A video that captured the brutal arrest of a Black college student pulled from his car and beaten by officers in Florida has led to an investigation and calls for motorists to consider protecting themselves by placing a camera inside their vehicles.
The footage shows that William McNeil Jr., 22, was sitting in the driver’s seat, asking to speak to the Jacksonville deputies’ supervisor, when authorities broke his window, punched him in the face, pulled him from the vehicle, punched him again and threw him to the ground.
No. There are a lot of circumstances where you can refuse to ID. A traffic stop for a specific infraction isn’t one of them. There’s actually a lot that goes into the courts trying to strike a reasonable balance.
Wait, am I crazy, or did I literally give an example of a situation where you don’t have to ID in the comment you’re replying to? I feel like probably the useful content of this conversation is at an end…
It wasn’t raining.
There was no reason for them to escalate.
This is a common tactic used to go after people of color, it isn’t remotely new.
Why in the absolute fuck are you advocating for people to just swallow fucking boot all the damn time?
Challenging this nonsense is the way, historically, any change has happened. You are just arguing against people doing the right thing and saying “but its OK because cops are taught to do this”.
No shit. Thats the fucking problem. He knew what was happening and what would happen, thats why he asked for a supervisor.
The fact that you think this would have gone substantially better for him by just complying shows a complete and utter ignorance of the history of policing.
Or approval of the entire history of policing.
“Can I see your ID?”
“Sure, here you go. You know this is bullshit, though. It’s not raining.”
“HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT TO ME YOU DIRTY (baton strike) FILTHY (baton strike) MOTHER (baton strike) FUCKER”
I mean, maybe. That’s kind of how it used to be, I grew up during that time, it happened to some people I knew. One of the big changes that’s happened recently is that almost always when the cops behave that way in the modern day, they actually get charges. That’s new, like within just the last few years that it started happening consistently. How did that change happen? That’s actually a really important question, and I think you’re glossing over a lot of how we got there by looking at the whole thing through this absolutely absurd lens.
Man… we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this, and just leave it at that.
Allow me to update with a personal experience:
And then I was arrested for suspicion of being under the influence (because I had the gall to talk back to a cop), and my car was impounded for being unfit for the road.
Just to note here - no, I was not under the influence of anything, and my brake lights absolutely were not out. My friend recording audio on his feature phone (because thats how long back this story goes) got the charges dropped, and the goddamn manual in the fucking car proved me right about the damn parking lights.
Yes this shit happens. Yes this shit continues to happen.
Yes, you are incredibly fucking ignorant if you think otherwise.
Edit: I hit send too quickly because of how pissed off your comment made me.
BECAUSE PEOPLE STARTED PROTESTING AFTER THIS SHIT KEPT HAPPENING, AND PEOPLE FUCKING DIED.
Thats how.
Edit 2 because of how much this pissed me off.
And its still only the worst and most newsworthy examples, and even for those many end up being a slap on the wrist at best.
People still getting fucking shot and killed in their own bedrooms because cops can’t get a fucking address right, attending talks where they get told how hot it is to get laid after you killed someone, with far right pieces of shit being ingrained in the police for literally fucking decades, and you really think just fucking comply is a “smart” decision.
Ffs, the absolute goddamn privilege in those replies.
Yeah, sounds great. Among other things I think burning down the 3rd precinct had a lot to do with changing the overall dynamic, just because like a lot of things, if people are dealing with some population that can fight back, they react differently than if the people can’t. I am saying that starting to yell at every cop that pulls you over and refuse to ID yourself is not really going to change the system, if you did it for a thousand years.
I know people with way worse than your experience. Yes, it sucks. It would have been much worse if you’d decided “You know what, I think this is a bunch of crap, no you can’t have my ID and I’m not getting out of the car”. That’s part of my point.
IDK why you’re yelling at me, like I’m saying that the cops never did/do anything wrong. I’m saying this dude created his own situation, and people who are one-side-is-fine-other-side-did-everything-wrong, like you are here, are enabling other people to go down his same path, ignore the laws and cops that are reasonable, and then pretend they did nothing wrong and it’s shocking and surprising that they got yanked out and arrested. It’s all everyone else’s fault. Don’t be like this guy.
