Who's the thug, cop or driver?

[FreeRights]

As in all things, there are 2 sides and in this case, 2 participants.

Yes, the driver should have simply complied but given that he was obviously aware that there were drugs in his car, I can understand why he was less than willing to. Not sure how he thought this would end. Maybe he figured if he stuck to his guns, the officer would simply get bored and walk away?

The officer was very confrontational though and his refusal to simply state why he pulled the man over and then refusing to state why he was now under arrest didn't help the situation.

I would take issue with a cop barking at me without telling me why. Being antagonistic in the course of a traffic stop or subsequent arrest does nothing but add fuel to the fire.

I've seen this before. Cop stops car. Demands driver get out of the car. Driver asks why they were pulled over and officer then goes into loop mode and repeatedly commands the driver to get out of the car without simply stating the reason for the stop like it's a big secret.

All in all in this case, the driver is an idiot and the cop could use some schooling in road side manners and common sense.

The issue with telling the driver why you want him to get out of the car (ie. arrest) while he's still in the driver's seat is dangerous because he is still in control of his vehicle. If a cop tells you you're under arrest for drug possession, and you know you have drugs in the car, it's very reasonable to consider just driving off, putting yourself and the police officer's in danger.

If he has a gun in the car as well, he'd likely consider using it if he knew he was being arrested for a serious crime rather than just a traffic violation.

Personally, I'm surprised the other police officer told him that he was being arrested when the window was still an inch open. Back when I used to do security (different kettle of fish, I know, but the tactics are the same) we always needed some sort of care and control of a person before announcing that they are under arrest, to avoid fight or flight urges.

[Ken7]

This guys an idiot lookin for a "got you" moment.
At least do what your told then deal with your perceived injustices with your lawyer after the fact.

I have to agree with you 100%, he got his moment, now he'll have his day in court! Wish him luck...lol.

[biggoofball]

It would be interesting to read profiles on both the cop and the perp

I wonder How many things the cop has done over his carear that are as suspect as this deal?

I wonder what the perps list of ordeals over his life time?

[FreeRights]

I agree this driver was obviously breaking some laws but there are too may power tripping cops out there also
and most cops do not face law threatening danger every day on the job. Thats just patently untrue
What the COP should have done was told the perp to step out of the car verses smashing the window and or called for backup
The COP smashing the window to me makes him look as stupid as the dumb *bleep* in the car

To be fair, the police officer did tell the driver to get out of the vehicle. Multiple, multiple times, and it appears that there was a second police officer there as well.

So, he looks "dumb" for smashing the window, but he has backup and he told the "perp" to get out of the car. What's the next step on your list of things for the police officer to do?

[biggoofball]

the cop should have had this back up to help him out

Thirteen police officers fired 137 shots into the car. Cleveland policeman charged in the fatal 137-bullet shooting of two unarmed suspects
Michael Brelo is accused of firing the final 15 shots into a car

[biggoofball]

To be fair, the police officer did tell the driver to get out of the vehicle. Multiple, multiple times, and it appears that there was a second police officer there as well.

So, he looks "dumb" for smashing the window, but he has backup and he told the "perp" to get out of the car. What's the next step on your list of things for the police officer to do?

I guess I should read the whole story I was not aware the cop told(ordered) him out if the car The thing I saw(read) heard was roll your window down " my bad"

[FreeRights]

VPD chief responds to video, Castanet
Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu has responded to national media coverage of a YouTube video in which a VPD officer smashes a car window.

Chu says the officer involved is being criticized for doing his job.

The chief specifically singles out a National Post report headlined: Cops Run Amok.

"In reviewing the article, ... I thought it may be helpful to include some facts that may have been lost in the way the story was reported," Chu said Tuesday.

"This was not a traffic stop, it was a drug arrest. Impaired driving alerted the officer to the danger the driver posed to public safety, and marijuana smoke billowing from the car made the cause of that impairment obvious. In order to make the arrest, force became necessary when the person refused to exit the vehicle, which is understandable since he allegedly knew what would be found in his car if he did."

Chu said the officer acted proactively when he saw a car weaving "that could at any minute strike another car or pedestrian causing injury or worse."

"The video shows the driver was evasive and lying about not having drugs in the car. In fact, there was enough marijuana for Crown counsel to accept a charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking. While it was necessary to use some force to extract the driver, it is also important to remember that no one was injured and no complaint was made."

Chu said officers know that every arrest they make and practically every move they make will be scrutinized, analyzed and occasionally criticized. "Through it all they routinely prove that preserving life and public safety trumps whatever slings and arrows they may endure."

"It would be ideal if force of any kind was never necessary to make an arrest. But for those who are trying desperately to avoid apprehension, it is not always the option they choose," he said.

Well said.

[zerograv]

It begins with being obliged to explain the reason for a stop, for a search the cop either needs a warrant or a probable cause which again needs to be explained. If he wasn't charged with a motor vehicle offense (such as dangerous driving,) then how can they justify him being pulled over in the first place? Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

If the cop is committing an arrest he needs to read the rights and explain the reasons why. In case there is danger for him involved he is allowed to use force only in self defense. He has put the suspect and others in traffic potentially in danger by smashing the window, but not having the box blockade in place (which I'm sure did not happen at routine traffic stop). And then again, if he smelled weed he still had a lot of other means to resolve the situation before using force and causing damage to private property. As much as I know possession of marijuana is a minor offense and not a serious crime in Canada.

