Police Abuse

Cop Flipped Pregnant Woman's SUV While She Was Searching for a Safe Place To Pull Over

Arkansas cops love this insane practice they call "precision immobilization technique"—slamming into moving vehicles, sometimes over simple traffic stops.


Nicole Harper, pregnant with her daughter, was driving her SUV home on a Arkansas freeway in July 2020 when Arkansas State trooper Rodney Dunn decided to stop her for allegedly driving 84 in a 70 mph zone. He turned on his lights in an attempt to make her pull over.

Following what she understood to be standard safe procedure in this situation, Harper moved into the right lane, slowed down, turned on her hazards to indicate to the officer that she understood what was going on, and was seeking a safe shoulder or exit to pull over.

No sane person could have imagined, given Harper's behavior, that she was involved in any active attempt to escape the raw justice of a speeding ticket. Fewer than two or three minutes had passed since the cop first turned on his lights.

Corporal Dunn was having none of that. Using an insanely dangerous strategy that police in Arkansas are using more and more—144 times last year, double the number of times the year before—he slammed into her SUV causing her to hit the concrete median, flipping her SUV. The practice, called the "precision immobilization technique" (PIT), killed at least three people in 2020.

That stops a speeder! It also runs a real risk of killing a speeder. In a perfect world, the technique is supposed to just send the vehicle spinning out and thus stop the chase.

Post-assault dialog, as reported by local NBC station KARK:

"Why didn't you stop?" Dunn questioned.

"Because I didn't feel it was safe," Harper said.  Dunn responded, "well this is where you ended up."

Harper went on to say, "I thought it would be safe to wait until the exit." Dunn said, "no ma'am, you pull over when law enforcement stops you."…

Dunn can be heard saying, "no we don't anticipate vehicles rolling over nor do we want that to happen." He went on to say, "all you had to do was slow down and stop."

Harper responded,  "I did slow down, I turned on my hazards, I thought I was doing the right thing."

She was very literally doing the textbook right thing, according to Arkansas driver's license test guides.

Harper is now, understandably, suing Dunn, his supervisor Sgt. Alan Johnson, and Arkansas State Police Director Col. Bill Bryant, claiming Dunn's potentially murderous maneuver was an excessive and negligent use of force given the circumstances. A wider shoulder and an exit were less than a mile away when Dunn attacked her.

The suit, as KARK reports, asserts that "Arkansas State Police 'failed to train' Dunn on 'proper and safe PIT maneuver technique,' failed to 'investigate allegations of excessive force,' and 'failed to discipline officers for violations of policy related to excessive force.'"

A statement from Arkansas State Police Director Col. Bill Bryant provided to local press merely repeated a bunch of nonsense not relevant to this situation about "fleeing drivers pull[ing] away at a high rate of speed, wildly driving, dangerously passing other vehicles, showing no regard for the safety of other motorists, creating an imminent threat to the public," and how "all incumbent troopers receive recurring annual training in emergency vehicle operations which includes PIT instruction," and that most times an Arkansas trooper wants someone to pull over, they don't resort to slamming into the vehicle at high speed.

A separate report from KARK detailed a November 2019 PIT stop in which a suspect who had his high beams on inappropriately and did not stop fast enough for the officer but rather drove away at very high speeds was slammed into, sending the car into a tree and killing 22-year-old Brian Brooks.

As KARK reported:

The risk and liability around the PIT maneuver prompted several law enforcement agencies to put strict limits on the move or ban it outright. In North Carolina, a fatal PIT involving Highway Patrol prompted the department to cap speeds at 55 mph, unless the fleeing driver has committed a violent crime or there are other circumstances that warrant the use of deadly force. PIT maneuvers are used by state police in several states including Texas, Georgia, and Oklahoma.

A comment from a state Senator given to KARK alas shows a common politician attitude toward second-guessing police actions, no matter how reckless, dangerous, or absurd: "'End of the day when somebody is fleeing I will never question the method police officer uses to stop them,' said Sen. Bart Hester (R-Cave Springs). 'I don't care if it's 60 miles an hour, I don't care if its 100 miles an hour, I want them stopped as soon as possible.'"

