"lady" accuses cops of stopping her while walking black...tsk tsk....camera was rolling

[bucs90]

Did you watch the video? She was clearly walking IN the street. Asking for an ID is SOP.

Yes. That would be why I wrote that she was walking on the side of the street. As she was. She was doing nothing illegal. It was a golf course community residential street; not a freaking interstate. They had no reason to ask her for her ID.

Then you admit that you're dishonest since the video shows her walking in the street.

Is everyone in Texas as illiterate as you? I wrote: "She was walking on the side of the street" See there where I said was was walking on the "side of the street." If one is on the side of the street, guess what dumbfuck? They are on the street.

She walking in the street. How can you not see that? At one point she was damn near in the very center of the street.

You are one dishonest fuck.

And you are one illiterate fuck. She was on the street. The fucking side of the street for most of the video. Once the stopped and explained to her that it was better for her to walk towards the flow of traffic, they had no need to detain her for identification. That is the fucking point here.

It was a legal stop....under Terry vs Ohio SCOTUS law.

Also part of that law....a person must provide ID when stopped for a violation.

They COULD have just let her go without asking for ID. BUT GUESS WHAT....in the new era of cameras....EVERYONE must be treated the same. If they ask the Mexican with gang tattoos for ID and the white boy with weed stickers on his window for ID...and the old man who was simply speeding.....EVERYONE must be asked for ID.

Equality....ya know?

 

[BULLDOG]

It's good that the video showed exactly what happened. That's why I'm surprised that cops are whining so much about people videoing them.

Most cops who oppose cameras....are doing it from a pride and ego thing. Like being accused of something you don't do. The ones I'm close with say the body cam is a "symbol of distrust" slapped on them after a decade of service and honesty.

HOWEVER....as they see more and more bullshit and false allegations exposed....and morons and trash society exposed...they're loving it.

So am i.

This....like MOST claims of police abuse.....was a lie and it got exposed.

Sorry about their pride and ego. If they would police themselves and not cover for the few cowboy cops who think they are allowed to make their own rules, it wouldn't have gotten this bad.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Cameras will help both sides, IMO.

Thats only IF people accept the video and dont start with the oh so easy "What happened before that? What happened after that?" nonsense. Yes its nonsense because usually there is no video of before the video. And if it was they'd ask for video before the before video.

See the game? Its to ask for something that doesnt exist and when the thing that doesnt exist isnt given they start to make up reasons why the cop is right

No you retard we want the video BEFORE the supposed action by the cop, you know the part that shows usually the supposed victim refusing to cooperate and attacking the cop. Funny how those parts always get left out by non cops.

 

[BULLDOG]

Cameras will help both sides, IMO.

Thats only IF people accept the video and dont start with the oh so easy "What happened before that? What happened after that?" nonsense. Yes its nonsense because usually there is no video of before the video. And if it was they'd ask for video before the before video.

See the game? Its to ask for something that doesnt exist and when the thing that doesnt exist isnt given they start to make up reasons why the cop is right

No you retard we want the video BEFORE the supposed action by the cop, you know the part that shows usually the supposed victim refusing to cooperate and attacking the cop. Funny how those parts always get left out by non cops.

You mean the part where the victim doesn't immediately kiss the cops ass?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Cameras will help both sides, IMO.

Thats only IF people accept the video and dont start with the oh so easy "What happened before that? What happened after that?" nonsense. Yes its nonsense because usually there is no video of before the video. And if it was they'd ask for video before the before video.

See the game? Its to ask for something that doesnt exist and when the thing that doesnt exist isnt given they start to make up reasons why the cop is right

No you retard we want the video BEFORE the supposed action by the cop, you know the part that shows usually the supposed victim refusing to cooperate and attacking the cop. Funny how those parts always get left out by non cops.

You mean the part where the victim doesn't immediately kiss the cops ass?

No I mean the part where the supposed victim assaults the cop, funny how that part never gets aired by the "independent" witnesses.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Cameras will help both sides, IMO.

Thats only IF people accept the video and dont start with the oh so easy "What happened before that? What happened after that?" nonsense. Yes its nonsense because usually there is no video of before the video. And if it was they'd ask for video before the before video.

