Police Officer slams on brakes, tries to have driver smash into him.

[Bubba1]

"Excusing this is nothing but an appeal to authority."

Nope, not an appeal to authority at all. You've only heard OP's side of the story. If you read my posts, I actually agreed with you that I thought there were better ways the officer could have pulled him over. But that does not negate OP's violations. Think of it this way. If the officer posted the incident from his cam's view (assuming he had one) on Jalopnik, titled it "dumb things this kid did" including commentary, the kid would be equally outraged that it did not tell the entire story, and embarrassed that the entire world heard the accusation without any opportunity for him to explain his side. that's why I don't think you should have submitted it to Jalopnik.

That's also why I don't get the appeal to this story. Both sides were wrong.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

For what its worth, I agree with Jesda. If the cop posted a video from his car, you'd see the same thing we just saw, only from a different angle.
Try to re-watch the video and not read any of the commentary. It's still wrong for the officer. Commentary doesn't make it right or wrong.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Also, its not like the OP wrote the officer a ticket for being a d!ck. The officer wrote the OP a ticket because the officer was being a d!ck, and the OP had tint and no front plate.
If I were a NJ citizen, I'd be fairly outraged that the cop was using my tax dollars (in the form of a cruiser and his medical bills) so willy nilly.

If this were 2 citizens and the OP hit the person in front of him (and still had this dash cam), don't you think the insurance company would try to fight it?

[Bubba1]

If this were 2 citizens and the OP hit the person in front of him (and still had this dash cam), don't you think the insurance company would try to fight it?

Good question. Depends on which car. the insurance company of the lead car that got hit can fight and would win easily, because in NJ, in a rear end 2 car collision, the back driver is always at fault for not leaving themselves enough stopping room. End of story. why the first driver hit the brakes is irrelevant.. The insurance company for the rear driver? They won't fight it. Their client gets a ticket for tailgating, and depending on their policy, might end up charging their client higher premiums after paying out the claim. Thing is, tailgating is very common in NJ, much more common than where you guys live. But tailgating only becomes a serious problem if you get caught, because it's a major 5 point offense. You would think that such a big fine would deter most NJ drivers from doing it. Nope. The time craziness is far more important to them.

As info, my wife was rear-ended by tailgaters 3 times in 2 years in our old Altima in NJ, all by NJ drivers. No, she didn't brake check them. All three of those NJ drivers got tailgating tickets. Our insurance company had no complaints, our premiums stayed the same, our body shop loved the business, and we got free rentals while the car was in the shop . I kinda doubt those tailgaters or their insurance companies were as satisfied. 'ya know?

[Bubba1]

If the cop posted a video from his car, you'd see the same thing we just saw, only from a different angle.

Yes and no. As trunks tend to be slightly higher in back than hoods on most police car, which tend to taper downward to the front, the camera angle would probably make OP's car look even closer. But I think you're veering away from my point that if the roles were hypothetically reversed and the officer internet shamed OP for his violations, and Jalopnik republished it to their global audience, (something the officer did NOT do, but OP and Jesda did), Don't you think OP would be beyond outraged that his part of the story was ignored and just put out there for the world's consumption with bias? It should be fair. I hope that makes sense.

[Bubba1]

Also, its not like the OP wrote the officer a ticket for being a d***. The officer wrote the OP a ticket because the officer was being a d***, and the OP had tint and no front plate.

The cop wrote OP 3 tickets because OP tailgated HIM, had darker than legal tint and no mounted front plate. OP likely could have avoided all three tickets had he not followed that cop so closely, drawing attention to himself. Lesson 1 in survival, you don't poke a bear. But If you found yourself driving in northern NJ, trust me, you'd be far more surprised/outraged by how aggressive northern NJ drivers can be, not the cops. In fact, If you're a tourist, you'd want a NJ cop on the road nearby, as NJ drivers tend to drive far more politely when they're around. I know it sounds crazy, but it's true.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

I'm still debating that what the OP was doing was not tailgating. No way, no how.
It doesn't matter which vehicle had the camera, it clearly shows the OP not tailgating. Vantage point doesn't have much to do with it here. Your wife's circumstances were very different. I bet if she DID brake check people randomly (whether they were tailgating or not), she'd get rear-ended a lot more.

