Thanks a lot for your comment. Your perspective as a former officer really brings something worthwhile to the discussion, and you stating your position as such really changed how I considered your comments. I'm a bit of an admittedly gullible person, so your assessment of the guy's story changed my perspective of the situation significantly. Your assessment of the officer's actions really shed a lot of light on the subject as well.

I feel that most of the people who try to leave 'cop-hate' comments on the sift try to boast more than they actually understand about proper law enforcement practices. Some of these people are merely 'anti-establishment,' and the mature ones recognize that law enforcement will inevitably exist the way that it does. But others just go nuts about getting upset about these videos, to the point of righteously emotionally masturbating.

Please continue lending your assessment on these kinds of videos, as I think they expand my world a bit. I'm sure there are others on here who feel similarly =).

>> ^RittWitt:

Speaking as a former LEO, not only does the primary officer grossly overreact to the situation (though I would tell you that unless you've been in his shoes, it's not fair to pass judgement), there is a serious officer safety here. Consent issues aside, there is absolutely no reason the secondary officer should have searched that vehicle with the driver still inside.
I don't believe the driver's story for a second. It seems pretty clear that he's in a high-crime area, and is involving himself with a known pimp and prostitute. However, that situation has little to do with the arresting officer's actions. My primary outrage here is that this pair of officers put themselves in a position, either through poor training or complacency, to provoke a potentially lethal situation had the suspect intended it. Then, instead of recognizing that the failure to identify the firearm was on their hands, the officer reacted out of rage (and probably a bit of justified fear at how close he and his partner could have been to a lethal force situation) by lashing out at a largely cooperative suspect.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The bad eggs are out there, but that's all they are, bad eggs. This is not the norm.
I was most surprised they searched the car without permission. Unlike the clueless Taser tards, this poor guy has a good case for suing.


it's just disheartening that they bestow such power upon the "bad eggs". In fact, it seems like such a power may even be a magnet for bad eggs.

If you look at a few other post from this wonderful sifter you start to get a pretty clear indication that VERY little he says isn't utter BS and they are more interested in getting reactions out of folks... just my opinion anyway...

In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
>> ^cito:

I hate pigs, I have a friend of mine who became a cop out of highschool, he was in there about 2 years but he quit and turned whistleblower for GBI. The local cops were hitting up drug dealers, would threaten them with arrest unless they turned over their drugs and money. If they refused or ran they got beat. The cops would then smoke the pot, and sell the rest. Then use the dealers money to augment their own salaries.
My friend was actually shown how he could get 2 or 3 dealers of his own, and run the racket to give himself a pay raise by using threats of arrest to take all the money of the dealers for himself.
anyhow he turned whistleblower and they fired 32 police and the sheriff in town. Since we are a smaller town there was no chief, the sheriff ran it all.
Anyhow I could write a book on corrupt pigs from all the stories I was told from the inside.
people seriously need to rise up and drag these pigs into centers of streets and beat them until they can only crawl home. And do it on a mass scale across the country.


"Pigs"? Seriously? Grow the fuck up. Idiot.

>> ^cito:

I hate pigs, I have a friend of mine who became a cop out of highschool, he was in there about 2 years but he quit and turned whistleblower for GBI. The local cops were hitting up drug dealers, would threaten them with arrest unless they turned over their drugs and money. If they refused or ran they got beat. The cops would then smoke the pot, and sell the rest. Then use the dealers money to augment their own salaries.
My friend was actually shown how he could get 2 or 3 dealers of his own, and run the racket to give himself a pay raise by using threats of arrest to take all the money of the dealers for himself.
anyhow he turned whistleblower and they fired 32 police and the sheriff in town. Since we are a smaller town there was no chief, the sheriff ran it all.
Anyhow I could write a book on corrupt pigs from all the stories I was told from the inside.
people seriously need to rise up and drag these pigs into centers of streets and beat them until they can only crawl home. And do it on a mass scale across the country.


"Pigs"? Seriously? Grow the fuck up. Idiot.

Cheers.

http://videosift.com/video/Cop-Threatens-Execution-After-Concealed-Weapon-Found

@ObsidianStorm

If he's acting aggressively and erratically, it doesn't matter that he showed his hands.