Hopefully, this lawsuit will find the judicial system approaching the matter with less thoughtless obeisance to reckless police decisions.

NEXT: Empowered by Voters, Pennsylvania Legislators Are Poised To End the Governor's 15-Month COVID-19 Emergency

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. …when Dunn attacked her.

    I wish mainstream journalists would learn this kind of honest story framing. Instead they get their digs in at law enforcement only when it’s racially interesting and they can toss hip phrases like “defund the police” or similar worthless nonsense.

    1. Her rear left fender made contact with the front right bumper of the police vehicle. Then it spun out and flipped over. Officer stopped to provide assistance.

      1. So in a way, you could say that she rammed him. It was nice that the officer helped her.

        1. Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, “See, if it weren’t for the government, you wouldn’t be able to walk.”
          –Harry Browne

          1. I basically make about $8,000-$12,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home. I was amazed how easy it was after
            I tried it copy below web….Visit Here

            1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. One never knows the truth of what is reported, i.e., whether the story is, as related, that the PIT maneuver was a response to the perceived offense of “contempt of cop”, or whether much more was involved. It is likely we never will. The cop knows the truth. The woman knows the truth. And the department knows the truth if the cruiser had a dash cam and it was on. That doesn’t mean the truth will ever reach general distribution.

        I do know this. If this woman’s story is the truth, and if she has a husband, the cop is luckier than he probably realizes this little “maneuver” did not cause her to miscarry.

        1. Well, in this case there is video showing her slowing down, pulling over, showing the narrow side lane, then her putting on her emergency lights as she looked for a safe place to pull over. That officer should lose everything as he could have easily killed her or her baby. He won’t, but that’s because the system will fail us yet again.

    2. Are you kidding? As an act of journalism, this was mostly digs. Digs against reckless cops are fine, but wouldn’t it have been nice, journalistically, to know whether this PIT was actually a high speed slam? Or, alternatively, whether the pregnant driver really moved “into the right lane, slowed down, [and] turned on her hazards?”

      1. There is video of it on the News story it is referring to. And to answer the question, yes the writer of the article was truthful. She slowed the vehicle, turned on the turn signal, moved to the rightmost lane, then turned on her hazard lights and rode partially on the very narrow shoulder at a slow speed as she approached a widening shoulder and exit less than 1 mile away.

        This is when the officer decided it was better to ram her off the road, and risk killing her than to wait 1 minute for her to stop in a safer location.

        By his own dash cam, this officer should see prison time for attempted murder in a just world. There was ZERO justification for ramming her car off the road when he chose to do so.

        1. I agree, all these QI arguments are just a distraction. If you really want to put the brakes on this type of behavior the Justice Department should file Civil Rights charges against the officer. Being sued, Meh even if QI is lifted it will be the taxpayer who will foot the bill. However, if he is looking at a few years in prison that will get his attention. Especially with the climate against rogue cops today, more of a chance he will be found guilty. I don’t understand why the office of civil rights does not get involved in more of these type of cases, other than Minneapolis have not heard from them.

        2. Behavior like this is why people think ACAB.

        3. Right: it wasn’t a high speed affair. I agree PIT-ing was reckless, but why call it a high speed ramming? There’s no need for hyperbole. As someone else posted, the piece reads like it was written by a hyperventilating teenager rather than a solid journalist. That was my only point.

          1. High enough speed for a car to flip over is high speed in my book.

      2. One could imagine hundreds of scenarios where the cop was justified in their behavior without ever approaching the truth. Maybe a worm hole opened up and the pregnant lady was attempting to evade arrest by escaping into an alternate dimension.

  2. This isn’t a training problem. It’s the “Obey or die” attitude that is at the core of police culture. He tried to murder to occupants of that vehicle because they didn’t stop when he wanted them to.

    In other words, this isn’t news. It’s just cops being cops.

    1. Compliance or violence. That’s why you never want to date or, God forbid, marry a cop.

      1. Not a week goes by without a story in the Daily Mail about a cop murdering their spouse.

      2. I’d like to see the statistics on whether it is more dangerous to be a cop or be the spouse of a cop.

    2. State Police are essentially Meter Maids on Wheels.
      Here in Corrupticut they are completely useless doing
      nothing a local Officer could not do. And they are a serious
      drain on State budgets.There is no need for them.They have become the Highway Robbers they were created to save us from.

