It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police Arrest Woman For Videotaping Them From Her Front Yard: (Wait till you see this tape!)

page: 35
143
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by Undertough
 


X posted the law already. In the law it clearly says you can not obstruct. If you are causing a distraction that stops the officer from doing his job in a reasonably safe manner you are obstructing.

Obstructing is usually defined as willfully hindering, delaying, or obstructing any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.

If the officer has to turn and focus on you because you are a distraction you are hindering and delaying the officer as he discharges his duties. If your actions prevent an officer from doing their job in a reasonably safe manner you are obstructing.

That is the way it goes.


So what you're saying is... the officer should be arrested for arbitrarily distracting the other officers?

How is video taping someone from 20 feet away "willfully hindering, delaying, or obstructing"?

Use your brain if you plan to answer the question, or don't bother, because it won't be respected.




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by CynicalWabbit
 
I think it has allready been established she was not on the sidewalk.Plus you really want to try reading all the posts.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


--After testing the Rule against FSRC's landmark findings on action-reaction times and conferring with selected members of its National and Technical Advisory Boards, the Center has reached these conclusions, according to Executive Director Dr. Bill Lewinski:


1. Because of a prevalent misinterpretation, the 21-Foot Rule has been dangerously corrupted.

2. When properly understood, the 21-Foot Rule is still valid in certain limited circumstances.


3. For many officers and situations, a 21-foot reactionary gap is not sufficient.

4. The weapon that officers often think they can depend on to defeat knife attacks can't be relied upon to protect them in many cases.

5. Training in edged-weapon defense should by no means be abandoned.--





There are more ways to defend against a knife attack than drawing your weapon.

I have personally wrested knives away from people without using any weapons but my body.

But the officers are trained to shoot everything. This is evidenced by you and X talking about reaction times to draw your weapons. :shrug:



--"Unfortunately, some officers and apparently some trainers as well have 'streamlined' the 21-Foot Rule in a way that gravely distorts its meaning and exposes them to highly undesirable legal consequences," Lewinski says. Namely, they have come to believe that the Rule means that a subject brandishing an edged weapon when positioned at any distance less than 21 feet from an officer can justifiably be shot.--

edit on 6/24/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/24/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/24/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

The crime scene was the vehicle and the occupants of the vehicle, neither of which were on her property.


Incorrect. If someone is shot in your home the home becomes the crime scene- not just the area the body is laying in and not one angstrom further.


Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Standing ten feet from 60+mph traffic can get you killed while your attention needs to be focused on a traffic stop crime scene on the freeway.


This was more than a traffic stop and was not on a freeway. Apples and oranges and quite a poor attempt at misdirection.


Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

And an errant car can cross lanes and hit you on a traffic stop from more than 25 feet.


See above


Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

I agree. An officer does not know who most of the people at the truck stop are when he stops to take a leak. Does that mean everyone must clear out the store?


The officer involved was involved in an arrest and/or detention. If the officers were executing an arrest or search warrant or taking someone into custody in that mentioned truck stop then yes... they can order everyone out. Again apples and oranges and a poor attempt at misdirection.


Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

An officer does not know all the people passing by him on th freeway. So the freeway must be shut down for a traffic stop?


No (once again we have more misdirection) but if a car was to stop behind them and the occupants pile out the officer could order them to remain in their vehicle, leave the scene and take whatever action they deem necessary to ensure compliance with those commands.


Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Indeed.

But even IF she did have a weapon is not sufficient evidence to do anything.


So your contention is the police have no responsibility to those in their custody (the occupants of the vehicle) if armed individuals enter the scene that is under their control? What planet do you live on?

I'll tell you what- next time you see an officer executing a traffic stop- walk up to him or her with a weapon- maybe something big & noticeable like a shotgun- and ignore their instructions to put down the weapon and back away. Make sure you let them know it's perfectly OK to approach them, that they do not really have a crime scene and you have rights to walk right up on them since it's in public. Let me know how that works out for you.... please. I want to know how that will turn out.


Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

--As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)--


Which has nothing to do with either my statement or the OP....


Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Never mind the fact that the officer did not even acknowledge her presence until he was done with his suspect, and the other two officers (one who would have been "more in danger") said nothing to her.


Which shows the officer was surprised to find her there. Yeah I want some unknown individual coming within my bubble, without identifying herself or notifying me of her presence during a traffic stop in the middle of the night....


Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Because officers NEVER have to divide their attention. See freeway example.


Apples and oranges and MORE misdirection- see freeway example.


Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Because the officer had no authority to tell her to do as such.


Incorrect


Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

And freeways could be closed for every traffic stop. Alternate routes can be found.


More misdirection


Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

So rights are just a game . . .


No but what she was doing was.



reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


You post that the 21 foot reaction gap is insufficient yet you state earlier that the officers should have no issue with unknown subjects within that distance.

You really should pick one side of the topic and stick with it

edit on 24-6-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

The crime scene was the vehicle and the occupants of the vehicle, neither of which were on her property.


Incorrect. If someone is shot in your home the home becomes the crime scene- not just the area the body is laying in and not one angstrom further.


That was fast. Which part of "neither of which were on her property" is giving you the most confusion at this point?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
To me nothing explains what is happening in the OP video more than reading the Stanford prison experiment
As soon as a group is given more power over another abuse will happen of that power.

Keep in mind..


Out of 75 respondents, Zimbardo and his team selected the 24 males whom they deemed to be the most psychologically stable and healthy.

As soon as a line of us and them is made and one side has extra power it will no doubt be abusive or abused.Which is why some people refuse to see the light of day in something so simple imo which is shown in the video.The lady with the camera was a distraction toward the officer because she was equalling the power even though she was no threat.

It happens even here on ATS,(for example only and is not a complaint and is the first time I`ve mentioned it),approx 5 or so years ago I got pinged and fined when I posted in a Secret Society thread for "over quoting" what I quoted was a 1 line sentence"nothing more, I was posting from the position of an anti mason,the moderator was/is a self confessed mason.I have witnessed these things happen many many times to other people over the years,thats why we hear "Mods not Gods" when they are just human with extra powers,even when they make decisions as a group.

Some people in life need those extra powers so much over others they`ll go to great lengths to get them.

Though also keep in mind these are the words from a mere prisoner



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater
Excuse me, I thought you said 3 were in the car and 1, was in cuffs with the police. Pardon me.


That would make sense if perhaps I had been talking too fast but the luxury of written words is that you had the time to read them over and over again and wait until you understand them to respond. Here is what I wrote again. I will explain it this time.


Originally posted by Kitilani
They pulled over "3" people. They arrested a 4th person and they let one suspect go. Tell me what is missing.


Since the woman who was arrested was not one of the three men pulled over, I would guess that makes her that 4th person.


Still could of gotten out of hand because she wanted and chose to be stupid. I only saw 3 cops there in the video. I'm not perfect..


Coulda, woulda, shoulda. How is it that you few defending this cop can only do so by talking about "couldas?"
edit on 24-6-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by SFA437

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

The crime scene was the vehicle and the occupants of the vehicle, neither of which were on her property.


Incorrect. If someone is shot in your home the home becomes the crime scene- not just the area the body is laying in and not one angstrom further.


That was fast. Which part of "neither of which were on her property" is giving you the most confusion at this point?


No part of that statement.

Seeing as how I explained in great detail that a crime scene can/will extend out from the exact place where the suspect is or where the crime occurred I'm going to assume you're slightly mentally impaired from now on.

TYVM for your input.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Standing ten feet from 60+mph traffic can get you killed while your attention needs to be focused on a traffic stop crime scene on the freeway.


This was more than a traffic stop and was not on a freeway. Apples and oranges and quite a poor attempt at misdirection.


First of all how is this more than a traffic stop? After all the guy was set free after no drugs were found. Second, so anyone who is walking on the sidewalk by the traffic stop can be arrested too for obstruction? That is exactly the same thing as what happened by your logic. Even more dangerous actually.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Then you really ned to pay attention to what you type.


