Over-policing plus justified fear of impersonators

[EEllis]

i don't think think the financial issue is "overdone". Do we really want to say that taxes on booze must be spent on booze related issues? Are my property taxes spent on maintaining my property, or on other stuff, like education? And what about my income tax? How is that spent on income related stuff. Oh that's right, it is given away to non-working people as income! Maybe I should eat my words! Nevertheless, an alcohol tax should be an alcohol tax, not a fee to fund this type of nonsense.

Where did I say that? I said firing these officers would most likely end up reducing the available money that the State brings in rather than give any savings. Those are separate issues.

If one of these girls had a concealed weapon and tried to use it then someone could have gotten hurt.

Someone could of gotten hurt when she hit 2 agents with her car.

These officers need to be immediately fired.

Well there are a couple of different descriptions of the events making the round but exactly what do you think is illegal or outside of Agency policy? Because if it isn't one of those two things then I think these cries for justice are absurd.

If someone did this to my daughter I would devote the rest of my life to picketing them, suing them, and doing everything i could within the law to make sure it never happened again, and that they experienced all things punitive. parents work too hard, spend too much money to raise and protect their kids to have it all come close to being undone by stupid people. stupid people are everywhere and we need to not give them authority over us or any of our money.

That's cute

[EEllis]

Perhaps the agency in question should drop the charges, fix her car, thank God nobody got killed, and figure out what their procedure needs to be for dealing with people who don't know that undercover cops are cops. (Seems like "letting" someone call 911 to confirm is a fine solution, but maybe that's just me...)

The Agency wouldn't drop the charges the States Attorney or ADA, depending on which court they were charged in, would. Oh and by the way he did do so saying while the officers did nothing wrong since no one was hurt and he basically believed the girls he thought doing so was the correct action. I haven't heard there was anything wrong with her car and I would always hope that law enforcement tries to continually improve their policies but I haven't heard you complain directly about what they should of done different in this situation

[Dave2]

Perhaps the agency in question should drop the charges, fix her car, thank God nobody got killed, and figure out what their procedure needs to be for dealing with people who don't know that undercover cops are cops. (Seems like "letting" someone call 911 to confirm is a fine solution, but maybe that's just me...)

The Agency wouldn't drop the charges the States Attorney or ADA, depending on which court they were charged in, would. Oh and by the way he did do so saying while the officers did nothing wrong since no one was hurt and he basically believed the girls he thought doing so was the correct action. I haven't heard there was anything wrong with her car and I would always hope that law enforcement tries to continually improve their policies but I haven't heard you complain directly about what they should of done different in this situation

I thought I'd read that they'd broken one of her car's windows, but maybe I'm thinking of something else. As RottenApple pointed out anyone can get a nice-looking fake badge, and at night or in low light I doubt too many people could immediately tell the difference. I find it hard to believe that undercover cops aren't trained for how to safely and non-destructively handle having their true job title questioned.

[baldeagle]

EEllis, it's clear you think these officers did nothing wrong, and that's frightening. This came very close to a deadly force incident over a 12 pack of water. A 12 pack of water!! That should give any thinking officer pause. You claim the girl hit two officers. The story says her car "brushed them". It's not at all uncommon for officers to claim assault when they weren't hurt in any way, because technically even touching an officer is assault. But you know and I know that touching an officer isn't a threat and should never be charged. The charges smack of retaliation because the officers were mad that the girls didn't cooperate. But in this day and age, when a group of people in street clothes approach two women in the dark of night, those women would justifiably feel threatened. Any officer with a day of experience should know and understand that.

Think about this for a minute. These officers (and there were seven of them according to the Huffington Post article) are ABC agents yet they can't tell the difference between a 12 pack of water and a 12 pack of beer? Shouldn't that be part of their training? If they're going to be running around arresting people for having a 12 pack of beer, the least they can do is become familiar with the brands and packaging and learn the difference between water and beer!

And why did they wait until the girl was in her car before approaching her? Every officer should know that when a suspect gets in their car the danger increases dramatically. These officers clearly need training, and they should be thanking God that they didn't shoot this girl and have that on their consciences. Can you imagine the public outcry???

As soon as the girl started her car the officers tried to break her windows in! Over a 12 pack of water! Even if it HAD been beer, that is overkill. Call a uniformed officer, pull the car over and start the investigation. This sounds for all the world the same as officers chasing a suspect at 100 mph through neighborhoods and killing innocent citizens who were simply driving home because they're so amped up and determined to arrest the suspect. You would think by now that PDs would know that some "crimes" are not worth risking lives over - theirs or anyone else's.