      1. ^This – police in Bridgeport CT make 6 figures, and with CT’s pension crisis they have more incentive than ever.

    3. I don’t think it’s even *that* deep.

      He used the PIT maneuver on her because it’s fucking fun to play GTA 4 in real life and be able to get away with it.

      I mean yes, “Respect Mah Authoritah!” probably played into it as well, but I suspect the ultimate underlying motivation was getting to play bumper cars on the freeway on someone else’s dime and with no realistic expectations of consequences.

    4. Exactly right. The only way to stop police violence is using rigorous psychological testing to weed out candidates who don’t have the right temperament and impulse control.

      1. I disagree. After all, police often select FOR psychopathy, rather than against it. The theory being that psychopaths’ can deal with violent criminals and traumatizing scenes more robustly, aka “Successful Psychopathy” (look up “Differences in Psychopathy and Associated Traits by Police Officer Rank” for an accessible thesis on the topic). This fails, of course, because police, especially in traffic enforcement, mostly deal with normal people, not serial killers.

        Charging police with the appropriate crimes would be far more effective. But prosecutors refuse to apply the laws to police by deferring to non-statutory police policies and excuses. This, for example, is plain vehicular assault because it was unnecessary use of force, but the the justice system treats it as an administrative question rather than a crime.

    5. It’s the “Obey or die” attitude that is at the core of police culture.

      That’s part of it, but you’re missing the compounding effect of the boys-with-toys boner. Cops love taking advantage of opportunities to get out the Bearcat, bash in some doors, PIT some cars, and so on. It’s thrilling.

  3. I got pulled over on the freeway once I just stopped on the shoulder. Fuck em if there’s not enough room. Not my problem.

  4. The defense for obvious recklessness or wrongdoing by anyone in authority is always to make up a story about what might have happened and ignore all the actual facts about what was happening and what truly happened.

    Always, always, always make up a story.

    1. Works for most 3 year-olds.

      1. Works for lots of people. People want to be told a story and get mad at you when you tell them you won’t humor them in their game of make-believe.

    2. Very True

  5. “On April 10, 2020, at approximately 6:40 AM, Troop H dispatch advised that Sebastian County Sheriff’s Office was requesting assistance with a pursuit. Deputies were pursuing a black pickup, driven by Justin Battenfield, which had recklessly driven through several traffic lights without stopping and was passing traffic on the shoulder of U.S. 71.

    Arkansas State Police 109 MPH PIT Maneuver | The Complete Pursuit (YouTube)

    1. This is the opposite situation from the vehicular assault on Harper. She slowed down when the cop turned on his flashers, Battenfield sped up. She was in the right lane of a freeway, he was on surface streets, running red lights and passing on the shoulder. She was not a danger to other motorists, he was a great and imminent danger to them – and the cops chasing him increased that danger, but I would not expect him to drive safely if the pursuit broke off. So the cops needed to stop him quickly before he killed someone, and I see no reason for them to worry about the danger to him.

      If the cop really wanted her to stop on a narrow shoulder where he’d be in danger while collecting information and writing the ticket, he could have pulled slightly ahead in the next lane and slowly crowded her car to the edge of the road. That’s fairly safe, but he chose a dangerous maneuver instead, to send her car skidding across all lanes of traffic and into the median divider. This cop is a menace to public safety, and so is his chief and any other officers that support him.

      1. Do you have a cite for this? Being pregnant in no way imbues you with intelligence and I’ve yet to find a vid which explains the issue.

        1. He just explained it the same way we all read it. The cop is a fucking maniac and could have easily barked orders from his megaphone while on the side of her 40mph vehicle.

        2. The video is all over the internet. Just search cop flips pregnant driver.

          The description of what happened is accurate. She turned on her turn signal, slowed, moved tot he right lane. Then turned on her hazards and drove to the far right (with her passenger side wheels riding on the shoulder)

          It was abundantly clear she was not a menace, recognized the police authority to stop her, and she was just following the proper and recommended procedure for letting an officer know you are looking for a safer space to pull over.

