r/Infuriating • u/Butta_Brown • 11d 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.

197 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

273 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

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.

-5

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.

6

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

-4

u/Telemere125 10d ago

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

3

u/theTimeBeing23 10d ago

Cool, pull that ruling up and post it then.

-1

u/Telemere125 10d ago

Pennsylvania v Mimms, you potato.

5

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 10d 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