No, you need to stop playing cop and read the law you are quoting, then ask someone to explain it to you.


Again, you need to pay attention to what you type.


If you understood the law you were touting around, you would not be having this issue.



What part of mailman beingcovered under federal law since he is a federral employee do you not understand or grasp? Comparing a mailman to this female is not in the same ball park since one is local, one is federal. Please learn the difference.


Ok, so you are saying if I murdered a mailman, the local PD could not do anything about it because he is a federal employee? Explain that to me, real slowly. I never compared the mailman to the woman. Obviously you have no clue what you are even responding to if that is what you read. You might want to try again and make sense this time.


Right.. you need to pay attention to the conversation then, as you are so obviously lost its not even funny.


You have no clue what you are even talking about. You do not understand the law you quoted, nor what I wrote. That is what is funny.


What you dont get is I do understand what people are saying. What you dont understand is their interpretation is wrong, which is why I am ignoring it. Its not based on the law, but their personal opinions of how the think it should be, while they completely ignore the law and how it works. When a person make a comment that is correct, I say so.


No, your opinion is based on what seems to be a whopping ignorance of the law and just because you love your ignorance based on what you do not know, does not make other people wrong for not.


When you rech that level, I will say so as well.


Not sure what level you think you are at but you are going to have to be able to at least read to get to mine. Need a hand?




Cop hater - no
Ignorant about the law and how it works - absolutely.


Unfortunately your point was that I am a cop hater, not that I was ignorant of the law. You cannot even admit you were wrong while acknowledging you were wrong.


I see once again your playing psychic. Im sorry if me being a police officer and correcting you in these forums is a source of discontent for you. Personally, I dont care. I find it annoying that you are so blind when it comes to the law that you fail to acknowledge anything releveant, while embracing opinion from people who dont know the law.


Saying you are a police officer on a forum is no more impressive than telling me your level in world of losercraft. You are not a cop and pretending to be one is less than impressive.


You shold try independant through instead of being a follower.


You mean like by being the only person in this thread to both say and actually be able to say, decades of experience with the police department in question do not reflect the actions being highlighted by this clip in my experience? Yeah, I tried that and you called me a cop hater anyway. Maybe you should try independent reading instead of just spouting off random empty defenses because the bandwagon just looked so easy to get on.


I have time and again, and you just ignore it because it doesnt fit into your little world of ignorance is bliss. Maybe you should find a person who cn read and comprehend and have them explain it to you so you arent so lost in this conversation. I can use smaller words if it helps you out.


Saying you are a cop so we are all wrong is not really much in the way of response. Calling me a cop hater several times when I so clearly am not did little to help as well. Now you are vomiting your confusion all over me. I cannot wait to see what comes next.


No, have done nothing but constantly correct your mistakes. I have corrected your wrong interpretation of the laws. I have corrected your incorrect statements about how the laws work and how the officers actions are actually legal and not illegal as you state.


No, you just told me that the local PD cannot step in if the crime I commit is against a mailman because he is a federal agent.
Go try that theory out for us.


Sorry you take being corrected on your mistakes as a sign you are being verbally attacked.


Actually it is your countless posts just angrily ranting about what a cop hater I am that I take as being verbally attacked.



Again, your not a cop hater, your just ignorant.


Again, you were running on the theme that I was a cop hater. Did you forget already?


and yet you keep commenting on it and bringing it up. You shold really work on that issue of yours. While your at it, learn the law and how it works.


Ditto.


Your opinion is not a source, nor is it valid. nice try though and way to deflect. Please proivide your sources. Ive gone back through your posts and have found none.


I am not sure how to be more clear when I say that I supplied links to anything relevant, AND I gave my opinion about how those are two separate things. I am not here to teach you to read.


No... al you have done is whine and complain about the officers actions while ignoring the law and the fact the officers actions were valid and legal. You have whined about the offiers actions without a full and complete understanding of how his job works, and have done nothing but offer your opinion whil ignoring facts and law.