          And then he almost killed her with a reckless stunt involving lethal force.

          Cop should absolutely see prison time for this attack.

        3. What is the most obvious search you can think of on this topic?

          Go type it in here: https://www.google.com

  6. I’m going to guess you don’t have a constitutional right to not have your car flipped

    1. It’s not that you don’t have a Constitutional right….it’s that this individual officer was not made aware that ramming this model of car on this particular stretch of highway at this exact speed at this precise time of night was a violation of her rights.

      Come on DR(P), this is the textbook case for why Qualified Immunity exists. How could this officer have known?

      1. Could the Arkansas Drivers License Test Guide (with which the Officier should have been very familiar with) and Police documents describing the use of this insane maniuver for “fleeing drivers pull[ing] away at a high rate of speed, wildly driving, dangerously passing other vehicles, showing no regard for the safety of other motorists, creating an imminent threat to the public,” overcome QI?

        1. No, it requires the writing of an august, educated, indescribably wise, and infallible federal appeals judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals for that district to overcome QI.

    2. Well a lot of times it’s a higher law that causes cars to flip:

      Mass * velocity = inertia

      But I’m all for a constitutional amendment against it.

    3. Perhaps, perhaps not. But the poor policeman couldn’t possibly have been expected to know that knocking her car out of control under these circumstances was unreasonable, much less illegal. [After all, the courts in their majesty have declared that absent a case on point, police stealing money from suspects falls under qualified immunity.] After all, there is no published case in his federal jurisdiction that establishes that flipping a red SUV with a pregnant driver that has slowed down, pulled partly onto the shoulder, and turned on safety flashers in what was obviously not a pursuit situation is a violation of the driver’s civil rights -> therefore – you guessed it – qualified immunity applies here.

      Limited use of qualified immunity probably works to the benefit of both the police and society. Overuse and abuse of this doctrine will eventually get it eliminated, just as greedy over-reaching children eventually produce a more restrictive disciplinary environment.

  7. No excuse, hang the bastard

  8. Needs to be agg. assault charges against the cop here. There won’t be, of course.

    What in the blue line fuck was he thinking?! PIT at highway speeds puts the recipient at risk of serious bodily injury or death. See, Scott v. Harris 550 U.S. 372 (2007).

    1. Only the recipient? What about the other poor unsuspecting fools driving down the highway when the car doesn’t do exactly what officer friendly thought it would and I crosses the center line?

      1. I imagine the recipient would face charges for whatever carnage their vehicle caused. Just like when cops shoot at person A, miss and kill person B, then charge person A with murder.

      2. In Scott, the worry was exactly that the recipient was going to continue driving like an asshole, and end up t-boning a bus full of nuns carrying puppies. So PIT him when there’s nobody else around right then.

        I haven’t watched the video, but I am somewhat familiar with the basic facts here. I don’t know whether there were other cars near where Deputy Roscoe P. Coltrane decided he got tired of waiting another two minutes for her to pull over.

        But yeah, knocking the car out of control, and into a head-on with opposing traffic, is probably frowned upon.

  9. For all of the infamy of their strangling and shooting of citizens, by far the majority of the citizens killed by cops are killed by their vindictive and reckless style of pursuits, as illustrated by the 6,334 people the cops killed that way in FEs’ database alone – many simply innocent motorists and pedestrians not even being pursued.

    “Fatal Encounters
    A step toward creating an impartial, comprehensive and searchable national database of people killed during interactions with police”


  10. The problem with the quote from the state senator is whether the driver was fleeing at all is the thing in dispute or if she was following recommended procedure when stopped by police.

    1. I have little doubt that someone capable of such a statement will take any cop’s word as to whether or not someone was “fleeing.” Reality be damned.

  11. I wish reporter had quoted driver’s guide and got comment from authorities on proper procedure. In my state I was instructed: “Always pull over immediately. If the cop didn’t want the stop to occur there, he would have waited to turn on his lights. If he doesn’t like the location, he will tell you to proceed over loudspeaker.” Would be good if authorities and citizens were all clear on procedure.

