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

[Asclepias]

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

You need reasonable suspicion which he had.

If he had reasonable suspicion then why did he tell the white woman there was no crime?

 

[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.

"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.

But he already said there was not a crime. Are you saying he lied to the white woman for no good reason? Or did you mean he thought the Black woman was a suspect in some possible crime in the future?

 

[Camp]

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

You need reasonable suspicion which he had.

If he had reasonable suspicion then why did he tell the white woman there was no crime?

He had reasonable suspicion. The white woman who instigated the road rage type incident by telling the black woman how to drive in the school parking lot was pissed off and expecting service from the cop. Therefore, the black woman became suspicious due to her blackness. Her uppity attitude towards the white lady was cause for suspicion also.

 

[Asclepias]

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

You need reasonable suspicion which he had.

If he had reasonable suspicion then why did he tell the white woman there was no crime?

He had reasonable suspicion. The white woman who instigated the road rage type incident by telling the black woman how to drive in the school parking lot was pissed off and expecting service from the cop. Therefore, the black woman became suspicious due to her blackness. Her uppity attitude towards the white lady was cause for suspicion also.

My bad. I forgot the rules.

 

[Tank]

The crime was when the female silver back tried to leave

 

[Asclepias]

The crime was when the female silver back tried to leave

There is no such thing as a female silver back. You white racists are some of the dumbest MF alive.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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."

Yeabut by "no crime" he REALLY means maybe.

These guys don't realize the bs slope their playing on. It's just like Republicans with the Patriot act going "who gave the govt the right to spy on citizens"

Apparently, all their mirrors were broken

 

[Tank]

It was racist of the cop to try to hold the sheboon to the same standards as White folks.

 

[tinydancer]

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.

This one is off the richter scale. Glad for the body cam to capture it BUT think about it. The cops still throw this woman to the ground KNOWING this moment is being captured CC.

Shit this is as crazy when they all jumped on the man in the desert beating the ever loving fuck out of the dude while the bloody NBC (I think it was NBC) copter was filming.

Is this roid rage? I freaking hope so because the mindset is terrifying these days.

 

[tinydancer]

It was racist of the cop to try to hold the sheboon to the same standards as White folks.

Honest. Don't do this. Pick your battles wisely. These cops went over the top here. There was no reason for these police to do what they did at all.

Not at all.

Look we have a real problem on our hands. Cops acting like I remember them as pigs in the 60's and 70's and good officers who are just trying to hold the peace.

But I'm going to tell you in the right here and now, I know why the original BP's formed. I backed them. I understood why they had to do it. I stood with Angela Davis. I stood with the Panthers.

That was then. This is now. I am telling you cops are out of control. Surely you can understand this if you look past the bullshit of "hands up don't shoot".

I've been tracking cops killing dogs in back yards for heavens sake. The blue patrol is on a mission to take out our canine friends. One precinct had a bet on how many each officer could take out of a back yard.

Shit man. Truly. Check into this shit.

 

[Tank]

So the cop should have let her walk away?

 

[Asclepias]

So the cop should have let her walk away?

Yeah. He said there was no crime and she wasnt under arrest.

 

[Tank]

The crime was her attempting to leave

 

[CMike]

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

You need reasonable suspicion which he had.

If he had reasonable suspicion then why did he tell the white woman there was no crime?

That was premature.

She made the complaint.

He was investigating it by talking to the other person.

Trying to leave is called obstruction,

 

[EverCurious]

Once an officer responds to a 911 call, they are obligated to investigate. That is because the information they received in a 911 call is not necessarily true, and before the officer arrests anyone they need to make sure there is a basis for an arrest. This means questioning people who may have information regarding the incident involved, such as neighbors or other possible witnesses.

----

Shortly after Hiibel was decided, the Alameda County (California) District Attorney's Office provided a case analysis (PDF) in the 2004 edition of Point of View maintaining that refusal to identify oneself and provide written identification (if available) constitutes a violation of Penal Code §148(a)(1), resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer.

They specifically cite the following:

Although the Court ruled that a demand for ID must be “reasonably related” to the purpose of the stop, it indicated that any request for ID satisfies this requirement if the detention was lawful. Said the Court, “The request for identity has an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale, and practical demands of a [detention.]

