Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Sovereign Citizen (and Latter-day Saint) Killed by Police


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The whole "refuse to lower your window" thing springs from 1st amendment zealots who advocate and practice actively asserting constitutional rights.  The thinking is something to the tune of "cops are trained to pull you over first and find laws broken second, and that's wrong, so when they want you to lower your window they're just wanting to smell the air for alcohol or weed and if you lower your window you're allowing them to conduct a warrantless search which is a violation of rights, so assert your rights and keep the window up."   In the age of outrage driving clicks, 1a activists get a lot of play on social media.  Lots of people like to to see a "tyrant cop put in his place by a random innocent citizen asserting his constitutional rights to privacy and protection from groundless searches".

Not every SovCit is a 1A zealot and vice-versa, but there's a lot of overlap.

I am grateful for law enforcement, but we need to constantly remember Uncle Ben's aphorism to Peter Parker: "With great power comes great responsibility."

Most attorneys with experience in criminal law (mine is fairly limited) will have any number of stories to tell you regarding police officers abusing their authority.  Absent extraordinary and threat-to-life-or-limb instances of such misconduct, the solution is not in-the-moment-and-on-the-side-of-the-road confrontation with law enforcement, but rather subsequent legal recourse (IOW, filing a complaint or lawsuit).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment

This is unfortunate: 'We’re just punching bags': Farmington officials face angry callers after cops fatally shot Chase Allan

Quote

Farmington officials have been bombarded with calls from around the country with people showing outrage after the tragic death of Chase Allan, who was fatally shot by cops. The 25-year-old was shot 12 times by five Farmington police officers during a traffic stop on March 1, 2023, after being pulled over for an “illegitimate license plate.” “They just want somebody to yell at,” says City Manager Brigham Mellor, who attended the calls, along with Mayor Brett Anderson.

Mellor narrates that when higher-ranking city officials are unable to attend the calls, receptionists and other city employees have to face the angry callers. He says, "You got to just let them do it. We’re just kind of being the punching bag right now," as per Standard-Examiner. Apart from the calls, Mellor said they also received hundreds of public records requests related to asking for footage from the body cameras used by the responding officers and Police Chief Eric Johnsen’s personnel file, among other things. 
...
At a recent Farmington City Council meeting, several people criticized the police response. One of the speakers, Kerry Lund of Clearfield, said, "What’s the city going to do to train their code enforcement officers to keep from killing our kids? This has to end. That poor kid just had no license plate, no license plate on his car. And it took five code enforcement officers — dragged him out of his car and killed him.” Carolyn Lieutuvininkas of Ogden, who’s spoken out at Ogden City Council meetings, "I can’t believe this is the tyranny that exists in our city and towns. I’m astounded by that. I’ve seen more freedom in the other 25 countries I’ve been than we have right now here in the United States. And it has to stop.” While Walt English of Syracuse bashed one of the first responding officers in the March 1 incident and said, "I’ll call him a coward and I don’t care if you like it or not. Because he has a gun, a billy club, spray, a knife, a bulletproof vest, handcuffs, a Taser. What is he afraid of and why did he go so fast? Your police department needs deescalation training really bad.” 

And here:

Quote

In a recent meeting with Farmington City Council, citizens showed their outrage over the tragic shooting of Chase Allan. This comes after the 25-year-old was fatally shot 12 times by five Farmington police officers during a traffic stop on March 1, 2023, after being pulled over for an “illegitimate license plate.” One person slammed the council by saying, "That poor kid just had no license plate on his car and it took five Code Enforcement Officers to drag him out of his car and kill him."

In a video, uploaded by the YouTube channel, Here's the Deal, people took turns speaking to the council and insisted they take measures to stop such incidents. A man said, "I’m here to [ask] about what the city in the county is going to do to train their Code Enforcement Officers to keep from killing our kids,” and asked the council, “If this was your own kid or your grandkid, how would you feel?” 

And continued by saying, "That poor kid just had no license plate on his car and it took five code Enforcement officers to drag him out of his car and kill him. I can’t imagine how his family feels. This needs to be taken care of. I’d like to know what steps, measurable steps, the city can take to make sure this never happens again."

He, then asked the council, "Could you appoint a committee to research this and find out what’s going on? How did it go so out of hand? It’s really on you guys.” Another person, who served 20 years in the special forces said, “You have a major problem in your city with your police department and this is premeditated murder.”

One more stressed, “Traffic infractions are not law, a violation of the law." And added, “I do agree that a certain amount of civil structures and infrastructure is necessary to maintain the nice little society that we have. We don’t want people driving vehicles that are unsafe or in an unsafe manner." The individual was equipped by saying, " [But] he didn’t deserve to be shot on the street over a license plate." "You all are responsible for the conduct of your officers through the executive branch of the police that report to you directly. You’re responsible for the training."

Following the video, netizens too slammed the council with one commenting, "A shame it’s come to this… when people have to petition the government not to murder them." Another said, "Cops need to be liable and pay out of pocket and go to jail." One of many exerted, "Killing innocent people is murder. No matter what costume you wear." On the other hand, a user wrote, "Police departments DON'T need de-escalation training. They NEED to learn NON-ESCALATION. They are always....always the ones causing situations to escalate and it's all because they're on a power trip." While another commented, "That entire council needs to be named in the suite as co-conspirators if they refuse to investigate."

Lots of emotional rhetoric and vitriol.  Very little reasoned argument, analysis or assessment of the evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

Not trying to be political, but I worry about so many more that want to be above the law, or want to choose the laws they want to follow and throw out the rest. One who held the highest office is now being indicted and I see a lot of people like the Allan's gaining favor feeling their rights are being taken from them especially today. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/trumps-undemocratic-obsession-with-sovereignty/598822/

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Not trying to be political, but I worry about so many more that want to be above the law, or want to choose the laws they want to follow and throw out the rest.

