Army officer sues Virginia police over violent traffic stop

the lieutenant.

unlawfully, which is why the officer is unemployed. You are making my point.

unlawfully detained, which is why the officer is unemployed and Nazario walked away from the incident.

 

The question in my post concerns whether Nazario was detained or not.

Whether he was lawfully detained or not is entirely different question.

 

I did not say that.

You might want to check my posting history so you do not sound so ignorant. You libos think Joe Biden is a great man who has the right to destroy any freedoms he desires. Does not even need a vote of congress either. He's a democrat so shut up!

 

Arguing with someone who thinks they can refute decisions by the SCOTUS and refute the actual constitution because they have their own idea of what something says is like arguing with my 2 years old grandson. I won't waste my time. They don't get the benefit of debating with me as they are not here to debate.

People like that are the reason we have hundreds of non compliance deaths in this country without charges pending against the officers. Its Darwins way of thinning the herd.

 

If we are talking about the Supreme Court decision that you are referencing, then yes, whether or not he was lawfully detained matters.

 

We libertarians question whether or not Biden is a great man, we don't want him destroying freedoms, and we want him to go through Congress. Now, if you are done desperately evading the subject, care to actually talk about the topic? I'm guessing not, and we both know why.

 

I agree. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately because I was saddened to learn that two police officers committed suicide after the January 6th riot. They are usually mentioned as a side note if at all in articles about the riot. What happened that day that drove two different men to choose to take their own lives? What was said when they returned to the police station? What haunted each of them to the point of suicide? We will probably never know.

I have mentioned it many times on this forum but we have to stop stigmatizing mental illness. It's NOT weak or stupid or silly to admit we need support sometimes. It shouldn't derail an officer's career to talk to someone. I would rather that all law enforcement officers have access to mental health treatment rather than having close-to-being-unhinged-burnt-out cops on the streets with guns. Something has to change. This has gone on long enough.

 

No self respecting libertarian would ever vote for Joe Biden or any democrat. Given Biden's neocon record on voting for criminal justice and war voting for him is especially retarded for a libertarian.

 

As I pointed out, LT Nazario was indeed detained. Everyone on the receiving end of a traffic stop is being detained.

Detained, nevertheless.

Knowing this, how does Mimms not apply, since Nazario was in fact detained?

I could give you several reasons why the officer is and should be unemployed that have nothing to do with why Mr. Nazario was initially pulled over.

I also missed that explanation in police chief Riddle's presser yesterday. All I heard was that the officer was fired because the video of the incident made it impossible for him to interact with the community anymore.

I'll have to find and post that so we're all clear about why the officer was in fact fired. I'm not sure the stop was the grounds for his dismissal.

 

There's no way you could make this claim unless you didn't even spend a full minute thinking it over. There are many, many orders an officer could give that would not be a crime for you to commit, but would be a crime for them to force you to perform. I can think on thousands.

Yet every time someone actually quotes the SC decision, which destroys your argument, you ignore the facts at all costs and instead try substituting the words of an opinion blog, pretending they were the words of the SC.

 

Lying on a police report and lying about the subject's behavior in order to conduct a felony stop is against the law as well and a violation of the subject's civil rights.

 

I didn't vote for Biden. But I understand your desperation to avoid the topic.

 

Irrelevant to living well. I know someone who is pulled over many times, old white man in a 99.9% People of Color hood; I remember when the first black (a lawyer, moved into that hood). My father was pulled over and given a ticket because his truck was yellow, cop was fired from a company that had yellow trucks, and cop was just pulling over every yellow truck he saw; best way to find that out, challenge it in court later. Whether the cop is wrong should be left for later, not when ordered to get out of the vehicle.

I am 100% certain, with no doubt whatsoever, "liberals" want "change" on the backs of dead black...people, by lying to them about their rights to refuse an order to get out of their vehicle. I am not certain why they pulled camo Karen over like that.

 

Relevant to the law and relevant to individual rights. Unless you are going to claim that the law and individual rights are "irrelevant," then your "response" is irrelevant.

 

I have never advocated for non-compliance. Cops like Guiterrez are bullies. And they will beat your ass, pepper spray you, taze you, and shoot you for no good reason, while their blue-line compadres stand watch to make sure no one intervenes. It's always best to comply with their tyranny, record and document, and take it up with the judge.

You are under no legal obligation to cooperate with an illegal detainment, or follow illegal orders... just as a bicyclist is under no legal obligation to yield the right of way to the dump truck full of gravel with bad brakes coming towards him.

In the case of the the OP, the police had a valid stop. They had every legal justification to order the LT out of his car, and to force him out if he didn't comply. The argument here is... none of that was necessary. It was excessive. Police are supposed to de-escalate, they all take de-escalation training. They are supposed to use reasonable force to achieve their goals. They are supposed to be professional and courteous public servants.

In the case of the OP, officer Guiterrez lost sight of their goals and let his ego take over. Instead of resolving the reason for the stop, they decided that forced compliance with their unreasonable commands was the goal. They were not about to let anyone question their authority. That's what tyrants do.

All the LT had to do was immediately comply ...AND/OR... all the cops had to do was adjust their escalation and deal with the situation like professionals. If either had happened, this all would have been a non-event.

It is not incumbent upon the free citizenry to behave like sheep when they have not been advised of the reason for their detainment... it is incumbent upon our public servants to serve the public interest. Doing that includes adapting to changing circumstances, effecting communication, and using reasonable force.

