Pregnant Woman Arrested for resisting no arrest....or something

[chikenwing]

. He notes at the end that the officer felt he had reason to arrest her, regardless of anything else.
You don't get it

 

[ClosedCaption]

Refuses to hear the cop say plain as day there is no crime. ^^^^^

He keeps talking about situations that aren't this one.?

And keeps going along the logic that someone is arrested mentally. At no point did the cop say she was under arrest and there was no crime to be arrested FOR.

The court threw it out anyway. He's just an authoritarian

 

[ClosedCaption]

. He notes at the end that the officer felt he had reason to arrest her, regardless of anything else.
You don't get it

I know that someone having a justification for their actions is Strange to you but I have yet to hear someone say they had no reasons for their actions.

 

[Godboy]

Then you must have seen her try to leave.

Lets say she did try and leave, which she did not, where is the part where she committed a crime? You keep bringing up irrelevant stuff.

He was investigating a potential crime. A witness identified the black woman and said she threw some shit at her car. He didn't see what was thrown, but he was acting responsibly by investigating it. When he questioned the alleged attacker, she refused to give her name and she tried to walk away. She then struggled with the officer as he tried to detain her, so she was arrested.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[EverCurious]

He's been reduced to ranting now. ^^^^^^

I would be a she btw.

That's not ranting, that's me laughing because I find it highly amusing that you "hate the police" people are so uninformed... Even in the face of actual statutes that clearly show the officer had the right to detain the black chick, despite the police expert on there saying that the officer had to have felt he was acting properly, ya'll insist on sticking to the "the media said it was wrong" - which they only did by lying and omitting key facts about what really happened.

Whatever... If you kids want to get your legal advice from media show hosts and uneducated friends, go for it.

 

[Asclepias]

He's been reduced to ranting now. ^^^^^^

I would be a she btw.

That's not ranting, that's me laughing because I find it highly amusing that you "hate the police" people are so uninformed... Even in the face of actual statutes that clearly show the officer had the right to detain the black chick, despite the police expert on there saying that the officer had to have felt he was acting properly, ya'll insist on sticking to the "the media said it was wrong" - which they only did by lying and omitting key facts about what really happened.

Whatever... If you kids want to get your legal advice from media show hosts and uneducated friends, go for it.

No he had no right. I have 2 cops in my family and they both agree with me. My attorney also says the same thing. Sorry but you were ranting regardless of if you are a woman or not.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Then you must have seen her try to leave.

Lets say she did try and leave, which she did not, where is the part where she committed a crime? You keep bringing up irrelevant stuff.

He was investigating a potential crime. A witness identified the black woman and said she threw some shit at her car. He didn't see what was thrown, but he was acting responsibly by investigating it. When he questioned the alleged attacker, she refused to give her name and she tried to walk away. She then struggled with the officer as he tried to detain her, so she was arrested.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

"Tried to detain her"...yes, you keep saying that. The part you're skipping is why was he trying to detain her?

 

[Asclepias]

Then you must have seen her try to leave.

Lets say she did try and leave, which she did not, where is the part where she committed a crime? You keep bringing up irrelevant stuff.

He was investigating a potential crime. A witness identified the black woman and said she threw some shit at her car. He didn't see what was thrown, but he was acting responsibly by investigating it. When he questioned the alleged attacker, she refused to give her name and she tried to walk away. She then struggled with the officer as he tried to detain her, so she was arrested.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Monkeys like you think anything is reasonable. Makes a lot of sense when its looked at from your point of view.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This is never brought up but the officer does not say "I am placing your under arrest" before grabbing her. The whole time she is "resisting" she has never been informed she is under arrest.

He walks up to white lady "hello ma'am, no evidence of a crime"

Walks up to black lady "Whats your name?" then decides hes going to slam her around because no crime was committed.

I strongly suspect that had the races been reversed (the woman who called the cops would have been black, the woman who was questioned 2nd would have been white) that this would have been handled very, very differently.

I hope she sues for millions.

 

[Godboy]

Then you must have seen her try to leave.