I agree that this is a significant concern.

Also, selective opposition to being "above the law."

Also, the conflation of anger/outrage with virtue.

Also, the suppression of speech.

Also, the replacement of reasoned argument with incivility, bullying, etc.

Pres. Nelson's comments at General Conference were quite astute.

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

One who held the highest office is now being indicted

I don't understand how this is relevant.

In any event this assessment by Alan Dershowitz deserves some attention.

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

and I see a lot of people like the Allan's gaining favor feeling their rights are being taken from them especially today. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/trumps-undemocratic-obsession-with-sovereignty/598822/

I'm not sure how much traction the SovCit movement is getting.

And I don't see what Trump has to do with it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Quote

Another person, who served 20 years in the special forces said, “You have a major problem in your city with your police department and this is premeditated murder.”

It is amazing how many of these people are out there. A suspicious person would think they are lying.

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree that this is a significant concern.

Also, selective opposition to being "above the law."

Also, the conflation of anger/outrage with virtue.

Also, the suppression of speech.

Also, the replacement of reasoned argument with incivility, bullying, etc.

Pres. Nelson's comments at General Conference were quite astute.

I don't understand how this is relevant.

In any event this assessment by Alan Dershowitz deserves some attention.

I'm not sure how much traction the SovCit movement is getting.

And I don't see what Trump has to do with it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Answer to how the indictment is relevant is how it might anger many and make them lean toward being a sovereign citizen. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, smac97 said:

here are 22 "No Duty to Inform" states (and as noted above, one of them is Utah), 15 "Duty to Inform If Asked" states, 11 "Duty to Inform" states, and three "other" states (Maine and North Dakota condition the duty to inform on having a CCW permit, and in California the local governments each have their own rules

I wonder if they can tell if the lack of duty to inform or to have a permit increases police shootings or not.

Link to comment

I have not read the whole thread. I watched the body-cam footage.

The officer antagonized the situation. Based on the officers dialogue, it seems apparent to me he knew exactly the "type" he was dealing with.

An unfortunate thing about so many police encounters is officers being so quick to "snap" when they encounter "contempt of cop". 

This incident should be used as"what not to do" for police training; mainly as the officer, do not deliberately antagonize the situation. 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, provoman said:

I have not read the whole thread. I watched the body-cam footage.

The officer antagonized the situation. Based on the officers dialogue, it seems apparent to me he knew exactly the "type" he was dealing with.

An unfortunate thing about so many police encounters is officers being so quick to "snap" when they encounter "contempt of cop". 

This incident should be used as"what not to do" for police training; mainly as the officer, do not deliberately antagonize the situation. 

I do think it was handled a bit poorly, and this town is in my neck of the woods and lived there for a few years where it happened. I've been pulled over before for an expired registration right by the scene, I had totally forgotten about it and it was great, a small fine, done and over! I think the laws like these are necessary, making sure our vehicles are safe on the road, help with taxes to pave and keep roads safe too. I don't get these people, do they want to go to Mexico, probably no laws there concerning registration, I'm guessing. But do believe this was handled terribly by police. They could have stood back clear back, and used a megaphone, had him come out with his hands up? Taken as long as possible, to make sure his life isn't taken? 

Here's the video I watched on Monday night along with an article that goes into detail. 

https://kutv.com/news/2news-investigates/deadly-farmington-officer-involved-shooting-puts-sovereign-citizen-movement-into-spotlight#

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
On 4/2/2023 at 4:07 PM, The Nehor said:

Some of the court videos quickly descend into a kind of dark comedy.

Most are kooks but the FBI has put the group in the same category as some other domestic terror groups.

Have you watched the Rick & Morty reenactment of a case from Georgia (NSFW)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, provoman said:

I have not read the whole thread. I watched the body-cam footage.

The officer antagonized the situation. Based on the officers dialogue, it seems apparent to me he knew exactly the "type" he was dealing with.

With respect, I disagree with this characterization.  Mr. Allan was spoiling for an argument/confrontation.  The officer did not goad him into it.

That the officer may have known the "type" of person Mr. Allan was, the officer did not make him so.  Moreover, the officer was, I think, quite correct in not pandering to the inanities spouted by Mr. Allan, and in not ceding control of the traffic stop to Mr. Allan.

During a traffic stop, the police officer is in charge.  Arguing with him, refusing to cooperate, refusing to comply with lawful orders, etc. will only make things more dangerous for everyone involved.

Per this DOJ study, traffic stops are "the most common self-initiated incident that led to officer fatalities, accounting for 38, or 52 percent, of all 73 Self-Initiated Activity cases examined."  See also here:

Quote

“Officers being shot and killed and seriously injured doing stops is nothing new, any more than officers responding to domestic violence calls being shot and killed. They’re both considered statistically a high-risk category in what we do,” said Thor Eells, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association. “It’s a tragedy, and it has been.”
...
Eells said the reason traffic stops are dangerous is because of the “unknown” officers are approaching. There are some things that can lessen risk – like positioning of a squad car or illuminating the inside of the stopped car – but officers can’t eliminate risk.

“I can’t approach every call with gun drawn and be proning you out. We know that. For a lot of reasons, we can’t do that. When you approach that car, gun’s not out unless you have a really good reason,” he said. “You’re going to approach car as (if it’s) a normally law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, committed a traffic violation … tactically speaking, we’re at a disadvantage. Most everything you’re going to do is going to be reactive to the behavior of the person you’re contacting. There’s very little proactive (that) we can do.”

Traffic stops are not without controversy. Black drivers are also more likely to be stopped by police, and in big cities, police are more likely to be assigned to Black communities with elevated rates of gun violence. Calls for change typically follow high-profile use of force by an officer during a stop for a minor violation that’s escalated to a more serious crime by either a non-compliant motorist or new information that arises during the stop.

