Army officer sues Virginia police over violent traffic stop

Excellent post. The officers who subsequently put me in the patrol car after a cop assaulted me did not know why I was so upset, they only had the word of the bad cop, and my t-shirt front was completely covered in blood from where the officer shoved my head into the ground several times after I was handcuffed, I looked a serious mess, and when one of the ignorant of facts officers threatened to spray me, I complied with his order to shut up. I did not know there were witnesses, didn't find that out till I paid huge amounts of money for a lawyer, the witnesses said I was standing there with my hands up when he looked around before kicking my legs out from under me... If it wasn't for the witnesses he did not know were watching the 6th degree black belt would have gotten away with claiming I attacked him.

"and department-wide requirements for additional training were implemented," is code for we screwed up, sue us too.

 

Absolutely wrong. It all depends upon the level of noncompliance and the offense. There is no such thing as “ forced compliance “ for a misdemeanor traffic stop with no threat. None, nada, nix.

 

Exactly. A cop can right summonses till the cows come home if there is none violent non compliance for a routine traffic stop.

 

Again, the issue of legality is irrelevant to the issue of whether he was detained or not. He was detained. All traffic stops qualify as a form of temporary detention.

Moving on to the issue you raised, thus far the Windsor PD contends that the traffic stop was lawful. Whether or not the Virginia State Police, DOJ and FBI come to the same conclusion remains to be seen.

 

Get real. One of the first things a cop is taught is that a young man with a car during a routine traffic stop can easily be intimidated into compliance with tactics that are non violent and nearly always work. It never works if you draw a fking firearm and escalate the situation into a felony encounter, never.

 

Yup. Many stops can be lawfully executed especially if they are conducted in a non discriminatory fashion. That’s the key.

 

The SC decision does not say anything about "Detained, even if unlawfully detained." The idea that you must obey all orders even if illegally detained (which would mean being legally required to obey unlawful orders) is absolutely insane and takes a torch to even the most basic concept of individual legal rights. Surely you understand that.

 

It's not my fault you keep insisting on being incorrect. I and other are more than happy to keep correcting you though.

 

it's essential to the issue. He was unlawfully detained, and thus could tell the officer to **** off. It's why the officer was fired and why the lieutenant walked away.

no they don't.

 

Unless you've got testimony from them confirming it, you're just guessing about this. You're also guessing about why the officer was fired.

 

What we know

No apology owed for pepper-spraying Black and Latino Army officer in Virginia, police chief says

....As for Gutierrez, Riddle said the decision to fire him was a combination of the results of the investigation plus what the chief saw on the video. "As a result of all those things, I've lost my confidence in him to be able to effectively engage this community," Riddle said.

While not condoning the way the situation played out on the video, Riddle defended the way in which the officers initially handled the events leading up to the stop. Nazario claims in his lawsuit that he did not stop right away when he saw the police lights because he was looking for a well-lighted to pull into where everyone would be safe.

"There were things that led up to that traffic stop, there were certain actions that Mr. Nazario took that raised red flags for those officers based on their training," Riddle said. "They may be dealing with something beyond an ordinary run-of-the-mill stop. Those officers initially reacted relatively well in my opinion."
https://news.yahoo.com/no-apology-owed-pepper-spraying-001005315.html

IOW, if we didn't then they would burn down the town?

 

And told to get out of the vehicle and all he had to do was say OK I'm getting out of the vehicle and then do so. Instead he chose to argue and try to debate with the police.

And he was wrong, his tag was not properly displayed but behind a blacked out window where it could not be seen. But beyond that simple fact you don't know exactly why the police are pulling you over, it doesn't matter if you THINK you have done nothing wrong and for all you know they are pulling you over because you match a BOLO call. So you pull over and don't argue and protest and refuse the lawful orders of the police.

 

Nothing against you, but I am frequently disappointed in the low quality of what passes for "journalism" in this country. Even basic proofreading now seems to be beyond their ability these days.

That's exactly how it looks to me: He was fired as a PR move. I'm also deeply disappointed by how many of our government officials are kowtowing to - and cowering in the face of - the mob.

 

I'm guessing at neither.

 

This is exactly correct. Despite @rahl's insistence, it's not up to the motorist to determine when the stop is over, or if it was unlawful. The motorist doesn't have all the information that the police used in making their determination to initiate a stop.

