1. He was being passive-aggressive. First of all, he failed to comply with the officer. Secondly, he resisted arrest. That sort of thing leads to a taser.

    1. @Cowboys FOS Report Another PD will hire him. But I don’t think he will lose his job. His office is the one who is investing this. The DA is not investigating it.

    2. @Emil Bono not all cops are the same. That’s like saying all black people are the same. Also *here* not as “hear” like your heard something.

    3. @Monarnyc R I don’t know how many black people have been murdered during traffic stops but I’ll bet most of them started the same way this guy did, arguing with the cop instead of simply complying.

    4. @Monarnyc R That situation was unfortunate and stupid on Philando’s part. You can look up the dashcam video from the patrol car. He reached for his wallet right after telling the officer he had a firearm in his possession. The correct procedure is to tell the officer you have one, keep both hands firmly on the wheel, and wait for instruction. The officer will generally ask you where it is and then the situation will go from there. If he had a CCL surely he should have known better.
      What was the officer expected to do in that situation? Not shoot? The guy could have been reaching for his firearm. The officer had grounds to believe he was about to be shot. Hence why the officer involved was acquitted. Anybody looking at that situation from an impersonal perspective would admit as much.
      So that wasn’t a murder. Very few blacks are killed unjustifiably by American police. Any time one is, or any time the media says one is, cities across America burn for weeks. Either way, incompetent police officers who kill people accidentally or unjustifiably are often times prosecuted for their acts. I can’t think of any that haven’t been, but maybe there are. Most of the time, as in Philando’s situation, it was unfortunate but not unjustified.

  2. Wow, a black angle!who can tell me the crime rate among the different groups ? I believe statistic data !

  3. “Call on the Lord in the day of trouble,
    and He will deliver you.”
               – Psalm 50 :15

  4. Isn’t it interesting how often people get charged with Resisting Arrest, but not whatever “crime” they were originally pulled over for?

    1. @michael cederquist yes, that’s exactly what the situation is; it’s America. No longer land of the free, it’s land of the slave.

    2. Yes, that’s one of the reasons why we tell you to just do what the cop says. You’re learning. Very good. 👏👍🙌

  5. What a Gross Mean 👮🏻‍♂️ Thug!!!! Do you think that 👮🏻‍♂️ would be okay with someone treating his son or someone he holds dear like that 🤨

  6. That driver did a phenomenal job. See how quickly the cops paranoia escalated for absolutely no reason at all. Yup. Thats exactly how ego looks….

    1. The driver did a phenominal job of getting himself arrested unnecessarily. If you don’t comply with a cop’s commands you will suffer consequences. That’s a fact of life wherever you go in the world. Arguing with cops is just plain stupid.

    1. That is what I said just give him the ticket. Though I don’t think he was speeding, he was 200 feet from where he was delivering the food. And the Police officer was going in the opposite direction.

  7. Anyone else notice the cop isn’t using his communication device before doing anything. Generally they communicate these actions over dispatch…. . Absolutely rogue ego right here

  8. Let’s see the entire video for the backstory or the Officers bodycam before getting bent out of shape.

    1. @Looping Artist, Just Dave are you an officer? Or maybe you were just there to witness the whole situation?

    2. @Looping Artist, Just Dave “Spoken like a true American…”

      Spoken like a true Nazi. We crushed you once, what makes you think we won’t do it again? Do the think genital mutilation gives you superpowers or something?

    3. @Kevin dude, you obviously didn’t catch what I was trying to say. Look again. 🤔😉

  9. 👆🏿👆🏿OMG saying thank you is not enough to show my respect to you, it an honor to work with you cause you made it póssible

  10. If your response to a cop’s command is to argue with him instead of complying then you are probably going to be forced to comply and that might hurt (allot). That’s the way it works, period. It doesn’t matter what color you are although the race baiter who wrote the title wants it to seem that way.

  11. In the video, the officer never stated that the individual was under arrest or that he was going to be detained. Granted the whole incident isn’t captured in the video, based on what we see the individual wasn’t required to exit the vehicle. The officer stated that he failed to give his information, but clearly the individual had his license in his hand. Now I’m not a lawyer, but it seemed to me that the individual was a bit too chatty and pissed off the officer which then escalated the situation. With that being said, I don’t believe the use of non-lethal force was warranted by the officer to rip the individual from the driver seat.


  13. The Court then outlined the now-familiar procedures that law enforcement officers would have to follow thereafter. They would have to tell persons in custody that they have the right to remain silent, that they have the right to an attorney, that if they cannot afford an attorney the court will appoint an attorney, and that anything they say can be used in a criminal prosecution.

    Ultimately, the Court held that statements made by a criminal suspect in custody would not be admissible at trial unless the suspect had made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his legal rights after being apprised of the various legal rights and after being given an opportunity to exercise those rights. The majority assured the law enforcement community that it did not intend to hamper criminal investigations and prosecutions. The Court pointed out that interrogations were still a perfectly legitimate investigative tool, that questioning a suspect without advising the suspect of legal rights before taking the suspect into custody was still legitimate, and that volunteered statements were likewise legitimate.