I am very much in favor of investigating causative factors for racial disparities such as those noted above.  

I am very much in favor of bodycams, improved and increased training, and other means of improving police officer's interactions with the general public, and also in holding them responsible for their actions.

What I am not in favor of is roadside confrontations with law enforcement.  

1 hour ago, provoman said:

An unfortunate thing about so many police encounters is officers being so quick to "snap" when they encounter "contempt of cop". 

The video of the officer's interaction with Mr. Allan is 8:49 long.  The interaction begins at :36.  Mr. Chase begins to refuse to cooperate at :44, or 8 seconds later.  After nearly three minutes of back-and-forth, with Mr. Allan repeatedly refusing to cooperate or obey lawful orders, at 4:03 the officer instructs him to step out of the vehicle.  Mr. Allan again refuses.  The officer repeats the instruction at 4:08, and Mr. Allan again refuses to comply.  The officer repeats the instruction a third and fourth time at 4:12 and 4:14, and Mr. Allan again refuses to comply.  At 4:15, another officer warns Mr. Allan that if he does not step out of the vehicle they will break the window and extract him, and Mr. Allan continues to not comply.  At 4:18, they open the door, and that's when Mr. Allan can be seen wish his hips shifted forward in the seat, and the calls of "gun gun" can be heard, and in the next instance there is a volley of gunfire.  Mr. Allan was then pulled from the vehicle, with an empty holster plainly visible on his right hip, and other video and news reports later state that a gun was found on the driver's side floor.

This was a tragic set of circumstances, but at each "beat" of the interaction A) the police officer was in charge, B) Mr. Allan refused to comply, C) at no point did Mr. Allan tell them he was armed (not a legal requirement, but surely a commonsensical one in those circumstances), and D) Mr. Allan may well have been going for his weapon when the police opened fire.

The police officer was doing his duty and, it appears, was operating within the law.  Mr. Chase was being combative, confrontational, and acting in violation of the law.  And he had a deadly weapon, and he may well have been attempting to use it when he was shot (the investigation will likely yield more light on this).

In terms of allocating fault or misconduct, the vast majority of it belongs to Mr. Allan.  

1 hour ago, provoman said:

This incident should be used as "what not to do" for police training; mainly as the officer, do not deliberately antagonize the situation. 

Traffic stops are, by their very nature, often "antagonistic" (as in "caus{ing} (someone) to become hostile or angry").  But then, court proceedings are also often this way, yet nobody faults the judge for doing his/her job in maintaining control over the decorum and behavior exhibited during proceedings.  Can a judge misbehave?  Sure.  But the judge has all sorts of advantages that a police officer at a traffic stop does not.  Traffic stops are, statistically speaking, overwhelmingly uneventful, but each one is unique, and whether or not a given stop will be "eventful" is very much an unknown quantity.

Again, with respect, I think this incident should be used as "what not to do" for people who are pulled over in a traffic stop.

Criminal defense lawyers and other groups who are interested in protecting civil rights regularly advise both prospective and actual clients to not do what Mr. Allan did:

https://attorneysforfreedom.com/articles/surviving-a-traffic-stop/

Quote

Notwithstanding your best efforts, you may nonetheless find yourself being pulled over by the police. Needless to say, do not attempt to flee as this will earn you a felony charge as well as a very excited and unfriendly police officer at the end of the chase. Your main goal should be to survive the traffic stop with your life and liberty intact. A traffic stop is a terrible time to be testing out new legal theories or arguing about constitutional law. You can resolve any disputes with the police officer in court at a later date.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police#ive-been-pulled-over-by-the-police

Quote

How to reduce risk to yourself

  • Stop the car in a safe place as quickly as possible.
  • Turn off the car, turn on the internal light, open the window part way, and place your hands on the wheel. If you’re in the passenger seat, put your hands on the dashboard.
  • Upon request, show police your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance.
  • Avoid making sudden movements, and keep your hands where the officer can see them.

...
If you believe your rights were violated

  • Write down everything you remember, including officers’ badges and patrol car numbers, which agency the officers were from, and any other details. Get contact information for witnesses.
  • If you’re injured, seek medical attention immediately and take photographs of your injuries.
  • File a written complaint with the agency’s internal affairs division or civilian complaint board. In most cases, you can file a complaint anonymously if you wish.

"Upon request, show police your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance."

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encountering-law-enforcement-questioning

Quote

Are there any exceptions to the general rule that I do not have to answer questions?

Yes, there are two limited exceptions. First, in some states, you must provide your name to law enforcement officers if you are stopped and told to identify yourself. But even if you give your name, you are not required to answer other questions. Second, if you are driving and you are pulled over for a traffic violation, the officer can require you to show your license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance (but you do not have to answer questions). 

https://www.aamva.org/law-enforcement/what-to-do-when-stopped-by-law-enforcement

Quote

When you see emergency lights behind you, it is important for you and your passengers to stay calm and cooperate.

Remember to:

  • Activate your turn signal and pull off or to the side of the roadway as soon as it is safe to do so.
  • Turn off the engine and any audio devices.
  • Stay in your vehicle unless directed by the officer to exit.
  • Turn on your interior lights if you are pulled over at night to assist with visibility. Officers may use a spotlight for additional visibility.
  • Keep your hands on the steering wheel or in a visible location so they are easily observable.
  • Follow all instructions the officer gives you or your passengers.

 The officer may approach either side of the vehicle. When the officer approaches the vehicle, remember to:

  • Lower the corresponding window so you and the officer can better communicate.
  • Let the officer know if you have a weapon in the vehicle upon first contact.
  • Wait for the officer’s instructions before reaching for your driver’s license or vehicle documents.