In this case, the officer involved was fired for his performance. That was due entirely to his inability to adjust, de-escalate, and handle this stop professionally and courteously. Any argument that the police acted within their authority in this case and in line with departmental policy can be countered with this fact.

How an officer deals with changing circumstances is important. In this case, before they even spoke a word to the LT, they discovered the reason for the stop was not as serious as they had originally suspected. They discovered that there actually was a license tag in the window, and that the operator of the vehicle was a member of the military. They noted that when he saw the police lights, he reduced his speed to well below the 35mph speed limit, and proceeded slowly to a safe area. They should have de-escalated their response at that time, but failed to.

Even in the case where you are clearly in the right, non-compliance with police is never advisable, unless you are willing to suffer the resultant beatdown and then follow through with legal action. Most people should just play along with lots of yes-sir's and no-sirs's.

 

Okay, reports from the chief of the Windsor PD, Rodney Riddle, concerning the incident and why former officer Joe Gutierrez was fired.

From the WaPo c/o MSM:

Legit or not, that was the reason given.

More on the way....

 

unlawfully, which is the officer is unemployed and Nazario walked away.

unlawfully, as I've shown you.

He was not detained legally, or being issued a citation as the court held in Mimms. It doesn't apply here.

good for you. He's still unemployed because of the unlawful detention.

And for unlawful detainment.

the entire incident is why he was dismissed. Unlawful detention, threatening nazario, giving unlawful commands, falsifying a police report etc.

 

So far, nothing to contradict the info in #843 above.

This is probably all I'm going to post on the matter unless I find something to the contrary:

The Isle of Wight NAACP is calling for Riddle's resignation.

https://www.wtkr.com/news/isle-of-w...ter-press-conference-about-viral-traffic-stop

 

The original press release indicated he was terminated because his use of force was in violation of department policy:

"Department policy requires an internal investigation to determine the appropriateness of such actions. The investigation of this event began immediately. At the conclusion of this investigation, it was determined that Windsor Police Department policy was not followed. This resulted in disciplinary action, and department-wide requirements for additional training were implemented beginning in January and continue up to the present. Since that time, Officer Gutierrez was also terminated from his employment."

https://www.windsor-va.gov/news/art...s-release-on-police-stop-of-december-5,-2020/

 

I am sorry, I can not agree with you on this one. According the the multiple articles that I have read on this, Nazario drove for less then two minutes to a well lit gas station. That was safer for both the officer and the person being pulled over. The stated reason pulling the Nazario over was that he was driving without a license plate. That was not true. Then when safely stopped, Nazario complied with all the officer's commands. Yet, that did not stop the officer's from physically assaulting the Army Officer. The police officer knew that he was outside the law on this one, because he told Nazario that if he did not report the incident, he would not be charged with a crime.

I have met with people like this police officer in the past. The last time, I was drinking (prior to the pandemic) with two gentle that had prior Army service. All three of us was of us were wearing hats with our branches of service on them. There was an idiot standing behind us, and making himself a complete nuisance. So, I asked him what his problem was. He told us he hated the military and anyone that served in them. He went so far as to say he would kick the sh*t out of any service member that he came across. I offered to step outside with him to how he does that, and he ran off. A week later, I was in the same bar without my friends, and saw the same individual sitting at the bar. I walked over and put me hand painfully in a friendly manner on his shoulder. I then sat down next to him. He took one look at me, and ran off. The bar tender offered me the information that he had washed out of Navy Bootcamp, and hated anyone that had done what he couldn't. The difference between this police officer, and the running Navy washout, is that the washout did not have a badge to hide behind.

The officer should be fired, and charged with assault, No question about it.

 

Detained, nevertheless.

Detained, as I've shown you.

I'm glad you concede he was detained, because he was.

Where has it been established that Mr. Nazario was detained illegally/unlawfully?

The Windsor PD hasn't stated that he was and to my knowledge neither has the Virginia State Police.

Source? Quote? Something other than your opinion?

Where did the chief of the Windsor PD state he was "unemployed because of the unlawful detention"?

Source? Quote?

Nowhere in the Chief Riddle's remarks.

Source? Quote?

Source? Quote?

Chief Riddle's explanation is posted above #843 and #845.

I don't see "entire incident" and "unlawful detention" anywhere but I do see this from #845 above:

 

Thanks.

However, Gutierrez was not fired back in January. It appears that the disciplinary action taken at that time involved "additional training".

Back to the Chief's statement (#845 above) - It wasn't until the video and the public backlash hit the fan that Gutierrez was fired (from #845 above) -

Am I reading this right?

This is why I think the Chief's head may be the next to roll. People are already demanding his resignation.

 

The department says that the investigation began immediately after the incident. Any incident like this will involve "additional training."

 

Ah - good catch. I think you're right. The chief didn't think Guiterrez was toxic until public light was shed on this incident.

 

Big difference. While you’re wearing the military uniform, you're subject to the UCMJ. A cop is subject to the guidelines established by his employer as well, which overall, is much less stringent. A cop is an employee of the very people he works with. Non compliance is no reason to respond with physical force. NONE. A policeman can write enough summons to swallow up in fines, a none compliant military man for a year. It’s that simple. It can all be worked out in court for misdemeanors and non compliance that are not violent. It can also be worked out with a service man’s commander in this case. A service man always has to be obedient or suffer the consequences, especially to the public he serves as well. But, there is no reason for violence as a response here.