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

[Tacenda]

10 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?

It appears so, and it's fairly new to have officers trained for specific mental illnesses. Unless I'm wrong.

[Vanguard]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

That cannot be the criteria. We ultimately do not know yet whether he had intent or not to harm.

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

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. 

You honestly don't think he already knew he was placing himself in a very dangerous situation?

The exchange about SovCit is largely irrelevant in my mind. That you have a grown man carrying what could have been a loaded gun on his person while engaged in a verbal escalation with the police and while not letting the police know of this gun exonerates the LEOs from culpability. 

[Vanguard]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It appears so, and it's fairly new to have officers trained for specific mental illnesses. Unless I'm wrong.

How does it appear so? Again and as I just commented with Calm, once they knew of the gun, it became an entirely different situation the young man's mental health status notwithstanding. 

Edited to add: It's too bad we can't flesh this issue out further without running afoul of the board rules about politics. There are good issues here that should be vetted. : ( 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Vanguard

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

That you have a grown man carrying what could have been a loaded gun on his person while engaged in a verbal escalation with the police and while not letting the police know of this gun exonerates the LEOs from culpability. 

Which is one reason why I think the law should be to require someone to tell police immediately if they are carrying….because I think it’s fair for police to assume they are in danger if they see a gun. Wanting it both ways…not to have to tell police one has a gun and wanting police to be allowed to react with violent force on seeing someone appear to move towards a known or even likely gun seems completely contradictory to me.  It is way too easy to make movements without thinking especially I suspect when one is fixated on something else, like trying to figure out what to say next to a cop so you don’t get in trouble. I don’t think it is fair to police to put them in the position of having to guess someone’s intent if a gun is present. I don’t think it’s fair for the law to say it is safe to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, etc when just the presence of an unannounced gun can send police into action and just a bit more into shooting. 
 

I personally think “No Duty to Inform” is one of the stupidest laws I have heard of and there are a lot of stupid laws. 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

I probably just veered into politics, so perhaps I should end my commentary here. 

[ttribe]

On 4/5/2023 at 4:07 PM, Calm said:

Which is one reason why I think the law should be to require someone to tell police immediately if they are carrying….because I think it’s fair for police to assume they are in danger if they see a gun. Wanting it both ways…not to have to tell police one has a gun and wanting police to be allowed to react with violent force on seeing someone appear to move towards a known gun seems completely contradictory to me.  It is way too easy to make movements without thinking especially I suspect when one is fixated on something else, like trying to figure out what to say next to a cop so you don’t get in trouble. I don’t think it is fair to police to put them in the position of having to guess someone’s intent if a gun is present. I don’t think it’s fair for the law to say it is safe to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, etc when just the presence of an unannounced gun can send police into action and just a bit more into shooting. 
 

I personally think “No Duty to Inform” is one of the stupidest laws I have heard of and there are a lot of stupid laws. 

In Arizona, no conceal-carry permit is required and open-carry is also legal. However, I have a conceal-carry permit anyway. Why? A number of reasons, but one of them is to demonstrate that I've learned the proper laws of the State for being a gun owner as well as safety procedures. When I have been pulled over...several times (ahem)...for alleged traffic violations, I have always told the officer immediately that I am a conceal-carry permit holder and that I don't have my weapon with me (if I don't have it, obviously), or that I do have it with me and invite them to secure it if they wish. The couple of times I did actually have my weapon, the officer asked me where it was, declined to secure it and simply asked that I not reach for it for any reason.

Edited April 7, 2023 by ttribe

[Calm]

I will admit my bias…while I have never received a ticket (not even parking), I felt bullied by the officers both times I was stopped and lied to in one case, so I don’t particularly trust police to be on good behaviour as it seems they can even get minor things so wrong.  Looking back one appears to have been handled very poorly (my mom had left the other keys in the trunk) and the other appears to have been an officer just pissed off at something or maybe trying to get a quota and telling me something was illegal when it wasn’t to justify him stopping me (passing him while he was pulled over to the side of the road, I slowed down and moved over as far as I could unlike the cars before me btw, he got in his car and flashed the lights on me and told me I should have stopped completely…which would have likely caused accidents as it was on a one lane freeway exit plus was not the law).