 When conducting the stop, the officer will typically:

  • Explain why you were stopped/ask questions about your trip.
  • Ask for your driver’s license, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration. If the documents are out of your reach, tell the officer where they are and wait for the officer’s acknowledgment before reaching to retrieve the documents.
  • Show their law enforcement credentials if they are not in uniform. If they do not show their credentials, you may ask to see them.

 In some cases, the officer may:

  • Ask you to exit the vehicle. In this case, keep your hands visible, exit the vehicle, and stand in a location as directed by the officer.
  • Take any one of many possible actions, including but not limited to, issuing a warning, issuing a traffic ticket, or making an arrest. The officer will typically explain whatever action is being taken. If they do not, you may ask them to do so. 

If you have questions, respectfully ask the officer to clarify. If you disagree with the officer’s decision or course of action, do not prolong the contact by arguing with the officer. Rather, you may seek to contest the decision in court through established legal channels. Your acceptance and signature on a traffic ticket is not an admission of guilt. However, the refusal to sign a traffic ticket may result in your arrest.

If you believe the officer acted inappropriately or have questions regarding their conduct you may call or contact the officer’s agency and request to speak to a supervisor. This is best done as soon as possible after the stop.

Following these procedures can help make a traffic stop a safe experience for all parties involved.

This guidance was approved by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, and the National Sheriffs’ Association.

https://www.navalawaz.com/articles-resources/how-to-survive-a-traffic-stop

Quote

Once the officer has indicated to you to pull over, you must do so. Immediately turn on your signal to let the officer know you are complying, and find a safe spot to pull over. If one is not immediately present, make sure to slow down and keep your blinker on as you look. Once stopped, turn your engine off and roll down your window. Remain in the driver’s seat with your seatbelt on and place both hands on the steering wheel in plain sight. If it is dark outside the vehicle, turn on the interior lights so the officer can see you and your surroundings within the vehicle. If others are with you in the vehicle, you should instruct them to remain quiet and calm. You should also advise them to comply with the officer’s orders and instructions.

When the officer approaches the vehicle, be respectful. Never make sudden or unexpected movements, especially those that suggest you are reaching for something. Once instructed, you MUST provide routine documents including driver’s license, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration. You must also indicate if you are in possession of a firearm. If the officer instructs you to step out of your vehicle, you MUST comply.

https://www.seattletrafficattorneys.com/blog/recent-news/post/how-to-act-during-a-traffic-stop

Quote

If you see sirens and lights behind you:

• Immediately pull over to the nearest right-hand edge, shoulder, or curb of the roadway.
• When pulling over, place your vehicle at a location that is clear of any intersections.
• Stop and remain in such position until the authorized emergency or police vehicle has passed or, if a police vehicle, remain parked and wait for the officer to approach your vehicle.

If you are being pulled over and an officer is approaching our car:

• Stay in your vehicle and keep your hands visible.
• If it is dark outside - turn on your interior vehicle light, if it is safe to do so.
• Avoid furtive movements.
• Have your driver license, insurance card, and registration in locations that it are safely and readily accessible. A good place to keep one’s driver license and insurance card are adjacent to one another in one’s wallet. Registration can be kept in a number of places, but a signed, up to date copy should be inside the vehicle.
• If you are going to reach for any documents, tell the officer that you are going to reach to for such items BEFORE you reach for them.
• An officer can detain you so long as to request your driver’s license, proof of insurance, and registration, to identify you, and to issue you a notice of infraction. Longer detentions can occur but need to be based on clear, articulable facts.
• If you are issued a civil or criminal citation, accept it at the roadside, even if you don't agree with it. Accepting the citation is not an admission of guilt and you will have the opportunity to contest the citation and the officer’s version of events in court at a later date.
• Beyond furnishing information simple information such as one’s true name and license, insurance, and registration, you are not obligated to answer questions. Remaining silent cannot be held against you in a court of law. Remaining silent is not being rude; you can remain polite and silent.
• In the less likely event that the traffic stop results in a custodial arrest, ask to speak with an attorney and remain silent. If the officer continues to ask questions, ask again to speak with an attorney, but otherwise remain silent.

Following these tips can make a traffic stop more smooth for all involved and will make a potentially stressful situation better for the driver and officer.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/how-talk-police-when-youre-pulled-over.htm

Quote

Before You Say or Do Anything

Before the officer approaches, place the car in park, turn off the ignition, roll down your window, place your hands on the top of the steering wheel where they can be seen, and, at night, turn on the interior car light. Move slowly and do not make any furtive motions—cramming something under the seat can give the officer probable cause to search the car. Do not start digging through your glove box or pockets looking for your driver's license or registration until the officer asks you to do so. The officer might think you are reaching for a weapon and act accordingly.

Cooperate

You should always cooperate with any (lawful) request of the officer. Give the officer your name and address if asked. A police officer does not have to tell you why you were stopped, at least not initially. An officer can ask you to get out of the car or stay in the car. You should do as asked and remain cordial. This is definitely a situation in which it does not hurt to be polite.

Let the Officer Do the Talking

Let the officer start talking. Usually, the officer will first request your driver's license and registration. Do not act hostile or defensive. Do not insist that the officer tell you why you were stopped. Instead, just reply, "Sure" or "Of course," and hand over the documents. If you have to reach into your glove compartment, purse, or pocket, you can tell the officer that you will need to do so and wait for permission.