    Justice tom clark dissented to the decisions with respect to all defendants except the one whose conviction was upheld. According to Clark, the Court should have continued to accept the totality of the circumstances test for determining whether a defendant’s statements or confession were made voluntarily. Clark concluded that only the defendant whose conviction was upheld gave a confession that was not voluntary.

    Justices john m. harlan, Potter Stewart, and byron r. white dissented in all the cases. In an opinion authored by Harlan, the dissent argued that the majority had exaggerated the evils of normal police questioning. According to Harlan, “Society has always paid a stiff price for law and order, and peaceful interrogation is not one of the dark moments of the law.”

    Another dissent by White argued that the majority had gone too far in imposing such procedural requirements on the law enforcement community. White predicted that the new procedures would prevent the early release of the truly innocent because they discourage statements that would quickly explain a situation. According to White, the procedures were “a deliberate calculus to prevent interrogations, to reduce the incidence of confessions and pleas of guilty and to increase the number of trials.” “I have no desire whatsoever,” wrote White, “to share the responsibility for any such impact on the present criminal process.”

    The Miranda case was remarkable in at least two ways. The opinion mandated important procedural changes that had to be followed by every law enforcement official across the country. In addition, the majority opinion’s survey of interrogation tactics sent a rare notice to the law enforcement community that the Court was aware of, and would not tolerate, abuse in interrogation.

    Two years after the decision in Miranda, congressional anger at the decision led to the passage of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3501 (1996), which restored voluntariness as a test for admitting confessions in federal court. The u.s. justice department, however, under attorneys general of both major political parties, refused to enforce the provision, believing the law to be unconstitutional. The law lay dormant for several decades until the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999 ruled that Congress had the constitutional authority to pass the law. United States v. Dickerson, 166 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 1999).

    The Supreme Court disagreed with the Fourth Circuit. In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled that because Miranda had been based on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Congress did not have the constitutional authority to overrule the decision through legislation. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 120 S. Ct. 2326, 147 L. Ed. 2d 405 (2000). In addition, the Court refused to overrule Miranda. Chief Justice william h. rehnquist, who has been a frequent critic of the decision, wrote the majority opinion that upheld the decision. According to Rehnquist, the ruling had become “part of our national culture” with respect to law enforcement.

    However, the Miranda holding has been pared down by the High Court. In 1985 the Court held that if a defendant makes an incriminating statement without the Miranda warning and then later receives the Miranda warning and confesses, the confession should not be excluded from trial (Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 S. Ct. 1285, 84 L. Ed. 2d 222 [1985]).

    In Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 110 S. Ct. 2394, 110 L. Ed. 2d 243 (1990), the Court held that the Miranda warning is not required when a suspect who is unaware that he or she is speaking to a law enforcement officer gives a voluntary statement. In Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 113 S. Ct. 1745, 123 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1993), the Court held that a prisoner can not base a Habeas Corpus petition on the failure of law enforcement to give Miranda rights before interrogation.

    In Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 106 S. Ct. 1135, 89 L. Ed. 2d 410 (1986), however, the Court appeared to return to the totality of the circumstances test. In Moran, a lawyer representing a criminal suspect, Brian Burbine, called the police station while Burbine was in custody. The lawyer was told that Burbine would not be questioned until the next day. In fact, Burbine was questioned that day, and he confessed, without requesting the lawyer and after being told his Miranda rights. According to the Court, the conduct of the police fell “short of the kind of misbehavior that so shocks the sensibilities of civilized society as to warrant a federal intrusion into the criminal processes of the States.” Although law enforcement had not given Burbine a full opportunity to exercise his right to an attorney, a 6–3 majority of the Court concluded that, on the facts of the case, the incriminating statements were made voluntarily and that excluding them was therefore not required.

    In 2002, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider a case involving the question of whether police officers are required to give criminal suspects their Miranda rights even if the suspects are never brought to trial. In 1997, Oliverio Martinez, a farm worker, was shot and injured by police officers during a struggle. A police sergeant, Ben Chavez, questioned Martinez for 45 minutes while the latter lay in a hospital bed. Chavez never gave Martinez his Miranda warnings, and Martinez insisted that he did not want to answer the questions.

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that this questioning violated Martinez’s constitutional rights, thus allowing him to recover under 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983 (Supp. 2003). Martinez v. City of Oxford, 270 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2001). However, a sharply divided Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision on appeal. chavez v. martinez, 123 S. Ct. 1994, 155 L. Ed. 2d 984 (2003). Although the Court in Chavez did not overrule Miranda, the Court further limited the scope of the decision by holding that the failure by the officer to read Martinez’s Miranda warnings did not violate Martinez’s constitutional rights and could not be used as a basis for recovery under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. According to the Court, per Justice Clarence Thomas, Miranda warnings merely offer protection against violations of constitutional rights, but the failure to provide these warnings is not itself a constitutional violation. Moreover, because Martinez was never required to be a witness against himself in a criminal trial, the fact that the officer asked coercive questions did not violate Martinez’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to the Court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.