I'm a strong supporter of the police, as anyone who reads my posts should obviously know, but darn it man, there has to be a presumption of innocence and a less aggressive approach unless the suspect's behavior justifies escalation. These girls did nothing to raise suspicion except carry a 12 pack of water from the store to their car. This requires 7 agents, drawn weapons, breaking windows and all the rest? Seriously?? Seriously??? For crying out loud, man, write down the dern license plate number and put a BOLO out for the car.

This is excessive force, plain and simple. I don't care what policy is. I don't care if they didn't break any laws. It's excessive, it's extremely dangerous behavior and it's inexcusable for any department or officer not to see that.

You ask "Is there some issue with PC for the original stop?" Yes, there is. How could they possibly know if she was underage? If she's not, then there's no PC. There's only suspicion. They suspect she's underage. They suspect she has beer. That's PC? That's a stretch. At the most it justifies a consensual stop to investigate. It certainly doesn't justify jumping on her hood, trying to break her windows and scaring the daylights out of her.

I can guarantee you one thing. If they had shot that girl the parents' lawsuit would have cleaned out their department's budget. And that tells you all you need to know. They were wrong, wrong, wrong, and they need to face that, think about what they've done and improve their thinking about approaching suspects.

Does it sound to you like this department is fulfilling their stated mission?

The Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) is a state-run agency whose mission is to safely and responsibly administer the sale and consumption of alcohol. ABC special agents have full police powers in Virginia. The agency's vision (as proclaimed on its website) is to "enhance the quality of life for Virginia's citizens" in carrying out its duties.

There was nothing safe or responsible about what they did.

[EEllis]

EEllis, it's clear you think these officers did nothing wrong, and that's frightening. This came very close to a deadly force incident over a 12 pack of water. A 12 pack of water!! That should give any thinking officer pause. You claim the girl hit two officers. The story says her car "brushed them". It's not at all uncommon for officers to claim assault when they weren't hurt in any way, because technically even touching an officer is assault. But you know and I know that touching an officer isn't a threat and should never be charged. The charges smack of retaliation because the officers were mad that the girls didn't cooperate. But in this day and age, when a group of people in street clothes approach two women in the dark of night, those women would justifiably feel threatened. Any officer with a day of experience should know and understand that.

First what should be clear is what I say and please quote where I said the agents did nothing wrong. I also prefer to examine each incident as a single incident and not blame one cop for actions that other cops totally unconnected with them may have done, In this case "touching" is not adequate in my mind to describe what happened. Why? Because it generally is used to describe the smallest of contacts with no force or ability to injure. This was contact with a moving car with great ability to injure. That it did not do so is a blessing to everyone involved but it is only slightly less negligent than saying it's ok to shoot in someones direction as long as you don't actually hurt someone. It may have been dark and if the agents job require plainclothes then what, they must stop inforcing the law after 6pm??

Think about this for a minute. These officers (and there were seven of them according to the Huffington Post article) are ABC agents yet they can't tell the difference between a 12 pack of water and a 12 pack of beer? Shouldn't that be part of their training? If they're going to be running around arresting people for having a 12 pack of beer, the least they can do is become familiar with the brands and packaging and learn the difference between water and beer!

You do realize that the particular water is not bottled but comes in cans and would be in the exact same packaging as a 12 pack of beer. The logo and design is not the bold single colors generally associated with soda, which honestly this crap is basicly diet soda more than bottled water, so no I don't think it's absurd that at night a ABC agent was unsure if the 12 pack was beer.

And why did they wait until the girl was in her car before approaching her? Every officer should know that when a suspect gets in their car the danger increases dramatically. These officers clearly need training, and they should be thanking God that they didn't shoot this girl and have that on their consciences. Can you imagine the public outcry???

Well there seems to be different variations according to which account you read. My understanding according to the ABC rep is that a female agent approached, badged the girls, and identified herself and then the girls locked themselves in the SUV afterwards. So unless the female agent should of shot someone to keep them out of the SUV you just don't have the info to claim what you do. You don't know relative locations, that they "let" anything or were just unable to get there in time. The whole accusation smacks of a witch hunt mentality and a lack of concern over what happened and the realities of law enforcement. Since I want some evidence before calling a cop a liar I'll go with that version tho it's hardly different from the other is in fact, just more shades of what happened. I am glad they didn't shoot the girl but just as glad the girl didn't kill or maim any agents with her car. That wouldn't of been dropped and really would of screwed everyone.