It takes less than a second to take out and use a concealed weapon, and people who get stabbed (or likewise get shot or get a knife thrown at them) often never even saw a knife... they just realize that the place they got 'punched' is actually a knife wound.

(But officers should be trained better to diffuse situations.)

It's become part of the Sift, not unlike Westy's spelling and QuantumMushroom finding a rightist slant that blames leftist forces for everything.


Oh, not EVERYTHING. After all, 98% isn't a 100%.

Liberals' 50 years of dreadful domestic policy
Posted: December 23, 2010

by Larry Elder

For the past 50 years, the Democrats – and many Republicans who should know better – have been wrong about virtually every major domestic policy issue. Let's review some of them:

Taxes

The bipartisan extension of the Bush tax cuts represents the latest triumph over the "soak the rich because trickledown doesn't work" leftists.

President Ronald Reagan sharply reduced the top marginal tax rates from 70 percent to 28 percent, doubling the Treasury's tax revenue. President George H.W. Bush raised the income tax rate, as did his successor. But President George W. Bush lowered them to the current 35 percent.

President Barack Obama repeatedly called the current rate unfair, harmful to the country and a reward to those who "didn't need" the cuts and "didn't ask for" them. If true, he and his party ditched their moral obligation to oppose the extension. But they didn't, because none of it is true. Democratic icon John F. Kennedy, who reduced the top marginal rate from more than 90 percent to 70 percent, said, "A rising tide lifts all the boats." He was right – and most of the Democratic Party knows it.


Welfare for the "underclass"

When President Lyndon Johnson launched his "War on Poverty," the poverty rate was trending down. When he offered money and benefits to unmarried women, the rate started flat-lining. Women married the government, allowing men to abandon their moral and financial responsibilities.

The percentage of children born outside of marriage – to young, disproportionately uneducated and disproportionately brown and black women – exploded. In 1996, over the objections of many on the left, welfare was reformed. Time limits were imposed, and women no longer received additional benefits if they had more children. The welfare rolls declined. Ten years later, the New York Times wrote: "When the 1996 law was passed ... liberal advocacy groups ... predicted that it would increase child poverty, hunger and homelessness. The predictions were not fulfilled."

Education

The federal government's increasing involvement with education – what is properly a state and local function – has been costly and ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst. Title I, a program begun 45 years ago to close the performance gap between urban and suburban schools, burns through more than $15 billion a year, and the performance gap has widened. The feds spend $80 billion a year on K-12 education, as if money is the answer. States like Utah and Iowa spend much less money per student compared with districts like those in New York City and Washington, D.C., with much better results.

Where parents have choices – where the money follows the student rather than the other way around – the students perform better, with higher parental satisfaction. But the teachers' unions and the Democratic Party continue to resist true competition among public, private and parochial schools.

Gun control

Violent crime occurs disproportionately in urban areas – where Democrats in charge impose the most draconian gun-control laws.

Over the objection of those who warn of a "return to the Wild West," 34 states passed laws allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons. Not one state has repealed its law. Professor John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," says: "There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate: As more people obtain permits, there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect, the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent and robberies by over 2 percent."


"Affirmative action"

Race-based preferences have been a disaster for college admissions. Students admitted with lesser credentials are more likely to drop out. Had their credentials matched their schools, they would have been far more likely to graduate and thus enter the job market at a more productive level.

Preferences in government hiring and contracting have led to widespread, costly and morale-draining "reverse discrimination" lawsuits. Where preferences have been put to the ballot, voters – even in liberal states like California – have voted against them.

Minimum-wage hikes

Almost all economists agree that minimum-wage laws contribute to unemployment among the low-skilled – the very group the "compassionate party" claims to care about.

Economist Walter E. Williams, 74, in his new autobiography, "Up from the Projects," describes the many low-skilled jobs he took as a teenager. "By today's standards," he wrote, "my youthful employment opportunities might be seen as extraordinary. That was not the case in the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, as I've reported in some of my research, teenage unemployment among blacks was slightly lower than among whites, and black teens were more active in the labor force as well. All of my classmates, friends, and acquaintances who wanted to work found jobs of one sort or another."

Obamacare

This ghastly government-directed scheme will inevitably lead to rationing and lower-quality care – all without "bending the cost curve" down as Obama promised.

Any party can have a bad half-century. Merry Christmas Solstice.

