Unhinged Cop Verbally Abuses Woman

[EndQualifiedImmunity]

seems like he could have been cooler, but actually he has the power to get a warrant for her arrest and take her to jail because her store sold tobacco to an underage person.

It was more of a retaliatory threat to handcuff. He said he would put her in cuffs if she doesn't "shut her ***ing mouth". He repeatedly gives her a direction to shut up which is a violation of her 1st amendment right to free speech. He could have illegally arrested her (not knowing about the state law which allows for 18-year olds to buy tobacco) at the store, I agree on that point but it's moot. To exacerbate the retaliatory threat and violation of her 1st amendment rights, he actually granted permission to have a discussion after she politely asked if they could speak.

While cussing is poor taste, actually that’s free speech. He didn’t actually do anything illegal.

No one (to my knowledge) made the claim his profane language was illegal, but rather: 1.) his unlaw citation for an activity explicitly granted by the state, 2.) His directive for her to shut her "****ing mouth" violating her 1st amendment right.

In hindsight, he believed she had committed a crime. He probably wasn’t sure about the federal law versus the state law in the moment. He was just following orders.

Yes, "he was just following orders". The Nazis also followed orders. I'm sure he is thankful for his qualified immunity. Violating her rights he had sworn to uphold.

Sting operations on tobacco stores are bigger than a single officer, this came down through his chain of command at the police department.

Agreed. If all this was, was an unlawful citation, then I don't think this incident would have become viral. I think the bigger concern is that there is still an active duty police officer with a badge and a gun that is so unhinged, so incapable of de-escalating, and has contempt for the people he is supposed to "protect and serve".

 

[Runningman]

You edited more than once apparently A person can be arrested but that does not mean they go to jail unless charges are laid, and since she did not break the law, jail was out of the question.

Yes because I didn't know anyone was going to reply within seconds of me posting my comment. lol. I typically try to wait for the timer to hit 5 minutes before I reply to a comment.

If the police officer believed she had broken the law, which at the time he believed that, then warrants and jail was certainly within the realm of his power and totally in question.

I think we're viewing this from two different angles. We're viewing what he did at the beginning versus what he should have did after more of the facts of the law came to light.

Personally, I don't think he did anything wrong, but this is all hindsight at this point and hopefully he and the department learned about this specific law.

 

[EndQualifiedImmunity]

I edited my comment before the 5 minutes were up. What do you think about him just doing what he was told to do because sting operations on tobacco stores come through the police department managers?

And police arrest people under suspicion all the time. The facts of the law are supposed to be sorted out by a judge.

I agree, bad cops arrest people under "suspicion" all the time without a crime being committed. But is being "suspicious" a misdemeanor or a felony?

The facts are cops should know more about the laws they swore to uphold rather than react emotionally, not knowing what they are doing is unlawful, and using qualified immunity as a crutch. They can arrest someone unlawfully all the while knowing in their head that they will get qualified immunity if they are wrong.

 

[Runningman]

It was more of a retaliatory threat to handcuff. He said he would put her in cuffs if she doesn't "shut her ***ing mouth". He repeatedly gives her a direction to shut up which is a violation of her 1st amendment right to free speech. He could have illegally arrested her (not knowing about the state law which allows for 18-year olds to buy tobacco) at the store, I agree on that point but it's moot. To exacerbate the retaliatory threat and violation of her 1st amendment rights, he actually granted permission to have a discussion after she politely asked if they could speak.

Telling someone to not talk doesn't violate their first amendment right because it's powerless to prevent them from speaking.

No one (to my knowledge) made the claim his profane language was illegal, but rather: 1.) his unlaw citation for an activity explicitly granted by the state, 2.) His directive for her to shut her "****ing mouth" violating her 1st amendment right.

How does telling someone to not talk violate their first amendment? Have you ever tried it and they didn't stop talking?

Yes, "he was just following orders". The Nazis also followed orders. I'm sure he is thankful for his qualified immunity. Violating her rights he had sworn to uphold.