As soon as the girl started her car the officers tried to break her windows in! Over a 12 pack of water! Even if it HAD been beer, that is overkill. Call a uniformed officer, pull the car over and start the investigation. This sounds for all the world the same as officers chasing a suspect at 100 mph through neighborhoods and killing innocent citizens who were simply driving home because they're so amped up and determined to arrest the suspect. You would think by now that PDs would know that some "crimes" are not worth risking lives over - theirs or anyone else's.

First that isn't how she stated it and what car on this planet has to be running to roll down the windows? She said the yelled at her, she started the car, they yelled, someone jumped on her hood, pulled a gun, and started to try and break her windows. Now you have someone who is showing signs that they are about to flee, a felony, disobeying commands, bla bla bla. That is what they would be trying to break in the windows for not for a maaybe 12 pack. Now if you believe law enforcement should stop and limit how far they go according to the severity of the original charge the I get that. That would be similar to the pursuit or not calculations that many Dept. have started doing. But that calculation is hardly universal and almost always limited to pursuits and for multiple reasons. One many people original stopped for small offence end up with major charges. If someone runs then that running can be taken as evidence that there is something bigger going on. Now that isn't 100 % just a probability but it's reasonable. Also if law enforcement in general took up your wish we would see a major increase in people resisting and fleeing. If the charge was minor resist enough and the cops should back off right?

I'm a strong supporter of the police, as anyone who reads my posts should obviously know, but darn it man, there has to be a presumption of innocence and a less aggressive approach unless the suspect's behavior justifies escalation. These girls did nothing to raise suspicion except carry a 12 pack of water from the store to their car. This requires 7 agents, drawn weapons, breaking windows and all the rest? Seriously?? Seriously??? For crying out loud, man, write down the dern license plate number and put a BOLO out for the car.

She was approached by one female agent then locked herself in a SUV.Other agents responded and she started her car, they kept trying to get her to comply and she drove off. Who escalated what here! And by the way in the girls story there was one gun drawn. That's it not everyone running with guns blazing. and by not stopping the car then they would potentially risk a chase, reckless driving, the list goes on. Heck they didn't shoot and lets be honest they could make a strong argument for doing so. The agents tried to stop the girl but didn't go crazy. No windows were broken, and if everybody was so aggressive how did that happen. Really we have some hysterical girls and we are treating their actions as the normal ones.

This is excessive force, plain and simple. I don't care what policy is. I don't care if they didn't break any laws. It's excessive, it's extremely dangerous behavior and it's inexcusable for any department or officer not to see that.

You ask "Is there some issue with PC for the original stop?" Yes, there is. How could they possibly know if she was underage? If she's not, then there's no PC. There's only suspicion. They suspect she's underage. They suspect she has beer. That's PC? That's a stretch. At the most it justifies a consensual stop to investigate. It certainly doesn't justify jumping on her hood, trying to break her windows and scaring the daylights out of her.

You know thats funny because that is thee main issue to me that would make this a big deal and not even the girls lawyer tries to say there wasn't PC. Maybe just a Consensual stop? Maybe but after the original agent identified herself and the girls locked themselves in the SUV their behavior would then give PC. Officer can know on a suspects door with out PC to talk to the suspect. That suspect reacting on seeing the officer by slamming the door and running has given PC to the officer to enter and chase the suspect. Mind you I think police can check for underage drinkers based on appearance but even if there is some doubt it doesn't last past the girls trying to evade the agents.

I can guarantee you one thing. If they had shot that girl the parents' lawsuit would have cleaned out their department's budget. And that tells you all you need to know. They were wrong, wrong, wrong, and they need to face that, think about what they've done and improve their thinking about approaching suspects.

Does it sound to you like this department is fulfilling their stated mission?

Cus if you say they would of won I mean you guarantee it right?........ Look I don't think you have made a very good argument on any of your facts and definitely not something that would win in court. Maybe the sympathy factor would help but trying to use the possible win of an imaginary case to show that the Agents were wrong? OK yeah I'm going to take that seriously.

[EEllis]

Perhaps the agency in question should drop the charges, fix her car, thank God nobody got killed, and figure out what their procedure needs to be for dealing with people who don't know that undercover cops are cops. (Seems like "letting" someone call 911 to confirm is a fine solution, but maybe that's just me...)