OK then. I guess that is still better than pretending to be a cop, quoting one law, then interpreting it incorrectly left and right but you hold onto your cookies.


Youhave not provided any sources that support your opinion.

No, I have not. Do not hold your breath waiting for any sources for how I feel either. That is kind of how opinions work.

Its not a hard concept to understand.
You make a claim, you support it with the site you got it from. You have failed to do this. Once again, ive gone back trhough and you have not provided any sources.


Opinions and claims are not the same thing. I have no need to prove anything to anyone. You want to prove she is guilty, have a ball. I do not need to prove my opinion is my opinion. I swear you just went over this yourself by trying to tell me that my opinions were just opinions. Now you want to know where my sources for those are?
OK?


Originally posted by Kitilani
So then your answer is no, you cannot provide any material sources or facts or law that shows what I have been telling you is wrong.


My answer is again - "Now I am accusing you of things?" Interesting deflection. How about you find a law that says you are right.


I have, multiple times now. This goes back to my comment about finding a person who can read as well as comprehend it so they can explain it to you.


Saying I am wrong and proving I am wrong would be two very different things. You seem pretty confused about the fact that you writing this does not make them true just because you claim to believe them. I do not know how to explain this to you any better than I have.


She was told to back away from the scene. She refused to comply. She argued for over a minute, causing the officer to divert his attention to deal with her refusal. She broke the law by failing to comply with a lawful command.


She was in her own yard on her own private property and she actually did back up TWICE. The fact that you have to lie to make your case is what kind of did you in earlier on. I guess you thought if enough time passed, it would work now. No.



Simply stating thats not the case because thats what you think is not valid.


Tell me about it. Tell me all about it.


Show me where she has a right to do what she did, and show me where the officer does not have the authority to act. Since you are so right on this, providing this info should be a cake walk for you.


Show me where I have the right to eat pork chops and smoke cigars. I have that right. Can you show me where I have it?


It is a straightforward issue, yet you fail to understand it in such a spectacular manner its humerous.


Think it is at all as "humerous" as people pretending to be cops that barely write above a high school level? Because that is humorous.


Actually I can when its in repsonse to your comments and digs.


You sure can! You are right. If you do want to look stupid, you can if you choose.


Thank you for proving my point though, where you stated this is your opinion because you used toi live in the neighborhood. Your entire argument to date has been based on noting but your opinion and is not supported by law. This has been pointed out to you time and time and time again, yet you ignore it because you dont like the answer.


There is that whole pesky she was not doing anything illegal part that you are still having a hard time with though. Too bad for that huh?


Youhave failed to show any supporting evidence that I am wrong. You have failed to provide any evidence that supports your opinions.



Right back atya, sport!
edit on 24-6-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by SFA437

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Standing ten feet from 60+mph traffic can get you killed while your attention needs to be focused on a traffic stop crime scene on the freeway.


This was more than a traffic stop and was not on a freeway. Apples and oranges and quite a poor attempt at misdirection.


First of all how is this more than a traffic stop? After all the guy was set free after no drugs were found. Second, so anyone who is walking on the sidewalk by the traffic stop can be arrested too for obstruction? That is exactly the same thing as what happened by your logic. Even more dangerous actually.


Quite simple- the officers were in the process of pulling 3 people out of the car that they had reasonable suspicion to believe had narcotics on them. Once the RS was developed it stopped being a traffic stop for (in NC) a Chapter 20 MVL violation and became a Chapter 14 criminal investigation.

Narcotics users and sellers are typically associated with organized gangs and firearms. By consistently distracting the officer, even after he explained that having people in close proximity to him made him uneasy, by continuing her actions within the officer's safety bubble she worked quite hard to get arrested.

A simple passerby (one with common sense) would not walk up into the middle of a criminal investigation being done on the side of the road. If they were that frakking stupid the officer would direct the individual where to walk as to not interfere. If the passerby continued to attempt to walk where he/she was told not to they would be arrested for obstruction.

Then again common sense is an apparently uncommon virtue nowadays.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater
I can tell you how the whole night went down.