Otoh, I have had several good friends who were police and was brought up in places where police were still inherently good (at least till high school; Dad generally had the TV on cop shows; Dragnet, Adam-12, CHiPs, FBI, McCloud, McMillian and Wife for the cuddly cops even on Sunday iirc; Rockford Files was probably the first I really remember where treating cops with respect was lacking at times), so I have generally positive feelings towards law enforcement except when they are in my rearview mirror and then my anxiety goes way up. 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Calm

[Vanguard]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which is one reason why I think the law should be to require someone to tell police immediately if they are carrying….because I think it’s fair for police to assume they are in danger if they see a gun. Wanting it both ways…not to have to tell police one has a gun and wanting police to be allowed to react with violent force on seeing someone appear to move towards a known gun seems completely contradictory to me.  It is way too easy to make movements without thinking especially I suspect when one is fixated on something else, like trying to figure out what to say next to a cop so you don’t get in trouble. I don’t think it is fair to police to put them in the position of having to guess someone’s intent if a gun is present. I don’t think it’s fair for the law to say it is safe to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, etc when just the presence of an unannounced gun can send police into action and just a bit more into shooting. 
 

I personally think “No Duty to Inform” is one of the stupidest laws I have heard of and there are a lot of stupid laws. 

I absolutely agree with you. It seems like you appreciate the compromised position that police are put it upon finding out a citizen has a weapon. At that point in the interaction though, it's too late to 'change the law' as it were.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I absolutely agree with you. It seems like you appreciate the compromised position that police are put it upon finding out a citizen has a weapon. At that point in the interaction though, it's too late to 'change the law' as it were.

I am about analyzing the Allen shooting for what could have been done better not to place blame, but to look for ways to make things better, whether training or laws (another reason why I wasn’t bothering to criticize the dead man). Unfortunately it seems lawmakers….oops, way too political. Need to stop. 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

It's no wonder we get these sovereign types, they don't trust the government and police, FBI etc. Maybe there's good reason in some cases, but if we give up, we're doomed.

[provoman]

4 hours 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. 

I do not understand either; the only "explanation" I have is the Sargent could not deal with "contempt of cop" or the Sargent frankly has it out for Sovcit people.  

 

They had his name. They likely had the VIN number. The deceased conduct aside, there was no reason - in my opinion - to forcibly remove him from the vehicle. 

 

But, given the statement from the Chief and the conduct of the Sargent, it does not surprise me that the officers took a "you must comply at the moment of my demands" approach.

[Kenngo1969]

Overwhelmingly, what an officer does is dictated nearly solely and completely by what the person with whom the officer is dealing does. The easiest way to end any interaction with law enforcement quickly is for one to ask oneself, What is the officer trying to achieve? What is the officer’s objective? Once that question is answered, and once the person with whom the officer is dealing commits oneself to helping the officer achieve the objective the officer is attempting to achieve, the more the interaction proceeds with a minimum of disruption for all concerned, and the quicker the officer and the motorist each may return to going about the business of their respective days, evenings, or nights. While state laws regarding whether one must disclose the presence of a firearm to officers vary, personally, if I have a firearm, I tell the officer I have a firearm, as well as telling the officer the location of that firearm.

What if the officer is not a Dale Carnegie graduate?* What if what an officer asks—or perhaps even demands—is unreasonable? What if it is even improper? What then? Paradoxically, that is the very moment when I become the most cooperative, compliant, and, perhaps, contrite I possibly can be. That is the very moment when my every response becomes, “Yes, Officer,” “No, Officer,” “Whatever you say, Officer,” “As you wish, Officer,” “Whatever you like, Officer,” and so on. Why? Because my cooperation and compliance are the very things that will enable me to go into court with absolutely clean hands and on the side of the angels, while, on the other hand, giving the officer enough rope to hang himself or herself later on—in court, in an agency disciplinary proceeding, and in proceedings before a law enforcement officer certifying body (in many jurisdictions, such bodies are known as “POST,” which is short for “Police Officer Standards and Training”).

On the other hand, what if I am absolutely right and the officer is absolutely wrong? What do I do then? Still, I cooperate. Still, I comply. Why? Because the minute I begin to resist, to talk back, to fail to cooperate, to fail to comply, to “cop an attitude” (forgive the expression), that is the very moment in which the officer’s actions, however unreasonable or improper they may have been at the beginning of our encounter, nevertheless begin to acquire the justification they did not have in the first place.

In any event, even if I am absolutely in the right and the officer is absolutely in the wrong, there, by the roadside or wherever the officer happens to encounter me, is neither the right time nor the right place to attempt to litigate the rightfulness or the wrongfulness of the officer’s conduct. Why? Because the roadside is the officer’s domain, while later on, in court, is my domain. Further, when confronted with noncooperation and noncompliance, officers tend to do one of, or some combination of, the following things: (1) escalate their demands for compliance; (2) summon reinforcements, and (3) increase the level of force used to overcome a person’s resistance and to ensure his compliance.