Also another point Jesda made is that even IF the OP was tailgating, the officer handled the situation like pure, unadulterated s***. Jesda is correct, the correct thing to do (which has happened to me for various reasons... none of them being tailgating a cop) is the officer to pull over, let the OP drive by, and then pull the OP over. The other option would be to come to a smooth, controlled stop with your lights on and flag the driver over. In what universe is slamming on the brakes next to a parked car a viable response for an officer for someone that he perceives as tailgating?!

[PapaSmurf2k3]

As info, my wife was rear-ended by tailgaters 3 times in 2 years in our old Altima in NJ, all by NJ drivers. No, she didn't brake check them. All three of those NJ drivers got tailgating tickets. Our insurance company had no complaints, our premiums stayed the same, our body shop loved the business, and we got free rentals while the car was in the shop . I kinda doubt those tailgaters or their insurance companies were as satisfied. 'ya know?

This is where the dash cam comes in to play. Obviously no one argued who was at fault in this situation 1 - because your wife didn't brake check, and 2 - because no one had a dash cam.
There are definitely circumstances when the person in travel isn't at fault, but could be difficult to prove in court. The dash cam is what assists you in those situations.
https://www.quora.com/If-an-accident-oc ... s-at-fault
^Skip to about halfway down. The officer essentially did the "swoop and squat" insurance fraud technique on the OP, except instead of having assistance from another perp, he used a parked car.
https://jimcorleylaw.wordpress.com/2012 ... -recovery/
http://forums.officer.com/t26209/
Written by officers in the above forum:

We recently had an incident involving a couple security guards riding in the fast lane about 2 mph under. As traffic backed up behind them, they did the brake check. Witnesses noted this and the driver was cited for "Agressive Driving" (anti-road rage law) If I recall correctly it's $500 citation (normal speeding here is $97) and 5 points on the license.

Stupid move.

I've had this happen to me once. I made the arrest for agg assault, the state attorney actually upgraded it to agg battery because the person was "joulted" as a result of the accident..........it stuck and the guy pled out......i've heard of other cases, but didnt follow them.

it deff fits the assault/battery statute here in florida.....but only an idiot would admit to "slamming on the brakes just so he would hit me".......stupidity imho he/she deserves to go to jail.....too much road rage and too many idiots causing injuries/death on the roadways

In Alaska, intentionally causing an accident can be anything from Reckless Driving to felony Assault. Never intentionally cause an accident; there is absolutely no excuse for that.

So brake checking is a very questionable act, AT BEST (and I mean at best), and in no way should be used by an officer to prove a point. He actually came to a full and complete stop too.

[BusyBadger]

Cop was an amateur, here's a properly executed brake check.

[Jesda]

"Excusing this is nothing but an appeal to authority."

Nope, not an appeal to authority at all. You've only heard OP's side of the story.

Other side? Are you under the impression that there's a reasonable explanation for this kind of unprofessional behavior? You have a vivid imagination.

People in public service should cringe at the sight of this video. I've thankfully never had to deal with an amateur meathead like this.

That reminds me... I need a dash cam.

[Jesda]

Lesson 1 in survival, you don't poke a bear.

The police are not hungry predators roaming the forest. They're trained professionals. It's why we as a society grant them special privileges to perform their duties.

If you perceive law enforcement to be aggressors that we have to fear, then something has to change.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

If the cop was behind the driver and the driver was going slightly under the speed limit, would it be OK for the police officer to attempt to ram him? Because that's what we're talking about here.

[Bubba1]

I'm still debating that what the OP was doing was not tailgating. No way, no how.
It doesn't matter which vehicle had the camera, it clearly shows the OP not tailgating. Vantage point doesn't have much to do with it here. Your wife's circumstances were very different. I bet if she DID brake check people randomly (whether they were tailgating or not), she'd get rear-ended a lot more.

