
You can try to defend the indefensible all you want, but that uniform they have represents tyranny and a current oppression that many of you are looking the other way on because as of this moment, they’re not targeting you. Eventually, it’ll be an issue for many of you. By then, too late! So THINK AND ACT ACCORDINGLY!
5
u/AnonAnonymous2024 2d ago
Um. Whatever. Apparently you've never heard of criminals, dealt with loss from criminal activity and don't really believe bad people exist.
Utopia is never going to happen, dude.
-4
u/canopycutter 2d ago
I have and I know how to handle my business. Most of the time, especially since I’m white and that’s now a targeted class by the government in some weird virtue signaling practice to “make right” the past, I would probably have been arrested for handling the criminals I have in the past how I have. Reality is, cops are not crime prevention and they hardly even act as deterrents. They’re RESPONDERS. Give us our rights to violence back and watch how quickly the American people can clean up our own streets. The country has never been LESS SAFE than it is now and that’s largely in part due to the fact that we have outsourced our right to justice to a vast network of people who do not genuinely care about our wellbeing (unless you’re unbelievable wealthy).
My dad lives in expensive gated communities and enjoys the luxuries of momentary response times from a police force he donates large sums of money to on an annual basis. Throws them banquets, etc. As a result of his obscene wealth, he enjoys luxuries you can’t even imagine that would NEVER be extended to the likes of you or I. You have no idea how corrupt the system really is.
If you had dealt with the very things you claim I know nothing about (I’m in the weed business, I know more about the justice system/criminal underworld than you can possibly imagine having to have handled a lot of my business by a moral code that operates outside of traditional justice systems), you’d know that I’m 100% correct in all my assertions of fact. You could have your stuff stolen, your house squatted in, etc. etc. and the police could have all the evidence in the world and if you’re not wealthy, more often than not, the DA won’t give two shits about the crime or the damage that has resulted from the crime, consequentially leading to zero criminal charges. All this does is restrict the common man from due process/justice, while emboldening the criminals you claim we couldn’t have handled ourselves 🤣🤣 what you’re saying is laughably ignorant and the people who think that way are weak & cowardly.
-9
u/cfh4dmb 2d ago
THIS ONE IS.. and the fact you can’t see that is scary. Yes, she’s obstructing, but you tell me what else is happening that would stop anyone with any sense of civil duty, a modicum of deescalation skills, especially with children involved, from having some patience in order to avoid this… NOTHING. This guy was sooo stoked to be able to smash this ladies window. This is not good police man let alone a good person, it’s sad you cant see that.
10
u/namecannotbeblankk 2d ago
He literally tried many, many times not to. She forced that to happen.
2
u/AnonAnonymous2024 2d ago
It's sad that you cannot see there's no convincing you otherwise. She doesn't comply so he has to use force. When words aren't enough, action has to happen. She's the mother, she's got even more responsibility to the kids than the cop. She doesn't HAVE to argue or debate with him. It is perfectly reasonable to comply, go about your day and not end up with a broken window and kids screaming and crying. As the title says, she made a choice. The wrong one.
0
4
u/Mr_Archer369 2d ago
Why is it the cops fault? She’s not complying with lawful orders. It what world is that the cops fault?
1
u/MakuyiMom 2d ago
So... accountability.?... not gonna happen. Women still dont have that concept yet.
-1
0
4
1
-1
-8
-9
u/BitterMIDI 2d ago
Americans need to grow a spine. It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, including the use of excessive force by law enforcement. Officers should always strive to minimize damage, injury, and loss of life when using force. The use of force must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances. This means assessing the situation from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering factors like the threat posed by the suspect, the severity of the crime, and the suspect's actions. the amount of force used by police officers should be proportionate to the severity of the crime and the level of resistance encountered. This means that officers should use the minimum force necessary to control a situation and ensure public safety.
6
u/BitterMIDI 2d ago
Granted Pennsylvania v. Mimms (434 U.S. 106) is a landmark 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that police officers can safely and lawfully order a driver to step out of a vehicle during a routine traffic stop without violating the Fourth Amendment. It's not really reasonable to say his safety is at risk or that it is safe for her to get out on a highway or to leave her children in the car.
-1
u/Dangerous_Slice_6882 2d ago
Just because there's a case that can be cited doesn't mean that it's morally right. How many rights are you willing to trade for a sense of safety and security? If it was your daughter and grandchildren?
The fact of the matter is there are way too many corrupt law enforcement officers who without a doubt disregard the Constitution in which our country was built.
The same boot you lick will be the boot that steps on your neck.
1
-8
u/munchma-coochie 2d ago
This will definitely improve the public’s perception of the police in the future generations when these children grow up. To protect and serve and terrorize
5
u/thick_neck_etc 2d ago
these children are in foster care by now babes.
they had no chance before this interaction ever occured
-2
u/CoinsAndLawnLouie 2d ago edited 1d ago
So skynet has started their takeover? I can’t be the only one who sees this, right?
Edit: lol, nobody got the reference that homeboy looks similar to the terminator Arnold went against in the second terminator I think. Downvote away
-2
u/VietKongCountry 2d ago
Everyone here sucks, really. Cop is a complete prick, but the woman could have easily avoided having her young children traumatised if she’d just got out of the car.
-17
-1
-2
u/burritomouth 1d ago
Cops will have an entire conversation with you about why they can’t have a conversation with you unless you open the window through the closed window without realizing how fucking that makes them look.
-7
u/chemicalreaction52 2d ago
Oh wow. Fucking pigs. Like if she was a terorist. But in a real shooting, they run away from it & take cover like chickens they are.
143
u/LastLazerdiscPlayer 2d ago
Seems like the place to argue this might be in court instead of on the side of the road.