Army officer sues Virginia police over violent traffic stop

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331, that an officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle

Held: An officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop. Statements by the Court in Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1047-1048, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 3480, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (Mimms "held that police may order persons out of an automobile during a [traffic] stop

 

Struggling with an officer is assault. Sorry.

Pining would be requesting. Providing historical information of traffic stops on people who have been killed by police in just unarmed situations during a refusal to comply where no charges are brought against the officer, is just providing historical information.

You should learn the difference.

 

already addressed and refuted this argument. Mimms doesn't apply, as they were not detaining him and issuing a citation.

 

The only unlawful order you would not be required to follow is if the officer instructed you to commit a crime.

You don't get to determine what a unlawful command is on scene. If you are instructed to get out of your vehicle, the SCOTUS has determined that you will exit the vehicle.
End of story

 

most of the time, certainly. Not when the officer is unlawfully trying to detain you and laying hands on you. That's called self defense.

I know the difference. It's why you are being schooled.

 

What part of (An officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop) went over your head. There is NOTHING in that statement about issuing a citation or detaining anyone.

You can refute anything you want. It just means you have no ability to comprehend very plain English

 

Not most of the time, EVERY TIME. Who told you, that you have some Devine right to determine an officers motives in detaining you? You actually think if an officer detains you, you can simply inform him he is making an unlawful decision and walk away?
Let us know how that works for ya

So if you know the difference between pining for something and providing actual data, then you are knowingly lying about it.

 

nope.

of course I do

no they haven't.

not quite, as you seem to insist on remaining incorrect.

 

already addressed and refuted this.

 

nope. it's why the lieutenant walked away free and clear and the officer is unemployed.

I pointed out you are pining for a communist authoritarian police state, and you will not be permitted to have one.

 

Coming from someone who incorrectly believes that all powers/rights are inherent in government I'll point out that it is you who are pining for a communist authoritarian state, but thankfully we agreed in this country you are wrong and won't be permitted to have one.

 

I know where people are getting the idea they can refuse to exit the vehicle, not from any legal site anywhere interpreting the constitution, but from doofuses on the Internet that are not exposed to law suits or banned from social media for disinformation campaigns (see recent banning for election "opinions").

Any officer could just make up a reason for pulling someone over, and cameras are only good after the fact and many times don't catch everything. The requirement that you must receive a valid articulation, does not prevent the suspect from just arguing the point anyway and continuing delay, delay that may be for a reason.

From a practical standpoint, time may not admit delay, articulating why they are pulling someone over before identifying them could be dangerous to the officers. Could be police officers are being ambushed on the news every single week. So under rules not required by current rulings of the court we have the officers must approach a vehicle without drawn guns (my training class would have them pointed at the ground), somehow communicate that the vehicle is suspected of a minor traffic violation, and wait for Clyde Barrow to agree to exit. Really scary stuff, Don't you agree Bonnie?

So let's say the suspect doesn't agree with the bogus made up articulation that he was speeding..., and refuses to exit the vehicle, as is claimed to be his right, could a judge on speed dial just issue an order to seize the vehicle used in the commission of a crime, and tow it to a Police impound lot, while suspects remain inside?

I think it would be quite humorous for them to cool their heels in an impound lot, they can come out when they run out of water and food.

 

look at that giant strawman you made there

 

It's not my fault you cited a supreme court case that doesn't apply to this situation. But you did, and had to be corrected.

you remain refuted on this subject. You are free to pick up your ball and run home if you want, but refuted you remain.

 

I was not incorrect and I cited 2 supreme court cases.

So you are a Joe Biden lover who hates police?

 

That's nothing. He just got through telling me that it was demonstrably false that the Founders correctly pointed out that our unalienable Natural Rights are inherent in the individual by birth:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

LOL - Our friend's comedy of errors has been running through that entire thread, and now I see they've traveled over here.

 

neither of which apply to this case.

no. but keep guessing. you are 0 for 1000 so far, lol

 

I have not made a single incorrect statement in this entire thread. The founders did not point out rights are inherent, this is because rights are not inherent. They did not even believe EVERYONE had rights to begin with, lol.

 

Yes they do apply. Either way I do not expect every person who is pulled over to be some wannabee lawyer.

 

Rights according to you are whatever Joe Biden allows us to have. Joe=God!

 

they do not, as you've been shown. One way you've been shown is the lieutenant walked away with no charges, and the officer is now unemployed.

nobody said anything about being a lawyer. But it is your responsibility to know your rights, and to actually exercise them. If you want to cower in fear and obedience to an unlawful police detention, you are free to do so.

 

oh look, another giant strawman

 

Whereas "Anyone with a badge and a pew pew = God" is so much better?

 

Who wasn't being detained?

If you're referring to Mr. Nazario he most definitely was detained.

Are you arguing that Mimms doesn't apply because Nazario wasn't detained, when in fact Nazario was detained?

 

What is the crime for which the police had reasonable suspicion? Detained =/= lawfully detained. That's why unlawful arrest is a crime.