[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.