In The Land of The Free - Did this REALLY happen?

page: 2
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Did you people even watch the video? The cop said he's conducting an investigation. She might resemble a person of interest who is supposed to be in the area.

Also, "I don't consent to a search" means she had pot on her. He was just doing his job, not harassing anyone.




posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by quedup
 


I would love to know the entire story here. I can't believe they landed a heli to question that woman. Why didn't they question Bobby too? They didn't seem to be far from that very busy highway. Why didn't they just have a squad car called out to harass her?

I can't beleive he just started putting his hands in her pockets and pulling out her belongings without even saying anything, let alone asking or demanding. Not that it would've made it any less of an attack on her rights.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
Did you people even watch the video? The cop said he's conducting an investigation. She might resemble a person of interest who is supposed to be in the area.


Thats pig talk for ""this is a shakedown and this is all I have to say to make it legal""



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by dashen
 


OK smart guy. What if this woman was trafficking children for porn? What if she was loitering around an arranged ransom drop-point? You don't know what was being investigated or how vigilant the police should or should not be.

I can't believe you side with the dumb pothead girl who has to hot-glue her phone together. C'mon man, SHE WAS HOLDING!


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by dashen
 


OK smart guy. What if this woman was trafficking children for porn? What if she was loitering around an arranged ransom drop-point? You don't know what was being investigated or how vigilant the police should or should not be.

I can't believe you side with the dumb pothead girl who has to hot-glue her phone together. C'mon man, SHE WAS HOLDING!


If there was ANY suspicion that she was doing something illegal he should have searched, arrested her, read her miranda rights and finished. But guess what. none of that happened.
Oh by the way, theres something called the 4th amendment
edit on 10-2-2013 by dashen because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by dashen
 


You don't understand investigations. He just needed to positively ID her. He let her go,which means he has bigger fish to fry. Be glad he's trying to stop crime instead of just letting whatever go down.


+11 more 
posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by dashen
 


OK smart guy. What if this woman was trafficking children for porn? What if she was loitering around an arranged ransom drop-point? You don't know what was being investigated or how vigilant the police should or should not be.

I can't believe you side with the dumb pothead girl who has to hot-glue her phone together. C'mon man, SHE WAS HOLDING!


I believe a retraction is in order! I seen how "pot" came into the picture. You introduced it with nothing at all to back it up and then you slander her by calling her a "pot head"? Or are you just trying to get the thread closed?



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by dashen
 


You don't understand investigations. He just needed to positively ID her. He let her go,which means he has bigger fish to fry. Be glad he's trying to stop crime instead of just letting whatever go down.

YOU don't seem to understand investigations, If he just swooped down, shakeup, no explanation, he is committing a crime. He has to say something to satisfy legal requirements This seems like a random stop and frisk. I can also question how san berdino, a bankrupt city can afford this



On July 10, 2012, the City Council of San Bernardino decided to seek protection under Chapter 9, Title 11, United States Code, making it the third California city to do so in less than two weeks (after Stockton and Mammoth Lakes), and the largest ever. According to state law, the city would normally have to negotiate with creditors first, but, because they declared a fiscal emergency in June, that requirement did not apply.[6][7] The case was filed on August 1.[8]



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 


Originally posted by DaTroof
OK smart guy. What if this woman was trafficking children for porn? What if she was loitering around an arranged ransom drop-point? You don't know what was being investigated or how vigilant the police should or should not be.

I can't believe you side with the dumb pothead girl who has to hot-glue her phone together. C'mon man, SHE WAS HOLDING!

I can't believe that someone on ATS would actually side with a thug dressed in a suit.

We have the Mafia and the CIA working together in the drug trade.

Drug trafficking is in reality a government sanctioned operation.

And you have the nerve to call this girl a "dumb pothead"?

Unfreakin' believable...

www.whale.to...



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by quedup
 


The land of the free is nothing more than an empire in decline...




posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Yeah, she's a dumb pothead. Know how I can tell?