~ Keep in mind that the white chick called 911 on the black woman, AKA asking her name was 100% related to the purpose of the stop.

Further the California DA commented very specifically:

"In 1971 the United States Supreme Court observed that “aliases and false identifications are not uncommon.” If Hiibel had been decided differently, the Court
would have had to revise its observation to, “Aliases, false identifications, and "‘I ain’'t tellin’ you my name and there’s nothin’ you can do about it"’ are not uncommon.” This
would, of course, have been a big victory for the hard-core criminal element. Yet, four of the nine justices on today’s U.S. Supreme Court wanted that to happen.

We all understand that officers cannot require a person to answer questions about the crime for which he is suspected. But there is a huge difference between asking, “Did
you just beat your wife?” and asking, “What’s your name?”

The question remains: Can detainees be required to provide officers with written ID, such as a driver’s license? Or can they satisfy the ID requirement by simply stating their
name? The Hiibel Court did not decide the issue. Consequently, the California cases on this subject are still valid— and they hold that officers may require written ID if the
detainee has it in his possession.

In one of those cases, People v. Long, the court succinctly explained the rationale for this requirement: To accept the contention that the officer can stop the suspect and request identification, but that the suspect can turn right around and refuse to provide it, would reduce the authority of the officer . . . to identify a person lawfully stopped by him to a mere fiction. Unless the officer is given some recourse in the event his request for identification is refused, he will be forced to rely either upon the good will of the person he suspects or upon his own ability to simply bluff that person into thinking that he actually does have some recourse.

Based on Long and the cases we cited with it, it is still the law in California that a detainee’s refusal to disclose his name, or furnish written ID if he has it, constitutes a violation of [California] Penal Code § 148(a)(1) which, like the Nevada statute, makes it unlawful to willfully delay or obstruct an officer in the performance of his duties."

-----

Argue faulty beliefs all you want, but the /law/ is not going to agree with you.

You can dislike the laws and try to get them changed, but fighting against laws on the books in the street with an officer is not going to get you anywhere but arrested.

 

[Godboy]

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

You need reasonable suspicion which he had.

If he had reasonable suspicion then why did he tell the white woman there was no crime?

He didn't say there was no crime. You're lying, as usual. He said he didn't see a crime.. after being on the scene for what... 30 seconds tops? It would absurd for an officer not to investigate further.

 

[TimothysAlaska]

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.

Yes she will be 15k richer and maybe more so since she was pregnant. The cops were wrong. She did not need to give her name since no crime was commited. I hope the officers are suspended. There was a thread on this already and 2 people arrested for not showing an ID won at court for 15k in the same town. But most people on here said she deserved it. LoL. They say that obama tramples the constitution but turn a blind eye for police violations. The brainwashed masses just love to give up their rights. Sad. But she will have her day in court and win.

 

[TimothysAlaska]

So the cop should have let her walk away?

Yes she should had been allowed to walk away. This video shows a guy walking in a neighborhood with a gun and people called the police on him. Watch very interesting if you know your rights. But most on here do not know yet profess they know.

 

[CMike]

The cop had reasonable suspicion.

The woman can't claim that she was treated roughly when she was resisting arrest. If she didn't resist she wouldn't be treated roughly.

In fact, I think the copy was pretty polite to her.

Reasonable Suspicion Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute

Reasonable Suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure. It is looser thanprobable cause. Reasonable suspicion is sufficient to justify brief stops and detentions, but not enough to justify a full search. When determining reasonable suspicion, courts consider the events leading up to the brief stop and a decide whether these facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to reasonable suspicion.

Courts look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.

 

[CMike]

So the cop should have let her walk away?

Yes she should had been allowed to walk away. This video shows a guy walking in a neighborhood with a gun and people called the police on him. Watch very interesting if you know your rights. But most on here do not know yet profess they know.

That video makes my point.

The police had no reasonable suspicion. Open carrying is legal. Therefore, they couldn't articulate of why they think a crime may be committed. Thus they couldn't make a legal stop. In this case the person would be free to leave.

In the case of the OP, a woman claimed that the other woman threw things at her car and tried to damage it. That would be a crime. Therefore, there was reasonable suspicion.

BTW I am very familiar with open carry laws.