White Collegedale police officer using a stun gun on a Black Uber Eats driver

[Ohio Joe]

Link to tweet

Seems he was pulled over for supposed speeding, the driver denies speeding. He was charged with Speeding, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest after being tased. The officer is now under investigation... The cop should be in jail.

See the whole thread here:

Link to tweet

[MagickMuffin]

1. Just another RoidRaged Enforcer being racist AF!

"This is unlawful sir"


Yes it was and is. If the driver had been white, no reason to use a taser.

[secondwind]

2. That cop is an ANIMAL!!!!!!!!!

[CurtEastPoint]

3. Fucking Tennessee.

[EYESORE 9001]

12. I would be no more surprised to see something similar

in Massachusetts or California. Those who think this occurs only in red states are in serious denial.

[electric_blue68]

13. Or (no surprise there 😔 ) NYS, even NYC. Racism is still all over. This sure seems of bounds!...

[exboyfil]

4. Thanks to the Supreme Court

It is lawful for cops to order drivers and passengers out of a vehicle at any time for their "safety".

The Mimms decision needs to be overturned and reasonable guidelines need to be established to prevent shit like this.

[iemanja]

9. They usually refuse to let you out of your car

for their "safety." I've sat at the side of the road for a long time during a traffic stop and the cop wouldn't let me out to stretch my legs. Why did this guy have to get out?

[exboyfil]

10. Because the cop is an a_hole

Like I said guidelines. A cop should be forced to articulate a damn good reason to ask the driver and passengers to leave the car, and that reason should involve safety to hold to the spirit of Mimms. Obviously those Republican judges never went through a traffic stop in which the cop was pushing to find a reason to arrest an individual or at least inconvenience and demean them.

[srose58089]

5. Summary of Pennsylvania vs Mimms

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1830

No. In a 6-3 per curiam (sp per curium) decision, the Court held that the search did not violate Mimms' rights under the Fourth Amendment. The Court noted that the officers had already detained Mimms in order to issue him a traffic summons and felt that asking him to exit the vehicle was a minimal and reasonable intrusion of his freedom. Whether the search occurred inside or outside the car was irrelevant to the Court: the officers had stopped Mimms for a legitimate reason and, upon observing the bulge in his jacket, any person of reasonable caution would have conducted the search.

Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that such searches, in order to conform to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, must relate to the reason for the stop. Because the officers had detained Mimms for an expired license plate, searching him for concealed weapons was not within the scope of the stop and therefore made it an unlawful search. Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, filed a separate dissent arguing that the majority opinion gave too much discretion to police officers, allowing them to search detainees whenever they could invent any basis for concern.

"Pennsylvania v. Mimms." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1830. Accessed 18 Mar. 2022.

[iemanja]

8. That means the officer was right in tasing him?

Is that your view? If a black man--and we know it's only black men--refuses to comply he should be met with violence? How about a second citation? It is possible for police to behave as though they were civilized human beings.

[exboyfil]

11. I don't think he means that

It just the presumption switches to the cop because of that f__ked up decision. There is still unequal treatment under the law to consider for one. Right now though they have an absolute right to ask you to exit the car. You refuse to your own peril because it is a coin flip whether your civil rights will be validated via money damages. You could end up dead.

To think that putrid mass is sitting in Justice Marshall's seat. He had it right in his dissent, and we have been living through over forty years of police authoritarism since that decision by the Republican justices.

[srose58089]

14. I did not post my view. I posted a summary from Oyez of the Supreme Court Decision Penns. vs Mimms

FYI I do not agree with the Majority Opinion. I believe this opinion gives the police way too much power. Also I am a retired old white guy (72). I have been pulled over several times by the police in my lifetime and can remember 2 times I was asked to get out of my car. I did comply. If I remember one instance resulted in a speeding ticket and the other a warning for a burnt out brake light.

additional citations:

Supreme Court Reporter
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_v._Mimms

[RandiFan1290]

6. Don't say anything negative about our precious police!!

The right and their 'centrist' allies will get triggered.

[iemanja]

7. These assholes are on nothing more than power trips

They are the dregs of humanity.