He didn't violate her rights, though, and he isn't a Nazi. LoL. You want to demonize him by saying that since Nazis follow orders and police follow orders then they are cut from the same cloth.

Agreed. If all this was, was an unlawful citation, then I don't think this incident would have become viral. I think the bigger concern is that there is still an active duty police officer with a badge and a gun that is so unhinged, so incapable of de-escalating, and has contempt for the people he is supposed to "protect and serve".

I don't think he was unhinged though. I think he was in total control and used a low-level show of force. I want more tough police like this. Thousands more.

 

[EndQualifiedImmunity]

At the time he thought she had done something illegal. A police officer saying they can take someone to jail is a valid threat, not inappropriate to say.

Revisionist history which audio recording clearly contradicts. He threatened to handcuff her if she didn't shut her "****ing mouth". He didn't threaten to handcuff her unlawfully for selling tobacco to an 18-year old (which is an activity explicitly granted by the state).

Police officers are members of the public too. They kept their free speech. I didn’t see anyone being forced to not talk.

and yes cussing and swearing from sunrise to sunset is free speech in the US. Bad taste, but that’s just the reality.

In your opinion, was the cop's reaction reasonable from the time he arrived at the police station to the time he verbally assaulted the woman after agreeing they could have a conversation?

 

[EndQualifiedImmunity]

Telling someone to not talk doesn't violate their first amendment right because it's powerless to prevent them from speaking.

How does telling someone to not talk violate their first amendment? Have you ever tried it and they didn't stop talking?

I don't think you know how our civil rights work honestly. The right to free speech means we are free from any retaliation from the government by exercising our rights. Threatening to handcuff her for not shutting up is a consequence to her freely doing a protected activity. Do you honestly disagree?

He didn't violate her rights, though, and he isn't a Nazi. LoL. You want to demonize him by saying that since Nazis follow orders and police follow orders then they are cut from the same cloth.

No, I'm using your excuse for why the cop followed unlawful orders to then justify Nazis following orders. If the argument doesn't work for Nazis, it doesn't work for police officers who break the law and follow a supervisor's orders.

I'm not sure if you know this, but police officers take an oath to uphold the constitution, not the orders of their supervisors. I advocate the removal of qualified immunity as we know it, but instead want to give cops qualified immunity when they are ordered to do something unlawful by their superior.

I don't think he was unhinged though. I think he was in total control and used a low-level show of force. I want more tough police like this. Thousands more.

You're trolling now. I know you don't really mean anything you're saying. I fell for it. You got me.

 

[Runningman]

You're trolling now. I know you don't really mean anything you're saying. I fell for it. You got me.

I'm not trolling. I don't come here and say things I don't mean. I guess we just see pretty much everything differently. Hopefully the one thing we have in common at the end of the day is Jesus is still Lord and Savior.

 

[Magenta]

Yes because I didn't know anyone was going to reply within seconds of me posting my comment.
lol. I typically try to wait for the timer to hit 5 minutes before I reply to a comment.

I am sometimes editing/adding to a post right up to the five minute mark

 

[EndQualifiedImmunity]

Yes because I didn't know anyone was going to reply within seconds of me posting my comment. lol. I typically try to wait for the timer to hit 5 minutes before I reply to a comment.

If the police officer believed she had broken the law, which at the time he believed that, then warrants and jail was certainly within the realm of his power and totally in question.

I think we're viewing this from two different angles. We're viewing what he did at the beginning versus what he should have did after more of the facts of the law came to light.

Personally, I don't think he did anything wrong, but this is all hindsight at this point and hopefully he and the department learned about this specific law.

You acknowledge that there is a state law which allows for the selling of tobacco to 18-year olds and that this woman was cited for it, but still insist he didn't do anything wrong. Are you implying that ignorance of the law immunes him from any wrongdoing?

If we were driving on a road and didn't know the exact speed limit and drive 45, get pulled over for speeding, are we alleviated from the responsibility of our violation if we declare "I didn't know 35 was the speed limit" ?