1. Pothead voice. "Like, whoa man!"
2. Lighter in pocket but no cigarettes.
3. If she didn't spend all her money on pot, she could have spent $10 on insurance for her phone, giving her a replacement phone.
4. Being so adamant about "don't search me, bruh!" means she had something illegal on her.

He could have easily cuffed her and searched her, but he didn't.


+5 more 
posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 


4th Amendment! Plus its CALIFORNIA, land of the $40 medical buy grass card. Its practically legal there! now stop making all of us dumber



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by dashen

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by dashen
 


You don't understand investigations. He just needed to positively ID her. He let her go,which means he has bigger fish to fry. Be glad he's trying to stop crime instead of just letting whatever go down.

YOU don't seem to understand investigations, If he just swooped down, shakeup, no explanation, he is committing a crime. He has to say something to satisfy legal requirements This seems like a random stop and frisk. I can also question how san berdino, a bankrupt city can afford this



On July 10, 2012, the City Council of San Bernardino decided to seek protection under Chapter 9, Title 11, United States Code, making it the third California city to do so in less than two weeks (after Stockton and Mammoth Lakes), and the largest ever. According to state law, the city would normally have to negotiate with creditors first, but, because they declared a fiscal emergency in June, that requirement did not apply.[6][7] The case was filed on August 1.[8]


Excellent Points! Precisely my points too and I'm sure that of many others!



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
Yeah, she's a dumb pothead. Know how I can tell?

1. Pothead voice. "Like, whoa man!"
2. Lighter in pocket but no cigarettes.
3. If she didn't spend all her money on pot, she could have spent $10 on insurance for her phone, giving her a replacement phone.
4. Being so adamant about "don't search me, bruh!" means she had something illegal on her.

He could have easily cuffed her and searched her, but he didn't.


Pure Imagination - Perhaps the girl like most has principles about being checked out for sweet FA (excuse the french)
Where the hell you got the Pot story - beyond me.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 



how dose saying that have anything to do with having pot on her. i have been stoped by cops and TOLD them i have pot out right. 90 percent of the time they were like oh well ok hummm your id checks out bye sir......or they take it to "throw away" but back to the point. why do you assume some one has something to hide when they dont concent to something invasive.......



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 


She is a human being minding her own goddamn business.

Just who are you to come on here and judge people you don't know anything about?

Sure the Sheriff of the obviously wealthy county is just doing his job of being a dickhead. He's looking for customers to fill his jail, but this one knows his game and turned him away.

It is her right to refuse a search.

She's a rock hound looking to add to her collection or something to trade or sell. Who care's what she's smoking or carrying in anticipation of, it is her right to put in her body what she chooses.

No hatred or insults toward her is necessary - she's not the one milking the taxpayers driving multimillion dollar machine around burning up a few thousand in fuel and maintenance time.
edit on 2/10/13 by verylowfrequency because: just say what again



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by dashen
 


OK smart guy. What if this woman was trafficking children for porn? What if she was loitering around an arranged ransom drop-point? You don't know what was being investigated or how vigilant the police should or should not be.

I can't believe you side with the dumb pothead girl who has to hot-glue her phone together. C'mon man, SHE WAS HOLDING!


You have no proof to put forward. She has done nothing illegal which is evident in her not being charged. You state that "What if" she was this or that? And then you label her as a dumb pothead thereby putting a label on an as yet innocent civilian.

Wait...Isn't this the same way Obama gives himself the right to kill people with drones and impunity?

Damn, I hope she's not your neighbor, family or friend. But maybe that's what it will take for you to get the picture.


But then again...some just fall in line.

Jude11



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof

Also, "I don't consent to a search" means she had pot on her. He was just doing his job, not harassing anyone.



"I don't consent to a search" could mean she didn't want a male cop frisking her. That was fine obviously because he had no problem with her decision.


Originally posted by DaTroof
Yeah, she's a dumb pothead. Know how I can tell?

1. Pothead voice. "Like, whoa man!"
2. Lighter in pocket but no cigarettes.
3. If she didn't spend all her money on pot, she could have spent $10 on insurance for her phone, giving her a replacement phone.
4. Being so adamant about "don't search me, bruh!" means she had something illegal on her.