See the game? Its to ask for something that doesnt exist and when the thing that doesnt exist isnt given they start to make up reasons why the cop is right

No you retard we want the video BEFORE the supposed action by the cop, you know the part that shows usually the supposed victim refusing to cooperate and attacking the cop. Funny how those parts always get left out by non cops.

Yeah funny how videos start when they start Captain Obvious

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's good that the video showed exactly what happened. That's why I'm surprised that cops are whining so much about people videoing them.

Cops only "whine" when whoever is doing to filming is getting in the way of their duty.

 

[paddymurphy]

It's good that the video showed exactly what happened. That's why I'm surprised that cops are whining so much about people videoing them.

Most cops who oppose cameras....are doing it from a pride and ego thing. Like being accused of something you don't do. The ones I'm close with say the body cam is a "symbol of distrust" slapped on them after a decade of service and honesty.

HOWEVER....as they see more and more bullshit and false allegations exposed....and morons and trash society exposed...they're loving it.

So am i.

This....like MOST claims of police abuse.....was a lie and it got exposed.

By "bullshit and false allegations" do you include the bullshit and false OP you started a couple of days ago claiming that the girl attacked by the deputy in South Carolina planned it in advance? You know, the one where you were proven to have linked a story about the girl who actually filmed the assault and claimed that the story was about the girl who was attacked? That the kid of bullshit and false allegations you are talking about?

 

[paddymurphy]

Yes. That would be why I wrote that she was walking on the side of the street. As she was. She was doing nothing illegal. It was a golf course community residential street; not a freaking interstate. They had no reason to ask her for her ID.

Then you admit that you're dishonest since the video shows her walking in the street.

Is everyone in Texas as illiterate as you? I wrote: "She was walking on the side of the street" See there where I said was was walking on the "side of the street." If one is on the side of the street, guess what dumbfuck? They are on the street.

She walking in the street. How can you not see that? At one point she was damn near in the very center of the street.

You are one dishonest fuck.

And you are one illiterate fuck. She was on the street. The fucking side of the street for most of the video. Once the stopped and explained to her that it was better for her to walk towards the flow of traffic, they had no need to detain her for identification. That is the fucking point here.

She was walking in the street and SOP is to ask for ID whenever a cop is engaged with a citizen. They want to know who the person and make sure there are no outstanding warrants and it also helps when they are writing their daily report.

If they person is not violating any law, and she was not, they have no right to detain her at all.

 

[paddymurphy]

Yes. That would be why I wrote that she was walking on the side of the street. As she was. She was doing nothing illegal. It was a golf course community residential street; not a freaking interstate. They had no reason to ask her for her ID.

Then you admit that you're dishonest since the video shows her walking in the street.

Is everyone in Texas as illiterate as you? I wrote: "She was walking on the side of the street" See there where I said was was walking on the "side of the street." If one is on the side of the street, guess what dumbfuck? They are on the street.

She walking in the street. How can you not see that? At one point she was damn near in the very center of the street.

You are one dishonest fuck.

And you are one illiterate fuck. She was on the street. The fucking side of the street for most of the video. Once the stopped and explained to her that it was better for her to walk towards the flow of traffic, they had no need to detain her for identification. That is the fucking point here.

It was a legal stop....under Terry vs Ohio SCOTUS law.

Also part of that law....a person must provide ID when stopped for a violation.

They COULD have just let her go without asking for ID. BUT GUESS WHAT....in the new era of cameras....EVERYONE must be treated the same. If they ask the Mexican with gang tattoos for ID and the white boy with weed stickers on his window for ID...and the old man who was simply speeding.....EVERYONE must be asked for ID.

Equality....ya know?

It was not a legal stop. Have you ever read Terry v. Ohio? What criminal activity did they reasonably suspect was "afoot"?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Then you admit that you're dishonest since the video shows her walking in the street.

Is everyone in Texas as illiterate as you? I wrote: "She was walking on the side of the street" See there where I said was was walking on the "side of the street." If one is on the side of the street, guess what dumbfuck? They are on the street.

She walking in the street. How can you not see that? At one point she was damn near in the very center of the street.

You are one dishonest fuck.