Also another point Jesda made is that even IF the OP was tailgating, the officer handled the situation like pure, unadulterated s***. Jesda is correct, the correct thing to do (which has happened to me for various reasons... none of them being tailgating a cop) is the officer to pull over, let the OP drive by, and then pull the OP over. The other option would be to come to a smooth, controlled stop with your lights on and flag the driver over. In what universe is slamming on the brakes next to a parked car a viable response for an officer for someone that he perceives as tailgating?!

Are you familiar with Nj laws and regulations regarding what constitutes being too close? If so, then, please share. If you don't know, then how the heck can you be so sure it's a "no way/no how" scenario? You're guessing, my friend. I lived in NJ a long time, I don't even know the specifics. That is why I suggested, more than once, that OP consult someone who does know, like a lawyer that specializes in defending traffic cases. Please attack me for suggesting something so crazy. Interestingly OP said he did consult such a lawyer and said he got laughed at. To me, that suggests he may NOT have as strong a case as you think.

Regarding the video, the critical legal piece to avoiding that ticket is not the cop being a d***, but how close did OP get to the cruiser before the stop took place. Looks like he got within 2 car lengths. I suspect but I cannot confirm that might be close enough to meet the LEGAL definition, not the Papasmurf definition, not the Jesda definition, but legal definition of tailgating. That video could end up confirming his guilt to a judge who actually knows those standards. That's what the ticket comes down to. Aren't you at least a bit curious why the did cop suggested to OP that he bring the video to court? Could it be the cop knows those standards? Hmmmmm? This is likely not the first tailgating ticket he's ever issued. I think you also need to take the emotion out of this incident as it relates to court.

Next, my wife's experiences with tailgaters was both an example of how common tailgating is in NJ, and to help answer your insurance question. That' all.

Finally, as far as Jesda's point about the cop acting like a d***, if you read my other posts, you'll realize I AGREED that the officer acted douchey, and he should have handled the stop in a safer manor. You realize you're arguing about something about which we agree. C'mon, man. As badly as we think the cop behaved, we are neither lawyers or experts in NJ law/police regulations to know if that officer did anything illegal when he stopped OP in that manner. Again, I don't know that answer, and i don't think you know either. That's another reason why I suggested he consult a lawyer that knows that answer. And besides, his being a d*** has nothing to do with how close OP got the car before the braking, or the missing plate, or the tint violation. The TICKETS what the traffic judge will decide. I've said more than once in this thread I think both the cop and OP were wrong. The cop, you now know we agree. OP? I think he simply used poor judgement by following a police cruiser that closely in a car with noticeable violations. Had he not been so close, I'd wager he would not have been stopped at all. Hopefully OP will use better judgement in the future. Is that so controversial?

[Bubba1]

Lesson 1 in survival, you don't poke a bear.

The police are not hungry predators roaming the forest. They're trained professionals. It's why we as a society grant them special privileges to perform their duties.

If you perceive law enforcement to be aggressors that we have to fear, then something has to change.

No Jesda, it means if you're driving a car with visible violations that can be ticketed, the last thing you want to do is get too close to (ie tailgate) an LEO and get his attention That's just common sense. Nice try, though..

[Bubba1]

Other side? Are you under the impression that there's a reasonable explanation for this kind of unprofessional behavior? You have a vivid imagination.

that's why we have this wonderful invention called courtrooms. In them, you actually get to hear both sides explain before making a verdict. I don't know about you, but I'd love to hear the officer explain why he stopped OP that way.

But legally speaking, in this case, I think how close OP got to the cruiser before the stop was made will determine whether or not OP pays the tailgating ticket, not the aggressive way the officer used to stop him. I also assume he's hosed on the other 2 tickets as he admitted on video his front plate was in the trunk, and didn't disagree that his tint might have been darker than NJ permits. Do you agree?