The Agency wouldn't drop the charges the States Attorney or ADA, depending on which court they were charged in, would. Oh and by the way he did do so saying while the officers did nothing wrong since no one was hurt and he basically believed the girls he thought doing so was the correct action. I haven't heard there was anything wrong with her car and I would always hope that law enforcement tries to continually improve their policies but I haven't heard you complain directly about what they should of done different in this situation

I thought I'd read that they'd broken one of her car's windows, but maybe I'm thinking of something else. As RottenApple pointed out anyone can get a nice-looking fake badge, and at night or in low light I doubt too many people could immediately tell the difference. I find it hard to believe that undercover cops aren't trained for how to safely and non-destructively handle having their true job title questioned.

The first agent to approach was female and by herself in initially. That seems fairly non threatening and reasonable for what would've been a ticket. Should cops stop doing their jobs because there are impersonators out there? Could these agents have done better? Look while law enforcement are trained for things people need to realize that they almost never get things perfect. The settings are not perfect, the suspects react in unexpected ways, and law enforcement is made up of human beings who, no matter how well trained, cannot be perfect. Not to mention so many things are variable and only in hindsight see simple and obvious. These agents may have screwed the pouch and may kick dogs and spit on babies. I don't know them. What I do know is the things people are waving around as "evidence", the comments that they think condemns the agents, does not do so. It's like the people you see on tv who call the cops because a family member is violent then abuse the cops when the person gets shot. "They could of shot him in the leg" they cry in front of the cameras. Like that "fact" proves the cops were incompetent and heartless when the truth is that "fact" is absurd and no agency in the country would even think of using such tactics. Hey maybe it was a lousy shoot but "they could of shot him in the leg!" is meaningless in that conversation.

[Dave2]

The first agent to approach was female and by herself in initially. That seems fairly non threatening and reasonable for what would've been a ticket. Should cops stop doing their jobs because there are impersonators out there?

No.

Could these agents have done better?

Yes.

Look while law enforcement are trained for things people need to realize that they almost never get things perfect.

I'm not asking for perfection. I just want a bit of consideration and understanding from these cops. From the admittedly one-sided evidence I've seen, I have either serious questions about the judgement of the six officers involved, or very serious questions about the judgement of whoever runs their training program. I mean it isn't like nobody's ever thought of this scenario before... I think it was literally the first thing that popped into my head when I was a kid and first learned what "undercover" meant.

[mamabearCali]

Under cover agents really need to be used only in situations where one is trying to catch a known criminal and then with uniformed officers close by. Not in approaching a common person. Why? Because misunderstanding like this happen. Anyone can get a badge and yell "police!" If a person does not look like a LEO why should I treat them like one? That puts me a common citizen in a really bad position, stay still and hope to god this person is not going to hurt me, or try to escape and put myself in a position where the law might hurt me. That is not right.

If a person is aggressively yelling at me and they are not in uniform then I am going to think that most likely I am under attack (women can attack other women) and of course I am going to get in the car and lock my door and try to escape. The dipstick that jumped on her car is just stupid, watched too much TV perhaps. Hello.....that was way over the top for a case of beer.

If this was a consensual stop (as some have claimed), then the girls should have been free to ignore the plain clothes LEO and be on their way. If the person had reasonable suspicion (and I really don't see how appearing youthful is RS) then LEO's need to identify themselves as such and not depend on good lighting at night to display a badge while yelling at a person. She displayed a badge.....at what distance and at what lighting? Look, LEO's want us to immediately stop our day and attend to them at a moments notice. Is it too much to ask that we be able to identify them as LEO's on appearance. After all you might know you are a LEO, but if you are in plain clothes, I don't, until you identify yourself as such in a clear manner.

I am not saying the LEO's are lying, but they should not blame a young lady because they (or their procedures) were stupid in how they handled their job.

[RottenApple]

Under cover agents really need to be used only in situations where one is trying to catch a known criminal and then with uniformed officers close by. Not in approaching a common person. Why? Because misunderstanding like this happen. Anyone can get a badge and yell "police!" If a person does not look like a LEO why should I treat them like one? That puts me a common citizen in a really bad position, stay still and hope to god this person is not going to hurt me, or try to escape and put myself in a position where the law might hurt me. That is not right.

If a person is aggressively yelling at me and they are not in uniform then I am going to think that most likely I am under attack (women can attack other women) and of course I am going to get in the car and lock my door and try to escape. The dipstick that jumped on her car is just stupid, watched too much TV perhaps. Hello.....that was way over the top for a case of beer.

