There is a disturbing video of a Campbell, California police officer who points his gun at a man in a vehicle for nine minutes during a traffic stop despite the objections of the occupants that they had done nothing to warrant that level of threat.
-
Warning: the video contains foul language.
The video below was taken after a stop on U.S. Route 101 for speeding (at 85 miles per hour). After a few minutes, the officer went back to his motorcycle to write the ticket and then returned. That much is in agreement. The officer says that upon returning he spotted the men in the passenger reaching below the seat. The police department stated “It is not clear why the passenger chose to reach under the seat since the officer was not requesting any other paperwork. Unfortunately, the passenger’s unexpected movement towards the bottom of the seat, caused the officer to perceive a threat and draw his handgun.”
The video below however shows the couple demanding to know why the officer was continuing to threaten them with a gun and the officer telling them not to move.
The officer insists that he will keep the gun trained on them until back up arrives even though the couple offers to get out of the car. At one point the officer refers to a screwdriver on the floor.
Nothing would have come from this except that it was posted and millions of people viewed it. Now the department is saying that they will look into it.
You really can not tell with the information presented if the officer’s actions are proper.
I would give the benefit of the doubt to the officer as things can turn deadly in a split second.
The big question is why was the passenger acting the way he was. Cursing and belligerent towards the officer. Acting that that certainly will not help the situation.
Take a look at this video. Investigating a theft one second the next in a gun fight fighting for your life.
This occurred in Las Vegas.
Here is the press conference of the above shooting.
There is insufficient information here or in the linked news article to make a determination as to whether this use of force is warranted.
The necessary information, among others pertinent, will be what the traffic stop was for, was the passenger or the driver a known threat to law enforcement such as prior incidents or the presence of a felony warrant, and the nature of any furtive movement which I assume was the reaching under the seat.
Just because the person at the end of the barrel makes protests does not mean the officer is unjustified in pointing a weapon.
The nine minutes is not unusual in that if the officer is waiting for backup and universally the procedure is to hold fast and await backup because if an arrest is to be made or the scene secured it is more safe to use two or more to secure a suspect rather than individually cuff them up. Sometimes the distances are so long between backup that taking a high-risk suspect into custody is unfortunately necessary but the risk is highly greater.
Holding a dangerous person at gunpoint is not unusual in the law enforcement world. For me within about three weeks after I was hired, during a routine traffic stop I took a suspect who had a nationwide arrest warrant for aggravated assault and I held him at gunpoint for probably ten minutes until my backup arrived. The situation is not uncommon depending on the area worked and the crime rate involved.
I’d trust Darren on this topic.
I may have missed it, but the words “reaching under the seat” are not spoken in the citizen’s video.
The passenger and the officer both use the words “on the floor” and “papers on the floor” and the officers says, “I see papers on the floor” and I see a screwdriver on the floor.”
The words reaching under the seat apparently derive from an after the fact explaination. Additionally, does the officer have a body camera? if yes, where is that footage?
What, if anything, are the written training manual procedures for such a stop? What, if anything, are the oral or academy training procedures for such a stop? What history, if any, does the police department maintain on such stops?
A personal note: I lived and worked ( owned two business) in the San Francisco, Northern California area from 1968 to 2015. Traveling 85 m.p.h. on Route 101 or almost any Bay Counties highroad – freeway is staying with the flow of traffic, more often than not … particularly during commute times … allowing for congestion.
When I read this “blog” I am often struck by the emotional, political reactions to legal or constitutional principles.
Facts, reasons, critical, deliberate thinking …
We don’t see what prompted the cop to unholster his weapon, assuming the passenger did start to reach under the seat, the cop’s caution – in light of all the recent assassinations of officers – was perfectly understandable. What we DO see in the video is the passenger putting on a show for the camera, repeatedly arguing with the cop and demanding justification on-the-spot for the cop’s reaction. The car’s occupants are jerks. Maybe not dangerous, but I don’t blame the cop at all for not risking his life by letting them move about inside the car, reach into whatever crevice, etc. on the claim they’re trying to produce registration docs.
Gun pointed at passenger for ten minutes because cop is scared.
Was aiming the gun at the man’s chest by the book? Cops frequently claim accidental discharge. Aim the the gun over a few degrees while the empty hands are in sight. Citizens are not inmates. Cops freak seeing a gun but citizens are supposed to remain calm. The police department is backing the cop 100% saying the only unusual thing was the length of time due to heavy traffic for backup to arrive. They say they have video that shows the people and the cop sing kumbaya together but won’t release it. ( really they do, except the singing part)
This is my issue. Since the officer perceived a threat, I have no problem with him unholstering his weapon, BUT hold the pistol at high-ready. He had the muzzle pointed directly at the man in the passenger seat for much of the stop. If he was trained that way, that’s a problem.
All the other posts,about calling the officer “bro” and swearing is just nonsense. As the late George Thompson (who was a police officer himself and conducted seminars for police all over the country) once said, “If you’re a police officer, you’re in the shit takin’ business,” in reply to an officer who said he “didn’t have to take that shit.”