And you are one illiterate fuck. She was on the street. The fucking side of the street for most of the video. Once the stopped and explained to her that it was better for her to walk towards the flow of traffic, they had no need to detain her for identification. That is the fucking point here.

She was walking in the street and SOP is to ask for ID whenever a cop is engaged with a citizen. They want to know who the person and make sure there are no outstanding warrants and it also helps when they are writing their daily report.

If they person is not violating any law, and she was not, they have no right to detain her at all.

She wasn't being detained.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Then you admit that you're dishonest since the video shows her walking in the street.

Is everyone in Texas as illiterate as you? I wrote: "She was walking on the side of the street" See there where I said was was walking on the "side of the street." If one is on the side of the street, guess what dumbfuck? They are on the street.

She walking in the street. How can you not see that? At one point she was damn near in the very center of the street.

You are one dishonest fuck.

And you are one illiterate fuck. She was on the street. The fucking side of the street for most of the video. Once the stopped and explained to her that it was better for her to walk towards the flow of traffic, they had no need to detain her for identification. That is the fucking point here.

It was a legal stop....under Terry vs Ohio SCOTUS law.

Also part of that law....a person must provide ID when stopped for a violation.

They COULD have just let her go without asking for ID. BUT GUESS WHAT....in the new era of cameras....EVERYONE must be treated the same. If they ask the Mexican with gang tattoos for ID and the white boy with weed stickers on his window for ID...and the old man who was simply speeding.....EVERYONE must be asked for ID.

Equality....ya know?

It was not a legal stop. Have you ever read Terry v. Ohio? What criminal activity did they reasonably suspect was "afoot"?

TRANSPORTATION CODE

TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD

CHAPTER 552. PEDESTRIANS

Sec. 552.006. USE OF SIDEWALK. (a) A pedestrian may not walk along and on a roadway if an adjacent sidewalk is provided and is accessible to the pedestrian.

(b) If a sidewalk is not provided, a pedestrian walking along and on a highway shall if possible walk on:

(1) the left side of the roadway; or

(2) the shoulder of the highway facing oncoming traffic.

(c) The operator of a vehicle emerging from or entering an alley, building, or private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian approaching on a sidewalk extending across the alley, building entrance or exit, road, or driveway.


Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 497, Sec. 3, eff. June 11, 2001.

There was a sidewalk provided therefore she was technically in violation of the law.

 

[paddymurphy]

Is everyone in Texas as illiterate as you? I wrote: "She was walking on the side of the street" See there where I said was was walking on the "side of the street." If one is on the side of the street, guess what dumbfuck? They are on the street.

She walking in the street. How can you not see that? At one point she was damn near in the very center of the street.

You are one dishonest fuck.

And you are one illiterate fuck. She was on the street. The fucking side of the street for most of the video. Once the stopped and explained to her that it was better for her to walk towards the flow of traffic, they had no need to detain her for identification. That is the fucking point here.

She was walking in the street and SOP is to ask for ID whenever a cop is engaged with a citizen. They want to know who the person and make sure there are no outstanding warrants and it also helps when they are writing their daily report.

If they person is not violating any law, and she was not, they have no right to detain her at all.

She wasn't being detained.

So, then, she could just have walked away without providing ID? Either she was free to go or she was required to provide ID. Which was it?

 

[paddymurphy]

Is everyone in Texas as illiterate as you? I wrote: "She was walking on the side of the street" See there where I said was was walking on the "side of the street." If one is on the side of the street, guess what dumbfuck? They are on the street.

She walking in the street. How can you not see that? At one point she was damn near in the very center of the street.

You are one dishonest fuck.

And you are one illiterate fuck. She was on the street. The fucking side of the street for most of the video. Once the stopped and explained to her that it was better for her to walk towards the flow of traffic, they had no need to detain her for identification. That is the fucking point here.

It was a legal stop....under Terry vs Ohio SCOTUS law.

Also part of that law....a person must provide ID when stopped for a violation.

They COULD have just let her go without asking for ID. BUT GUESS WHAT....in the new era of cameras....EVERYONE must be treated the same. If they ask the Mexican with gang tattoos for ID and the white boy with weed stickers on his window for ID...and the old man who was simply speeding.....EVERYONE must be asked for ID.