If this was a consensual stop (as some have claimed), then the girls should have been free to ignore the plain clothes LEO and be on their way. If the person had reasonable suspicion (and I really don't see how appearing youthful is RS) then LEO's need to identify themselves as such and not depend on good lighting at night to display a badge while yelling at a person. She displayed a badge.....at what distance and at what lighting? Look, LEO's want us to immediately stop our day and attend to them at a moments notice. Is it too much to ask that we be able to identify them as LEO's on appearance. After all you might know you are a LEO, but if you are in plain clothes, I don't, until you identify yourself as such in a clear manner.

I am not saying the LEO's are lying, but they should not blame a young lady because they (or their procedures) were stupid in how they handled their job.

wholeheartedly. When I was in my late teens I worked in a convenience store in San Antonio. Our area had a HUGE problem with underage drinking and people buying alcohol for minors. We had undercover TABC agents who would come into the store and "work" (usually just pushing a broom around or stock shelves) late evenings & weekends. There were always, ALWAYS uniformed officers just around the corner who would approach the suspect and handle the actual arrest.

Only one time did an undercover agent ever approach a customer, and that only because he was starting to get violent because my co-worker and I refused to sell to him. He pulled up right out front, got out, chugged his beer, and then came stumbling in to buy more. He reeked of booze and was obviously drunk. When he cleared a display off our counter and then found himself face planted into the floor with the officer on top of him. I never even saw him (the agent) come around the corner!

[EEllis]

The first agent to approach was female and by herself in initially. That seems fairly non threatening and reasonable for what would've been a ticket. Should cops stop doing their jobs because there are impersonators out there?

No.

Could these agents have done better?

Yes.

Look while law enforcement are trained for things people need to realize that they almost never get things perfect.

I'm not asking for perfection. I just want a bit of consideration and understanding from these cops. From the admittedly one-sided evidence I've seen, I have either serious questions about the judgement of the six officers involved, or very serious questions about the judgement of whoever runs their training program. I mean it isn't like nobody's ever thought of this scenario before... I think it was literally the first thing that popped into my head when I was a kid and first learned what "undercover" meant.

All I can see is you are upset because it went bad. Oh well. Nothing here is exact enough to do anything with. You don't know that they didn't put real effort into their approach of the girl. You know it turned out bad. So? Sometimes things turn out bad even when everything was done right. That may mean you have to take responsibility for the incident but that shouldn't mean it's ok to call for people's jobs and freedoms with no real basis beyond I don't like it.

[baldeagle]

First what should be clear is what I say and please quote where I said the agents did nothing wrong.

You didn't have a single criticism for what the officers did. You didn't even say something along the lines of they could have done better or perhaps a different approach might have been called for. If I've interpreted your meaning wrong it's because your words led me to believe what I wrote.

I also prefer to examine each incident as a single incident and not blame one cop for actions that other cops totally unconnected with them may have done, In this case "touching" is not adequate in my mind to describe what happened. Why? Because it generally is used to describe the smallest of contacts with no force or ability to injure. This was contact with a moving car with great ability to injure. That it did not do so is a blessing to everyone involved but it is only slightly less negligent than saying it's ok to shoot in someones direction as long as you don't actually hurt someone. It may have been dark and if the agents job require plainclothes then what, they must stop inforcing the law after 6pm??

There is nothing in the reports indicating that the agents lives were endangered in any way. You seem to think she tried to run them over when what she described was trying to get away. Here's what the court records say:

Daly incurred the assault charges when she "grazed" two agents with her SUV, according to court records.

Grazed. Not hit. Not attempted to run over. Grazed. Quit characterizing what she did as a felony. As I said, the charges appear to be motivated by the officer's desire to retaliate because she wasn't cooperative. Apparently the DA agrees, since he dropped the charges. Had she seriously endangered the officers, I doubt seriously he would have dropped the charges regardless of the circumstances.

You do realize that the particular water is not bottled but comes in cans and would be in the exact same packaging as a 12 pack of beer. The logo and design is not the bold single colors generally associated with soda, which honestly this crap is basicly diet soda more than bottled water, so no I don't think it's absurd that at night a ABC agent was unsure if the 12 pack was beer.

I really don't care. Their ENTIRE job is alcohol related. They should be able to identify every brand, package, etc. from a distance. That's their job! The excuse that it looked like beer might fly for a beat cop but not for someone who's job is alcohol. If you specialize in something, it's your responsibility to know your specialty inside and out. Do you really think it's a good idea for ABC cops to approach people coming out of the store because they can't identify what they're carrying from a distance? Good Lord man. That's a police state.

Well there seems to be different variations according to which account you read. My understanding according to the ABC rep is that a female agent approached, badged the girls, and identified herself and then the girls locked themselves in the SUV afterwards.

