>Sir, please hand me your thinkpad.
>But, muh freedoms!
>Sir, I won't ask you again.
>give up thinkpad
>sir you need to give me your password
>no i don't
>sir you're under arrest
>RMS warps to your location
>"Allow me to interject for a moment!"
>roundhouse kicks all the cops
>"thank you RMS!"
>"install gentoo and never lose your way."
>polite cop pulls over urban youth for speeding, asking for license and registration
>urban youth is a keyboard warrior who makes it tough for cop
>"is speeding a crime"
>"can you prove that I'm driving"
>"no I'm not, I'm travelling"
>cop asks at least 10 times for drivers license and registration
>gets tired of urban youth, goes full terminator and puts hand on window and pulls to break it
>"this is assault, I do not consent"
>cop tazes the urban youth
That's only half of the video too.
>Cop overstepped his boundaries
How so? There was more than probable cause to seize him to investigate a possible violation of the law, ie. speeding. The officer gave a lawful order to provide regulatory information to determine lawful operation of a vehicle on public roads. When the lawful order was not complied with the officer used proportionate force necessary, in reasonable stages of escalation to give the citizen the opportunity to comply with lawful orders, to investigate a possible violation of the law.
>I'd personally think a lock smith would be the next step
Let me see if I understand this correctly. You think that the police should involve an innocent and uninvolved bystander?
And put the locksmith at hazard of passing vehicles, a flipped out driver who might be trying everything to not go back to jail, etc.
The cops wait before the suspect is apprehended before calling tow truck drivers for a reason yet clearly you know better than everyone else.
He's obviously not a threat and opening up a passenger side door isn't putting him in harms way
it's not like the locksmith wouldn't be aware of the situation beforehand and could choose not take the job
>isn't putting him in harms way
And yet you think it is a good idea to put an innocent person in possible harm's way.
Do you just hate cops or does your brain really work on this myopically?
Like I said the locksmith isn't in harms way opening the passenger side door to a speeder knowing the situation at hand he can choose not to be a part of
Smashing a window like that puts both the cop and suspect at risk of unintended injury, we saw the same situation happen not to long ago with a passenger hit the news and several small children had glass flying at them when the cops had a multitude of choices to handle the situation
>Like I said the locksmith isn't in harms way opening the passenger side door
Just like cop's aren't in harms way at a regular traffic stop. No one ever knows when a driver is going to flip his wig. Except you since you are a perfect being with perfect understanding of everything.
That would be a "yes, my brain does actually work this myopically." It is clear that facts and logic are wasted on you so further response to your posts other than to ridicule your idiocy is a waste of time.
This is one of those people who live "off the grid", right? Not paying taxes and not having official documentation and shit. They usually have this weird "understanding" of the law.
Car windows are designed to shatter easily to aid emergency services, and cops, apparently.
I think it's why so many places try to crack down on illegal tint jobs, because they might mess with the impact resistance of the windows.
What do these MUH RIGHTS idiots expect to gain from being an asshole to a non-belligerent cop?
>"ohh! your knowledge of the law is impressive. I was wrong to pull you over you're free to go citizen"
said no officer ever
>suspect is a batshit crazy redneck
>"well why dun you go to yer pickup an git yer rifle and we's can haves us a good ol fashun shootout boy howdy"
>suspect is a passive aggressive black dude or college douchebag
>"FUCKIN TAZER IMMEDIATELY OMG"
Pigs gonna pig.
i'd like to say this is too dumb to be true, but i've seen dumber things