What’s striking is the inability of the cop to de-escalate a tense situation. The cop is reacting to his own fear, but has completely tuned out the fear he is causing. Having a gun pointed at you causes intense fear, and can induce panic that makes the situation veer out of control. The cop seems totally unaware of what the man in the passenger seat is experiencing….the cop cannot empathize, which means he has “tunnelled” into an aggressive-defensive shell emotionally. The cop should be able to control his emotions, and give the man in the car choices that can de-escalate. The cop can’t do that. Poor training. I hope I never get pulled over by such a timid, anti-social cop.
The cop seems totally unaware of what the man in the passenger seat is experiencing….the cop cannot empathize, which means he has “tunnelled” into an aggressive-defensive shell emotionally.
The driver and her passenger seem totally unaware of what the officer is experiencing. Did the officer receive a briefing that day about recent incidences in traffic stops where officers encountered scenarios just like this one but did not survive because they did not pay attention to detail? Keep in mind these two upstanding citizens chose to violate the law and as a result find themselves on the side of the road badgering the officer.
POLICE, n. An armed force for protection and participation.
If only more people could empathize with the cop! No one likes having a gun pointed at them because no one likes to feel their life at risk. Yet people think nothing of having dark-tinted windows and reaching below their seat when stopped by a cop: rampant stupidity! Try stepping into his shoes: you have to pull a car over, your car and uniform alerts it’s occupants to your authority, you don’t know whether the occupant is an escaped felon or psychotic murderer. Now act accordingly! You’ll get the idea, fast if you even try! You have no “right to remain stupid!”
Turley
You are slipping with your selective editing of stories here again. The officer saw something that he equated to a potential threat, called for backup, and was perfectly civil explaining the issues to the two. The passenger started the old, ‘I’m filming you for the big lawsuit’, routine. It took longer than normal for backup to arrive, nine min. Then the officer explained why he held them at gunpoint. Then the two understood and accepted what happened. Then the two apologized. They got their tickets and were on their way. This might have been the most even handed handled incident ever. Yet Turley pulls an NPR. By the way, NPR still has more credibility than any of the right wing units.
I suspect the officer was appllying an in-house procedures manual to the letter.
Drive 20 mph over the speed limit and they be a snotty adolescent to the cop who pulls you over. You’ll likely get just what the rule book allows, good and hard.
But the real criminal was the cop. Didn’t the government school that you attended educate you to the fact that the government can not force you to provide information that can be used to incriminate you? (the 5th amendment
Former Deputy Sheriff Eddy Craig – Right to Travel – Traffic Stop Script – Washington State Law
What so-called “information”? I always understood driving was a highly-regulated privilege,not a right.The passenger was acting like a bonehead and eventually acknowledged same.Give me a break.The paramount factor here was the officer’s expectation to return home safely to his family after his shift rather than in a body bag.
Good post Drifter. It would appear InalienableWrights stopped his civics education once he studied the basics of natural rights. While that’s a good start, eventually he’ll need to learn how those rights are to be secured in civil society different from living in the state of nature.
“Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us?
The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents.
We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.”
—Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting, Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972)
No problem, but when you act in a manner that the cop perceives as a threat, don’t be offended when he treats you as a threat.
Let’s begin with the fact the woman was violating the law with excessive speed, very likely 20 mph over the limit. Then they do the one thing every officer’s radar is tuned to, reaching under the seat. Now the officer does not feel secure in continuing the stop without backup. The video shows the officer clearly demonstrating trigger management. Then the passenger stupidly decides he will put on a performance for the camera and verbally assault the officer.
Any lessons learned? Don’t speed. If you are going to speed, then you run the risk of being pulled over by LE, who are armed. LE will ask for license, registration and insurance. Don’t hide that documentation under the seat. They will expect every stop to be a potential risk for deadly force. Hint: that’s why they are armed. Don’t act belligerent; especially when you are told your actions resulted in the officer assessing the situation required back up and he unholstered his weapon. Make your case in court, not on the side of the road.
So “breaking the law” warrants the use of deadly force by your employee?
Why don’t you go live on North Korea, where everyone is a cop sucker like yourself….. Americans are idiots the government schools have made sure that they know nothing about the principles that this country was founded upon.
I am betting you are not aware at all of how many “laws” cops break when they pull you over and demand that you provide incriminating evidence? I guess in your mind, that would warrant the car’s occupants pointing weapons at the cop?
Former Deputy Sheriff Eddy Craig – Right to Travel – Traffic Stop Script – Washington State Law
So “breaking the law” warrants the use of deadly force by your employee?
Yes, every stop requires the officer to use deadly force. He must use their blood to write the ticket.