Liberals' 50 years of dreadful domestic policy
Posted: December 23, 2010

by Larry Elder

For the past 50 years, the Democrats – and many Republicans who should know better – have been wrong about virtually every major domestic policy issue. Let's review some of them:

Taxes

The bipartisan extension of the Bush tax cuts represents the latest triumph over the "soak the rich because trickledown doesn't work" leftists.

President Ronald Reagan sharply reduced the top marginal tax rates from 70 percent to 28 percent, doubling the Treasury's tax revenue. President George H.W. Bush raised the income tax rate, as did his successor. But President George W. Bush lowered them to the current 35 percent.

President Barack Obama repeatedly called the current rate unfair, harmful to the country and a reward to those who "didn't need" the cuts and "didn't ask for" them. If true, he and his party ditched their moral obligation to oppose the extension. But they didn't, because none of it is true. Democratic icon John F. Kennedy, who reduced the top marginal rate from more than 90 percent to 70 percent, said, "A rising tide lifts all the boats." He was right – and most of the Democratic Party knows it.


Welfare for the "underclass"

When President Lyndon Johnson launched his "War on Poverty," the poverty rate was trending down. When he offered money and benefits to unmarried women, the rate started flat-lining. Women married the government, allowing men to abandon their moral and financial responsibilities.

The percentage of children born outside of marriage – to young, disproportionately uneducated and disproportionately brown and black women – exploded. In 1996, over the objections of many on the left, welfare was reformed. Time limits were imposed, and women no longer received additional benefits if they had more children. The welfare rolls declined. Ten years later, the New York Times wrote: "When the 1996 law was passed ... liberal advocacy groups ... predicted that it would increase child poverty, hunger and homelessness. The predictions were not fulfilled."

Education

The federal government's increasing involvement with education – what is properly a state and local function – has been costly and ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst. Title I, a program begun 45 years ago to close the performance gap between urban and suburban schools, burns through more than $15 billion a year, and the performance gap has widened. The feds spend $80 billion a year on K-12 education, as if money is the answer. States like Utah and Iowa spend much less money per student compared with districts like those in New York City and Washington, D.C., with much better results.

Where parents have choices – where the money follows the student rather than the other way around – the students perform better, with higher parental satisfaction. But the teachers' unions and the Democratic Party continue to resist true competition among public, private and parochial schools.

Gun control

Violent crime occurs disproportionately in urban areas – where Democrats in charge impose the most draconian gun-control laws.

Over the objection of those who warn of a "return to the Wild West," 34 states passed laws allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons. Not one state has repealed its law. Professor John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," says: "There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate: As more people obtain permits, there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect, the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent and robberies by over 2 percent."


"Affirmative action"

Race-based preferences have been a disaster for college admissions. Students admitted with lesser credentials are more likely to drop out. Had their credentials matched their schools, they would have been far more likely to graduate and thus enter the job market at a more productive level.

Preferences in government hiring and contracting have led to widespread, costly and morale-draining "reverse discrimination" lawsuits. Where preferences have been put to the ballot, voters – even in liberal states like California – have voted against them.

Minimum-wage hikes

Almost all economists agree that minimum-wage laws contribute to unemployment among the low-skilled – the very group the "compassionate party" claims to care about.

Economist Walter E. Williams, 74, in his new autobiography, "Up from the Projects," describes the many low-skilled jobs he took as a teenager. "By today's standards," he wrote, "my youthful employment opportunities might be seen as extraordinary. That was not the case in the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, as I've reported in some of my research, teenage unemployment among blacks was slightly lower than among whites, and black teens were more active in the labor force as well. All of my classmates, friends, and acquaintances who wanted to work found jobs of one sort or another."

Obamacare

This ghastly government-directed scheme will inevitably lead to rationing and lower-quality care – all without "bending the cost curve" down as Obama promised.

Any party can have a bad half-century. Merry Christmas.

I wonder good sirs, and ladies if in BP's haste did they fail to follow state law? Inquiring minds are just dieing to know. I'm now reminded of Black-water in New Orleans.

http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law-enforcement-corrections/criminal-offenses/8902475-1.html

I'm guessing the laws in LA are lax, unlike the laws in VA, which require all Security Guards to display proper identification (license) at all times. See the section on Virginia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_guard#United_States

Another tip, Armed Security Officers may make Lawful Arrests. Although the general rule was never make an arrest unless it was a felonious offense and you have concrete proof (Multiple Eye Witnesses, Surveillance Footage, or Someone's life is in danger). All other offenses were to be differed to Peace Officers. During my time, I never once saw a crime, except trespass.

