[paintrayne]

These are not the most sympathetic victims so people shit on them. Welcome to the USA. It's a real shame because the escalation of force there was entirely unnecessary. Some comments even sarcastically ask, what should the police have done with the kid who refused to get out? Just leave?

Obviously not. But the kid wasn't going anywhere and they could have waited for a legal guardian or negotiated further before escalating with the use of force. Not to mention the gratuitous use of TASER when the kid was attempting to comply.

Unfortunately, my ultimate take away is that people who object to police abuse are in the minority. If someone is perceived as a punk or criminal, it is open season. Democracy at its finest.

I'd really like to hear from a European counterpart how they think this scenario would have gone down across the pond. Not like this, I am sure.

What good are cameras and recordings if the citizens are OK with what they see?

[gregsq]

>I'd really like to hear from a European counterpart how they think this scenario would have gone down across the pond. Not like this, I am sure.

I've been pulled over twice in the UK. The first time was a fair time back when I had a cheap old Saab. I was out very late near Hampstead Heath and I overtook a car, definitely exceeding the speed limit. As I did that I spotted a police panda ( car ) parked on the side, and I thought I was in for some kind of penalty. I went back to the speed limit and he caught me up. He kindly explained that my number plate wasn't to the most recent regulations and that I should have them replaced. I thanked him very much and was on my way. That's the nice end of town.

The other time I was visiting a friend who lived in the opposite side of the fence, near Brixton, an area known for trouble sometimes. I saw a police car behind me but was near his estate so pulled over and turned off the engine to call him to let him know I was downstairs and waiting. A sergeant knocked on my window and I was surrounded by four police. I explained that I was calling my friend, and the sergeant said that I should finish my call and I should wait. Took a few seconds, and then I hopped out if the car. They kept their distance. Apparently they thought my behaviour was suspicious because I'd pulled in and turned off my lights and engine. I explained to the police that within the past two days the law had changed so that it had become illegal to talk on a mobile phone while the engine is on. They said that they didn't know that, and we wished each other good night and my friend and I went to the pub.

Oh one more. My Peugeot 205 had an issue with the spare wheel being accessible to thieves. I walked up to my car and was shocked to see my spare wheel inside on the back seat. At first I thought a thief was playing tricks. It was a walking Bobbie who'd disturbed someone trying to make off with it apparently, and who had kindly broken into my car, put the wheel in and then locked it up for me.

Peel chose blue for the police so as to distinguish them from the red of the military, who were armed and not well trusted. Police were not armed for the same general reason, to be part of the community.

[edit punctuation]

[aidos]

I was talking to a cop in London about this today. They had a stall in the local shopping, doing a "Cuppa with a Coppa" campaign.

When I came to the UK 12 years ago I was shocked to discover a police force that seemed interested in keeping everyone safe and happy. Since then, every single interaction I've had with the police here has been overwhelmingly positive.

I once ran a red light on my bike in a really stupid way and came very close to getting myself killed. Cop on a motorbike pulled next to me and said "I think you'd better pull over, sunshine" (literally, I thought it was so brilliant I still remember the words). Instead of being a dick about it he said something along the lines of, you know that was stupid, just be more careful out here because we don't want you getting hurt.

Back in NZ, not so much.

I was once tripped from behind and bundled against the wall by police for not walking fast enough. There was a protest march and the cop said that I wasn't allowed to walk at the same pace if I was on the footpath. Told her I lived on the street (which I did) and was going to follow along with the march until my house.

At that point she tapped my foot as I walked so I would fall over. I was a bit surprised, then she did it again. After 2 or 3 attempts I hit the ground and was then bundled against the wall. There were tv cameras there so they gathered around and I was released after she tried justifying it to her superior officer.

It's not like I was hurt or anything, but you have to ask yourself, what's the point? How does that in any way help you in your role of keeping people safe?

That's not even a bad story as it goes (I have plenty of others from my, and my friend's interactions).

There's a stark difference in the cultures. In the UK, if a cop can diffuse a situation, they've done a good job (one better if they get people screaming with joy [0]). In NZ they seem to like the power trip (I know that's a total generalisation).