Lets say she did try and leave, which she did not, where is the part where she committed a crime? You keep bringing up irrelevant stuff.

He was investigating a potential crime. A witness identified the black woman and said she threw some shit at her car. He didn't see what was thrown, but he was acting responsibly by investigating it. When he questioned the alleged attacker, she refused to give her name and she tried to walk away. She then struggled with the officer as he tried to detain her, so she was arrested.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

"Tried to detain her"...yes, you keep saying that. The part you're skipping is why was he trying to detain her?

He's investigating a potential crime, which means he has to question this woman. What is so hard to understand?

 

[Godboy]

He's been reduced to ranting now. ^^^^^^

I would be a she btw.

That's not ranting, that's me laughing because I find it highly amusing that you "hate the police" people are so uninformed... Even in the face of actual statutes that clearly show the officer had the right to detain the black chick, despite the police expert on there saying that the officer had to have felt he was acting properly, ya'll insist on sticking to the "the media said it was wrong" - which they only did by lying and omitting key facts about what really happened.

Whatever... If you kids want to get your legal advice from media show hosts and uneducated friends, go for it.

No he had no right. I have 2 cops in my family and they both agree with me. My attorney also says the same thing. Sorry but you were ranting regardless of if you are a woman or not.

Your "attorney" is just your McDonald's manager who watches Law and Order a lot.

 

[Camp]

Then you must have seen her try to leave.

Lets say she did try and leave, which she did not, where is the part where she committed a crime? You keep bringing up irrelevant stuff.

He was investigating a potential crime. A witness identified the black woman and said she threw some shit at her car. He didn't see what was thrown, but he was acting responsibly by investigating it. When he questioned the alleged attacker, she refused to give her name and she tried to walk away. She then struggled with the officer as he tried to detain her, so she was arrested.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

"Tried to detain her"...yes, you keep saying that. The part you're skipping is why was he trying to detain her?

He's investigating a potential crime, which means he has to question this woman. What is so hard to understand?

He was not investigating a crime. He had already stated to the white lady that no crime had been committed. He did not announce to the assaulted woman that he was investigating a crime or tell her he wanted or needed to detain her. He simply asked for her name and under California law she was not required to give her name to some random cop for some random reason. The cop than lied to her by telling her she had 2 minutes to check and see if she was correct about not having to provide her name. 20 seconds later he assaulted her. He should be arrested for assault, fired from the police force and sued for everything he owns or ever will own or ever come close to owning. A judge agreed that the woman didn't commit a crime and dismissed the trumped up charges.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Then you must have seen her try to leave.

Lets say she did try and leave, which she did not, where is the part where she committed a crime? You keep bringing up irrelevant stuff.

He was investigating a potential crime. A witness identified the black woman and said she threw some shit at her car. He didn't see what was thrown, but he was acting responsibly by investigating it. When he questioned the alleged attacker, she refused to give her name and she tried to walk away. She then struggled with the officer as he tried to detain her, so she was arrested.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

"Tried to detain her"...yes, you keep saying that. The part you're skipping is why was he trying to detain her?

He's investigating a potential crime, which means he has to question this woman. What is so hard to understand?

I guess the hard part is you're saying he was investigating a crime after stating no crime was comitted. Perplexing that one

 

[ClosedCaption]

He's been reduced to ranting now. ^^^^^^

I would be a she btw.

That's not ranting, that's me laughing because I find it highly amusing that you "hate the police" people are so uninformed... Even in the face of actual statutes that clearly show the officer had the right to detain the black chick, despite the police expert on there saying that the officer had to have felt he was acting properly, ya'll insist on sticking to the "the media said it was wrong" - which they only did by lying and omitting key facts about what really happened.

Whatever... If you kids want to get your legal advice from media show hosts and uneducated friends, go for it.

I guess the judge who threw it out is silly too. No one knows better than you, I guess

 

[Godboy]

Then you must have seen her try to leave.

Lets say she did try and leave, which she did not, where is the part where she committed a crime? You keep bringing up irrelevant stuff.