Compliance with the provisions of this article shall not itself authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or exercise any powers of a conservator of the peace. A registered armed security officer of a private security services business while at a location which the business is contracted to protect shall have the power to effect an arrest for an offense occurring (i) in his presence on such premises or (ii) in the presence of a merchant, agent, or employee of the merchant the private security business has contracted to protect, if the merchant, agent, or employee had probable cause to believe that the person arrested had shoplifted or committed willful concealment of goods as contemplated by § 18.2-106. For the purposes of § 19.2-74, a registered armed security officer of a private security services business shall be considered an arresting officer.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+9.1-146

I don't get it..this is your defence? my situation of "If they get the jump on you, a concealed weapon does you no good" is wrong, so..you post a situation of the perpetrator getting the jump on you, and the concealed weapon doing you no good, as they get your money and run away, rarely being shot. Perhaps you stated that wrong.

Well, because you aren't posting here anymore, I'd just like to point out for other people that when I said "ran away", I meant WITHOUT your money, or anything else. As in, the gun scared them off. It's not a hypothetical situation, it's what usually happens when they learn you're carrying a gun, no quick draw required.

Alright, this is my last post here, because I don't really want to spend another ten minutes arguing hypothetical situations with you. Neither of us is wrong, and neither of is are changing our minds about the issue.

I never said guns are illegal in Canada, but only roughly 26% own guns. When push comes to shove, America still has more gun related deaths then Canada. It could be due to the fact that 71% of Canadian gun owners only have rifles for hunting, and only 12% have handguns, mind you.

Now, try this out. Go to bed, set your alarm for 3 hours, and then wake up. If there's someone at the end of a dark hallway, odds are your vision is going to be blurred and you won't be able to make out any features other then potentially hair length.

As for a thrust having better range then a bat? Bullshit. If you've taken a stance, if they lunge at you, and you swing, I personally have about 5-6 feet worth of extension with a bat, and if you make contact with the center of mass, not only will you knock them if nothing else OVER, but you'll potentially crack a rib or break an arm. A 10 year old little league player can swing a 20 oz bat 60 mph., Strength is NOT an issue.

Also, I'd like to point out that baseball bats don't always need to be swung two handed. If you're able to weild it one handed, you've got an even GREATER reach then any knife, and can move just as easily, historically, clubs are better weapons.

In the show "Deadliest Warrior"
Every time there was a knife vs other weapon, The other weapon won all but once. And that's because the spetsnaz ballistic knife can shoot. The "Club" weapons however, almost always beat whatever it was up against.

This is the typical (real) case: someone carrying a (concealed) firearm is mugged or otherwise held up while doing something else (so as a matter of course, they were taken by surprise). The usual result of this scenario is the perpetrator running away, rarely being shot, rarer still winning a confrontation. On the other hand, if you are not armed and the perpetrator wants more than your money, then all you can do is file a police report afterward, assuming he has no interest in killing you.

I don't get it..this is your defence? my situation of "If they get the jump on you, a concealed weapon does you no good" is wrong, so..you post a situation of the perpetrator getting the jump on you, and the concealed weapon doing you no good, as they get your money and run away, rarely being shot. Perhaps you stated that wrong.

I'd also like to add, that unless you've been hardcore trained to be able to find, draw, and shoot your weapon in a situation like that, you've got one HELL of a chance of fumbling around, and not even shooting it

"So, let me get this straight.. You wake up, you're tired because you're halfway through your sleep cycle, so instead of a melee weapon where you can see what you'll be swinging at, you instead grab a gun? Yeah, have fun shooting a loved one."

No, you identify the person first in either case. It's easier to shoot someone while tired than it is to get involved in a melee. You're more likely to win in other words. You can id someone within seconds of waking up, but only sleep will give you the alertness needed to fight a brawl.

"It doesn't matter if they bring a friend, the first thing you SHOULD be doing when you hear people in your house is calling the cops (hey look, that statement wasn't actually irrelevant after all!)."