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-E_tikSXfc

[e12e]

Nice anecdotes (I really mean that, not being ironic). I am pretty sure most of Europe is a little less crazy than many parys of the US; but lets not forget that London police shot a guy for the crime of running with a backpack not that long ago[1]. Granted, the justification was terrorism - but it's not as if you can't be abused by police in Europe.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menez...

[gregsq]

I don't and won't forget that event. It was part of a tendency to hysteria that prevailed at the time. I read the report on it, and there were many flaws in organisation, communication and action, from the commander level down. There's certainly a thin blue line, and crossing it can lead to trouble. But not trouble with weapons usually.

Occasionally when a police officer is shot the tabloids and even the public can be more inclined towards arming the police. Perhaps counter intuitively, it is the police themselves that decline the offer. The reason for that is that policing requires the cooperation of the public to be better effective, according to those police who find the Peel approach effective.

I was only sharing an anecdote or two. Just to show that getting along helps to keep things civil. It becomes even enjoyable.

[fit2rule]

>I'd really like to hear from a European counterpart how they think this scenario would have gone down across the pond. Not like this, I am sure.

In Germany I'm quite sure the police would have waited politely and patiently until the parents arrived.

(Well, I'm also pretty sure they wouldn't have stopped and attempted violent arrest of someone for having a broken light above their license plate...)

[oh_sigh]

I'm guessing that your views prevent you from seeing this situation for what it was.

No one was being violently arrested for having a broken light. They were arrested because they refused to step out of the car, and put up a fight when the officer tried to get them to come out of the car.

The officer claimed to have smelled marijuana, and so had probable cause to ask the person to step out of the car and perform a search. The driver of the car was previously arrested for marijuana possession, so perhaps it was possible that the officer was telling the truth, and did smell marijuana?

You may disagree with marijuana prohibition (I do), and the idea that a smell implies probable cause, but that is the law as it is today. You don't have a right to refuse that, or demand that the officer must wait until your mother shows up. Even so, we have no idea how long it would take the mother to show up. How long should an officer wait before being allowed to ask a 17 year old to step out of a car for probable cause?

[fit2rule]

These folks were not being arrested, they were being detained while the officers determined if there was probable cause - only because the officers claimed they smelled marijuana coming from the car.

Any officer can make that claim, its a BS claim that is used to justify aggressive force and to try to trip up a suspect into doing something stupid that would warrant further application of force. And that is precisely what happened here.

> perhaps it was possible that the officer was telling the truth, and did smell marijuana?

Innocent until proven guilty. Lots of things smell like marijuana. Hot rubber tires can sometimes give off a similar odor. Maybe it was some other car that drove by, and the officers were being prejudiced because they recognized her from a previous arrest? We can play the 'maybe' game an infinite number of ways - its up to the officers, who are using force, to justify that force.

>How long should an officer wait before being allowed to ask a 17 year old to step out of a car for probable cause?

You have a right to stay in the car until the officer determines probable cause. The smell of marijuana is a tactic used by police to try to upset you and provoke you into doing something that might give them probably cause to arrest you. These people had every right to stay in the car, ask if they were being detained and if they were free to go. The police used the threat of arrest to induce conditions that allowed them to use force - and this is, unfortunately, such a common form of social engineering by the police that people have just come to accept complacency as the only possible 'correct' response.

Stand your ground and know your rights. They're only trying to provoke you into doing something they can then use to justify their force. Know these phrases and use them well:

“AM I FREE TO GO?”

“I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY SEARCHES,”

“I WANT TO REMAIN SILENT,”

“I WANT A LAWYER.”

[oh_sigh]

> These folks were not being arrested, they were being detained

Yes, and you still need to follow lawful orders when being detained. You can't say "I'm not getting out of the car until my mother arrives, understand?". You can't pull back when an officer tries to forcefully remove you from the car, or put up your fists as if you are going to punch the officer. You can't do that 10+ times and imagine that you will not get maced/tased/etc.