How can you do that? Because you were there? Because you saw more of the video than anyone else? Or is it because you feel that you can make up anything you want and say it is what happened?

See, I noticed that the few people defending this LEO are also very comfortable with accepting whatever they imagined to be the truth as proven to be the truth and that is a scary little trend that I think is at the root of the problem to begin with.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
dp
edit on 24-6-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
tp
edit on 24-6-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437

. . .

Incorrect. If someone is shot in your home the home becomes the crime scene- not just the area the body is laying in and not one angstrom further.


I agree. But does the neighbors house become part of the scene as well, if there is no reasonable suspicion/probable cause that the neighbors house is directly related to the crime committed?

Flat answer is no.

There is no way you would be able to convince a jury that her yard was part of the crime scene. That is a huge stretch of logic.



This was more than a traffic stop and was not on a freeway.


It was way more than a traffic stop?

Sounds and looks like a cut and paste traffic stop. Obviously it was not on the freeway.


Apples and oranges and quite a poor attempt at misdirection.


It was an example, not a misdirect. Learn the difference. Perhaps that is why you saw it as a poor example?


The point I was trying to make with my example is that safety was not an issue, and the woman's property was not part of the scene.

Please learn how to make comparisons.





The officer involved was involved in an arrest and/or detention.


Yes.


If the officers were executing an arrest or search warrant or taking someone into custody in that mentioned truck stop then yes... they can order everyone out. Again apples and oranges and a poor attempt at misdirection.


Yes, now that was the apples and oranges were looking for. It was an exaggerated attempt at showing the ludicrous idea that everyone must clear out so someone can feel safe.

But so is yours. lol There was no search warrant or arrest. :shrug:



No (once again we have more misdirection) but if a car was to stop behind them and the occupants pile out the officer could order them to remain in their vehicle, leave the scene and take whatever action they deem necessary to ensure compliance with those commands.


But they would not have to listen, unless they were directly interfering with the officer.






So your contention is the police have no responsibility to those in their custody (the occupants of the vehicle) if armed individuals enter the scene that is under their control? What planet do you live on?


Was she armed? No. Was she on the crime scene? No. Could she have been armed? Yes. Would it have mattered? See court case.


I'll tell you what- next time you see an officer executing a traffic stop- walk up to him or her with a weapon- maybe something big & noticeable like a shotgun- and ignore their instructions to put down the weapon and back away.


She did not walk up to him and no weapon.


Make sure you let them know it's perfectly OK to approach them, that they do not really have a crime scene and you have rights to walk right up on them since it's in public.


She did not walk right up to them.

They came on to HER property. She stayed put.


Let me know how that works out for you.... please. I want to know how that will turn out.


And you complain about apples and oranges. At least my examples were similar fruits. You are comparing apples and elephants.




Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

--As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)--


Which has nothing to do with either my statement or the OP....


Yes it does. Perhaps you should research more. I do not feel like spelling everything out for people who lack the ability to comprehend, compare, and contrast.




Which shows the officer was surprised to find her there.


The officer by the passenger door looked at her a few times. He was not surprised in the least.

As for the arresting officer . . . surprised? I thought he had words with her before the camera incident.

REAL surprised there.



Yeah I want some unknown individual coming within my bubble, without identifying herself or notifying me of her presence during a traffic stop in the middle of the night....


She did not come into HIS bubble. He came into hers. Watch the video. It speaks for itself.




Incorrect


Please show the authority then.

Lawful order must be supported by facts and the law.

Please show







No but what she was doing was.


She was standing on her rights. Which to you is a game.






You post that the 21 foot reaction gap is insufficient yet you state earlier that the officers should have no issue with unknown subjects within that distance.

You really should pick one side of the topic and stick with it

edit on 24-6-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)


The point went completely over your head. Read the whole post next time.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437
Quite simple- the officers were in the process of pulling 3 people out of the car that they had reasonable suspicion to believe had narcotics on them. Once the RS was developed it stopped being a traffic stop for (in NC) a Chapter 20 MVL violation and became a Chapter 14 criminal investigation.