And in any event, even if my interaction with the officer is disagreeable and unpleasant because he or she is not a “Dale Carnegie” Graduate, the quicker I help the officer achieve his or her objective—even if I disagree with the officer, if I think the officer is wrong, and I think I’m being mistreated—the sooner I will be free to go about the other business of my day—including complaining as long and as loudly as I wish, in any forum (whether to the media, on Snapchat, on Youtube, on some other Internet site, to my friends and family, ad infinitum) about how unfair, how unprofessional, and so on (again, ad infinitum) Officer X from Agency Y was in my interaction with him or her.

We saw a textbook example of noncooperation and noncompliance here. Mr. Allan is uncooperative, noncompliant, argumentative, and, arguably, belligerent, throughout this encounter. Conversely, I must learn to “pick my battles” and to “keep my powder dry,” as the old sayings go. I must—quite literally—“live to fight another day.”

Did officers have to shoot Mr. Allan?  Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) is the leading case that lays out the circumstances under which use of deadly force by law enforcement in the United States is proper.  No one denies that Mr. Allan's death, along with the specific circumstance in which it occurred, is tragic.  Any death at the hands of law enforcement is tragic.  If officers could do their jobs without firing a shot in the line of duty, the overwhelming majority of them would prefer to do that.  In fact, that's the rule: most officers serve their entire careers without firing a shot except to qualify to use their firearms and in range practice.  

A majority of United States Supreme Court Justices found that the shooting of Garner, who was not known to be armed and was not suspected of having committed any violent felonies, was unjustified.  The justices held that in order for the use of deadly force by law enforcement to be justified, officers' use of such force must be a reasonable response against a threat of imminent, serious, bodily injury or death.  Because Mr. Allan issued a veiled threat to officers, because he was armed and he disclosed neither the fact that he was armed nor the location of his firearm, and because he was reaching for that firearm at the time he was shot, as tragic as this shooting might be (and, indeed, as tragic as even all justified shootings are), nonetheless, officers' use of deadly force against Mr. Allan was justified.

It doesn’t matter what one thinks of the role of the police in this undeniably tragic encounter. As fashionable as it has become to criticize police for the way they do a job that none of us would do in a million years (those who can, do; those who cannot, criticize those who do), had Mr. Allan done the things I recommend in my first, my second, and my penultimate paragraph here, I believe it is beyond dispute he would be alive today.

____________________

*Mr. Carnegie wrote a well-known book and initiated a course on the book’s content called How to Win Friends and Influence People.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

I decided I prefer not to have this conversation at this point. 

Edited April 6, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It's no wonder we get these sovereign types, they don't trust the government and police, FBI etc. Maybe there's good reason in some cases, but if we give up, we're doomed.

These people often don’t have a gripe with the police. It is more that they don’t get that the systems and governments and laws that make up society aren’t fundamental laws. They are a consensus we agree to live with. They believe that the rules of these systems are strictly enforced and that they know cheat codes they can use to hack the system. They don’t understand why English common law sheriffs don’t have power to overrule Congress since LOGICALLY they do because of a weird law they read once so Congress has to obey!

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

These people often don’t have a gripe with the police. ...

I'm not sure about that.  If, for whatever reason, laws do not apply to me, and yet there is an agency that purports to enforce those laws, of course I'm going to have "a gripe with" that agency.

[LoudmouthMormon]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It's no wonder we get these sovereign types, they don't trust the government and police, FBI etc. Maybe there's good reason in some cases, but if we give up, we're doomed.

These people often don’t have a gripe with the police. It is more that they don’t get that the systems and governments and laws that make up society aren’t fundamental laws.

I'm thinking the average sovcit doesn't really have a gripe with anybody, until they experience a consequence of living in a land ruled by laws.  The first tax notice, draft notice, auto registration requirement, speed limit infraction, or alimony judgment that crosses their path, and in their minds, there's something fatally flawed with the nation and no way on the good green earth will they ever submit to such excessive overreach.  Things escalate from there.

A not completely incorrect visual image of a sovereign citizen: Someone sticking his head out of his 2nd story window with a 'don't tread on me' flag in one hand, a shotgun in the other, a vein popping out of his forehead, while screaming "leave me alone" at the top of his lungs at everyone that walks down the sidewalk past his house.   Also, their teenage children.

