Racist Police Stop in Pensacola!!!!

Where? I never saw anything like that.

Of course you did not see it, because you think that PTI does not train officers as an absolute right to call supervision when a citizen requests the same....you told me NO.....I gave you but one example, but I did not give you the reasoning of why these protocols are in place.....it is because the fourth amendment protects citizens from unlawful search, seizure, and arrest, and where a person questions a stop and requests supervision they have not denied the authority of the requested item, but that the same be turned over with proper supervision where a citizen believes that they need protection.   You denied that PTI does this....you were wrong.   But, if you are truthful, you would still have your PTI manual.....I have never met an officer, retired or otherwise who still did not have the manual.......never seen one.  Read your manual and then have this discussion.

1) She could have told the driver that she stopped him because of illegal window tint, which I heard her say to the other officer, but never heard her say before he arrived.

2) If she ran his plate and found a discrepancy, why was that not an issue when the other officer was on the scene? Did she run a check on his plate...or was there an error when the plate # was run?

There are times when a supervisor is simply not logistically available.  At that point the officer after waiting a reasonable time for supervisor response, most certainly can approach the motorist and explain that no supervisor is available, and we have waited a reasonable amount of time sir, and you have a choice to give me your driver's license or I will be forced to place you under arrest and will ask you to exit the vehicle where I will cuff you and transport you to booking.  Video is wonderful.  Following police procedures give the presumption that an officer is being reasonable.  This is important in a warrantless arrest.  She did not handle this professionally, and contrary to what some are arguing it has little to do with the substantive charge as much as following sound police procedures where the presumption is the officer is acting reasonably when there is compliance with a request for a supervisor by a motorist.  In the county geographically this presents problems with logistics....in any city, a timely arrival of a supervisor is good police work.

Has soon as he requested a supervisor she called for one. He should have provided his DR while waiting for the supervisor.

Has soon as he requested a supervisor she called for one. He should have provided his DR while waiting for the supervisor.

You are completely missing the most important point.  Once a driver has asked for a supervisor there is an obvious problem.  For citizen protection and for officer protection you wait for the supervisor.  It is important to realize that there were no exigent circumstances here which required the officer to further interact without a supervisor being present.  He acted correctly when asking for a supervisor, and Justice Scalia has had his fill of these type of stops, and the Supreme Court is making it clear that officers are tightly constrained under the fourth amendment on these warrantless stops.  He should NOT have done anything but wait for the supervisor.  He NEVER once mentioned he was a commissioner....not once.  He acted appropriately.  If the citation issued, a judge would have the final say, but more experienced and trained officers realized this was poorly handled from the stop to the interaction with the motorist.  Arguing with a motorist when he has asked for a supervisor is a slip in her file......and it has nothing to do with a commissioner......it may save her life or other officers lives in the future by learning proper police procedures to deescalate a traffic stops.

She explained or tried to explain the reason for the stop.....a problem with the tag. She called for a supervisor as soon  as he requested one.....his attitude changed when a male officer arrived. Intimidation of the female officer by Mr. May.....yep!

2seaoat wrote:Where? I never saw anything like that.

Of course you did not see it, because you think that PTI does not train officers as an absolute right to call supervision when a citizen requests the same....you told me NO.....I gave you but one example, but I did not give you the reasoning of why these protocols are in place.....it is because the fourth amendment protects citizens from unlawful search, seizure, and arrest, and where a person questions a stop and requests supervision they have not denied the authority of the requested item, but that the same be turned over with proper supervision where a citizen believes that they need protection.   You denied that PTI does this....you were wrong.   But, if you are truthful, you would still have your PTI manual.....I have never met an officer, retired or otherwise who still did not have the manual.......never seen one.  Read your manual and then have this discussion.

Are you on crack or what? I never said anything of the kind. What is PTI anyway? Police Training Institute or something? I said I was never trained in the first two weeks of the police academy on that as you stated. I don't have a manual or remember ever getting one. We had black loose leaf notebook and I can assure you I don't remember anything about calling a supervisor protocol. I remember traffic stops but nothing about calling supervisors besides for the umteenth time this was not about calling the supervisor. It was about his refusal to give his DL.

his attitude changed when a male officer arrived. Intimidation of the female officer by Mr. May.....yep! 


Now this is a huge step backward for women officers......nothing this man did was intimidating....nothing.  He simply said there was No reason for the stop, he has been stopped multiple times without doing anything wrong and he wanted a supervisor.   Now I am not much of a judge of height and I certainly do not want T getting all upset about size references, but the man was small and hardly intimidating.....he did not swear at the officer, but used the term of deference Maam, he did not yell....not once.....speaking sternly and standing up for your rights is not yelling......this officer was never intimidated, but she was clearly angry with his questions.......she should have followed protocol.....deescalate and wait for the supervisor, but instead she argued....and now everyone saw her  failure to follow procedures.   Citizens are who those who are sworn officers are here to protect, and that includes calmly going back to her squad and explaining to the motorist to stay in his vehicle and she will call a supervisor.  her bad....not his.....and this is not even close.....so what drives this thread?

It was about his refusal to give his DL.

Nope, he voluntarily and without a bit of a problem turned over his DL once the supervisor was at the scene.  It has NOTHING to do with his refusal to turn over his DL, or he would have been cited for the same.  He was not.  He was not arrested, and had he been arrested it would have been thrown out.  Hey, everybody loves Seaoat eating crow.....just show me this week when he is arrested....I am sure the PNJ will carry the story....because don't you know.....it was about his refusal to give his driver's license.....listen to the tape again.