    1. Ambiguity favors the authoritarian.

    2. The Arkansas guide says “If you are unsure if you are being stopped by an actual police officer, activate your turn signal or emergency flashers and pull to the nearest well-lit location, or dial 9-1-1 and request confirmation that an actual police officer is attempting to stop you.”

      1. The Arkansas guide says “If you are unsure if you are being stopped by an actual police officer . . .

        Well, see, that’s why the reporter didn’t quote it — that’s not why she said she was waiting for the exit.

      2. Actually…

        “Driver License Study Guide. ”Under What to do When You Are Stopped,” number one says to use, “emergency flashers to indicate to the officer that you are seeking a safe place to stop.”

      3. Then you’d get rammed sooner for driving with a cell phone in your hand and being even more dangerous!!!

    3. If only VOLUME 1 – EDITION 8 of the ARKANSAS DRIVER LICENSE STUDY GUIDE (January 2018) addressed the matter in paragraph #1 under the heading WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU ARE STOPPED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

  12. The only thing the cop did wrong was let her live. If he’d killed her then there wouldn’t have been a lawsuit or an investigation.

    1. Which only fuels more do or die cop encounters. They have no motivation to prevent death.

  13. Another reason insurance companies should regulate traffic rather than government.

    It’s not likely insurance companies would cause such risks to insureds (or shoot them during traffic stops).

    1. How would a insurance company enforce speeding laws?

      1. Governor on your car. Or more likely a sensor on the bus so you get fined automatically if you exceed the speed limit.

        They’d also lower all speed limits significantly because higher speed means more damage and likelihood of injury (expense — they don’t want to pay).

        Lots of things a private company with massive financial incentives and no disincentive to actually worry about practicality or societal externalities could do to “regulate” traffic. It’d be wonderfully dystopian.

        1. In the 90s it was reported that Geico 1) bought a large stake in LIDAR gun company (saving it from bankruptcy) and 2) gave LIDAR guns to some states at significant discounts – perhaps even free.

          As for government mandated sensor on my car -GPS monitoring – or governor or kill switch etc. I can pretty much guaranty that the only time it will be working is when its being inspected by the authorities 🙂
          Why does the odometer read many more miles than the GPS says? Well, that’s because the odometer is off. Yes, I only drove this car 10 miles last year.

        2. “They’d also lower all speed limits significantly because higher speed means more damage and likelihood of injury (expense — they don’t want to pay).”

          No they wouldn’t since virtually every traffic safety engineer says that speed limits are too low, and that speed limits should be set at the point at which 85% of drivers travel at or below on a given road. Speed in and of itself does not cause accidents, speed differentials do. It’s why a disproportionate number of school buses travelling on highways are involved in accidents. All other things being equal, granny going 50 in a 75 zone is more of a danger to motorists than the guy going 85. Localities however refuse to raise speed limits because they refuse to believe the experts who actually study this stuff and/or they love the revenues and having an additional potential pretext for pulling “suspicious” drivers over.

          1. Think about it, the speed limits are the same as they were 50 years ago when cars averaged three tons, didn’t even have rack and pinion steering and had the old timey standard and non anti-locking brakes.

            1. You forgot the bias-ply tires, which gave less control and were more likely to blow out, and the mushy suspensions on the mid to high priced sedans, designed for comfort rather than maintaining control at highway speeds. Many safety features have also been added by regulation: crush zones, stronger protection around the passenger area, and air bags.

              But there are still many highways around where I live with lower speed limits now than before 1973, and none with higher speed limits unless they’ve been rerouted and rebuilt.

          2. Speed in and of itself does not cause accidents, speed differentials do.

            Been saying this for 30 years and people look at me like I am crazy.

      2. Why would they bother? Is the effort worth the money it would cost them?

        Traffic injuries are a tiny fraction of what they used to be.

  14. The cop didn’t want to miss this special police abuse BOGO sale, since she was preggers he got to abuse two people for the price of one.


    “Authority has always attracted the lowest elements in the human race. All through history, mankind has been bullied by scum.” ~ P.J. O’Rourke

  15. What suv was she driving, it must be super safe

    1. Those barriers are actually designed to flip cars. Anything high profile that hits one will go on its side.

      It’s safer to flip a car into the lane it was in than to let it jump the barrier into oncoming traffic.