[Rain]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Overwhelmingly, what an officer does is dictated nearly solely and completely by what the person with whom the officer is dealing does. The easiest way to end any interaction with law enforcement quickly is for one to ask oneself, What is the officer trying to achieve? What is the officer’s objective?

What if you have no clue what he was trying to achieve?  When I was 16 and a very cautious driver I was pulled over for drunk driving. I wasn't. He said I was swerving all over the road. I wasn't. My brother later verified this to my mom when she questioned him privately.

The first thing he asked me was, "Are you drunk?"  My mind was going through any possible reason I could think of to have him ask me that and I could see nothing about my driving to make him think that.

Later, my mom found out he was in our stake and she knew him so she called him up to get his side of the story. He told her I had gone around corners at 35 mph in 25 mph zones - never happened, because again I was overly cautious as a new driver.  He told her he actually thinks my brother was driving and we switched places because he was underaged.  It was my small dog that we had get back there so that he didn’t cause trouble when I rolled down the window.

I never figured out what his objective was.

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Once that question is answered, and once the person with whom the officer is dealing commits oneself to helping the officer achieve the objective the officer is attempting to achieve, the more the interaction proceeds with a minimum of disruption for all concerned, and the quicker the officer and the motorist each may return to going about the business of their respective days, evenings, or nights.

This is a great idea, but doesn't always work.  People are not always perfect.  For example while traveling last month I had a ziplock bag with expensive medical supplies and an insulin pump.  I recognized later that I should have packed them differently, but had never had a problem with the way I did it before.  Security (not in the US) started emptying out the items I asked that he let me pull a few things out that I realized could be scanned because I knew it could speed up the process, but instead he started flinging them all over the place including in other people's bins.  

Anyway, it's the same with police officers. I can try to help them achieve what they want, but that doesn't mean they will recognize that.

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

While state laws regarding whether one must disclose the presence of a firearm to officers vary, personally, if I have a firearm, I tell the officer I have a firearm, as well as telling the officer the location of that firearm.

What if the officer is not a Dale Carnegie graduate?* What if what an officer asks—or perhaps even demands—is unreasonable? What if it is even improper? What then? Paradoxically, that is the very moment when I become the most cooperative, compliant, and, perhaps, contrite I possibly can be. That is the very moment when my every response becomes, “Yes, Officer,” “No, Officer,” “Whatever you say, Officer,” “As you wish, Officer,” “Whatever you like, Officer,” and so on. Why? Because my cooperation and compliance are the very things that will enable me to go into court with absolutely clean hands and on the side of the angels, while, on the other hand, giving the officer enough rope to hang himself or herself later on—in court, in an agency disciplinary proceeding, and in proceedings before a law enforcement officer certifying body (in many jurisdictions, such bodies are known as “POST,” which is short for “Police Officer Standards and Training”).

This is true, but it ignores real human reactions and emotions in people who are not trained like police officers should be.

That airport experience? That $10,000 insulin pump that was tossed into some strangers bin going who knows where in the world keeps me alive and it isn't like I can easily just go get a new one. Within 2 hours of not having it I will be incredibly sick so even though I was doing everything I could to remain calm I could tell I was looking and sounding a little frantic.  

Again, yes, extreme compared to a traffic stop, but I see myself as pretty non reactionary compared to most people.  Being in a traffic stop can be very intimidating and scary for many people. 

So it is imperative to have police officers trained to deal with this. 

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

On the other hand, what if I am absolutely right and the officer is absolutely wrong? What do I do then? Still, I cooperate. Still, I comply. Why? Because the minute I begin to resist, to talk back, to fail to cooperate, to fail to comply, to “cop an attitude” (forgive the expression), that is the very moment in which the officer’s actions, however unreasonable or improper they may have been at the beginning of our encounter, nevertheless begin to acquire the justification they did not have in the first place.

It's been interesting reading Smac and Provoman's reactions to the video. They have a different understanding of things like "talking back" from the video.  I can't say as I haven't watched the video which one I agree with.  But I do wonder if that security man thought I was talking back when I was asking him to let me separate the things out.

So again, it's a nice idea to cooperate, but just because you feel you are doing that it doesn't mean the officer views it that way.

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In any event, even if I am absolutely in the right and the officer is absolutely in the wrong, there, by the roadside or wherever the officer happens to encounter me, is neither the right time nor the right place to attempt to litigate the rightfulness or the wrongfulness of the officer’s conduct. Why? Because the roadside is the officer’s domain,

Exactly, which is a huge reason why people are scared. 