Equality....ya know?

It was not a legal stop. Have you ever read Terry v. Ohio? What criminal activity did they reasonably suspect was "afoot"?

TRANSPORTATION CODE

TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD

CHAPTER 552. PEDESTRIANS

Sec. 552.006. USE OF SIDEWALK. (a) A pedestrian may not walk along and on a roadway if an adjacent sidewalk is provided and is accessible to the pedestrian.

(b) If a sidewalk is not provided, a pedestrian walking along and on a highway shall if possible walk on:

(1) the left side of the roadway; or

(2) the shoulder of the highway facing oncoming traffic.

(c) The operator of a vehicle emerging from or entering an alley, building, or private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian approaching on a sidewalk extending across the alley, building entrance or exit, road, or driveway.


Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 497, Sec. 3, eff. June 11, 2001.

There was a sidewalk provided therefore she was technically in violation of the law.

That is a statute that applies to vehicles. There is no provision that makes walking on the side of the road, as she was, a violation.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

She walking in the street. How can you not see that? At one point she was damn near in the very center of the street.

You are one dishonest fuck.

And you are one illiterate fuck. She was on the street. The fucking side of the street for most of the video. Once the stopped and explained to her that it was better for her to walk towards the flow of traffic, they had no need to detain her for identification. That is the fucking point here.

She was walking in the street and SOP is to ask for ID whenever a cop is engaged with a citizen. They want to know who the person and make sure there are no outstanding warrants and it also helps when they are writing their daily report.

If they person is not violating any law, and she was not, they have no right to detain her at all.

She wasn't being detained.

So, then, she could just have walked away without providing ID? Either she was free to go or she was required to provide ID. Which was it?

Yes I suppose she could have. However, by refusing provide an ID when asked it may raise suspicion which would warrant detainment. It's really up to the officer's discretion.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

She walking in the street. How can you not see that? At one point she was damn near in the very center of the street.

You are one dishonest fuck.

And you are one illiterate fuck. She was on the street. The fucking side of the street for most of the video. Once the stopped and explained to her that it was better for her to walk towards the flow of traffic, they had no need to detain her for identification. That is the fucking point here.

It was a legal stop....under Terry vs Ohio SCOTUS law.

Also part of that law....a person must provide ID when stopped for a violation.

They COULD have just let her go without asking for ID. BUT GUESS WHAT....in the new era of cameras....EVERYONE must be treated the same. If they ask the Mexican with gang tattoos for ID and the white boy with weed stickers on his window for ID...and the old man who was simply speeding.....EVERYONE must be asked for ID.

Equality....ya know?

It was not a legal stop. Have you ever read Terry v. Ohio? What criminal activity did they reasonably suspect was "afoot"?

TRANSPORTATION CODE

TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD

CHAPTER 552. PEDESTRIANS

Sec. 552.006. USE OF SIDEWALK. (a) A pedestrian may not walk along and on a roadway if an adjacent sidewalk is provided and is accessible to the pedestrian.

(b) If a sidewalk is not provided, a pedestrian walking along and on a highway shall if possible walk on:

(1) the left side of the roadway; or

(2) the shoulder of the highway facing oncoming traffic.

(c) The operator of a vehicle emerging from or entering an alley, building, or private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian approaching on a sidewalk extending across the alley, building entrance or exit, road, or driveway.


Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 497, Sec. 3, eff. June 11, 2001.

There was a sidewalk provided therefore she was technically in violation of the law.

That is a statute that applies to vehicles. There is no provision that makes walking on the side of the road, as she was, a violation.

Since when is a pedestrian a vehicle and since when does vehicles drive on sidewalks.

You should read what I posted again. But this time take your blindfold off. Better yet, have a child read it to you.

 

[Skylar]

She walking in the street. How can you not see that? At one point she was damn near in the very center of the street.

You are one dishonest fuck.

And you are one illiterate fuck. She was on the street. The fucking side of the street for most of the video. Once the stopped and explained to her that it was better for her to walk towards the flow of traffic, they had no need to detain her for identification. That is the fucking point here.