Where did you obtain this understanding? Here's the Huffington Post report:

Elizabeth Daly, 20, says she was in her car in the parking lot of a Charlottesville, Va., grocery store in April when she was approached by seven plainclothes agents from the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, one of whom she says pulled a gun on her, according to the Charlottesville Daily Progress.

In a statement to The Huffington Post, Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control spokesman Kathleen Shaw said that the first agent who approached Daly "identified herself as a police officer and was displaying her badge" and that "other agents did not join the incident until the subject refused to cooperate."

Note that even the Department spokesman did not say that Daly was not in her car when she was first approached.

First that isn't how she stated it and what car on this planet has to be running to roll down the windows?

Beats me. I'm not familiar with every car in the universe. Why do you automatically assume she is lying?

She said the yelled at her, she started the car, they yelled, someone jumped on her hood, pulled a gun, and started to try and break her windows. Now you have someone who is showing signs that they are about to flee, a felony, disobeying commands, bla bla bla. That is what they would be trying to break in the windows for not for a maaybe 12 pack. Now if you believe law enforcement should stop and limit how far they go according to the severity of the original charge the I get that. That would be similar to the pursuit or not calculations that many Dept. have started doing. But that calculation is hardly universal and almost always limited to pursuits and for multiple reasons. One many people original stopped for small offence end up with major charges. If someone runs then that running can be taken as evidence that there is something bigger going on. Now that isn't 100 % just a probability but it's reasonable. Also if law enforcement in general took up your wish we would see a major increase in people resisting and fleeing. If the charge was minor resist enough and the cops should back off right?

Yes! Police work should be about proportionality. If you're approaching someone because you believe they have or are committing a misdemeanor offense, you should not use the same level of force that you would for someone who has committed a felony or is known to be armed. You don't need a swarm of seven armed officers to question a college age girl. (BTW, that's what people are referring to when they cite the militarization of police forces. It's not about wearing tac gear. It's about pulling your weapon at the slightest provocation and using overwhelming force for minor offenses.)

She was approached by one female agent then locked herself in a SUV.

There's no evidence of that, as you should now be able to admit.

Other agents responded and she started her car, they kept trying to get her to comply and she drove off. Who escalated what here!

She was in her car. She was approached by a female officer, but let's not pretend that she couldn't see the SIX other agents nearby. They were in plainclothes. She didn't recognize the badge. We all know of similar stories where women were abducted, raped and murdered in exactly that fashion.

And by the way in the girls story there was one gun drawn. That's it not everyone running with guns blazing. and by not stopping the car then they would potentially risk a chase, reckless driving, the list goes on. Heck they didn't shoot and lets be honest they could make a strong argument for doing so.

And that is terrifying. Police never used to treat every person they encountered as a armed and dangerous felon. Now they can justify shooting anyone at any time by simply saying they were fleeing, or I was in fear for my life.

If I did that I would be in jail and they would throw away the key. Why should the police have so much more latitude to kill people? And again, what the heck is wrong with getting the license plate, putting out a BOLO and getting a uniformed officer to pull her over?

The agents tried to stop the girl but didn't go crazy. No windows were broken

Not for a lack of trying!

and if everybody was so aggressive how did that happen. Really we have some hysterical girls and we are treating their actions as the normal ones.

You ask "Is there some issue with PC for the original stop?" Yes, there is. How could they possibly know if she was underage? If she's not, then there's no PC. There's only suspicion. They suspect she's underage. They suspect she has beer. That's PC? That's a stretch. At the most it justifies a consensual stop to investigate. It certainly doesn't justify jumping on her hood, trying to break her windows and scaring the daylights out of her.

You know thats funny because that is thee main issue to me that would make this a big deal and not even the girls lawyer tries to say there wasn't PC. Maybe just a Consensual stop? Maybe but after the original agent identified herself and the girls locked themselves in the SUV their behavior would then give PC.

Again, there's no evidence in either story that it happened the way you claim. They were in the car. Then they were approached.

Officer can know on a suspects door with out PC to talk to the suspect. That suspect reacting on seeing the officer by slamming the door and running has given PC to the officer to enter and chase the suspect.

How about we talk about what we know rather than stuff we make up? The girl was in her car. The officer approached and identified herself. The girl started the car to roll down her window, and the officers reacted with overwhelming force. They swarmed her car, one drew a weapon and they attempted to break in her windows.

