Cop Caught on Video Groping Restrained Woman’s Breasts and Genitals, Woman Cries

a reply to: hellobruce

Theres no mistakes.

originally posted by: onequestion
I have video evidence and witness testimony.

What witness testimony? The women in the video? All she was saying was 'don't touch my breasts' and 'I don't consent to this'.

I would think that if she was illegally removed from a protest she would have been saying, 'I did nothing wrong', or 'why did you drag me out of the protest?'.

there is a thread in the forums here that talks about how unicorns exist...

www.fanpop.com...

theyre real...i have a source


see how that works my friend

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Grovit

Video evidence,

Actually the video evidence does not support your claim at all.

and witness testimony.

How do you know the writer of that "hate the police" blog was a witness?

a reply to: hellobruce

Check the description of the youtube poster.

Verify the date and location.

Do i have to do all the work for you?

Taking 100 peaceful protestors in for questioning without filing charges and grabbing them and questioning them for no reason.

No i know... im totally wrong.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: hellobruce

Theres no mistakes.

Yes there is, your video "proper search protocol" was for a different state on strip and cavity searches, which did not happen here....

a reply to: onequestion

You're a joke. You have NO proof of peaceful protest by this woman. NONE.

I support peaceful protest en masse. NO doubt. But there are rules and regulations to every protest. IF said woman breaks those rules then she must be singled out and escorted away. One bad apple can turn all apples bad.

Police in general do support protesting. However, a peaceful protest can easily become a riot if just one person chooses to act inappropriately. This is what most police fear. No one wants to subdue peaceful and constitutionally guaranteed protesters.

You have chosen to believe she was being peaceful based on NO evidence. That is plain stupidity. Plus the focus of the thread was the search or grope as you put it.

I have noticed you ATTACK people who don't share your views. You promote an angry disposition. You attack people personally instead of the argument. How would you like it if I attacked your drug and alcohol addiction instead of what you have clearly not understood about the legality of the pat-down.

I nowhere stated i do not support peaceful protest as you claim...YOU LIED and made that up. That is a sign of a much deeper problems. Related to your personal issues I suspect.

originally posted by: onequestion

Video evidence, and witness testimony.

What do you have to support your point of view?

Nothing.

this is just getting sad now...

you feeling like this is video evidence and witness testimony gives me a whole new perspective on your arguments in these threads

a reply to: hellobruce

The point of the video is reasonable suspicion.

Search and seizure.

Peacefully protesting is not reasonable suspicion its a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

Dont like it?

a reply to: Grovit

You mean having evidence to support my claim rather then boldly making claims with no evidence?

a reply to: onequestion

You have a habit of over-sensationalizing subjects you're passionate about.

I understand that you feel strongly about certain topics but sometimes you need to approach things more rationally if you want support.

originally posted by: onequestion
Peacefully protesting is not reasonable suspicion its a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

Can you provide the time, as indicated in the video, when we have a clear image of her peacefully protesting?

a reply to: hellobruce

Actually the video evidence does not support your claim at all.

Can you explain how and why it doesnt?

Can you individually break down everything ive said in all of my responses and logically refute anything ive said with supporting evidence?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Grovit

You mean having evidence to support my claim rather then boldly making claims with no evidence?

i gave you a source for unicorns existing
do you believe it?

you should as you said the source site does not matter

see what i am getting at?

originally posted by: onequestion


Can you individually break down everything ive said in all of my responses and logically refute anything ive said with supporting evidence?

tell you what
post a legit source and a complete video and i will do my best.
if i cant, i shall concede

a reply to: projectbane

Ummmm. Yes i do attack your personally because you believe as a police officer that its ok to initiate violence on someone whos saying something you dont like.

Thats perfectly logical.

Everything else ive said in this thread has been about the subject.

a reply to: onequestion

That's why it's a female officer doing the search so she can check those areas weapons can be hid in a bra or panties. She would have gone through this at the police station but to expidite

a reply to: onequestion
The rules and laws are very clear cut. Only an officer of the same sex may conduct a search of a person who is of the same sex, and usually they want to have others present and around, lest there is any question of misconduct of the officer. That means a woman should be searched by a female officer, and if it is a male officer, there has to be another person present to ensure that the man did not go too far or touch innapropirately. In this case, the touches that the officer did, is questionable, expecially with the breasts, that I would question. It does not appear to be a search for anything, but groping. A search is with a flat hand, not with a cupped one.

LaTimes

A group of more than 30 were surrounded by LAPD officers on Alvarado Street near Beverly Boulevard after they allegedly blocked streets and ran into oncoming traffic, police said. The area was shut down by police. The LAPD has also closed ramps to the 101 Freeway in the area. Some of the protesters left the area once LAPD issued the order to disperse, but others remained. If protesters did not immediately leave the area, they would be arrested, police said.

About 6 p.m., officers began pulling protesters out of the group a few at a time, and detained them with zip ties as they got their names and ran background checks, said Lt. Andy Smith, an LAPD spokesman. Each person was given a dismissal order. If they did not have any outstanding warrants, they would be allowed to leave, Smith said.

Why did they need to search her for weapons if they didnt plan on detaining her?

a reply to: onequestion

A group of more than 30 were surrounded by LAPD officers on Alvarado Street near Beverly Boulevard after they allegedly blocked streets and ran into oncoming traffic, police said.

Not exactly 'peacefully protesting'.