And I think my wife might agree with you that I have a vivid imagination, but only certain topics. Police protocol is not one of them.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Your comments keep suggesting that the OP was driving too closely (at least for NJ roads). That's the Joel definition of tailgating, while I suggest he was not driving too closely, what you call the Papasmurf definition of tailgating. Agree to disagree on that one.
Believe it or not, I do, in fact know quite a bit about laws. Although they do vary from state to state, more often than not they are fairly open ended, undefined (at least for the Engineer in me), and left up to judgement. Its very much like the umbrella Osha clause of "employer must provide a safe place for employees to work". So if there is ever an accident, they site that clause (usually among others, but that's the catch-all if you will).

To answer your question the actual NJ state law for tailgating reads as follows:

The driver of a vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard to the speed of the preceding vehicle and the traffic upon, and condition of, the highway.

I believe I read one jalopnik commenter say "He stopped and didn't hit the officer's car, which, by definition would suggest that he's being reasonable and prudent with his distance".

I don't know about you, but I'd love to hear the officer explain why he stopped OP that way.

But legally speaking, in this case, I think how close OP got to the cruiser before the stop was made will determine whether or not OP pays the tailgating ticket, not the aggressive way the officer used to stop him. I also assume he's hosed on the other 2 tickets as he admitted on video his front plate was in the trunk, and didn't disagree that his tint might have been darker than NJ permits. Do you agree?

I agree I'd love to hear the officer try to explain his actions (and keep his job for that matter). Agreed he's definitely hosed on the tint (provided they measure it and determine it is in fact too dark for NJ... which, let's be honest, it most likely is... but the cop should have to prove that), but there may be a fix it type clause for the front plate ticket issued. Probably depends on how the judge is feeling that day. Realistically the dash cam is the OPs, so he can submit whatever portion of it he would like to submit for the purposes of his own case. The prosecution could try to subpoena the entirety of his dash cam footage if they do so within a reasonable time, but at that point the law gets a little fuzzy to me. I haven't dealt with any personal cases with dash cams yet.

[Jesda]

No Jesda, it means if you're driving a car with visible violations that can be ticketed, the last thing you want to do is get too close to (ie tailgate) an LEO and get his attention That's just common sense. Nice try, though..

The public (except you, apparently) has a reasonable expectation for the police to behave safely and professionally.

This doofus didn't live up to the standards intended by his training.

I dont care if the OP gets a ticket for tint, a missing plate, or playing his music too loudly. My concern is that this police officer behaved dangerously and recklessly. That's the issue. The rest is entirely unimportant.

You alone think this kind of behavior is okay.

[Bubba1]

No I do not condone the officer's behavior, and I've said so several times. Jeez, re-read my posts! And no, that's not the Joel definition, that's the officer's OPINION, who issued OP a SUMMONS to appear in court if OP disagreed. He disagreed, great. Take it to court. Good luck. I hope OP wins. The problem is you are focused solely on the officers behavior during apprehension, and are ignoring the tickets altogether. You can't do that in court. He can internet shame the cop on line, but it probably won't help him in court to avoid the 5 points if the court concludes he tailgated. And the points on that one ticket ARE important to OP, just not to you. I have no dog in this fight. You now seem to have one, judging by your posting it on your blog and submitting it to Jalopnik. I simply want an impartial judge in court to determine the validity of the charges. And you call that bias?? I think Greg might agree with me, (as someone more experienced in these type of legal matters than both of us) that OP might need to address the officer's behavior during apprehension in a separate legal action. If claiming the officer was a d!ck is his only defense in traffic court instead of finding out whether or not he met the actual legal definition of tailgating, I suspect he'll end up paying the fines, court costs and getting those points. For OP's sake, I hope I'm wrong. OP seems like a nice guy.