      1. Saw it once as a teen with my dad. A white caddy comes down the on ramp, and I note it proceeds at a 45 degree angle across the highway. “Good luck everybody else!”

        It bounce-swipes the guy ahead of us in the fast lane, and goes back to the other side. The car hit rides up the barrier and rolls sweetly on its side, sliding to a stop.

        We hold the car steady on its side while he climbs out the driver door, which he had to lift up. He’s in a suit and long coat, and was on his way to a meeting, we would find out.

        He jumps down, “Woo WHEEEEEEE!”

  16. “…said Sen. Bart Hester (R-Cave Springs). ‘I don’t care if it’s 60 miles an hour, I don’t care if its 100 miles an hour, I want them stopped as soon as possible.'”

    Dead or alive, dammit!

    1. What a stupid statement. Even a high speed chase is unreasonably dangerous to innocent bystanders in most cases. Failure to obey doesn’t justify unlimited use of force.

      1. Yeah. We have video online of a local cop chasing a suspect down the sidewalk on a major thoroughfare. He’s a good 50 yards behind the guy when the perp stops at an intersection and turns and fires at the cop, then starts running again. The cop keeps running and fires back at the guy. There is traffic whizzing by in all directions.

        All I can think is WTF? Basic hunter safety stuff. Be sure of your target and what’s beyond it.

        If the cop was 20 feet away and, not at a cross street, I might understand. But this was just too much risk of collateral injury to be adding to the perp’s stupid move.

        Our PD has killed 17 people in the last ten years. $13M paid out so far with $50M pending.

        No matter how people feel about this stuff, you’d think they’d have gotten tired of it and demand that all PD administration be fired and replaced; that the department change it’s attitude. It might not only save a few lives, it could save this once bankrupt city from paying out tens of millions of tax dollars to claimants. (Yes, I know the insurance factor.)

    2. What I want to know that the reporting doesn’t go into is why the police department isn’t concerned about the wear and tear on the police car, and the effects on their budget.

      Don’t cops get in trouble for damaging their vehicles? I just assume that’s something that would get a cop disciplined.

      1. Hmm, that comment ended up in a completely different place than I intended.

      2. It’s the state police. They probably have their own motor pool, so vehicle repairs is a fixed cost for them.

        1. I think most departments contrct out body work. They may do mechanical repaies but nore body work.

  17. If a cop’s actions wrongfully result in a death, they need to face punishment, up to life imprisonment, since we oppose the death penalty administered by the state. If a victim’s family member chose a different path, we would likely acquit in a subsequent trial.

  18. The police are always thinking about children so flipping he car was probably just the cops attempt to protect the foetus from marijuana. The police don’t ever act without good reason.

  19. This should be attempted murder.

    This doesn’t seem t warrant protests since the victim has less melanin and therefore, her life doesn’t matter. This is the problem with making it about race when it has nothing to do with race. Real police reform never happens.

    Despite having less melanin, I have had a number of negative experiences with police. One evening shortly after midnight with nobody else on the road, a cop nabbed me for going through a yellow light. I didn’t see him behind me for maybe 5 seconds. I pulled over shortly thereafter maybe a block from the light. He stated he almost called a pursuit (I can only guess the horrific experience that might have been for me.) He cited me for the light violation and also for “failure to yield.” Of course, I was polite despite the unusual citations. Fortunately, the cop didn’t show up in court so the bs tickets were dismissed. Basically, some cops are eager to escalate what should be a routine interaction.

    1. It’s not really attempted murder. Had she died it would be manslaughter, I think.

      It should be aggravated assault under Arkansas law:

      “A person commits aggravated assault if, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he or she purposely:

      (1) Engages in conduct that creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person;”

      Except, of course…

      “The provisions of this section do not apply to:

      (1) A law enforcement officer acting within the scope of his or her duty;”

      1. You’re probably right. I sometimes use hyperbole, lol. Then again, flipping somebody’s moving car simply because they didn’t stop quickly seems much more inappropriate and more likely to result in death then restraining somebody who is resisting arrest – and the latter resulted in a murder conviction in a recent notable case.