Many police officers are trained to act as though they might let you off with a warning but only if you cooperate and answer their questions. The officer may be trying to appear open to hearing your version of events so that you will say something incriminating that the officer can use against you in court. Often, the officer will try to get you to admit that you committed a violation. For example, do not be tempted to apologize in the hopes of getting off with a warning. Saying something like, "Yes, officer, I know I was speeding, but I promise to be more careful next time," is only an admission of guilt. Sometimes, officers will try to get you to admit that you were not paying attention and you do not know whether you committed a violation or not. Do not do so.

https://www.npr.org/2015/08/01/428420359/a-lawyers-advice-for-black-men-at-traffic-stops-comply-now-contest-later

Quote

A Lawyer's Advice For Black Men At Traffic Stops: 'Comply Now, Contest Later'

It's been nearly a year since a police officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed African-American 18-year-old, in Ferguson, Mo. Since then, more deadly police encounters across the country have prompted anger, activism and reform.

Many of those incidents began with traffic stops — routine events that quickly turned deadly. And attorney Eric Broyles says that the risks for citizens are not distributed evenly.

"Bad incidents can happen to any person of any race or gender," he says, "but we believe that black men are at a particular risk."

Broyles co-authored a book on such encounters with his friend Adrian Jackson, a police officer. In Encounters with Police: A Black Man's Guide to Survival, their essential advice can be distilled to just four words:

"Comply now, contest later."

That means that, even in moments of frustration, when the stopped citizen feels unfairly treated, Broyles recommends complying with the police officer's request. Only once the encounter has concluded does he recommend filing a complaint and contesting the officer's actions during the stop.

The examples are endless.  It is in everyone's best interests to "comply now, contest later."  If Mr. Allan had done that, he would be alive today.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The examples are endless.  It is in everyone's best interests to "comply now, contest later."  If Mr. Allan had done that, he would be alive today.

While often this is good advice it doesn't always work. I have seen enough incidents where cops have guns pulled on a person (usually a minority) and both are screaming contradictory instructions at the person and then the person is shot and the cop defenders always say the person should have complied.

Buried in there is the idea that anyone not complying completely and immediately is a "get out of jail free" card for any kind of police misconduct.

There are reasons many minority families in the United States specifically train their kids on how to "handle" traffic stops and to treat them like life and death situations.

Policing has been going downhill in the US for decades. The entrance requirements have tanked. Some police departments deliberately discriminate against smart candidates in recruitment. Then you have these idiot "warrior training" programs that police departments hire to train their officers into thinking they are in a perpetual war zone and that to hesitate before shooting someone is a mistake. I know literal combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who went into police work when they go back and were disgusted by the lack of rules of engagement. We are militarizing our police in terms of weapons but they are under looser rules about when to engage then combat troops in a literal war zone. We are doing it all wrong.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree with this characterization.  Mr. Allan was spoiling for an argument/confrontation.  The officer did not goad him into it.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for the response.

In my opinion, the officer antagonized the situation by asking for the back window to be rolled down, then the officer says something like "you are being detained, you are not free to go" - this suggests to me the officer is familiar with sovcit types. Then the officer lays out the two options - essentially compliance or force; to which the officer says he is fine with either option.

The officer also says how this goes is 100% up to you - I think we can agree the LEOs have discretion. The statement is incorrect and suggests the officer is somewhat itching for confrontation.

The officer sarcastically responds to the passport.

Everything about the officer interaction suggest to me, he was looking for a fight, and that he was antagonistic to driver.

Then the Sargent just throws himself in to forcibly pull the driver from the car - unnecessary and shows a lack of restraint. 

I am not saying the officers actions were illegal. I do think the officers were unprofessional, exhibited a willingness to escalate, and have a lack of training to deescalate situations.

 

And for the Chief to say it was "reasonable and appropriate" to go hands on for a minor infraction, suggests to me, that department is all to eager to escalate their use of force.

Edited by provoman
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
Quote

The examples are endless.  It is in everyone's best interests to "comply now, contest later."  If Mr. Allan had done that, he would be alive today.

While often this is good advice it doesn't always work.

Absent extraordinary - and foreseeably evidence - circumstances, I think "comply now, contest later" is the way to go.

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have seen enough incidents where cops have guns pulled on a person (usually a minority) and both are screaming contradictory instructions at the person and then the person is shot and the cop defenders always say the person should have complied.

There are no doubt instances of police misconduct.  But again, the best approach is to not escalate or antagonize, and to instead "comply now, contest later."

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Buried in there is the idea that anyone not complying completely and immediately is a "get out of jail free" card for any kind of police misconduct.

Bodycams are making police misconduct harder to hide.

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There are reasons many minority families in the United States specifically train their kids on how to "handle" traffic stops and to treat them like life and death situations.

The NPR article is entitled "A Lawyer's Advice For Black Men At Traffic Stops: 'Comply Now, Contest Later.'"  The "lawyer" here is Eric Broyles, an attorney who co-wrote "Encounters with Police: A Black Man's Guide to Survival" with Adrian Jackson, a 25 year veteran of an Ohio police department.  Here are pictures of Mr. Broyles and Officer Jackson:

http://survivethepolice.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/images/EricBroyles.jpg

http://survivethepolice.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/images/AdrianJackson2.jpg

They are both, notably, black men.  From the article:

Quote

Broyles co-authored a book on such encounters with his friend Adrian Jackson, a police officer. In Encounters with Police: A Black Man's Guide to Survival, their essential advice can be distilled to just four words:

"Comply now, contest later."

That means that, even in moments of frustration, when the stopped citizen feels unfairly treated, Broyles recommends complying with the police officer's request. Only once the encounter has concluded does he recommend filing a complaint and contesting the officer's actions during the stop.

As he tells NPR's Arun Rath, he's experienced the predicament in his own life: feeling frustrated and angry by what appeared to be racial profiling, but waiting until afterwards to raise his objections.

And when asked whether there are any exceptions — any times a person should not comply with police orders — Broyles says it's a difficult question.

