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

[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.

Same issue no reasonable suspicion.

Open carry is legal. There is no crime that they can suspect.

In the OP there was reasonable suspicion.

 

[CMike]

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.

This wasn't about her name. This was about obstructing by walking away when the officer told her to stop.

What she did was illegal.

Also, I don't feel sorry for her because she was pregnant.

She was treated roughly because she was utterly uncooperative with the arrest. That is called obstructing and resisting. In Michigan it's punishable for a maximum of 2 years in prison.

 

[CMike]

So the cop should have let her walk away?

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

He initially told that to the person whom called in the beginning.

It was premature. I think he misspoke at that time.

He didn't tell that to the woman he arrested.

 

[chikenwing]

This is piss poor police work ,do we want our people handle in such a manner,discretion goes a long ways to the good

 

[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.

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.

Both women said things about the other yet the cops arrested her while she was seeking counsel. The cop could have sat back and let her continue to seek counsel what law is there that says you have a time limit to answer a cop? None. And the cop told the other lady no crime was commited. She did not have to give him his ID. So you don't think it was excessive? A pregnant lady? What crime was commited? The cop saw no evidence and said so. Regardless what you think the cop was wrong and she will win in court.

 

[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.

Both women said things about the other yet the cops arrested her while she was seeking counsel. The cop could have sat back and let her continue to seek counsel what law is there that says you have a time limit to answer a cop? None. And the cop told the other lady no crime was commited. She did not have to give him his ID. So you don't think it was excessive? A pregnant lady? What crime was commited? The cop saw no evidence and said so. Regardless what you think the cop was wrong and she will win in court.

The arrest was good.

The cop doesn't have to give time for her to discuss it with her boyfriend.

She could have easily have avoided this by cooperating.

She got what she deserved. The cop was very polite to her. You don't have a right to leave when you are being stopped by a cop. Simple law.

 

[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?

That was premature.

She made the complaint.

He was investigating it by talking to the other person.

Trying to leave is called obstruction,

So why did the court throw it out setting up the ground work for the PD to get sued?

 

[Asclepias]

The crime was her attempting to leave

Its not illegal to leave if your are not being arrested you dumb cave monkey.

 

[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 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.

Sure he did monkey. Clean the hair lice out of your ears.

"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."

 

[Asclepias]

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.

So why was it thrown out?

 

[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,

So why did the court throw it out setting up the ground work for the PD to get sued?

I have no idea why. Maybe she had no priors and she just screwed up this one time.

 

[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?

That was premature.

She made the complaint.

He was investigating it by talking to the other person.

Trying to leave is called obstruction,

So why did the court throw it out setting up the ground work for the PD to get sued?

I have no idea why. Maybe she had no priors and she just screwed up this one time.

She screwed up? I think you meant the cop screwed up. Once he neglected to inform her she was under arrest she did not have any reason to cooperate with him.

 

[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.

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.

Both women said things about the other yet the cops arrested her while she was seeking counsel. The cop could have sat back and let her continue to seek counsel what law is there that says you have a time limit to answer a cop? None. And the cop told the other lady no crime was commited. She did not have to give him his ID. So you don't think it was excessive? A pregnant lady? What crime was commited? The cop saw no evidence and said so. Regardless what you think the cop was wrong and she will win in court.

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.

Both women said things about the other yet the cops arrested her while she was seeking counsel. The cop could have sat back and let her continue to seek counsel what law is there that says you have a time limit to answer a cop? None. And the cop told the other lady no crime was commited. She did not have to give him his ID. So you don't think it was excessive? A pregnant lady? What crime was commited? The cop saw no evidence and said so. Regardless what you think the cop was wrong and she will win in court.

The arrest was good.

The cop doesn't have to give time for her to discuss it with her boyfriend.

She could have easily have avoided this by cooperating.

She got what she deserved. The cop was very polite to her. You don't have a right to leave when you are being stopped by a cop. Simple law.

wrong on so many levels. So it is against the law to be a jerk? Why are you not in jail then? You have rights afforded by the constitution, cops are not above the law. your view on rights is scary. Do you like surrendering your rights? Or is it just for people whom you don't like? Yes cooperate at the cost of your guarenteed right? Look i would defend your rights as well, not just hers. Letting things like this go empowers the wrong kind of deployment of force by the people whom are supposed to serve and protect.

 

[Tank]

The crime was her attempting to leave

Its not illegal to leave if your are not being arrested you dumb cave monkey.

So if you get pulled over for bad tags, you can just leave?

 

[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.

Sure he did monkey. Clean the hair lice out of your ears.

"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."

...and that is the moment he started doing an investigation. That's what good cops do. Remember when those cops found one of Dahmer victims wandering around outside nude? They didn't see a crime either, but that's because they didn't properly investigate. That mistake cost that man's life. Just because you don't see a crime 30 seconds after arriving on the scene, doesn't mean a crime was not committed.

Why do we always have to explain the obvious to you? Seriously man, what's your IQ? Wait, let me guess... about 85? That is your people's average, right?

 

[Asclepias]

The crime was her attempting to leave

Its not illegal to leave if your are not being arrested you dumb cave monkey.

So if you get pulled over for bad tags, you can just leave?

She wasnt pulled over for bad tags. She wasnt even in her car.

 

[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 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.

Sure he did monkey. Clean the hair lice out of your ears.

"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."

...and that is the moment he started doing an investigation. That's what good cops do. Remember when those cops found one of Dahmer victims wandering around outside nude? They didn't see a crime either, but that's because they didn't properly investigate. That mistake cost that man's life. Just because you don't see a crime 30 seconds after arriving on the scene, doesn't mean a crime was not committed.

Why do we always have to explain the obvious to you? Seriously man, what's your IQ? Wait, let me guess... about 85? That is your people's average, right?

Who told you he started investigating? What was he investigating? What was going to offer itself as evidence there was a crime committed? Did you think the car was going to start talking or something?

Its sad you are so stupid that you dont even know your rights. Typical of low income people and people of low intellect such as yourself. The biggest clue should be the judge set his ass up to be sued. You poor monkeys are something else. SMDH

 

[Tank]

I did not say her, I said you

 

[CMike]

The open carry case is a good example.

Someone complaining that someone is open carrying doesn't create reasonable suspicion because it's legal to open carry.

Someone complaining that the man was waving the gun around or threatening someone with a gun does create reasonable suspicion and the officer can make a legal stop.

Once a stop is made you can't just walk away. If you walk away and the cope tells you to stop you are obstructing.

 

[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,

So why did the court throw it out setting up the ground work for the PD to get sued?

I have no idea why. Maybe she had no priors and she just screwed up this one time.

She screwed up? I think you meant the cop screwed up. Once he neglected to inform her she was under arrest she did not have any reason to cooperate with him.

Once again it was a legal stop. You can't walk away when stopped.