Yes, that is the first thing you do if you aren't armed. If you are armed, you arm yourself, then you call the cops and hide.

The reason it wasn't relevant is because the police will take enough time to arrive that you may very well be dead by the time they get there.

"The only time you should be engaging them anyway is if they come after you."

Yes. And if they come after you, they are most likely to win, provided you don't have a gun. If you do, the odds are about 50/50 or better in your favor.

"And saner people realise that they'll be breaking into the house and getting the jump on you, hmm? So..What the fuck good does it do you then? Neither the bat OR the gun is any use because you're now either dead, or locked in a closet. Oh, and if they continue to search after that's happened, they get to steal your gun. yay."

Except as a matter of fact, break-ins do occur when the owner has a firearm, and when the owner is not expecting it, and even though the break in itself was a surprise, it's almost always the firearm toting homeowner that wins. Your hypothetical scenario logically supports your conclusion, but it is not representative of reality.

"Strength in combat is usually not a deciding factor, if you're not as strong as some, pick a lighter bat. You don't need to be sleeping beside a 32 oz. home run machine, a 24-26 ounce metal softball bat is less then 2 pounds and longer then a knife."

No seriously, how much experience do you have fighting with a baseball bat vs someone with a knife?

I contend that
A) A knife, even a short one is much more dangerous than a baseball bat (getting hit with a bat is painful and can break bones, but being stabbed is much worse).
B) Even a short knife has a longer reach than a baseball bat (because of the thrusting motion with arm vs swing motion).

The above isn't to invite discussion on what people should arm themselves with, it's to demonstrate that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

"He brings friends, you're probably SOL in the first place, but seriously.. "

If he brings friends you can easily bring them down if you're armed with a gun and they aren't, they will be the people who are SOL. If they are armed with guns (which is very rare), then you are much better off armed yourself.

"do you think that no burglars can be stopped without a gun? I'm genuinely curious now, because if the answer is yes, then what do you think they do in..say..Canada?"

I do think burglars can be stopped without a gun. It's just that keeping guns legal helps you a lot more than it helps them. As for Canada, I believe guns are legal there. As for what they do in any given place where it is not legal to own a firearm, for the most part they deal with whatever the perps want to do with them and then file a police report after the fact. Sometimes letting the police deal with it is the correct state of affairs (robbery), and sometimes barring citizens to the means of self defense is a terribly unjust state of affairs (rape, murder).

"a decent mugger/rapist/murder/gang, which again will have the advantage of surprise."
..so, how exactly do you draw and fire a gun if you've been taken by surprise? a "decent" any one of those would have a weapon pointed at you, and have your arms either up, or somewhere away from where a concealed weapon could be. And you call my logic flawed.

Your logic is perfect. If it were true that muggings worked like that, then a concealed weapon would do you no good.

Your facts however, are wrong.

Like your previous example, you constructed a hypothetical scenario, then force it to work out like you want it to, rather than looking at what actually happens in reality.

This is the typical (real) case: someone carrying a (concealed) firearm is mugged or otherwise held up while doing something else (so as a matter of course, they were taken by surprise). The usual result of this scenario is the perpetrator running away, rarely being shot, rarer still winning a confrontation. On the other hand, if you are not armed and the perpetrator wants more than your money, then all you can do is file a police report afterward, assuming he has no interest in killing you.

P.S. My last post wasn't meant to be laughed at. Neither is this one.

@Lowen: Long comment trying to be funny is long...and really not funny.

So, let me get this straight.. You wake up, you're tired because you're halfway through your sleep cycle, so instead of a melee weapon where you can see what you'll be swinging at, you instead grab a gun? Yeah, have fun shooting a loved one.

It doesn't matter if they bring a friend, the first thing you SHOULD be doing when you hear people in your house is calling the cops (hey look, that statement wasn't actually irrelevant after all!). The only time you should be engaging them anyway is if they come after you.

And saner people realise that they'll be breaking into the house and getting the jump on you, hmm? So..What the fuck good does it do you then? Neither the bat OR the gun is any use because you're now either dead, or locked in a closet. Oh, and if they continue to search after that's happened, they get to steal your gun. yay.

Strength in combat is usually not a deciding factor, if you're not as strong as some, pick a lighter bat. You don't need to be sleeping beside a 32 oz. home run machine, a 24-26 ounce metal softball bat is less then 2 pounds and longer then a knife.