"Many people in the minority communities — African-Americans and Latinos — recognize that in the instance where they do not comply, they are putting themselves at great risk. Not always, but since you don't know whether you are getting a true professional or a bad — a rogue — cop, I would err on the side of complying," Broyles says.

I don't think anyone who is genuinely interested in the well-being of minorities (or anyone else) subjected to a traffic stop is recommending any other course of action.

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Policing has been going downhill in the US for decades. The entrance requirements have tanked.

Plenty of reasons for that.  Vilification of law enforcement and politicized de-funding efforts being biggies.

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Some police departments deliberately discriminate against smart candidates in recruitment.

I'd like to see evidence of that.

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Then you have these idiot "warrior training" programs that police departments hire to train their officers into thinking they are in a perpetual war zone and that to hesitate before shooting someone is a mistake.

Again, I'd like to see evidence.

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I know literal combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who went into police work when they go back and were disgusted by the lack of rules of engagement.

Police officers are not making up their own Rules of Engagement or Use of Force guidelines.  

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We are militarizing our police in terms of weapons but they are under looser rules about when to engage then combat troops in a literal war zone. We are doing it all wrong.

If so, we ought to be looking at state legislatures to get more involved in sorting things out.  

Meanwhile, however, "comply now, contest later" in a traffic stop context is the best way to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The video of the officer's interaction with Mr. Allan is 8:49 long.  The interaction begins at :36.  Mr. Chase begins to refuse to cooperate at :44, or 8 seconds later.  After nearly three minutes of back-and-forth, with Mr. Allan repeatedly refusing to cooperate or obey lawful orders, at 4:03 the officer instructs him to step out of the vehicle.  Mr. Allan again refuses.  The officer repeats the instruction at 4:08, and Mr. Allan again refuses to comply.  The officer repeats the instruction a third and fourth time at 4:12 and 4:14, and Mr. Allan again refuses to comply.  At 4:15, another officer warns Mr. Allan that if he does not step out of the vehicle they will break the window and extract him, and Mr. Allan continues to not comply.  At 4:18, they open the door,

Fortunately, as my kids grow up, the amount of interactions like this they've had with us parents have decreased to almost zero.  It's been half a dozen years since I've found myself saying "you have until the count of 3 to [x], and if I get to three, then I will [y]".   And it's been almost a full dozen years since I had to utter that phrase, and the kid still didn't [x], and then screamed like their lives were being wrung from their body when I began to [y].  

For one kid, it only took one time around age 11.  For another kid, these instances were frequent and common for what seemed like years.

I wonder if there have been any studies looking at folks like Mr. Allan, and the absence of parent/guardian discipline.  

Mental illness, where folks have maturity levels of children, is also a thing.  Not every adult has well-developed decision making areas of their brains.  I'd guess a bunch of 'em find sovcit ideologies appealing.

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, provoman said:

Then the Sargent just throws himself in to forcibly pull the driver from the car - unnecessary and shows a lack of restraint….

And for the Chief to say it was "reasonable and appropriate" to go hands on for a minor infraction, suggests to me, that department is all to eager to escalate their use of force.

This is what I don’t understand, why not step back and wait the guy out?  Is it more or less likely a confrontation would happen if waited out?

The response to drag him out seems disproportionate. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, provoman said:

Thank you for the response.

In my opinion, the officer antagonized the situation by asking for the back window to be rolled down,

IIRC, he framed this as a request, not an order.  And he also explained the purpose of the request (he wanted to see if anyone else was in the vehicle).

I think what the officer did here was reasonable, and was not calculated to antagonize.  Mr. Allan was antagonistic, uncooperative and defiant throughout the interaction.

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

then the officer says something like "you are being detained, you are not free to go" - this suggests to me the officer is familiar with sovcit types.

I don't know about that.  It's a common explanation to give to someone so that they understand that they are "not free to go" if the police officer stops talking, walks back to the police vehicle, whatever.

The officer was clarifying things for Mr. Allan for his (Mr. Allan's) benefit.  I think it's difficult to characterize this as antagonistic.

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

Then the officer lays out the two options - essentially compliance or force; to which the officer says he is fine with either option.

Yes.  Those are the two options.  The third option of not complying with lawful instructions from a police officer during a traffic stop - the one Mr. Allan would surely have preferred - was not available.

I think the SovCit folks sometimes think that if they spout nonsense long enough, or if they behave aggressively/adversarially during the traffic stop, they can intimidate or dissuade the police officer.  Again, the officer was clarifying things for Mr. Allan.  At this point the police officer and Mr. Allan were in a power struggle, but the former was acting in accordance with the law, and the latter was not.

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

The officer also says how this goes is 100% up to you - I think we can agree the LEOs have discretion.

Yes.  So did Mr. Allan.

He could have complied with the law and carried a DL and registered his vehicle, but he didn't.

He could have cooperated with the police officer, but he didn't.

He could have complied with the officer's lawful commands, but he didn't.

He could have notified the police that he was armed, but he didn't.

And so on.

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

The statement is incorrect and suggests the officer is somewhat itching for confrontation.

The statement is, I think, quite correct.  The officer exercised his discretion - which you acknowledge he had - to leave Mr. Allan with only two options. 

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

The officer sarcastically responds to the passport.

Sarcasm is neither here nor there.  The police officer was acting in accordance with the law, and Mr. Allan was not.  

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

Everything about the officer interaction suggest to me, he was looking for a fight, and that he was antagonistic to driver.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that. 

Mr. Allan knew, or should have known, for quite a while that he was likely to be pulled over if he didn't have tags on his car. 

It's also pretty clear that he had prepared for being pulled over, given that he must have "rehearsed" the talking points he was spouting. 

Mr. Allan having prepared talking points to spout also indicates that his refusal to cooperate or comply with premeditated, rather than a "heat of the moment" thing.