[Treblehook]

The driver of that car was clearly acting like an idiot. Chief Chu has provided some insight into what actually occurred prior to and leading up to the vehicle being stopped. The jerk had sufficient marihuana in the vehicle to support a charge of possession for the purpose; the officers report indicated that his driving had been erratic enough for him to be concerned for the safety of other motorists and pedestrians and it is likely the video that has been shown did not capture all of the communications between the officer and the driver, but more likely starts somewhere into the contact between the two. It is very unlikely that the cop didn't tell the jerk that he was all over the road and that he smells pot coming from the vehicle and he therefore wanted him to step out. [At this point, anybody with two eyes and an anus could figure that he wants him to step out so that he can further investigate.] It seems this driver didn't do anything that a "normal" driver would have done when stopped by the cops; ie: roll down the window and so on. I have no sympathy for the idiot and under the circumstances see no reason why the cop should put himself in further danger by allowing this situation to deteriorate, etc. This looked like an experienced cop who [in turns out] quite accurately read/assessed the situation. Good for the cop I say, and throw the jerk's sorry butt in jail.

[biggoofball]

VPD chief responds to video, Castanet
Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu has responded to national media coverage of a YouTube video in which a VPD officer smashes a car window.

Chu says the officer involved is being criticized for doing his job.

The chief specifically singles out a National Post report headlined: Cops Run Amok.

"In reviewing the article, ... I thought it may be helpful to include some facts that may have been lost in the way the story was reported," Chu said Tuesday.

"This was not a traffic stop, it was a drug arrest. Impaired driving alerted the officer to the danger the driver posed to public safety, and marijuana smoke billowing from the car made the cause of that impairment obvious. In order to make the arrest, force became necessary when the person refused to exit the vehicle, which is understandable since he allegedly knew what would be found in his car if he did."

Chu said the officer acted proactively when he saw a car weaving "that could at any minute strike another car or pedestrian causing injury or worse."

"The video shows the driver was evasive and lying about not having drugs in the car. In fact, there was enough marijuana for Crown counsel to accept a charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking. While it was necessary to use some force to extract the driver, it is also important to remember that no one was injured and no complaint was made."

Chu said officers know that every arrest they make and practically every move they make will be scrutinized, analyzed and occasionally criticized. "Through it all they routinely prove that preserving life and public safety trumps whatever slings and arrows they may endure."

"It would be ideal if force of any kind was never necessary to make an arrest. But for those who are trying desperately to avoid apprehension, it is not always the option they choose," he said.

No this is not well said at all.its a bad statement made by a guy who was not there and took the word of the cop whom lied like a sidewalk.It was not a drug arrest and thats pure BS BS. it was a traffic stop that ultimately turned into a drug arrest
There is no way this DA cop saw "SMOKE BILLOWING" from this car when the guy was driving down the road at say 50mph and the guy was never charged with impaired driving.this whole statement is a crock of manure

[Treblehook]

Well, bigfootball could be correct in his last post; or, bigfootball could be 100 percent wrong. I vote for the latter. In the first place, the situation described by the police is pretty standard. The cop sees a vehicle being driven in a manner consistent with the operator being impaired or at the very least distracted. It is the officer's duty to then further observe the vehicle and to stop it to determine if the driver is impaired or what caused him to drive in an erratic manner. As he approaches the vehicle, he smells the odor of marihuana, and it is quite possible that he also observes smoke coming out of the window. At this point, he has grounds to believe there is an offense being committed against the Controlled Substances Act. It is his duty to further investigate that offense as well as to complete his investigation to determine if the driver has been operating the vehicle while impaired by alcohol or a drug. The erratic driving is all the grounds the officer needs [along with the smell of pot] to have the operator exit the vehicle so that he can further his impaired investigation. Are you with me thus far bigfootball... Finally, if it turns out that the officer is unable to gather sufficient evidence to lay a charge of impaired driving, that part of the case stops there. I have seen nothing, one way or the other, that would help establish whether the video contained all of the conversation between the officer and the suspect, so it is difficult to state with certainty whether the druggie was told [in the first instance] the reason he was stopped. There really is no reason why the cop wouldn't have told him right off the bat and similarly, no reason why the cop should need to repeat his reasons, having told the guy once. Since telling motorists why they have been pulled over is pretty routine... especially where there is suspicion of impaired driving, I am going to go with the belief that the cop told the doper why and that the doper was both ignorant and stupid in the way he handled the situation. That having been said, the cop had every right to break the window to bring the suspected impaired driver out of the car. To his credit, the cop told the idiot that he was going to break the window if he didn't comply.

[Ken7]

It begins with being obliged to explain the reason for a stop, for a search the cop either needs a warrant or a probable cause which again needs to be explained. If he wasn't charged with a motor vehicle offense (such as dangerous driving,) then how can they justify him being pulled over in the first place? Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

If the cop is committing an arrest he needs to read the rights and explain the reasons why. In case there is danger for him involved he is allowed to use force only in self defense. He has put the suspect and others in traffic potentially in danger by smashing the window, but not having the box blockade in place (which I'm sure did not happen at routine traffic stop). And then again, if he smelled weed he still had a lot of other means to resolve the situation before using force and causing damage to private property. As much as I know possession of marijuana is a minor offense and not a serious crime in Canada.

You did not do a very good job of viewing or reading...please try again! Are you a Boston Lawyer or studying in Canada?

[Treblehook]

Philadelphia Lawyers... that is what they used to call these people who get their legal expertise from TV and the movies and then spout it off... unknowingly demonstrating that they really don't know a thing about the law. They are usually found making a nuisance of themselves, in the wee hours of the morning while under the influence.

[zerograv]

You did not do a very good job of viewing or reading...please try again! Are you a Boston Lawyer or studying in Canada?

Care to elaborate or are you just going to add nothing to the conversation?

[driveangry]

I would have preferred that the Cop break the window with the drivers head.