She was walking in the street and SOP is to ask for ID whenever a cop is engaged with a citizen. They want to know who the person and make sure there are no outstanding warrants and it also helps when they are writing their daily report.

If they person is not violating any law, and she was not, they have no right to detain her at all.

She wasn't being detained.

So, then, she could just have walked away without providing ID? Either she was free to go or she was required to provide ID. Which was it?

Hiibel doesn't require someone be arrested in order to be required to identify yourself.

United States Supreme Court case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The police can ask for ID. But you don't have to provide it. If such were the case then you would have an obligation to 'carry your papers' on the chance that the police asked you for them.

You do, however, have to identify yourself.

 

[paddymurphy]

And you are one illiterate fuck. She was on the street. The fucking side of the street for most of the video. Once the stopped and explained to her that it was better for her to walk towards the flow of traffic, they had no need to detain her for identification. That is the fucking point here.

She was walking in the street and SOP is to ask for ID whenever a cop is engaged with a citizen. They want to know who the person and make sure there are no outstanding warrants and it also helps when they are writing their daily report.

If they person is not violating any law, and she was not, they have no right to detain her at all.

She wasn't being detained.

So, then, she could just have walked away without providing ID? Either she was free to go or she was required to provide ID. Which was it?

Yes I suppose she could have. However, by refusing provide an ID when asked it may raise suspicion which would warrant detainment. It's really up to the officer's discretion.

Not without a reason to stop and detain her in the first place.

 

[bucs90]

She walking in the street. How can you not see that? At one point she was damn near in the very center of the street.

You are one dishonest fuck.

And you are one illiterate fuck. She was on the street. The fucking side of the street for most of the video. Once the stopped and explained to her that it was better for her to walk towards the flow of traffic, they had no need to detain her for identification. That is the fucking point here.

It was a legal stop....under Terry vs Ohio SCOTUS law.

Also part of that law....a person must provide ID when stopped for a violation.

They COULD have just let her go without asking for ID. BUT GUESS WHAT....in the new era of cameras....EVERYONE must be treated the same. If they ask the Mexican with gang tattoos for ID and the white boy with weed stickers on his window for ID...and the old man who was simply speeding.....EVERYONE must be asked for ID.

Equality....ya know?

It was not a legal stop. Have you ever read Terry v. Ohio? What criminal activity did they reasonably suspect was "afoot"?

TRANSPORTATION CODE

TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD

CHAPTER 552. PEDESTRIANS

Sec. 552.006. USE OF SIDEWALK. (a) A pedestrian may not walk along and on a roadway if an adjacent sidewalk is provided and is accessible to the pedestrian.

(b) If a sidewalk is not provided, a pedestrian walking along and on a highway shall if possible walk on:

(1) the left side of the roadway; or

(2) the shoulder of the highway facing oncoming traffic.

(c) The operator of a vehicle emerging from or entering an alley, building, or private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian approaching on a sidewalk extending across the alley, building entrance or exit, road, or driveway.


Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 497, Sec. 3, eff. June 11, 2001.

There was a sidewalk provided therefore she was technically in violation of the law.

That is a statute that applies to vehicles. There is no provision that makes walking on the side of the road, as she was, a violation.

Can you read? It's literally almost the first thing the statute discusses...."Pedestrians" required to use sidewalk and stay out of the road.

 

[bucs90]

And you are one illiterate fuck. She was on the street. The fucking side of the street for most of the video. Once the stopped and explained to her that it was better for her to walk towards the flow of traffic, they had no need to detain her for identification. That is the fucking point here.

She was walking in the street and SOP is to ask for ID whenever a cop is engaged with a citizen. They want to know who the person and make sure there are no outstanding warrants and it also helps when they are writing their daily report.

If they person is not violating any law, and she was not, they have no right to detain her at all.

She wasn't being detained.

So, then, she could just have walked away without providing ID? Either she was free to go or she was required to provide ID. Which was it?

Hiibel doesn't require someone be arrested in order to be required to identify yourself.

United States Supreme Court case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The police can ask for ID. But you don't have to provide it. If such were the case then you would have an obligation to 'carry your papers' on the chance that the police asked you for them.

You do, however, have to identify yourself.

God damn you idiots don't understand the law. I'm tired of explaining it.