 

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

while later on, in court, is my domain.

Which is expensive and time consuming if you get there. 

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Further, when confronted with noncooperation and noncompliance, officers tend to do one of, or some combination of, the following things: (1) escalate their demands for compliance; (2) summon reinforcements, and (3) increase the level of force used to overcome a person’s resistance and to ensure his compliance

 

Yes, and also when they see it as noncooperation.

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

.

And in any event, even if my interaction with the officer is disagreeable and unpleasant because he or she is not a “Dale Carnegie” Graduate, the quicker I help the officer achieve his or her objective—even if I disagree with the officer, if I think the officer is wrong, and I think I’m being mistreated—the sooner I will be free to go about the other business of my day—including complaining as long and as loudly as I wish, in any forum (whether to the media, on Snapchat, on Youtube, on some other Internet site, to my friends and family, ad infinitum) about how unfair, how unprofessional, and so on (again, ad infinitum) Officer X from Agency Y was in my interaction with him or her.

We saw a textbook example of noncooperation and noncompliance here. Mr. Allan is uncooperative, noncompliant, argumentative, and, arguably, belligerent, throughout this encounter. Conversely, I must learn to “pick my battles” and to “keep my powder dry,” as the old sayings go. I must—quite literally—“live to fight another day.”

Did officers have to shoot Mr. Allan?  Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) is the leading case that lays out the circumstances under which use of deadly force by law enforcement in the United States is proper.  No one denies that Mr. Allan's death, along with the specific circumstance in which it occurred, is tragic.  Any death at the hands of law enforcement is tragic.  If officers could do their jobs without firing a shot in the line of duty, the overwhelming majority of them would prefer to do that.  In fact, that's the rule: most officers serve their entire careers without firing a shot except to qualify to use their firearms and in range practice.  

A majority of United States Supreme Court Justices found that the shooting of Garner, who was not known to be armed and was not suspected of having committed any violent felonies, was unjustified.  The justices held that in order for the use of deadly force by law enforcement to be justified, officers' use of such force must be a reasonable response against a threat of imminent, serious, bodily injury or death.  Because Mr. Allan issued a veiled threat to officers, because he was armed and he disclosed neither the fact that he was armed nor the location of his firearm, and because he was reaching for that firearm at the time he was shot, as tragic as this shooting might be (and, indeed, as tragic as even all justified shootings are), nonetheless, officers' use of deadly force against Mr. Allan was justified.

It doesn’t matter what one thinks of the role of the police in this undeniably tragic encounter. As fashionable as it has become to criticize police for the way they do a job that none of us would do in a million years (those who can, do; those who cannot, criticize those who do), had Mr. Allan done the things I recommend in my first, my second, and my penultimate paragraph here, I believe it is beyond dispute he would be alive today.

____________________

*Mr. Carnegie wrote a well-known book and initiated a course on the book’s content called How to Win Friends and Influence People.

Don't get me wrong.  I actually have a good view of the police.  My dad worked as a dispatcher for awhile.  I've had friends who were police officers.  But I also think that we often train them far too little, sometimes hire those who shouldn't be officers and fail to have procedures in place that pull some out of the line of duty when they need it.  When the riots were happening during 2020 I was reading about training that dealt much better with confrontation than most get here in the US I really hoped that our officers could have that.  

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

What if you have no clue what he was trying to achieve?  When I was 16 and a very cautious driver I was pulled over for drunk driving. I wasn't. He said I was swerving all over the road. I wasn't. My brother later verified this to my mom when she questioned him privately.

The first thing he asked me was, "Are you drunk?"  My mind was going through any possible reason I could think of to have him ask me that and I could see nothing about my driving to make him think that.

Later, my mom found out he was in our stake and she knew him so she called him up to get his side of the story. He told her I had gone around corners at 35 mph in 25 mph zones - never happened, because again I was overly cautious as a new driver.  He told her he actually thinks my brother was driving and we switched places because he was underaged.  It was my small dog that we had get back there so that he didn’t cause trouble when I rolled down the window.

I never figured out what his objective was.

Truly, I'm sorry that you went through that experience, especially as a new driver.  Full stop.  That said, everyone (including Your Humble Correspondent) can cite exceptions to the general rule.  However, the mere existence of exceptions, however numerous and however egregious, does not eviscerate the general rule.  Most people know exactly why they are pulled over, either because the officer says something such as, "Hello.  I'm Officer Smith from Anytown PD.  The reason I stopped you is because ..." or something such as, "Hello.  I'm Officer Smith from Anytown PD.  Do you know why I stopped you?"  (And, by the way, the first is exactly what happened in the officer's body-worn camera video of this encounter.)