We've all seen this behavior on TV. It happens when a fleeing suspect has been chased for miles, is known to have committed a felony or felonies and is on the run. After using stop sticks or a pit maneuver the police swarm the car, break out the windows and pull the suspect out of the car. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. This incident had NONE of those elements. A simple suspicion that an underage person was carrying a 12 pack of beer was apparently enough provocation for these officers to act as if they were apprehending an armed bank robber fleeing the scene of a crime.

Mind you I think police can check for underage drinkers based on appearance but even if there is some doubt it doesn't last past the girls trying to evade the agents.

And the agents are too stupid to surmise that they might have intimidated her into fleeing?

I can guarantee you one thing. If they had shot that girl the parents' lawsuit would have cleaned out their department's budget. And that tells you all you need to know. They were wrong, wrong, wrong, and they need to face that, think about what they've done and improve their thinking about approaching suspects.

Does it sound to you like this department is fulfilling their stated mission?

Cus if you say they would of won I mean you guarantee it right?........ Look I don't think you have made a very good argument on any of your facts and definitely not something that would win in court. Maybe the sympathy factor would help but trying to use the possible win of an imaginary case to show that the Agents were wrong? OK yeah I'm going to take that seriously.

Now you're just being silly.

[EEllis]

If this was a consensual stop (as some have claimed), then the girls should have been free to ignore the plain clothes LEO and be on their way. If the person had reasonable suspicion (and I really don't see how appearing youthful is RS) then LEO's need to identify themselves as such and not depend on good lighting at night to display a badge while yelling at a person. She displayed a badge.....at what distance and at what lighting? Look, LEO's want us to immediately stop our day and attend to them at a moments notice. Is it too much to ask that we be able to identify them as LEO's on appearance. After all you might know you are a LEO, but if you are in plain clothes, I don't, until you identify yourself as such in a clear manner.

I am not saying the LEO's are lying, but they should not blame a young lady because they (or their procedures) were stupid in how they handled their job.

You don't get to decide what is a consensual stop or not. The court decides later. Since that argument wasn't even touched on by the Girls lawyer I think it's fair to say it isn't worth much. The idea that a ABC cop needs more than their judgment to demand id from underage drinkers is a surprising and unconventional stance but clearly even with that the Girls more than gave PC for a custodial stop due to their continued actions. There were 6 or 7 agents all armed with badges and they went thru all of that trouble to jack two girls in a parking lot? The first agent was a women. When have you ever heard of anything even close to that? The girls may have just panicked but lets be honest their reactions were not normal, reasonable, or typical. Now the DA may have believed that since no one was hurt and that however technically unlawful the girls actions were that they had no intent do break the law and that the trauma of the event was enough of a punishment, but that doesn't mean the cops were wrong or that by arresting the girls they were blaming the girls. The girls broke the law. There is no real doubt about that and part of their excuse has to do with events that happened elsewhere. That the cops decided to let the DA or the Judge sort out the issue is fine. That is why we have DA's and Judges right?

[RottenApple]

The girls may have just panicked but lets be honest their reactions were not normal, reasonable, or typical.

I disagree completely. Their actions were reasonable because they had no way of knowing that these attackers were, in fact, real police officers. If I'm in my car and some stranger in street clothes flashes a badge at me and claims to be a cop while multiple other people in street clothes are converging on me is going to be eating a lot of dust as I peel out and take off. And if one of those attackers jumps on the hood of my car, they're going for a ride until/unless they slide off or I get my pistol in position to shoot. I'll also be calling 911 at the first opportunity and notifying them of an attempted carjacking and where, etc. etc. These cops are lucky that these girls just tried to get away from their attackers.

[tomtexan]

The girls may have just panicked but lets be honest their reactions were not normal, reasonable, or typical.

I disagree also, and here's why.....
From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

The woman was on edge after spending the night listening to stories from dozens of sexual assault survivors at an annual "Take Back the Night" vigil on Grounds, said Daly's defense attorney, Francis Lawrence.

I would say that their reactions were quite normal, reasonable, or typical, considering what they might have had just learned at the annual "Take Back the Night" vigil that they had just previously attended. I would expect no less.

[EEllis]

[quote="baldeagle"You didn't have a single criticism for what the officers did. You didn't even say something along the lines of they could have done better or perhaps a different approach might have been called for. If I've interpreted your meaning wrong it's because your words led me to believe what I wrote.[/quote]

That's because I have little info on what happened. You would judge without knowing what happened based on an end result. I wouldn't.

