WATCH Cop Tries to Kill Innocent Unconscious Teen Slamming His Face into Curb

I'd take a savage beating for 6 million bucks, heck smash all my teeth and break my legs for that amount of money.
UK compensation would be nowhere near that much though.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: superman2012

You really need me to tell you? It should be quite obvious.

The cop told him to do something. He didn't.

That is not 'probable cause'.

The cop can say he had probable cause to insist he leave the vehicle.

But he didn't.
I really think you should stop and learn what probable cause actually means becasue you're doing it wrong.

Ok sport.
If you want to take pieces of my post instead of addressing it as a whole (which explains things quite clearly for you), there is nothing I can do to make you see anything other than your narrow viewpoint.

a reply to: superman2012


Whatever dude, asking someone to roll their window down is not 'probable cause' no matter how hard you stamp your feet.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not rolling your window down all the way is a third degree felony in most states, actually, so not rolling it down all the way would be PC for a failure to roll window all the way down charge.

I would hope the sarcasm would be apparent, but it usually isn't for some folks on ATS so....

*sarcasm*

a reply to: Shamrock6


Just Taze me, bro.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You cannot ask someone to step out of their vehicle in Missouri without probable cause which he did not convey to the kid, plus Missouri treats your vehicle with castle doctrine so that also compounds the officers behavior.

Is there a source for that somewhere? Being asked to get out of your vehicle during a stop was upheld by Penn v. Mimms as not unreasonable, and the Missouri drivers' education course says that an officer has the discretion to do so.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Youtube Lawyers part 4.2c

Everyone knows that one

From Old Wive's Tale vs Reality

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Brain damage is a whole other thing though..it doesn't heal. You don't want to be there, the money is not going to make it ok.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Is there a source for that somewhere? Being asked to get out of your vehicle during a stop was upheld by Penn v. Mimms as not unreasonable, and the Missouri drivers' education course says that an officer has the discretion to do so.

I was using a previous post in this thread by another poster for that comment, it appears I should have verified their comment.

a reply to: vonclod
Depends on the severity of the brain damage, if it was just some short term memory loss or whatever I'd take it for 6 million bucks.
The guy will have been making out his condition is worse than it is for sure during the legal action though.
To get 6 million in the UK you'd have to be a total bed ridden case needing full time carers.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Cops aren't subject to the law like regular citizens.

a reply to: toysforadults

While four years is not "nothing," (coupled with the loss of a career, probably relationship destruction, loss of friends, etc.), I do agree that he should have received the full 10 years that he was facing.

I used to appreciate plea deals--but more and more, I'm seeing them as either legal extortion or a legal method to get 'friends of the system' a bit of reprieve while still admitting to obvious fault. I don't like them in most cases anymore--it's not worth the time and cost saved by avoiding a lengthy trial.

a reply to: jacobe001

(this has already been established, and I posted a link to a long story about the incident that notes that)

a reply to: Shamrock6

Where in that Form 5006 does it say anything about the officer being able to open the door, invade the vehicle without noted probable cause, and attempt to yank a person out of their vehicle--a person who, other than being annoying with his repeated "Am I under arrest" questions was doing not a single thing illegal?

All that pamphlet says is:

The officer will sometimes complete the contact without requiring you to leave your car. At other times the officer may ask you to take a seat in the patrol car. Court cases permit the officer to decide which procedure is safest for the officer.

While that does negate what Augustus claimed, it isn't really relevant to this particular incident.

That pamphlet also notes that:

After an explanation as to why you were stopped, the officer may ask for your driver license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance identification card.

Now, you know that I'm not a police officer and never have been, but if we're looking at this Form 5006 as gold in this particular case, the officer didn't do anything right from the word go...even if the driver was committing that felony for not rolling down his window

The good new is, we don't have to debate the incident because it's already been adjudicated and he plead guilty (a plea deal that I despise being allowed after seeing the video). The officer was obviously in the wrong in the majority of steps that he took, even if the deployment of the taser was deemed appropriate (I argue that it was absolutely not).

Just remember--he wasn't asked to get out of his vehicle, this was an officer who didn't even mention why the teen was stopped, started getting all pissy when the window wasn't rolled down all of the way (not a necessary action by the driver), and then got frustrated, proceeding to (illegally, IMO) enter the driver's vehicle, and physically remove the driver for no necessary reason. When the driver was not okay with being illegally assaulted in such manner, the pissy officer chose to repeatedly taze the driver to the point of cardiac arrest, then dragged him to the side of the road and tossed him on the ground face first.

As for the legal ramifications of Pennsylvania V Mimms, that's not about the simple ability to order someone out of a vehicle, it was a ruling that said the pat down and subsequent discovery of a weapon after being ordered out of the vehicle was constitutional: There must be some sort of cause to do so, in that case it was the bulge that the officer saw in the jacket coupled with the nervous behavior of Mimms.

The order to exit the vehicle must be reasonable in order not to be a 4th-amendment violation, and in this instance, it was absolutely unreasonable.

Hell, the inability for the officer in the case under discussion to realize that he didn't even have the right car (in the right county with the right sex of person driving) made the initial reason for the stop invalid, and any competent defense lawyer could argue such a thing in court.

