I recently watched a video about a full-on American "sovereign citizen" who got stopped by traffic cops and who went through the typical sovcit script (the "moorish citizen" variant of it, to be more precise). Rather unusually, in this case when the cops threatened to take her out of the car by force she started the car and drove away, leading to a hot pursuit, which ended up relatively quickly thanks to a car stopping device that one of the police cars had.
Unsurprisingly, when the car had been stopped, the cops proceeded with what appears to be standard operating procedure and pointed their guns at the car while screaming at her like insane asylum lunatics, and when she exited the car they went through the standard rehearsal of having her walk backwards away from the car and so on and so forth.
Stopping and arresting her was, rather obviously, the completely right thing to do in this case, as she had very egregiously broken several major laws and was an actual danger to others.
However, the video got me thinking about the rather illogical contradictory behavior by American traffic cops.
As I have written before, for some reason if a car does not stop immediately when signaled to do so or, heaven forbid, a car that they have stopped drives away, most American cops go into absolutely insane berserk mode and suddenly treat it like the driver is an extremely dangerous career criminal who's armed to the teeth and is fleeing from a mass shooting where he killed ten civilians and twenty cops. When the car eventually stops the cops will point their guns at it from cover, scream at the driver like lunatics, and have him go through the standard circus act of walking backwards away from the car and so on.
So what's so contradictory about this behavior?
The fact that the exact same cops have literally zero qualms about approaching a car they have just stopped, talking to the driver, demanding the driver's license, and so on. No wariness of any kind, no fear, no caution, no drawn pistols, nothing.
This even when the driver turns out to be very uncooperative (very typical of sovcits), refuses to provide a driver's license or other papers, refuses to identify, refuses to exit the car when commanded to do so, and so on.
In fact, when a driver (typically a sovcit) is so uncooperative that the cops need to break the driver's window and drag him out of the car by force, they still don't treat him like some kind of dangerous armed-to-the-teeth criminal. Sure, they will usually rough him up, yank him out of the car violently, tase him and pepper-spray him if necessary, throw him on the ground and violently handcuff him.
Sometimes they use a reasonable amount of force to do this, sometimes it's clearly excessive. However, in pretty much all cases they clearly treat it as an unarmed civilian who is simply being verbally and physically uncooperative and physically resisting arrest.
However, if the driver instead drives off, even if it's just for 20 meters, and then comes to a stop once again, the cops immediately treat him like he's a heavily armed extremely dangerous criminal who's likely to start a shootout with the cops.
Why? Where's the connection between "drives off" (or even just "refuses to stop") and "is to be considered armed and very dangerous"? The cops don't make that connection for as long as the car remains still, no matter what the driver does or says, or how uncooperative or even violent he is.
But immediately if the car moves, bam! It's immediately an "armed and very dangerous criminal" approach.
But why? The only difference here is whether the car moves or not. Where's the connection?
Comments
Post a Comment