> Any officer can make that claim, its a BS claim that is used to justify aggressive force

You know, isn't it weird that the officer had this "BS" claim, and it turns out that the person who was tasered did have marijuana on him, and was charged with possession and intent to sell? Source: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/04/10/virginia-police-in...

> Innocent until proven guilty

It was a reasonable search because there was probable cause.

> its up to the officers, who are using force, to justify that force.

The officers didn't use force until the person started resisting their orders. If he would have just stepped out of the car, and let the cops search him(where they would eventually find the marijuana he was planning on selling), no force would have been necessary. He would have just been arrested and charged with intent to sell. Now he has resisting arrest on his record too.

> The smell of marijuana is a tactic used by police to try to upset you

Or, you know, the officer did actually smell marijuana. I agree with you that a cop can make up the reason, but that cops can never smell weed, and it doesn't seem to be the case here since there actually was marijuana in the car.

> These people had every right to stay in the car

No, they didn't. Probable cause was established and the officers were within their rights to ask them to step out of the car so a search could be performed.

> They're only trying to provoke you into doing something they can then use to justify their force

No. They did not provoke the kid to refuse to get out of the car, and they did not provoke him to pull away multiple times when pulling him out of the car.

[shaneofalltrad]

Seems like this is the issue in the US. Police are no longer tactful and use the same techniques that might make sense on someone drugged out or of a threat or danger to someone or the officer. They need to be retrained in civil duties, and respect of more typical citizens or non-violent situations. I personally have had a few instances growing up back in the 90's (Southern California), as a white and this is not a racist thing (most of the times), it is a power thing that has been a problem for years. Many people are scared of cops and that's because some don't respect us. I believe that these two teens are legitimately scared of what will happen to them away from the camera, and based on the officers excessive use of force, their instincts where correct.

[jacquesm]

People in Europe (Western Europe, unfortunately not all police forces are equal in this respect) are generally less afraid of being physically abused by the police which is why they'd have much less of a problem to do things like getting out of the car (a young person might feel safer in their car than out of it when confronting a police officer from a police force they do not trust).

[mixmax]

In Denmark it would be a major disaster, people would get fired, hearings would be held, and media discussion would ensue.

As a comparison: In 2012 (the latest year I could find data for) Danish police fired a total of 49 shots over the year.

[plongeur]

"Danish Police Beating Unarmed, Disengaged, Kneeling Civilians"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4xlfiEzx14

[PhantomGremlin]

> Danish police fired a total of 49 shots over the year

A few points to consider:

1) Denmark population 5.7 million. USA population 320 million. The USA has a number of metropolitan areas with more people than the entire country of Denmark.

2) Denmark is probably a lot more homogenous than the USA. The USA has been a "melting pot" for immigrants (legal, illegal, former slave, religious zealot, etc) for hundreds of years. Things are going to be a little "rowdier" here than in the "old world".

[plongeur]

"female and male police officers arresting a black guy in Denmark"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXDExhjrMd4

[plongeur]

I don't think so. If a Danish police officer tells somebody to leave the car and that person refuses - do you think they will back down and call it a night?

[oh_sigh]

Does the officer need to wait for a legal guardian if the person is 17?

[craigmccaskill]

No, they do not.

The officer should have made that clear to the 17 year old, part of the problem seems to be that the kid thinks he's protected by the fact that his mother isn't present. This leads to resistance which could be seen as justification for the escalation.

You would hope that the police officer was fully aware of the kids rights and part of their job should be to calmly explain the situation and try to defuse any possible conflict. Regardless of any law breaking here by either side (not going to pass judgement on that) this police officer is really bad at his job.

[fit2rule]

The answer is: yes.

[oh_sigh]

You are completely incorrect, and you should research your claims before posting on the internet. Minors have a right to access to their legal guardians when they are under arrest, not when they are being detained.

[fit2rule]

Clearly, he was being arrested. Or did you think that a tasing and handcuffing were just standard practice for detainment?

[oh_sigh]

You have a right to the presence of your legal guardian once you are under arrest, and the process is not immediate. You can't demand your mothers presence in the back seat of a cop car. You can at the station though, for example.

You don't have the right when you are in the process of being arrested, especially if you are actively resisting arrest.