        1. Everybody is “resisting arrest” if the cops yell inconsistent and confusing directions.

      2. I don’t know. He literally attacked her with a lethal weapon in a manner known to kill people. And did so without any just cause.

      3. Because of their super-specialized training, cops are unaware of situations that normal people would recognize would create substantial danger, death or serious injury. How would he know? Just following orders.

    2. This is the problem with making it about race when it has nothing to do with race. Real police reform never happens.

      Yup. That’s the great tragedy of BLM. By making everything about their race they lost sight of the actual problem.

      Basically, some cops are eager to escalate what should be a routine interaction.

      Why else would Johnny Football Hero seek out to be one of the city’s finest? So he can hurt people, just like he did on the field. Only now he’s got a gun and absolute power.

      1. ^^ Upvoting both comments.

      2. These arent johnny football heros. Youre giving them way too much credit.

      3. On the plus side, BLM got cops legislated as a protected class in Louisiana over some two-bit thug. So that’s a win.

    3. Geez. I worked for two years in a nearby city. The traffic cops always put the appearance date on a given day’s tickets for their own day off. They ALWAYS showed up in court. Because it guaranteed them overtime!

  20. I’m sorry, I’m going to need to know everybody’s skin color before rendering a judgement here.

  21. The solution is simple. If the state won’t hold these thugs accountable the individuals they attack (and their family members) need to start taking them out.

      1. Ford’s Theater is nice, I hear.

  22. State Police are essentially Meter Maids on Wheels.
    Here in Corrupticut they are completely useless doing
    nothing a local Officer could not do. And they are a serious
    drain on State budgets.There is no need for them.They have become the Highway Robbers they were created to save us from.

  23. Democrats instruct us that we don’t need armed security in schools to protect against mass shootings because the teacher can just call 911 and hide under a desk until the police arrive to save them. On the other hand, Democrats don’t trust the police to pull them over in a safe location despite the fact that the police have the same risk as the citizen. Democrats think they know better than the police where it is safe to pull over, but trust the police implicitly to protect the lives of students during a mass shooting.

    Democrats hold opposing points of view and are at loggerheads with themselves. Democrats suffer from cognitive dissonance and lack the intellectual capacity to govern.

  24. It’s a shame she wasn’t killed. Then the fuzz could rack up another dangerous drug dealer removed from the streets by heroic cop action.

  25. “The great masses of men, though theoretically free, are seen to submit supinely to oppression and exploitation of a hundred abhorrent sorts. Have they no means of resistance? Obviously they have. The worst tyrant, even under democratic plutocracy, has but one throat to slit. The moment the majority decided to overthrow him he would be overthrown. But the majority lacks the resolution; it cannot imagine taking the risks.” ~ H. L. Mencken (1926). “Notes on Democracy,” p. 50, Alfred A. Knopf

  26. “It’s just cops being cops” and it is why people are killing cops.
    Enough of this kind of C–P, enough of qualified immunity for cops, they need to live by the same laws as the rest of us.
    If the law does not get the police under control this is going to get a lot worse.

    1. ++

  27. In wisconsin state police are the lowest of the cops, ranking just above correctional officers.
    They have the lowest requirements for training and education and mostly consist of losers that cant get into the good old boys clubs that are the city police or sheriffs.

    I used to be friends with two of them in Kenosha. One night I rode with trooper Ron to a club. He got drunk and on the way home proceeded to go 100 mph in 55. I told him to slow down and be careful and I was told to calm down, he doesnt have anything to worry about. A different time, I went to a party at trooper Ron’s he hired 3 strippers that were turning tricks in a couple of spare bedrooms in the basement.
    On yet another occasion I was hanging with trooper Jake and he started bragging about how he covered for a second friend who drunk crashed his car in a construction zone.

    Side note, trooper Jake barely finished high school, is 5’4″ and weighs 280 or so.

    Class acts!!!

    1. I used to ride (motorcycle) with large organized groups of retired (mostly) cops because a good friend of mine was a retired SFPD officer and he invited me along with them.

      One of their rules outlined at the pre-meet before KSU (kick stands up for you non-riders) was that if anyone got stopped by the CHP, they were on their own.