There is nothing in the reports indicating that the agents lives were endangered in any way. You seem to think she tried to run them over when what she described was trying to get away. Here's what the court records say:

No thats what a reporter said and they also used brushed in another article. Either way yes if someone is contacted by a moving |SUV I tend to think it was serious. That you don't says something. Also I never denied they were attempting to flee. I just think that attempt could easily ended with someone hurt.

As I said, the charges appear to be motivated by the officer's desire to retaliate because she wasn't cooperative. Apparently the DA agrees, since he dropped the charges. Had she seriously endangered the officers, I doubt seriously he would have dropped the charges regardless of the circumstances.

Ah and now the mind reading. Yeah because if they had not arrested the girls they wouldn't of had any liability from people like you second guessing their actions saying that since there was no arrest there was never basis for an arrest or crap like that. Not to mention part of the "Girls" defence was something that happened somewhere else that the agents wouldn't of been in a good position to verify and that as parties to the incident that letting someone unconnected like the DA make the call seems more than reasonable and how the system designed. But oh yeah never mind all those possibilities because you KNOW!

Their ENTIRE job is alcohol related. They should be able to identify every brand, package, etc. from a distance. That's their job!

That's absurd and unrealistic. IMHO

I'm not familiar with every car in the universe. Why do you automatically assume she is lying?

Come on. Name one car! She may just be stupid or panicked so she did something stupid but what car needs to be running to roll down a window?

If the charge was minor resist enough and the cops should back off right?

Yes! Police work should be about proportionality. If you're approaching someone because you believe they have or are committing a misdemeanor offense, you should not use the same level of force that you would for someone who has committed a felony or is known to be armed. You don't need a swarm of seven armed officers to question a college age girl. (BTW, that's what people are referring to when they cite the militarization of police forces. It's not about wearing tac gear. It's about pulling your weapon at the slightest provocation and using overwhelming force for minor offenses.)

I think we are at an impasse here because the idea that anyone who resists enough should be let go seems dumb to me. Sure it's based on the reason for stopping but if a bad guy is crazy enough then all they have to do is be willing to escalate and they will never go to jail. People already shoot cops on traffic stops and you want to encourage it? Not me.

She was in her car. She was approached by a female officer, but let's not pretend that she couldn't see the SIX other agents nearby. They were in plainclothes. She didn't recognize the badge. We all know of similar stories where women were abducted, raped and murdered in exactly that fashion.

Give me one involving that number of people and include a woman.

And that is terrifying. Police never used to treat every person they encountered as a armed and dangerous felon. Now they can justify shooting anyone at any time by simply saying they were fleeing, or I was in fear for my life.

Maybe all the dead cops have something to do with it. That and the excuses people allow for noncompliance.

If I did that I would be in jail and they would throw away the key. Why should the police have so much more latitude to kill people? And again, what the heck is wrong with getting the license plate, putting out a BOLO and getting a uniformed officer to pull her over?

Huh? You playing cop and real cops should be held to the same standard>? Not by me.

Not for a lack of trying!

So 7 gun toting rampaging cops couldn't take out one window "But not for lack of trying". I forgive the girls a little hyperbole and exaggeration, they were in a bit of a panic, but think a bit more about this. How does it happen that no windows were broke if they were not holding back or she pulled out after one cop may have taken a swing or two. Either way the picture of 7 cops swarming over the ct slamming the windows trying to break them doesn't make sense.

[quote"]You ask "Is there some issue with PC for the original stop?" Yes, there is. How could they possibly know if she was underage? If she's not, then there's no PC. There's only suspicion. They suspect she's underage. They suspect she has beer. That's PC? That's a stretch. At the most it justifies a consensual stop to investigate. It certainly doesn't justify jumping on her hood, trying to break her windows and scaring the daylights out of her.
[/quote]

I said it before and I'll say it again the idea a booze cop can't require an ID when they think someone is underage and in possession is pretty radical. I still stand by my assumption that the Girls "panic" after the first approach gives pc anyway and making an argument their lawyer didn't touch is a reach.


H

ow about we talk about what we know rather than stuff we make up? The girl was in her car. The officer approached and identified herself. The girl started the car to roll down her window, and the officers reacted with overwhelming force. They swarmed her car, one drew a weapon and they attempted to break in her windows.

We don't KNOW that you have just locked on to it but even going with that there is more than enough room for all of that to be factually true and when told from the gents perspective provide PC. And prove that maybe some people watch to much TV.

And the agents are too stupid to surmise that they might have intimidated her into fleeing?

That should be their default assumption? Seems like something to argue in court not for the cops to deal with on the street.

Now you're just being silly.

That's funny I was thinking the same thing you mind reader you