He was investigating a potential crime. A witness identified the black woman and said she threw some shit at her car. He didn't see what was thrown, but he was acting responsibly by investigating it. When he questioned the alleged attacker, she refused to give her name and she tried to walk away. She then struggled with the officer as he tried to detain her, so she was arrested.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

"Tried to detain her"...yes, you keep saying that. The part you're skipping is why was he trying to detain her?

He's investigating a potential crime, which means he has to question this woman. What is so hard to understand?

He was not investigating a crime. He had already stated to the white lady that no crime had been committed. He did not announce to the assaulted woman that he was investigating a crime or tell her he wanted or needed to detain her. He simply asked for her name and under California law she was not required to give her name to some random cop for some random reason. The cop than lied to her by telling her she had 2 minutes to check and see if she was correct about not having to provide her name. 20 seconds later he assaulted her. He should be arrested for assault, fired from the police force and sued for everything he owns or ever will own or ever come close to owning. A judge agreed that the woman didn't commit a crime and dismissed the trumped up charges.

No, he said he didn't see any evidence of a crime, but he was still investigating it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why was he trying to detain her again?

 

[CMike]

Yeah, except no. She did walk anywhere. The cop had no reason to put his hands on her since no crime was committed.

Unless you believe anytime a cop comes in contact with you you're under arrest. The laws dont care what you believe tho thats not the case.

She attempted to walk away. That's why she was arrested.

She was never under arrest, we should still have some liberties,where was she going to go? you think its appropriate to handle the people like that? Rational people understand that it is not!

She wasn't arrested. However, the cop was doing a legal stop.

Walking away when he is telling you not to is obstructing during a stop.

He never said she was arrested for not showing ID. She was arrested for obstructing and resisting. Bad move.

She was illegally detained. She is going to be rich.

Could be,I believe there is strong grounds for two counts of assault,one for her one for her child.

There was no assault.

It's called resisting arrest.

If you are worried about your baby then don't resist arrest.

It won't work and you will get more charges.

 

[CMike]

You don't need probably cause for a legal stop.

You need reasonable suspicion which he had.

 

[Asclepias]

Lets say she did try and leave, which she did not, where is the part where she committed a crime? You keep bringing up irrelevant stuff.

He was investigating a potential crime. A witness identified the black woman and said she threw some shit at her car. He didn't see what was thrown, but he was acting responsibly by investigating it. When he questioned the alleged attacker, she refused to give her name and she tried to walk away. She then struggled with the officer as he tried to detain her, so she was arrested.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

"Tried to detain her"...yes, you keep saying that. The part you're skipping is why was he trying to detain her?

He's investigating a potential crime, which means he has to question this woman. What is so hard to understand?

He was not investigating a crime. He had already stated to the white lady that no crime had been committed. He did not announce to the assaulted woman that he was investigating a crime or tell her he wanted or needed to detain her. He simply asked for her name and under California law she was not required to give her name to some random cop for some random reason. The cop than lied to her by telling her she had 2 minutes to check and see if she was correct about not having to provide her name. 20 seconds later he assaulted her. He should be arrested for assault, fired from the police force and sued for everything he owns or ever will own or ever come close to owning. A judge agreed that the woman didn't commit a crime and dismissed the trumped up charges.

No, he said he didn't see any evidence of a crime, but he was still investigating it.

Youre a fucking idiot as usual. He didnt say anything at all like what you claimed and he never said he was still investigating it you lying monkey.

From the link.

"I don't see a crime that has been committed. If there was damages that would give you the opportunity to place her under citizens arrest. I don't see any crime."

 

[CMike]

Then you must have seen her try to leave.

Lets say she did try and leave, which she did not, where is the part where she committed a crime? You keep bringing up irrelevant stuff.

He was investigating a potential crime. A witness identified the black woman and said she threw some shit at her car. He didn't see what was thrown, but he was acting responsibly by investigating it. When he questioned the alleged attacker, she refused to give her name and she tried to walk away. She then struggled with the officer as he tried to detain her, so she was arrested.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

"Tried to detain her"...yes, you keep saying that. The part you're skipping is why was he trying to detain her?

Because he was investigating a potential crime.