 

LOL! Yes you are, and you're just loathe to admit that you've been caught doing it.

 

nope. a motorist is perfectly within their rights to tell an officer to **** off if he is issuing unlawful orders, as was the officer in this case. Nobody has any legal obligation to follow the unlawful orders of a police officer. That you think they do is a slap in the fact to every person who fought and died for this country to not become a communist authoritarian police state.

 

no guesses. We have video footage, lol.

 

Video footage that only serves to illustrate how murky and difficult to read the temp tag was (if that's even what the lighter-colored smudge in the corner of the back window even was).

 

So you pull them over without acting like a violent psychopath and ask them for their information. You don't need to threaten them with lethal force for that.

 

Again, irrelevant to the question I posed to rahl concerning whether Mr. Nazario was detained or not.

Let's recap. In post #803 rahl claimed "they were not detaining him" when in fact Mr. Nazario was detained, as is anyone and everyone who is [temporarily] detained during a traffic stop. As I demonstrated earlier, traffic stops are a form of detention, and rahl conceded that Mr. Nazario was in fact detained in Post #828.

Just as surely as I understand that the question of whether Mr. Nazario was detained or not is separate from the question of whether Mr. Nazario was detained legally or not. The answer to the first question is indisputable - Mr. Nazario was detained. The answer to the second is in dispute. The Windsor PD and others claim Mr. Nazario was detained legally. Others claim he was not detained legally. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, the Virginia State Police, DOJ and FBI have yet to reach and issue their own conclusions.

Of course, the issue of whether Mr. Nazario was detained legally or not is also separate from the question of whether Officer Gutierrez was guilty of misconduct or not. The Windsor PD has stated that he was, and I agree with that assessment and their decision to fire him.

 

Then the question you posed to rahl was irrelevant to the law, irrelevant to individual rights, and irrelevant to the SC decision.

See previous statement.

The latter is all that legally or rational matters. Why do you insist it be ignored?

Detaining someone illegally and then using violent force against them IS NOT SEPARATE FROM THE QUESTION OF MISCONDUCT. Please tell me you now understand that. Detaining someone illegally is misconduct. Using violent force to enforce your illegal detainment is misconduct . . . how could this possibly require further explanation? No, for the love of all that is rational and holy, it isn't remotely true that "whether Mr. Nazario was detained legally or not is . . . separate from the question of whether Officer Gutierrez is guilty of misconduct or not." I don't really know how I can explain that any more simply.

 

Like I said, I don't think the cops handled it well. They were clearly agitated and way too worked up. I'm not sure what might have happened prior to the video that made them feel like they should conduct a felony stop. The police chief sort of hinted at some things, but the only thing that appears to be confirmed is that he drove down the road a mile or two to the gas station rather than stop right there on the side of the road. That's not enough justification, IMHO, for a felony stop.

 

Agreed, they didn't handle any of this well, and the fact that their mishandling resulted in the threat of lethal force makes it all the worse. They've already giving their excuses for why they needed to treat it as a felony stop: 1) They couldn't see his tags (these were visible once they pulled him over), 2) He had tinted windows (not a good enough reason to threaten to kill someone), 3) He waited a bit before pulling over (it was less than a mile, he slowed down and put on his flashers, he waited for a well-lit area . . . all of which the police later admitted was normal). Their excuses were bull ****. You don't threaten to kill someone over that.

Less than a mile. And he slowed down and put on his flashers. He was looking for a well-lit area. This is both legal and normal, regardless of what was "hinted."

 

You conceded, contrary to your initial claim in #803, they were detaining him. You were incorrect and I give you credit for acknowledging you were incorrect. End of story.

Moving on, the issue of whether Mr. Nazario was legally detained or not is an entirely different matter. If he was unlawfully detained, yes, he can disobey an order to get out of his vehicle. As for why Officer Gutierrez was fired, unlawful detention was not specified as the reason for dismissal in the WPD's written statement (posted by Hotdogr) or the statements made by Chief Riddle in his press conference (posted by me and perhaps others). Riddle stated "My guys missed opportunities to verbally de-escalate that thing" and “As this thing kind of gathered legs and became viral, I personally felt there was personally no way he could effectively serve the community at that point".

Incorrect. It's already been demonstrated that they do.