I will turn my license over when the supervisor gets here....

2seaoat wrote:I will turn my license over when the supervisor gets here....

What if everybody did that?

I just watched the tape again and you are out of your damn mind. He was arguing w/ her and she did go back and call a supervisor. He refused to give her his driver license and repeatedly kept saying "why did you stop me? after she told him several times. The computer told her the tag had been replaced. She most definitely had a valid reason to stop him. Here you're saying he did not have to follow a police command but in the Reese Witherspoon case you argued she had to follow a police command. LOL! Crackpotola!

What if everybody did that?

We would start to take this country back.  We would have police assets going after violent crime and not wasting resources on this folly.  No until citizens have the courage of this citizen to ask why is crime not being addressed, and why are you following law abiding citizens and playing these games.   First, we have too large of a criminal justice system....it is historically out of whack.....way out of whack, and it is important to stand your ground when an officer as in this case has gone too far, and slowly we can have safe streets, balanced budgets, and productive citizens.  This has NOTHING to do with race.....the system is broken, and both sides of the aisle are working now on solutions.  Rand Paul has some solid suggestions on budget cuts and sentencing guidelines

Poor Dreams does not know how to use the search feature....to ahead and read the witherspoon case and my comments, and then read yours....one of us is right here and was right then....see that search mechanism....use it.....


He charged her w/ physical obstruction when all she was doing was arguing

He asked her to stay in the car. If she never said a word and never argued, she was physically coming into the area where an officer was attempting to arrest a suspect, and the issue is not the words she was saying, but her physical presence within a safety zone of the officer after he had instructed her not to enter that zone.......she was properly charged and was properly arrested. If she stayed in the car and rolled the window down and gave her movie credits, and told the police officer that she believed he was being unreasonable......she never would have been charged....even though she was arguing with an officer.

So was Lumon May arguing w/ an officer. She gave him a command to give his DL and he refused. No difference. He was legally obligated to obey her command and produce the DL whether a supervisor was coming or not. It doesn't matter what the act was Oatie, it was the refusal to comply. You are totally out in left field on this one.

A petite cop confronted by two much larger belligerent men depending on respect for her uniform to control the situation. Alas the two dudes dissed her badly. She handled it as best she could. I would have called in an air strike .

Fun exchange with Neko, and my usual shot at boards about his team of ages....


Seaoat is right on this.

Why did you add the qualifier "on this".......the proper response would be Seaoat is always right.......hey where has Boards hidden..... with his team for the ages........Miami Heat.......and the all time great Mr. James.......


We do have fun.  I miss Neko.......and she would have rather gone to the dentist than admit I was right.

She gave him a command to give his DL and he refused.

Still cannot get the facts or the law correct.  He said I will give my DL when the supervisor arrives....that is not a refusal, but a confirmation of his request for the supervisor......now his mere words are a crime in this venue....kinda inconsistent with your homegrown theories Dreams......Did he threaten the officer by leaving the vehicle....and did I not clearly say that Reese could say anything...it was not about words, but about actions and leaving the vehicle compromised officer safety....I suggest everybody reread that thread....we can easily see that Neko was right....and as much as that pained her to say the same......it was obvious Dreams was on a magic carpet ride.  I miss Dreams contributions.  Maybe I can piss her off enough to come get a little seaoat for lunch.....I love this place.

two much larger belligerent men


So a Black man asserting his fourth amendment rights is belligerent, and when you posted the white guy defying police order on his bike concerning his second amendment rights the man is a patriot.....its like people think that nobody on this forum has a memory, or that the search function has been disabled.....I love this place.

Neko.....she would have stood her ground on this one, too. May was in the wrong and so is Seaoat.

Come on Oatie! This is me you're talking to. I don't fall for your sidestepping and bullshit.Witherspoon was arrested for arguing w/ the officer and you and I both know it. She was no damn threat to that officer. Now out of 122 comments on the PNJ after that article 98% of people saw it differently than you. You or I would have been arrested and/or gotten a ticket for no registration or insurance. They knew who he was and that's why nothing happened.

Neko.....she would have stood her ground on this one, too. May was in the wrong and so is Seaoat.

Nope....Seaoat is right again....and will eat crow if he is arrested.  Neko is in heaven right now talking to God and asking him why did you make Seaoat so arrogant, and God responds that he talks to me regularly to better understand basketball and the NBA, to which Neko responded.....could you let a little air out his ball.....you know deflatgate.....

Now out of 122 comments on the PNJ after that article 98% of people saw it differently than you.

Unlike Bob, I have no problem taking a correct stand regardless of what Bubba thinks.....this one is easy.....yes sir, I have called the supervisor and stay in your vehicle until he arrives.  She sits in the squad, and there is no problem.  If he gets out of the truck after the proper instruction, he is subject to arrest, which I explained in the weatherspoon case........There would be 800 comments on the PNJ if I was posting....everybody would want a piece of me....but when you are correct.....you are correct......so if those same 98% told me the confederate flag was about heritage and nothing else, I am supposed to yield.....ha.....of all people you know that answer.

God,please give Oatie the sense to know when he is wrong? He is seriously lacking in that. When you're dead ,you don't know it but it hurts other people. It's like that when you're stupid too.

2seaoat wrote:[b] .... because the fourth amendment protects citizens from unlawful search, seizure, and arrest, ...

How does the 4th Amendment come into play as to providing his driver license, registration, and proof of insurance?

(Also, as I recall from the video, he told her he did not have proof of insurance.)