He could have easily cuffed her and searched her, but he didn't.


Yeah, yeah, she's a "dumb broad", dumb enough to travel in her vehicle with pot on person!
"Like, whoa man!" You never met a Californian have you? Dude?

These are moot points detracting from the topic!
edit on 10-2-2013 by dreamingawake because: facepalm



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
So many things don't add up!!!

Was he flying that helicopter alone? He got back in on the left.
I was only in one once, but I was being life flighted at the time, so I couldn't see up front.
But I think from the voices I heard, the pilot was on the left.
( When I went back & looked I could see another helmet on the other side.)

1.) Sooo, he left the copter 'running' & walked away from it...
That could have been a big mistake if he had encountered some drug runners!
While he had his back to the helicopter, someone could have come out of the brush & hopped in!
Imagine him radioing in to ask to be picked up & having to explain why the helicopter was gone!
Plus it looks like he came from the right & was walking towards the helicopter first!
Unless Bobby was parked over there & he questioned him first, couldn't tell. But then it must have been edited!

2.) Then he walked up to Tiffany with his back to Bobby!
Who does that out in the desert? He could have been shot!
I would think Bobby would be a more likely suspect than a fairly young girl.

3.) Positive ID? Who knows if Tiffany Jones was even her real name, or the real birthdate she gave him???
That would have been funny if it wasn't her real name & there was a warrant out on the name she gave him!!!

4.) What was she filming with? A camera on a tripod? It wasn't her phone, we saw that.
And she was moving around in front of the camera. Why didn't he ask about being filmed?
(Nope, I looked again, somebody else is filming & very badly! Camera is all over the place.)

5.) I don't remember seeing his name on his uniform, I'll have to watch it again.
His badge looked kind of fake too! (Watched on YouTube could see a little better.
Dep. Carlos Quezada??? Hard to see. The 49ers strap was in the way!!!
He kept looking into the camera, away from her too!)

Yeah, 2 + 2 aren't adding up here! I smell a hoax!!!
Or a little too much 'down' time on a movie set location!!!
WOQ


edit on 10-2-2013 by wasobservingquietly because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
Yeah, she's a dumb pothead. Know how I can tell?

1. Pothead voice. "Like, whoa man!"
2. Lighter in pocket but no cigarettes.
3. If she didn't spend all her money on pot, she could have spent $10 on insurance for her phone, giving her a replacement phone.
4. Being so adamant about "don't search me, bruh!" means she had something illegal on her.

He could have easily cuffed her and searched her, but he didn't.


1.The "pothead voice" as you incorrectly call it, is a local regional accent. There are people here that talk like that and have never partaken, and there are prolific stoners that can't remember the last time they were sober that could easily be mistaken for straight-laced school children. Appearances are deceiving.
2.She didn't have a lighter, she had a butane torch which is overkill for cigarettes and weed, but suitable for melting glue sticks. Having a fire source in your pocket is useful for plenty of things other than burning stuff to inhale.
3.Not everyone has the good fortune of being able to buy shiny new phones from places that offer insurance on their products, moreso in her neck of the woods. It could be second hand, or bought from a thrift store out of necessity.
4.All of the preceding is irrelevant because unless she's suspected of a crime and is informed of that fact, and what crime she's suspected of, all he can do is ask her if she has weapons and if she consents to a search until he gets on the horn to get a warrant, and until either of those things occur, what she has in her pockets is none of his business, no matter what it is. It is unquestionably not okay for him to put his hands on her without a word or a question, and it's a violation of her rights as a citizen.

The unspoken assumption of your posts, that she has nothing to hide if she's not doing anything wrong is disturbing in its prevalence in this country. Our system of law was founded on the principle that all of us being free and equal have the right to our privacy as long as we don't engage in criminal behavior and infringe on the freedom of our neighbors. The behavior of this officer and that wretchedly ubiquitous assumption fly in the face of what once made our nation great.





new topics
top topics
 
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join