As info, earlier in the thread, I believe I posted that law as written too. I think there's another layer of specifications that we do not have instant internet access to that supports NJ laws for a judge or LEO to make a more informed decision whenever there are variables. To illustrate this with a hopefully entertaining but typical NJ tale:

Awhile back in NJ, there was a big controversy with red light cameras. The ones that takes pictures of your car if you enter an intersection a millisecond or more after the light turns red and automatically mails the registered owner a big ticket. Surprise!! Chris Christie touted this as a positive move for traffic safety. He gleefully signed a 1 yr contract with a company to install/operate them in many towns, bragging these cameras would deter accidents, lower insurance premiums, and make NJ safer. Here's what actually happened: accidents skyrocketed at these intersections, as many drivers panic stop to avoid the fine in a state where not only tailgating is prolific, plus yellow is commonly interpreted in NJ as accelerate to beat the red light. Ticket revenue jumped naturally, but paid mostly by furious local residents, the contracted company made huge profits, and the insurance industry applied for rate increases due to the spike in accident claims. It was also alleged that some yellow light durations were shortened to increase the number of violations.

Ok, here comes the parallel: Back then, if you searched NJ traffic laws online, (as I did when my wife got nailed by one of those cameras) you could not easily find any specifications as to the legal minimum yellow traffic light illumination duration, only the briefly worded law itself. (that may have since changed, I don't know) But my point is that there is a layer of specs that support NJ traffic laws to which we do not necessarily have instant internet access. I suspect that also includes the NJ state specifications for distance (or elapsed time perhaps) that better defines tailgating. I'm sure a traffic court judge, traffic lawyer, or LEO, folks who handle this stuff every day, know those specs quite well. Better than non-lawyers like Jesda or Joel who have a good general awareness of traffic laws. That's also why I made the wild suggestion for OP to consult a lawyer. Make a little more sense now?

[Jesda]

No I do not condone the officer's behavior, and I've said so several times. Jeez, re-read my posts!

That's the only thing that matters in this entire thread. It isn't a "they were both wrong" situation because the only thing truly wrong or dangerous that occurred was the brake-check.

The rest is irrelevant. He would have gotten a tint or plate ticket anytime, anywhere else anyway.

[Jesda]

This is disturbing:

Update 1: (4/30/16) PLEASE READ First of all, I'd like to thank everyone supporting me. I didn't know this video would get as much attention as it's getting. Because of that, I feel like I should bring up what happened after the 'traffic stop.' On March 31st, I was eating with a friend at a local Zinburger. Afterwards, we were walking to my car and I was explaining to him what happened when the cop slammed on his brakes. A cop car happened to drive by us in the parking lot, and apparently, they overheard the conversation. The cop stopped the car, and confronted me. I don't know how coincidental it is, but the cop was Velez, and a partner. The first thing he said was "what did you say?" At this point, I was thinking "This guy's a hot head," and tried to diffuse the situation. We kept going back and forth, but the officer said, "if you were a man, you would say something to my face." The officer also said ,"you are a coward." At that point, he started backing up and I said "sir, you have a badge and uniform and represent the state of NJ, and you act like that?" At that point, he reapproached me again, shoulders square within 2 feet of me. Safe to say it was uncomfortable. Again, he said I was a coward. I am confident he was trying to provoke me into saying or doing something thst would warrant an arrest, so I just repeated "I will see you in court," at which point I offered to shake his hand, but he just walked away. I did not put this in the video because I didn't have proof of it, but I have initiated a case with internal affairs about a week after it happened. I also have a witness in my friend who will be involved in the investigation. The partner can also be asked if this happened, but I doubt he would be willing to speak about it. Regardless, the investigator that I spoke to will be checking if Velez was on duty on the day and time in question, which I was accurately able to provide, along with the my friend's contact info.

[Bubba1]

That's the only thing that matters in this entire thread. It isn't a "they were both wrong" situation because the only thing truly wrong or dangerous that occurred was the brake-check.