So, to sum up the way that I see this from a legal standpoint (and I'm not an expert...you know that):

- The initial stop was invalid due to an error by the officer

- The order to completely roll down the window was not a legal order

- The opening of the door and entering of the vehicle was illegal

- The order to exit the vehicle was unreasonable

- The tazing of the driver for not complying was therefore unreasonable

- The treatment of the driver's limp body was unreasonable

- The officer dropping the driver's limp body onto the concrete, allowing his face to slam into it, was absolutely criminal

I'm having a hard time thinking that 4 years was enough for this guy. He was one of the few who needed to go away.

Like always, please let me know if I'm getting something wrong, here. These points are after some research and consideration, but I'm no expert on everything like this...but I'm a bit dangerous in my knowledge and ability to research and comprehend judicial rulings and legalese.

Glad to see you awake on here again.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Except according to the family and the victim, he was on the threshold of death and now has major memory issues along with personality changes, inability to control anger, and has been suicidal since.

You can keep the $6-Million.

I cant bring myself to watch or i would be mad all day. Im sure the pig got 2 weeks paid vacation.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Where in that Form 5006 does it say anything about the officer being able to open the door, invade the vehicle without noted probable cause, and attempt to yank a person out of their vehicle--a person who, other than being annoying with his repeated

It doesn't, which is probably why I didn't claim that it did. The member I was replying to that said that an officer can't ask somebody to step out of a vehicle. I'm not sure why my response, which was directly relevant to Augie's claim, has triggered this sort of response from you.

Now, you know that I'm not a police officer and never have been, but if we're looking at this Form 5006 as gold in this particular case, the officer didn't do anything right from the word go...even if the driver was committing that felony for not rolling down his window

I didn't claim the officer did do anything right in this incident. Quite the opposite, actually. But given the context of the comment that I was actually replying to, my response was entirely relevant to that comment.

As for the legal ramifications of Pennsylvania V Mimms, that's not about the simple ability to order someone out of a vehicle, it was a ruling that said the pat down and subsequent discovery of a weapon after being ordered out of the vehicle was constitutional: There must be some sort of cause to do so, in that case it was the bulge that the officer saw in the jacket coupled with the nervous behavior of Mimms.

I would argue that given that SCOTUS explicitly included the ability of an officer to order somebody out of a vehicle in their opinion, that portion of the ruling is entirely relevant given the comment I was responding to. The decision was about two issues, one being the officers ordering occupants out of the vehicle as it pertains to the 4th Amendment, and the second being the subsequent pat down after the occupants exit the vehicle, also as it pertains to the 4th.

I feel like you've taken my comment, which was a response to Augie and his comment, and arguing as if my comment was somehow made in response to something you said. It wasn't. My comment wasn't, in any way, an effort to excuse any of the actions on the part of the dickhead with a badge. It was, and remains, a rebuttal to the assertion Augie made in his comment in regards to the law.

ETA -

I'm having a hard time thinking that 4 years was enough for this guy. He was one of the few who needed to go away.

I said much the same thing, two years ago.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I think that I did a poor job in the order and way that I worded my comment--I wasn't trying to be accusatory at you about anything, I was just using that comment as a jumping off point because it wasn't how this particular incident went down. Yes, AM worded his comment in a way that is incorrect, but that's why I said that the pamphlet specifically negates his claim, and then I noted that it's irrelevant in this case.

My actual words in my comment to you:

While that does negate what Augustus claimed, it isn't really relevant to this particular incident.

I was hoping that would make my point clear--I think that I just put my order of comments bass ackwards for it to make the sense that it did in my head without causing confusion.

I did similar with the Mimms comment--I was simply expanding on it in order to show that it is also irrelevant to this case, because people reading your reply to Augustus may just go and assume that all ordered exiting of a vehicle is legal because of that case, which it's not. I know that it came across as passively accusatory, but that wasn't the intention, it's just how I write on here.

Your comment just sparked some research on my end, so I felt it worth elaborating on a few things. It may have been worded oddly, but it wasn't a direct assault on anything that you said.

OK. The cop did go overboard but the kid was being belligerent and deliberately antagonizing him and making things worse leading up to it. Cop comes up to your car and tells you to roll down your window, you don't ask him "what for?" unless you're trying to create friction.

Did the cop absolutely have to allow the kid to get under his skin? No. But this (of course) is a situation where the kid was just being a jerk. If this same cop pulled over someone who actually was dangerous, obviously, he could be in serious danger if he couldn't see their hands or what they were (or weren't) doing.

People still don't get it. Cops really just want to go home in one piece every night. It's just a job like everything else. It's easier for everyone is it's routine and people don't intentionally try to provoke them and upset them and so forth. The real question is how many times did this cop have to deal with someone like this before this happened? I'd be willing to bet if the kid had just done as he was told this wouldn't have happened.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The member I was replying to that said that an officer can't ask somebody to step out of a vehicle. I'm not sure why my response, which was directly relevant to Augie's claim, has triggered this sort of response from you.

Just to be clear, which maybe I wasn't earlier, I was saying that in relation to him not rolling the window down and it being probable cause to ask him to get out of the vehicle. I think me talking to the other poster may have been mudding my point.

I'll defer to your professional knowledge in this regard.