4 hours ago, Rain said:

[Regarding my suggestion that people interacting with law enforcement officers ask themselves what the officer's objective is and how they may help the officer achieve that objective.]

This is a great idea, but doesn't always work.  People are not always perfect.  For example while traveling last month I had a ziplock bag with expensive medical supplies and an insulin pump.  I recognized later that I should have packed them differently, but had never had a problem with the way I did it before.  Security (not in the US) started emptying out the items I asked that he let me pull a few things out that I realized could be scanned because I knew it could speed up the process, but instead he started flinging them all over the place including in other people's bins.

Anyway, it's the same with police officers. I can try to help them achieve what they want, but that doesn't mean they will recognize that.

I understand that people are not always perfect, but thanks for the reminder.  Again, exceptions, however numerous and however egregious, don't disprove the general rule.  And, surely, when you say "I can try to help" officers "achieve" their objective "but that doesn't mean they will recognize that," I doubt, highly, that you're endorsing Mr. Allan's approach ... are you?  

4 hours ago, Rain said:

This is true, but it ignores real human reactions and emotions in people who are not trained like police officers should be.

That airport experience? That $10,000 insulin pump that was tossed into some strangers bin going who knows where in the world keeps me alive and it isn't like I can easily just go get a new one. Within 2 hours of not having it I will be incredibly sick so even though I was doing everything I could to remain calm I could tell I was looking and sounding a little frantic.

I am sorry you went through that experience, truly.  That said, the existence of exceptions, however numerous and however egregious, does not disprove the rule.  And, of course, as you yourself admit (at least tacitly and at least impliedly), I am unsure how much really can be gleaned that might be useful for interactions with law enforcement officers in the United States from something that occurred abroad.  

4 hours ago, Rain said:

  

Again, yes, extreme compared to a traffic stop, but I see myself as pretty non reactionary compared to most people.  Being in a traffic stop can be very intimidating and scary for many people. 

So it is imperative to have police officers trained to deal with this. 

It's been interesting reading Smac and Provoman's reactions to the video. They have a different understanding of things like "talking back" from the video.  I can't say as I haven't watched the video which one I agree with.  But I do wonder if that security man thought I was talking back when I was asking him to let me separate the things out.

So again, it's a nice idea to cooperate, but just because you feel you are doing that it doesn't mean the officer views it that way.

Again, I hope you're not endorsing Mr. Allan's approach.  We've never met, but I have a hard time believing that you ever would attempt to recite law to an officer, to argue with him, to be belligerent, to be noncompliant, and, most of all, I doubt you have ever armed yourself, not apprised the officer of the presence of your weapon (whatever state law says about such disclosures where you live), issued a veiled threat to the officer ("we're going to have a problem": and remember, it was Mr. Allan who said that), and reached for the weapon after giving the officer no other choice but to extricate you from your vehicle and to arrest you.

4 hours ago, Rain said:

[Regarding my assertion that the roadside, or wherever the officer happens to encounter you, is the officer's domain] Exactly, which is a huge reason why people are scared. 

Being frightened of encounters with law enforcement may be a natural reaction, but being argumentative, confrontational, combative, and bringing a gun to the encounter and attempting to reach for it after one has given an officer no other choice but to attempt to take you into custody are not.

4 hours ago, Rain said:

 

Which is expensive and time consuming if you get there. 

True enough, but one needn't file a separate action to confront law enforcement in court: If one receives a citation or, heaven forbid, is arrested, one is going to end up in court anyway.

4 hours ago, Rain said:

Yes, and also when they see it as noncooperation.

Don't get me wrong.  I actually have a good view of the police.  My dad worked as a dispatcher for awhile.  I've had friends who were police officers.  But I also think that we often train them far too little, sometimes hire those who shouldn't be officers and fail to have procedures in place that pull some out of the line of duty when they need it.  When the riots were happening during 2020 I was reading about training that dealt much better with confrontation than most get here in the US I really hoped that our officers could have that.  