What in the fuck do you think brought about this:
Because if I fucking recall, George Floyd was not fighting back.
So what in the absolute fuck are you talking about?
Yeah, and that’s why the cop is in prison right now alongside everyone who was with him that day. That was my point.
Pre-2014, charges for the cops were very rare even when they straight-up just shot somebody for more or less no reason. After that, it was intermittent, until 2020 was the inflection point where charges became practically universal, and also, those big walls of names of people who hadn’t done a damn thing who the cops had killed started drying up, because stuff had actually changed.
There’s a lot that still needs to change, a lot of bad things baked into the system still. But of course some dickheads can only hold one fairly simple type of world model in their head at one time, and so whenever any type of police interaction goes sideways in any manner, even one like this where it is objectively about 90% the guy in the driver’s seat who causes the whole issue in the first place, they start screaming BLACK LIVES MATTER, BLACK LIVES MATTER like that’s going to help everything get better.
This guy isn’t solving police brutality. He is helping to justify it, by diluting the examples of people who actually didn’t do anything, and providing a good example for people who want to say Breonna Taylor deserved it or whatever. Stop making him out as making some bold anti-racist stand because of what some other people did, successfully.
He didnt do anything wrong - he was entirely within his rights to ask for a supervisor.
Holy shit.
I dont think I have any capacity to put up with someone so painfully and wilfully fucking ignorant.
Absolutely (although they’re not obligated to fulfill the request… a lot of departments will, partly because when the stop is getting complicated they may want a supervisor to show up there anyway.) But anyway, that doesn’t absolve him of the requirement to provide an ID. He was arrested for failing to provide the ID, not for asking for a supervisor. Asking for the supervisor was a-OK, and if he’d done that while handing over his ID, he would have been fine.
Im the video you cite (guy in Texas holding signs?) the officers ask for ID and he refused because they have no legal basis to ask him. Similarly in the Florida traffic stop, the officers have no legal basis fir the stop. End of story. You no more have to comply with police, when they are not legally executing their duties, than you do with any random stranger on the street asking for your ID.
The Florida guy was not stopped on suspicion of having committed a crime, because driving without headlights during the day is not a crime. Therfore there is no legal basis for the officer to demand ID. If you think that the officer _thought _ driving without headlights is a traffic violation , and was therfore justified in the stop, you just overturned the 4th amendment, as any officer could claim they thought x or y is a crime and therfore stop anyone yhey choose, for any reason they choose.
I think I’m just going to say this one more time and then be done with this thread: There are a lot of people who offer the legal theory you’re saying here, right before they get arrested on charges that stick. You can find literally thousands of them on YouTube.
Please show me some evidence of an illigal stop leading to an arrest and conviction on the charge of the original stop,or failure to ID.
You’re defining this as an illegal stop. It was not, in the legal terminology, an illegal stop. That’s part of where your confusion is coming in, I think.
I’m happy to find you one of these bodycam YouTube videos of someone failing to ID and getting their window busted out, and then look up the records and see if they actually got convicted of the failure to ID (or obstruction or whatever the statute is where they are). It may take me until later today. Would that influence you, if I found that?
You don’t believe in illegal stops.
Is driving without headlights in daytime illigal in Florida? That is the stated reason for the stop. If that is not in fact, illigal, then the stop is illigal. Regardless if the officer thinks it’s illigal.
As an analogy, lets say an officer stopped you for wearing your backpack on your left shoulder, which he says is in violation of some ordinance. Is that a legal stop?
And to answer yoir question, if you find footage where the initial stop was deemed unconstitutional, but the subsequent conviction fir failing to ID stands, I will accept that I am wrong.
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-an-unlawful-police-stop-23464
If the cop sees you (allegedly) not wearing your seat belt, and then pulls you over for a seat belt violation, that’s a legal stop. I sort of agree with you that the headlights thing is bullshit (and briefly looking at the internet I think you’re right). For all I know the officer realized that the headlights was bullshit, and randomly added in the seat belt thing. But, regardless, him saying the issue was the seat belt is going to hold up in court completely, and so refusing to ID based on that is going to get you in trouble. Your lawyer is going to have a hell of a time making that argument, especially if you then obstructed and resisted arrest.