      I once asked, innocently as he said that, why they were worried about CHP because we generally obeyed all traffic laws and after all, everyone there, except for me, had a badge they could flash.

      They all laughed at me.

      Then the leader said, “Yeah. You don’t know CHP. They’ll ticket each other. Our badges are useless.”

  28. If pulled over on the highway, I’d do it promptly, even in a narrow area. The danger is mainly to the cop – with him out in the road looking at my paperwork – and if he wants to take that risk who am I to gainsay him? It’s not as if he’d be all appreciative of my helping him out by driving to a safer area.

    1. Now, a deserted street at night would be a bit different – if I were worried the guy might be a fake cop, a blue light bandit, I might look for a gas station or lighted area to stop. But if it were a full-on cop car with all the trimmings, and the risk of it being a blue-light bandit were correspondingly less, I might be *much* prompter in pulling over.

  29. Dont know if this lady has a husband. But the only appropriate response is 2 in his chest when he walks out the door with his morning coffee. You flip my pregnant wife’s car and give her a “thats what you get!” response? Sorry bud, your life is forfeit.

    1. That seems perfectly sane.

  30. “Hopefully, this lawsuit will find the judicial system approaching the matter with less thoughtless obeisance to reckless police decisions.”

    Okay, that is the funniest thing I’ve read all week.

    1. Okay, that is the funniest thing I’ve read all week.

      I’d say it’s neck-and-neck with “investigative journalism outlet ProPublica”.

  31. How could they have possibly known that a friendly little tap results i the car flipping. It’s obvious to me that the problem was that the woman is pregnant and thus has a higher center of gravity and therefore the SUV flipped. It’s not the cops fault at all. QIFTW.

  32. Eeeeeeeeevil cops!


    We need to not just defund the police, but totally abolish them.

    Then all those gangbangers will take up the NAP and become good free marketers!

    Remember, you read it here first at REASON.

    1. Cops are heroes. It is known. So obviously the pregnant woman driving home to her family was a menace to society by slowing down and looking for a safe place to stop.

  33. The author of this sounds like a woke teenager. The cop should have been fired, but the hyperbolic fervor in this piece is ridiculous.

  34. Cops miss no opportunity to tell anyone that they can make listen how dangerous are simple traffic stops, what they do not tell them is that the danger is not to the cops.

    “Raging Cop Cleared and Given $100k Bonus After Killing Unarmed Teen on Video”

    “This execution-style killing was senseless — a traffic violation should not carry a death sentence. Officer Eulizier was sworn to protect the rights of every citizen, and he failed that duty in the most shocking of ways.”



    “…a million bureaucrats are diligently plotting death and some of them even know it…” ~ Thomas Pynchon

  35. This must be why the Arkansas State Police teach new drivers to do what the lady did in signaling you are pulling over and finding a safe place. That is in the driver training by the Arkansas State Police drivers manual. How else would they get a chance to practice doing a pitt?

  36. Dont know if this lady has a husband. But the only appropriate response is 2 in his chest when he walks out the door with his morning coffee. You flip my pregnant wife’s car and give her a “thats what you get!” response? Sorry bud, your life is forfeit.

    Saru Finance

  37. This is two counts of attempted murder. Of course, I wouldn’t expect the state that shat out the likes of Bubba Clinton to have a functioning justice system.


  38. This is why policing agencies should not review themselves. This trooper used deadly force against a woman and her unborn child, and he should be charged accordingly. The citizen-victim, Nicole Harper, who pays his salary, was not fleeing, nor was she suspected of a crime or felony; her car was flipped for an alleged traffic infraction. The state of Arkansas printed and distributed a driver’s handbook that instructs drivers who do not feel they have a safe place to pull over to turn on their hazard lights and proceed to the first safe area available to them. This is EXACTLY what this pregnant mother was doing. No, I believe this officer suffered a fit of road-rage after he wrongly perceived a slight to his authority. The potentially fatal actions of this Arkansas State Police Officer should be elevated into the national discussion on policing reform and highlighted as an example of not only their all-too-common abuse(s) of authority, but the ongoing use of excessive force by LEAs across the country as well.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.