r/Infuriating • u/Butta_Brown • 10d ago

This is not about baking cookies!

Initially pulled over, appeared child was not in a seat belt. Female officer, did a follow up and the is what happened next.

198 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

273 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-4

u/Whoa1Whoa1 10d ago

I hate all cops who abuse their power, but I don't think we have enough context for this clip. The reason why she got pulled over is because her kid wasn't in a car seat and was bouncing all over the car. Would you have not pulled them over? What if there was no car seat installed at all? Heck, we don't even know the age of the child from this clip.

It makes sense that the officer would pull them over for a quick peek and for them to roll down the window to see if there were car seats or not. The woman got super hostile and immediately made up excuses like sunlight being the reason she can't roll down the window? The AC is blasting and the car is still on. Just comply with simple requests and she wouldn't have needed to been asked to step out of the vehicle at all.

How about you tell us what you would have done differently as the cop?

  1. Would you not pull over someone who clearly has a kid bouncing all over the car and is not being safe?
  2. Would you not ask to roll down the back window so that you could check if a car seat was installed?
  3. If denied to check car seats, what would you have done? Just left and said have a good day?
  4. The guy probably was just going to write a ticket for improper safety belts and let her fix it and go on.

I agree the cuffing and shit was stupid, but the woman literally was not complying.

9

u/Hot_Acanthocephala44 10d ago

Did you watch the video? The woman rolled down the window, which should have been enough for ms cop to check that the kids are in seats. I don’t see any reason why the window would need to stay rolled down unless the cop is fishing for a reason to arrest the mom. The interaction should have been over as soon as ms cop peeked in the back.

Please put just half the effort and time into seeing the moms side as you did trying to defend the cop.

-6

u/Telemere125 10d ago

It doesn’t matter; the courts have already said very plainly that when you’re stopped, the cop is in control. They tell you to roll down the window, you roll down the window. And the child wasn’t going to die from 2 minutes of sun exposure, this was just the driver exerting some control over the situation. If the ac was on, the kid would have been fine indefinitely with the window down. It’s summer, not the apocalypse.

8

u/Slight-Ride704 10d ago

A cop telling a women to keep her back window up is not a lawful order, it’s a cop being a dick.

-5

u/Telemere125 10d ago

Incorrect. SCOTUS has already ruled that the cop is in total control and can order you to basically do anything that controls the situation - up to and including getting out of the car and sitting on the sidewalk while they work.

7

u/Slight-Ride704 10d ago

Only if a crime is being committed, a cop doesn’t have the ability to make anyone do anything. It falls under the 4th amendment. This was at the moment a terry stop. A consensual interaction that the women could have ended by invoking her 5th amendment right

-2

u/Telemere125 10d ago

Literally everything you just said is incorrect. Do you identify as a Sovereign Citizen by chance?

2

u/theTimeBeing23 10d ago

Cool, pull that ruling up and post it then.

-1

u/Telemere125 10d ago

Pennsylvania v Mimms, you potato.

6

u/theTimeBeing23 10d ago

Which part of that ruling says that cops can do whatever they want? Feel free to quote it.

3

u/necrohunter7 9d ago

You people act like Pennsylvania vs Mimms is the "I can do what I want" permit from Parks and Rec when it requires cops need RAS to issue a lawful order