Brilliant! The best time to argue your infringement of rights is after your actions violated the privilege and responsibility you accepted when getting your license and registration. Should the woman have not pulled over in the first place? Perhaps you believe the passenger should have jumped out of the vehicle with his unlicensed weapon and simply told the officer he had not right to pull them over; you know, violating the principles this country was founded on and all. And of course the officer, being a solid constitutionalist (and unarmed) would have said what was I thinking? You’re right! My apologies. Have a nice day. And then everyone lived happily ever after. The end.
Olly – there was a time when I could have outrun the cops. However, these newer cars don’t have the horse-power.
“Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us?
The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents.
We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.”
—Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting, Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972)
The last time I got pulled over (forgot to renew my tags) I kept my hands on the wheel. When the officer wanted to see my proof of insurance (on my phone) I said “do you mind if I reach for my glasses?” It’s terrible that weapons have gotten so out of hand that one must first ask permission to do the littlest thing such as grab one’s glasses, lest the officer come to the wrong conclusion.
“Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us?
The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents.
We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.”
—Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting, Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972)
InalienableWrights – two things: Douglas was writing for the losing side. And it is easier and smoother to go with the flow with some authority figures (the ones that are armed).
Tell the Jews in Auschwitz your theory. Going along with tyranny and crime always results in more tyranny and more crime….
InalienableWrights – you need to read a lot more history before you use that analogy.
How do government employees get powers that citizens to not have and therefore could not have been delegated to them? Brandishing a weapon is a crime even if you wear a blue colored costume.
InalienableWrights – if the officer thought there was a possibility there was a weapon under the seat he had ever right to do what he did. I know the offer of existing the car seems reasonable, but not when there are bucket seats. At this point, a single officer loses control of the situation. Given the fact presentation, the officer did the right thing.
I don’t have that right Paul. I do not have the right to point a weapon at someone because there just might be the chance that they have access to a weapon….. If so I could point my weapon at every cop that I saw.
So in this country founded upon the principle that government gets it;s rights from the consent of the governed, how did the governed delegate a right to the police that they do not possess?
I really wish statists and cop sukers would engage their brains before they open their mouths…
http://missourifreepress.com/
So in this country founded upon the principle that government gets it;s rights from the consent of the governed, how did the governed delegate a right to the police that they do not possess?
It’s one thing to be informed about natural rights as they exist in the state of nature, but you need to also study social contract theory and how individual natural rights are effected when we leave the state of nature and enter into civil society. This is not intended to excuse the abuses of our current weaponized, administrative state. What has happened is the citizen has no idea what those limits should be in the first place.
No GD it I am talking about the principles that this country was founded upon.
You 2 are too dumbed down to even recognize moral relativism when it slaps you in the face.
This country was not founded upon moral relativism (i.,e. that all men are NOT created equal) but Anton Lavey’s Church of Satan has adopted moral relativism as one of its major planks. Very worrisome that you think that our “police” should be based upon a pillar of the church of Satan and not the philosophical ideas in the Declaration of Independance! Your arguments for doing the wrong thing are shite.
No GD it I am talking about the principles that this country was founded upon…This country was not founded upon moral relativism
LOL! Somehow you taking the Lord’s name in vain to make some Church of Satan point IS moral relativism. Nicely done!
Apparently I’m too dumbed down to recognize moral relativism when it occurs. But I am willing to learn. So please try to make clear for me what principles that this country was founded upon would address this particular traffic stop?
Good to have you back, Paul.
Nick – thanks Nick. 🙂
I now ask permission to reach for any documentation in my vehicle and wait for them to agree that I can do it.
Reblogged this on Matthews' Blog.
The culture has changed in the past forty years. My registration is in the glove compartment, not under the seat. Several years ago I was pulled over for a minor traffic violation. I kept my hands on the steering wheel so the officer could see that I was in no way a threat. I know not everyone agrees with me, but I have no pity on this moron.
The cop is just doing what the so called president told cops to do. “Rough ’em up. Don’t be so nice,” he said. Why shouldn’t a person pulled over ask the cop why he has a gun aimed at him. There was no reason for it except that the gun made the cop feel like a tough guy–common among wimps. He should be fired.
.
“…he said.” Who is “he?”
The cop is just doing what the so called president told cops to do. “Rough ’em up. Don’t be so nice,”
You’re evidently dedicated to giving the other posters displays of what a knucklehead looks like.
Cussing at, arguing with, and calling a police man “bro” while the police man has a loaded gun pointed at him. Tats all over his L hand. Brilliant? Not.
You can’t pay me money to take my hands off the steering wheel during encounter with a police person, especially one with a Napolean complex like this little guy. Exception is of course to get license and reg.
What’s wrong with tats?
Capstone Stable – maybe it is a new category of ‘stop and frisk.’ They already have driving while black and driving while brown (Hispanic). Now they are adding driving with tats.
The people who get tatooed wish to present themselves in a certain way. No, they’re not trying to tell you they’re Lawrence Welk fans.
When is it advisable to act in a belligerent manner when pulled over for driving 85 miles an hour and then reaching under the front seat?