Could officers get more training, and better training?  Perhaps.  In fact, I'm all for more training and better training.  That said, a balance must be struck: Every hour an officer spends in training is an hour when he or she is off the streets and not providing the protection and law enforcement he or she is being paid to provide.  And the officers who responded to this incident responded exactly as their training dictated.  Yes, the outcome is tragic, but again, in the overwhelming majority of cases (whatever the exceptions and however egregious the exceptions might be), what the officer does is dictated solely and completely by what the person with whom the officer is dealing does.  These officers responded exactly as their training dictated. 

And (and here I hasten to add that this is a general comment and not directed at you), If Mr. Allan had shot one or more of those officers, grievously wounding that officer or those officers or perhaps even killing him or killing them, I doubt the reaction, even from the most sympathetic of us, would have been much more than, "Oh, that's too bad," yet, on the other hand, since it was Mr. Allan who was killed more than a month ago, it has been a frequent and heated topic of conversation ever since.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That said, everyone (including Your Humble Correspondent) can cite exceptions to the general rule.  However, the mere existence of exceptions, however numerous and however egregious, does not eviscerate the general rule.  Most people know exactly why they are pulled over, either because the officer says something such as, "Hello.  I'm Officer Smith from Anytown PD.  The reason I stopped you is because ..." or something such as, "Hello.  I'm Officer Smith from Anytown PD.  Do you know why I stopped you?"  (And, by the way, the first is exactly what happened in the officer's body-worn camera video of this encounter.)…

Again, exceptions, however numerous and however egregious,

If everyone can cite exceptions, if they are numerous, at what point would they no longer qualify as exceptions in your view?

This is a repeat….I had forgotten I had summarized them before; I did delete a more in-depth description and that I remembered, but going to leave it as is even if repetitive.

have been stopped twice in my life, so limited experience but in one case the officer refused to tell me what was wrong even after I asked and did everything required and in the end he made me get out of the car (was he going to pat me down, what the heck was going on?), walk to the back of the car without a clue until I finally fixed on the fact there were my mom’s keys in the trunk.  In the other case, the officer lied about the law to justify pulling me over when he finally told me after looking at registration and license.  He claimed I had to stop rather than drive past carefully when a police car was pulled over to the side.  I double-checked because it sounded dangerous, made no sense to me, stopping in the middle of a freeway off ramp for several minutes backing up traffic while he wrote out a ticket or whatever.  I think he was either pissed off because the cars in front of me were going pretty fast; I had slowed down and moved as far from the car as possible when passing, but I was the only one available to vent his spleen on or he was trying to hit a quota and assumed he would find something he could ticket me on, but didn’t and so had to come up with a whopper to excuse the stop.

When my only experience with police are “exceptions”, it makes me wonder how exceptional the experiences actually were.  When I hear of many other stories, including the fact that one of the three cops in our small town at the time hung out on the main street and constantly pulled drivers over and harassed them (whether he chose mostly women or it was just I hung out with women more to hear the complaints, I don’t know) and this went on for years, protests these are exceptions begin to sound hollow.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

46 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Truly, I'm sorry that you went through that experience, especially as a new driver.  Full stop.  That said, everyone (including Your Humble Correspondent) can cite exceptions to the general rule.  However, the mere existence of exceptions, however numerous and however egregious, does not eviscerate the general rule. 

Never implied that.  I just agree with calm that when we are talking about the lives of both the officer and the person who is pulled over it is worth looking to see if there is something better. 

46 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Most people know exactly why they are pulled over, either because the officer says something such as, "Hello.  I'm Officer Smith from Anytown PD.  The reason I stopped you is because ..." or something such as, "Hello.  I'm Officer Smith from Anytown PD.  Do you know why I stopped you?"  (And, by the way, the first is exactly what happened in the officer's body-worn camera video of this encounter.)

I understand that people are not always perfect, but thanks for the reminder.  Again, exceptions, however numerous and however egregious, don't disprove the general rule.  And, surely, when you say "I can try to help" officers "achieve" their objective "but that doesn't mean they will recognize that," I doubt, highly, that you're endorsing Mr. Allan's approach ... are you?  

I am sorry you went through that experience, truly.  That said, the existence of exceptions, however numerous and however egregious, does not disprove the rule.  And, of course, as you yourself admit (at least tacitly and at least impliedly), I am unsure how much really can be gleaned that might be useful for interactions with law enforcement officers in the United States from something that occurred abroad.  

Because people everywhere have misconceptions and communication problems.

46 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Again, I hope you're not endorsing Mr. Allan's approach. 

Nope, and I hope you don't actually think I am, though like I said, I didn't watch the video so I can't say that for sure.  Again, I'm only expressing that when lives are on the line it would be good to see if there is something more we can do.