Mr. Allan also knew before the interaction that he was armed, but chose not to tell the officers at any time, including when they were instructing him to exit the vehicle and telling him they would break the window and extract him if he did not voluntarily exit.

Mr. Allan knew all these things prior to and during the interaction with the police.

Meanwhile, the police officer - prior to the interaction -

did not know Mr. Allan before hand,

did not know about the scope and breadth of whatever "ideology" had spurred Mr. Allan to not register his car,

did not know that Mr. Allan did not have a DL,

did not know that Mr. Allan would not cooperate or comply with lawful (and entirely normative) orders from a police officer during a traffic stop,

did not know that Mr. Allan was armed, and so on.

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

Then the Sargent just throws himself in to forcibly pull the driver from the car - unnecessary and shows a lack of restraint. 

I think it's difficult for us to play armchair quarterback.  We're sitting at computers.  Weeks after the events in question.  With the benefit of hindsight and bodycam footage.  We weren't there.

The police officers seem to have complied with the law.  Mr. Allan, meanwhile, had violated the law by A) not having a DL, B) not registering his vehicle, and C) not complying with lawful orders from law enforcement.  He then violated common sense by not notifying the armed police officers that he was armed.  He may well have been going for his gun when he was shot (again, the weapon was recovered from the driver's side floor, not from his holster).

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

I am not saying the officers actions were illegal.

But you are also not saying that Mr. Allan's actions were illegal (even though they were) and extremely foolish (even though they were).

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

I do think the officers were unprofessional, exhibited a willingness to escalate, and have a lack of training to deescalate situations.

Okay.  I think the officers were quite professional, exhibited a willingness to do their jobs as they have been trained to do, and were properly and reasonably attempting to enforce the law against a person who had premeditatively decided to violate it in several different ways, and to compound the seriousness of that illicit behavior by being confrontational and by not notifying the police that he was armed.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is what I don’t understand, why not step back and wait the guy out?  

Until when?  How long should multiple police officers in a small jurisdiction be tied up dealing with Mr. Allan's foolish behavior?

Until Mr. Allan does what?  Did he give any indication of a willingness to comply with the repeated (and entirely lawful) instructions?  Nope.  So what would the passage of time do?

And what if the detained person was armed (as Mr. Allan turned out to be)?  Should the police "step back" and give him a clearer shot at them (hidden as he was behind tinted windows, the driver's side window being rolled down just 2-3 inches)?

Meanwhile, I am curious as to why you aren't asking about what Mr. Allan should have done differently.  He was, after all, the one acting outside the law.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is it more or less likely a confrontation would happen if waited out?

The police were

  • A) dealing with an uncooperative and defiant person,
  • B) who was ensconced in a private vehicle with tinted windows, and
  • C) who had only rolled one window down a few inches, and
  • D) who had declined the officer's request to roll down the window further, and
  • E) who had repeatedly refused lawful - and entirely reasonable and normative - instructions from law enforcement, and
  • F) who had already evidenced a willingness to break the law (by not having a DL and not having tags on his car).

The police did not assume he was armed (as evidenced by the fact that one shouted "gun, gun, gun!").

The police did not ask him if he was armed, likely because he is not legally obligated to tell them that, and because he had already demonstrated that would not cooperate with reasonable requests.

Given the circumstances, I think the police were quite justified in being "on alert" as to the potential for violence.  Giving Mr. Allan more time to sort out potential plans for such violence does not make sense to me.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

The response to drag him out seems disproportionate. 

Mr. Allan was largely an unknown quantity until the instant before the shooting started.  They did not know if he would try to put the car into gear and take off (the car was still running), or whether he was armed.  What they did know is that he had repeatedly broken the law (no DL, no tags, refusal to comply with lawful orders) and was quite uncooperative and adversarial (refused to lower window, refused to answer questions, etc.).  What they suspected is that he might have been armed (and as it turns out, he was).

FWIW, I don't see it as "disproportionate" at all.  None of the police officers swore at him (not until after the shooting had stopped, by which point a few f-bombs would be understandable).  They didn't mace him.  They didn't break the window (the door was apparently unlocked).  Had he not been armed, or if he had notified them that he was armed, or if he had complied with lawful orders, he would be alive today.

I feel very badly for the Allan family.  However, I do not presently allocate blame for the death of their son with the police.  They were doing their job and were acting lawfully, while Mr. Allan had repeatedly violated the law and was acting foolishly and dangerously.

As I noted above, police are trained about such things.  There are "Rules of Engagement" and "Use of Force" guidelines, and they appear to have followed those guidelines.  Meanwhile, Mr. Allan was acting quite outside the law, and his obnoxious behavior only made things worse.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Until when?  How long should multiple police officers in a small jurisdiction be tied up dealing with Mr. Allan's foolish behavior?

When the alternative could end up being shooting to kill, a long time imo.  Certainly longer than five minutes could be spared and likely would have been I am guessing if they knew what would happen. 

I am not saying police rushed it.  I don’t know.  It just doesn’t seem like other options had the time to be considered and it seems time could have been taken.

I am not questioning what Allen should have done because it is obvious to me what he should have done and it certainly wasn’t what he did.

I think he was foolish and given how this kind of stuff has not turned out well in the past, I would go so far as his behaviour was over the top idiotic.

And I don’t believe the officers should have made it easier to for him shoot them. But I also don’t know if stepping back would have made it easier for him to shoot them given it is harder to hit a target the further away one is and they could have even assumed defensive positions behind the doors of their vehicle.  Maybe procedures should be changed to make stand offs safer for police and it obviously more difficult to make a run for it. 
 

I also realize there might be a significant issue with others passing by or surrounding buildings. I don’t know the situation though it looks like he was pulled over into a park area (bullets travel quite far though). It just seems odd it went from casual to death in less than five minutes. 
 