He brings friends, you're probably SOL in the first place, but seriously.. do you think that no burglars can be stopped without a gun? I'm genuinely curious now, because if the answer is yes, then what do you think they do in..say..Canada?

"a decent mugger/rapist/murder/gang, which again will have the advantage of surprise."

..so, how exactly do you draw and fire a gun if you've been taken by surprise? a "decent" any one of those would have a weapon pointed at you, and have your arms either up, or somewhere away from where a concealed weapon could be. And you call my logic flawed.

Alright, I'm done.

I've had it with these types of videos.
Thousands of cops are doing their jobs properly, thousands more do it because they like keeping the peace. A fraction of them do something stupid, and suddenly ALL cops are bad?
Seriously people, where would you be without a police force, good or bad.

You know why shit like this is happening? Lack of respect for the officers in question.
Before, if cops went up to a car, and said "You were doing 60 in a 40" the driver would say "Okay, won't happen again" take the damn ticket, and drive away.

What's happening now is that people feel they've somehow been wronged by the law that's been protecting them for years, instead of accepting the ticket and driving along, they decide the best course of action is to argue with the cop.

Why?

Arguing with any form of authority figure is a stupid idea, would you talk back to your boss? your supirior? your principal? your parents? all of those people in one way, shape, or form have some form of control over you at one point in time. The difference? They're not the ones making sure people aren't speeding in school zones, aren't driving while intoxicated, aren't causing a menace to society.

You can hate the man, but at least respect the badge. The bottom line is, if you got pulled over, you were doing something wrong in the first place. Look at some of the videos here about "Police Brutality" 90% of these situations could be avoided by not doing something wrong in the first place.

Now, picture this is you. You've pulled someone over for speeding along a deserted road. You get out of the car, go up to their window, and ask for the License, Registration, and Proof of insurance.
They instead say "I didn't do anything wrong, no." You once again ask for their license and registration, this time, annoyed, they give it to you and you walk back to the car.

You type the plate number into the onboard computer, and while it's getting the information, the driver decides to get out of the car. He's clearly glaring at you, and approaching you. You ask them to get back in the car, and the refuse, and start talking back to you saying that "This is stupid, I'm not accepting the ticket" you again ask them to get back into the car and they refuse, and start approaching you again.

You now have very few options left.

Because this person is not doing what they're asked, you can:

Continue to allow them to approach you, with no idea what possible concealed weapons they have on them, be it a firearm or knife, and keep asking them to get into the car, which they continue to refuse.

Or

You can take out your tazer, and demand they get back into the car, or on the ground, saving potentially both of you from harm if they then comply.

Now, let's say you took option 2...

Why does it take the threat of force to get them to do what they're asked?

Now, some of you can see my point on this already, and for those that are still saying "That's a stupid plan, the cop should've allowed the man to approach in the first place, he shouldn't have drawn the tazer"

The only thing I have left to say to you, is the way that this entire thing could've been avoided...stay put in the car, stay quiet, and just give what they asked. The cop would've driven away, you would've driven away, and if you still felt there was no reason for you to get that ticket, go to court, demand all the information about the event (Dash cam footage, ect) and fight it.

There's no reason that scenario should've come to needing to use any form of threat or force in the first place.

Man, this is tough. I see everyone's point of view on this. "They were both stupid" seems to sum it up.

Having said that, I would like everyone who has jumped all over this officer for reacting so strongly to imagine that their brother or father or sister or mother is a police officer. The point that someone under arrest gets back into a vehicle, with the possibility of getting access to a concealed weapon, is probably why he got so hopped up.

What are the statistics on cops getting killed/attacked during routine traffic stops -- even if there are kids in the car? I know that domestic violence situations are very dangerous for police officers. I have the impression that traffic stops are, too.

If that was your loved one in a potentially lethal situation, I think you might be more forgiving of the over-the-top behavior.

Stay in your car. Keep your hands on the 10 and 2 positions on the steering wheel. Follow instructions. Remember that the police officer might be as scared of you as you are of him/her.

De-escalate, don't escalate.

[I just went and read the MSNC article. The 15-year-old son knew she was being stupid -- he yelled at her to get back in the car. At least one person in the family has some smarts.]