46 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

We've never met, but I have a hard time believing that you ever would attempt to recite law to an officer, to argue with him, to be belligerent, to be noncompliant, and, most of all, I doubt you have ever armed yourself, not apprised the officer of the presence of your weapon (whatever state law says about such disclosures where you live), issued a veiled threat to the officer ("we're going to have a problem": and remember, it was Mr. Allan who said that), and reached for the weapon after giving the officer no other choice but to extricate you from your vehicle and to arrest you.

Being frightened of encounters with law enforcement may be a natural reaction, but being argumentative, confrontational, combative, and bringing a gun to the encounter and attempting to reach for it after one has given an officer no other choice but to attempt to take you into custody are not.

True enough, but one needn't file a separate action to confront law enforcement in court: If one receives a citation or, heaven forbid, is arrested, one is going to end up in court anyway.

Could officers get more training, and better training?  Perhaps.  In fact, I'm all for more training and better training.  That said, every hour an officer spends in training is an hour when he or she is off the streets and not providing the protection and law enforcement he or she is being paid to provide.

And if that training is really good then sometimes it means we actually don't need as many officers on the street. I remember reading some ASU (I think) research about how when police officers take a very different approach then the defensiveness they usually have it actually makes interactions much more calm and smooth.  They didn't say to drop all defensiveness, but to have officers in key situations which were friendly.  This wasn't talking about traffic stops, but protests or sports games etc which I recognize are different situations than a traffic stop, but I think it would be worthwhile for police agencies to really look into those methods.  

And what is the cost of a life? If one more hour of training a month stops a shooting from happening is it worth it? I would guess just the paperwork for a shooting will take more than an hour.  Yes, I know most officers are not involved in shootings and I'm thinking 1 more hour may not do anything, but it isn't a simple match equation of 1 hour of training = 1 hour on the street.  It is more like more training = less time on the street + a life  + less time needed on the street + less paperwork + less time in court + less officer shooting investigation time + more responsive citizens and support. 

Last year there were 1096 fatal police shootings in the US.  I think, but am not sure, that only includes the officer doing the shooting and it doesn't include where shootings didn't result in death.  I think it's ok and good for us to see if there isn't somewhere we can improve.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Rain

[The Nehor]

I agree that compliance is generally the best option but that we have created a state where many people are taught that compliance with law enforcement is important to avoid getting shot in situations like traffic stops there is something horribly wrong with law enforcement.

[LoudmouthMormon]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

But I also think that we often train them far too little, sometimes hire those who shouldn't be officers and fail to have procedures in place that pull some out of the line of duty when they need it.

I've lost count of the number of cops I've heard who say pretty much exactly the same thing.  Even a police chief.  They all give the same advice: "Our funding isn't up to us - it's up to the legislature, and ultimately to the voter."

The whole 'defund the police' thing was a massive cultural step in the wrong direction.  Two years of paying attention has made it so incredibly transparently obvious, that even politicians who ran on the harnessed energy of voters clamoring for it, have reversed their stances, because the voter energy did also.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I've lost count of the number of cops I've heard who say pretty much exactly the same thing.  Even a police chief.  They all give the same advice: "Our funding isn't up to us - it's up to the legislature, and ultimately to the voter."

The whole 'defund the police' thing was a massive cultural step in the wrong direction.  Two years of paying attention has made it so incredibly transparently obvious, that even politicians who ran on the harnessed energy of voters clamoring for it, have reversed their stances, because the voter energy did also.

No, funding isn’t the problem. Police department funding has been going up pretty much everywhere in the United States. It is what the money is going to that is the problem. While police don’t directly influence the budget city police especially can have an oversized impact on budget allocation. If a mayor is at odds with the police chief the police chief often wins.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/defunding-claims-police-funding-increased-us-cities/story?id=91511971

Many police organizations were disingenuously claiming the “defund” movement was threatening public safety while raking in more money than before.

[rodheadlee]

On 4/5/2023 at 10:37 AM, Tacenda said:

. I don't get these people, do they want to go to Mexico, probably no laws there concerning registration,

They have registration laws in Mexico. They also have traffic cops on motorcycles too. It'll cost you 90 bucks to run a stop sign. Ask me how I know?:-)

 

 

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

They have registration laws in Mexico. They also have traffic cops on motorcycles too. It'll cost you 90 bucks to run a stop sign. Ask me how I know?:-)

 

 

Good to know!! I should know better, son in law is from Mexico.