IDK where this “if I don’t agree, then I need to physically resist the cops, because it’ll be okay” thinking came from, but that’s not how it works legally. That’s part of why I am taking time to disagree with this, because people do get busted for crimes because of listening to what the internet told them.
What was a stop where the initial stop was even deemed unconstitutional? If I knew that, then I might be able to answer you. Except for some landmark cases, I don’t really know of it happening. I feel like that doesn’t happen very often. I feel like people getting charged for failing to ID is very common (including where they are trying to argue on the side of the road that the stop is improper in some way, and that’s why they are failing to ID and it’s okay.) That’s sort of my point.
Well, I watch the video when it camentonlohht a fewndays ago, I don’t remember anything about the aeatbelt. But the reason the officer gave to the driver was driving without headlights in inclement weather, which would only be a violation if the weather were inclement, which it wasn’t, and the driver states that. The officer doesn’t get to change his mind as to the reason for the stop, thats well established in law.
As to physically resisting, the driver did not physically resist, he passively resisted, refusing to unlock the car door andnexit the vehicle. He didn’t at any point lay hands on the officers.
A stop where the initial stop was deemed unconstitutional: Here’s one . The first one on YouTube. I admit I haven’t watched this one, but then same judge is on YouTube presiding over dozens of similar cases, and there are many other similar videos.
A few crucial points you are missing:
There’s absolutely no legal obligation for the cops to answer any of your questions. Feel free to ask them anything you want, but they don’t need to answer. Further, they can lie to you about why they pulled you over. I’ve seen videos where they were stopping an armed violent offender known for resisting arrest for their bigger crimes. So the cop pulls them over and wants to keep them calm so they only tell them something like seat belt or light violation. Then get them out of the car so they can’t reach for hidden weapons. And YES there are plenty of videos of people reacting innocently asking the same questions this guy asked only to suddenly pull a gun or something.
I’m sure all states have some law that requires you show your license when pulled over (mine definitely does) . Even for flimsy victimless traffic violations. Even if you absolutely are wearing your seat belt and had video evidence to corroborate, you would still need to show your license if pulled over for a seat belt violation. It doesn’t matter that you are innocent. The arguments you’d make on the side of the road are the exact same ones guilty people make. They’ll swear up and down they were wearing their seat belt knowing they weren’t. Nothing differentiates them from the innocent on the side of the road.
You keep harping about it not truly being inclement weather, but that doesn’t matter. Even without the seat belt issue included, they are legally allowed to come up with RAS after the stop. That’s one I personally think is utter bullshit but it doesn’t change the fact it’s legal. After all of this if it turns out he wasn’t guilty of the other infractions but they figured out his registration was expired, they can just swap the citation to that even if that wasn’t considered until after the stop was done.
This is not supposed to come off as defending cops. I’m all for legally resisting as much as you can, but this wasn’t the case here. This was one to fight later in court. This doesn’t further the cause of police accountability. This just sets it back and is one more example of the general public being woefully ignorant of the law that strengthens police resistance to positive change.
I linked to the full bodycam video, the officer clearly says that there were two reasons for the stop: Headlights and seat belt.
Your video has the AI voice claiming that failing to give a Miranda warning before opening the door is a “clear 4th amendment red flag.” That’s a load of steaming crap. Moving on to the actual issue at hand, the charge there was for unlawful carrying of a weapon. The judge’s decision is that by the officer randomly opening the door of the guy’s vehicle, and then seeing the weapon, that means it was an unlawful search (it was “in plain view” according to the officer / prosecutor, but the judge says it wasn’t in plain view until you opened the door). That has literally nothing at all to do with the initial stop being unconstitutional, or failure to ID or anything. It’s just to do with how the cop found the gun.
Do you have one where the person failed to ID on a traffic stop, and their lawyer was able to make the argument that the initial stop was improper, and so they didn’t have to, and it worked? I feel like those would be super-easy to find, if that argument ever worked, since it is very commonly what people say while they are refusing to ID, and so if their lawyers were able to make it work we would have examples of it working.