Did you watch the video? They were not in process of pulling 3 guys from the car. They were in posession of one guy in cuffs. Lying much?



A simple passerby (one with common sense) would not walk up into the middle of a criminal investigation being done on the side of the road. If they were that frakking stupid the officer would direct the individual where to walk as to not interfere. If the passerby continued to attempt to walk where he/she was told not to they would be arrested for obstruction.


Middle? Nice way to move the goal posts. I said quite clearly "sidewalk by...



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Manhater
 


As an officer, I did hundreds of traffic stops on the freeway. I had to dive through the drivers window of a car twice because people not paying attention.

When pulling a traffic stop (which is a crime scene), zip had to divert my attention constantly during the investigation, to keep an eye on oncoming vehicles.

So each of those drivers should be arrested for diverting my attention while in a dangerous situation?

Or how about arresting them all for obstruction of government administration?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



I am saying in her particular situation she was in the wrong. Not, every situation demands an arrest for a diversion that is unstoppable. Hers WAS stoppable. Everything could of been avoided had she just step back further on the lawn, on the porch, or inside her home. Like the officer asked. He didn't demand. The officer gave her plenty of chances and it wasn't until she started to run her mouth at him, that he said, forget it your going to jail. Because, she kept playing games with him, with the I'm taking my stand approach.

The officer's priority was to make it safe for him, herself, and others, and had to first take care of his original stop, before dealing with her. So, he diffused the situation in order to make it safe for him and his officers. That late at night, it's understandable and I would feel threatened from the commotion.

I'm surprised as you being an LEO that you stand up to this. She did put those officers in danger. As, for your situation, depends. People should slow down and go to the other lane while an officer is making a stop. Not zip right past them. It's disrespectful and can get you hurt. That situation though is unavoidable, and unstoppable. Besides, don't you have a dash cam with their license plate? Cite them a ticket for failing to obey traffic laws.

He tried to have a calm interaction with her, and she just couldn't drop it.

Like what one LEO has said in here, Why hasn't SHE pressed any charges against that officer? If he was in the wrong?
edit on 24-6-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)


Do you know what you just said? You say she was arrested for being a distraction during the stop. So you claim the cop had to hurry up, finish with his stop, and then deal with the woman who was a problem because she was interfering with the stop - he hurried up and finished with first. Make that make sense.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


If I had found the thread where the Pima County deputies shot Mr. Guerena earlier I'd have weighed in on those a$$hats flat out murdering him. I'd have said they were the most unprofessional, overzealous and undisciplined group of yahoos I have ever seen wear a badge.

I was an FTO for 7 years. I took a lot of rookies badges for playing Buford T. Justice and sent them home without a job. I tried explaining the difference between a law enforcement officer (new term) and a peace officer- some understood and became fine cops, others found a new line of work.

In this case the woman refused to move despite the officer stating that her presence was distracting him from his job. Anything that distracts from the performance of the officers duty is by definition obstruction. End of story.

Had the woman in question not been such a dimwit and continue to goad the officer, causing him to shift his attention from his investigation to her actions guess what..... she'd not have gone to jail. Can you imagine that? If she had listened to the officer, understood his reasoning and said "You know what- I make this guy nervous I'll just video this from my porch" nothing would have happened.

UNREAL isn't it?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Btw. This is the cops business. You can find all kinds of fun stuff there. Including contact info


OMG, Yeah, he looks so evil.
NOT.. Beautiful dogs and that truly shows character of the officer. He did his job pure and simple.
edit on 24-6-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)


I really hope that was a bad joke. Mikey Vick had some really pretty dogs too.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437

. . .

Seeing as how I explained in great detail that a crime scene can/will extend out from the exact place where the suspect is or where the crime occurred


--Strictly speaking, a crime scene is a location wherein evidence of a crime may be found.--

"A crime scene is any physical scene, anywhere, that may provide potential evidence to an investigator."


So what evidence was on her property?
edit on 6/24/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)







 
143
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join