I suspect the officers who shot him are wondering if there was anything else that they could have done. 
 

I think it is healthy to ask that question of our failures.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Calm said:

When the alternative could end up being shooting to kill, a long time imo.  Certainly longer than ten minutes could be spared. 

I thought it was sufficient time to comply. My brother, a former motor cop in Cali, tells me at the academy they were trained to "ask, then direct, and then compel" with civilian interactions. The fact that this young man was shot was an entirely different matter than the reasons behind his being pulled over and the reasons behind the ensuing verbal exchange.  I thought they forebore appropriately before escalating. To expect our law enforcement officers to wait for some indiscriminate amount of time for issues like this is too much to ask. That he unfortunately was killed in the process is an entirely different issue and one that he alone was responsible for.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, provoman said:

And for the Chief to say it was "reasonable and appropriate" to go hands on for a minor infraction,

First, it was not "a" minor infraction.  By the time the police moved to arrest Mr. Allan, he had A) failed to register his vehicle (a class C misdemeanor, see here), B) failed to have a DL while operating a motor vehicle (an infraction or misdemeanor, depending on the circumstances), and C) failed to comply with multiple lawful orders (a class B misdemeanor, see here). 

Second, Mr. Allan had also produced a passport, and when the officer looked at it and referred to him as "Mr. Chase Allan" (as per the passport), Mr. Allan responded with “That is not me. That is a piece of plastic paper.”  The police officer then said "So you have a fraudulent passport?  Wonderful.  That's what I'm hearing.  Step out of the car for me..."  We all know what happened next.  Possession of a forged or fraudulent passport is a second-degree felony under Utah law (see here).  In Utah, "{p}robable cause exists when an officer has knowledge of facts and circumstances that are of such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a prudent and reasonable person of ordinary intelligence, judgment, and experience that it is reasonably likely that a crime has been committed and the person arrested committed that crime."  The police officer asked Mr. Allan for "identification" of himself, and in response Mr. Allan produced a "passport," and when the officer used it to discern Mr. Allan's name, Mr. Allen responded with "That is not me."  That seems quite within the parameters of "probable cause."  And even if probable cause was lacking, the time to sort that out is not during the traffic stop.

Third, by the time the police went hands-on, they had clear evidence of multiple misdemeanors, and likely also had probable cause of a second-degree felony.  Second-degree felonies are actually a pretty big deal.  They are punishable by 1-15 years in prison and fines up to $10,000.

So I don't think we can say that the problem was "a minor infraction."

1 hour ago, provoman said:

suggests to me, that department is all to eager to escalate their use of force.

I think that assumes way too much.  Consider, for example, this description of how Farmington Police handled a similar traffic stop involving Mr. Allan's mother:

Quote

Footage has emerged of the mother of a suspected “sovereign citizen” – who was gunned down earlier this month by police during a traffic stop – herself arguing with officers in a similar incident a year prior to her son’s death.

Diane Allan, of Salt Lake City, Utah, also used the term “sovereign” multiple times in a court filing to fight the charges she received from the traffic stop.

That’s despite her daughter insisting her mother was not a sovereign citizen but an “American State National”.

That’s a term an extremist expert has said is essentially interchangeable with sovereign citizen.

Sovereign citizens believe a conspiracy theory that they are exempt from most laws or requirements to hold government paperwork, like driving licenses.
...

In April 2022, Ms Allan was also pulled over by Farmington Police who alleged she was driving an unregistered vehicle and had no insurance.

Police bodycam footage has revealed that the encounter had striking similarities to the traffic stop which ultimately led to her son’s death.

Like her son, Ms Allan refused to lower her window, opening it only a crack despite the officer’s protestations that he was struggling to hear her.

She also failed to hand over a driving licence when asked. Just like Mr Allan, she offered her passport as identification instead.

But along with the passport, Ms Allan bizarrely also handed over a copy of the US Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

American sovereign citizens believe that they are uniquely protected under the US Constitution from being subject to laws while other citizens have unknowingly bargained their rights away.

When it comes to driving, sovereign citizens assert they have a right to “travel” in “private” vehicles but can avoid traffic laws.

The footage showed the officer patiently listening to Ms Allan.

Returning to his vehicle with her passport he called then Lieutenant Eric Johnsen, who is now Farmington chief of police and has fronted the media about Mr Allan’s death.

The officer told Mr Johnsen, who later attended the scene, he had “stopped a Constitutionalist” and it was his first experience of dealing with one.

“She’s recording me. (She said): ‘This is private property, I don’t have to register the car.’”

Mr Johnsen advised the officer to be courteous and not to escalate the matter.

“Is it worth pulling her out of her car and arresting her for failure to identify? No, probably not.

“Just cite her for whatever violation she has and send her on her way,” he said.

The police officer returned to Ms Allen’s car with a citation to attend court and pushed it through the window as she tried to give him a leaflet which he didn’t ake.

“I’m not interested in reading that. You’re free to go,” he said.

"{Lieutenant Eric Johnsen} advised the officer to be courteous and not to escalate the matter."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Calm - I don't have the answer. What makes you wonder from this incident that they maybe haven't received the best training?

The time it went from stop to death when there is no evidence the man woke up that day with the intent to harm anyone even if he did wake up with the intent to challenge police on the law in an idiotic way.

The issue may not be training or just training though. Perhaps a stricter law about carrying concealed should be in place so anyone choosing not to identify themselves to the police knows they are placing themselves in a very dangerous position, basically giving permission to the police to shoot them. 
 

Maybe there are other things to be done.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

This is what I don’t understand, why not step back and wait the guy out?  Is it more or less likely a confrontation would happen if waited out?

The response to drag him out seems disproportionate. 

100% agree!

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...