First, ask OP if he intends to follow police cars as closely after going thru this cr@p. I'm guessing his answer will be no. Second, yes, I still believe both were wrong, But you have wrongly assumed I placed similar weight to both their wrongs. you are the one that's wrong. Obviously what the cop did was douchey, reckless and very bad. I said it more than once. And I was very clear I thought OP was wrong for merely using poor judgement by following a cruiser too closely with visible violations. I felt he could have easily avoided the interaction altogether. That's not the same degree of wrongness. YOU are the one here making that leap to imply otherwise. Shame on you. You're acting like a presidential politician at a debate.

I think Greg might agree with me, (as someone more experienced in these type of legal matters than both of us) that OP might need to address the officer's behavior during apprehension in a separate legal action.

I'm glad to learn in your link that OP filed for an internal affairs investigation. Bravo. Good job, OP. Now re-read the 2 lines above I posted earlier. Does it taste that bitter for you to say I might have been right about anything? And I agree, the follow up exchange you just shared is indeed disturbing. Traffic court was not the right venue for that fight. And if OP can delay his ticket hearing until after that internal affairs hearing, perhaps that'll improve his chances.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

And if OP can delay his ticket hearing until after that internal affairs hearing, perhaps that'll improve his chances.

Actually, that's a good point. If the internal affairs investigation results in the termination of the officer, wouldn't the whole case get thrown out? The officer wouldn't be present to testify for the prosecution, so it would be hearsay right?

[Jesda]

First, ask OP if he intends to follow police cars as closely after going thru this cr@p. I'm guessing his answer will be no. Second, yes, I still believe both were wrong, But you have wrongly assumed I placed similar weight to both their wrongs.

Scenario:

--One guy chases after children in a playground with a bat.

--Another guy neglects to recycle his soda can.

"THEY WERE BOTH WRONG"

Your idea of moral equivalency is completely damaged.

Now you're backpedaling. Just stop. Your blind appeal to authority is wrong and unfortunately very predictable.

[Jesda]

And if OP can delay his ticket hearing until after that internal affairs hearing, perhaps that'll improve his chances.

Actually, that's a good point. If the internal affairs investigation results in the termination of the officer, wouldn't the whole case get thrown out? The officer wouldn't be present to testify for the prosecution, so it would be hearsay right?

I'm confident that IA will clear the officer and nothing will come of any of this.

It's really a stretch to think that any disciplinary action will happen.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Yeah... it depends on the town/state I guess. Some places the judiciary branch loves to eat up the executive branch. I'm guessing NJ isn't one of them.

[Bubba1]

First, ask OP if he intends to follow police cars as closely after going thru this cr@p. I'm guessing his answer will be no. Second, yes, I still believe both were wrong, But you have wrongly assumed I placed similar weight to both their wrongs.

Scenario:

--One guy chases after children in a playground with a bat.

--Another guy neglects to recycle his soda can.

"THEY WERE BOTH WRONG"

Your idea of moral equivalency is completely damaged.

Now you're backpedaling. Just stop. Your blind appeal to authority is wrong and unfortunately very predictable.

No, Jesda, you're simply not reading my entire posts, and appear to be taking only part of the post and changing the context. Perhaps you should re-read my entire posts without the anger. Very disappointing. Perhaps it's time to move on to another topic.

Guys, wanna see Jesda really come after me?

Jesda, may you someday end up with a Camry and it ends up being a wonderful experience.

[Jesda]

Now you're just messing with me. WELL PLAYED, FRIENDO.

[AZhitman]

This is one of the better threads we've had in a while, and I guarantee you this:

The discussion here is 1000x more intelligent (and readable) than ANY of the comments on Jalop.

Jesda, next time, link to the thread. At least then, the mouthbreathers that read Jalop can get a look at what the upper third of the food chain talks about.

On a side note, I only focused on one side of the story, which is what I'm paid to do. At the end of the day, the OP has a lot to learn about successfully and smoothly navigating the waters of life, regardless of whether the LEO was in the right or not.

I suspect he's busy replying to comments on YT and Jalop, where everyone agrees with his POV.

[Jesda]

This thread is linked in the fourth to last paragraph of the Jalopnik story.

[AZhitman]

Ah.

DON'T BRAKE CHECK ME BRO.