 

[EndQualifiedImmunity]

I'm not trolling. I don't come here and say things I don't mean. I guess we just see pretty much everything differently. Hopefully the one thing we have in common at the end of the day is Jesus is still Lord and Savior.

IF you are genuine and not just teasing us, then can you address everything else in the post you quoted of mine please? I would like to try and see where you're coming from and for you to debunk any misinformation I might have.

Amen, we agree Jesus is our Lord and Savior.

 

[Runningman]

You acknowledge that there is a state law which allows for the selling of tobacco to 18-year olds and that this woman was cited for it, but still insist he didn't do anything wrong. Are you implying that ignorance of the law immunes him from any wrongdoing?

If we were driving on a road and didn't know the exact speed limit and drive 45, get pulled over for speeding, are we alleviated from the responsibility of our violation if we declare "I didn't know 35 was the speed limit" ?

Your question may spawn from a perspective of not knowing precisely what police do.

Police enforce the law based on their training and best judgements. The testimony and judgement of a police officer is considered to be highly credible. That doesn't mean they are infallible and it isn't their job to interpret the law anyway; the courts do that.

Police are supposed to do what they think is right and the courts apply the law accordingly. If the officer was wrong, the court should be able to show that.

He didn't do anything wrong hence why he's still a cop. Now as for his superiors, I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of them got fired.

 

[EndQualifiedImmunity]

Your question may spawn from a perspective of not knowing precisely what police do.

Police enforce the law based on their training and best judgements. The testimony and judgement of a police officer is considered to be highly credible. That doesn't mean they are infallible and it isn't their job to interpret the law anyway; the courts do that.

So you're arguing the police officer was trained to give an unlawful directive to "shut your ****ing mouth" which violates the person's 1st amendment rights IF they politely start speaking AFTER they were given permission to do so?

If he was trained to do that, I wonder why he was suspended???

Police are supposed to do what they think is right and the courts apply the law accordingly. If the officer was wrong, the court should be able to show that.

Once again, you believe it is rational and "right" to threaten to handcuff and tell someone to shut their "****ing mouth" (violating their 1st amendment right) AFTER they were given permission to speak? Got it... I guess we really do have to agree to disagree here.

He didn't do anything wrong hence why he's still a cop. Now as for his superiors, I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of them got fired.

Well, he clearly did something wrong. Was he not suspended? I can think that's a slap on the wrist, but isn't a slap on the wrist usually done after someone does something against procedure? Why was he suspended then?


By the way, can you answer my question about the speeding violation please? Does claiming ignorance mean we didn't really do anything wrong? To put it spiritually, is everyone who claims ignorance to Jesus Christ being the the Savior of the world going to be free from judgment? (Perhaps I shouldn't conflate God's law with man's faulty law."

 

[Polar]

Your question may spawn from a perspective of not knowing precisely what police do.

Police enforce the law based on their training and best judgements. The testimony and judgement of a police officer is considered to be highly credible. That doesn't mean they are infallible and it isn't their job to interpret the law anyway; the courts do that.

Police are supposed to do what they think is right and the courts apply the law accordingly. If the officer was wrong, the court should be able to show that.

He didn't do anything wrong hence why he's still a cop. Now as for his superiors, I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of them got fired.

actually, the cop in question was suspended

no one was fired as far as I know

yes, police SHOULD do what is right and running your mouth like a trash can and yelling is not what they should do

I suspect you have an aversion to what really happened and have a personal reason for responding with believing the cop was right

again, in case you missed it:

THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED ON THE STORE AND OWNER

THE ABUSIVE COP WAS SUSPENDED

those are the facts and you are free to ignore them as you have so far done

 

[Dirtman]

So you're arguing the police officer was trained to give an unlawful directive to "shut your ****ing mouth" which violates the person's 1st amendment rights IF they politely start speaking AFTER they were given permission to do so?

If he was trained to do that, I wonder why he was suspended???



Once again, you believe it is rational and "right" to threaten to handcuff and tell someone to shut their "****ing mouth" (violating their 1st amendment right) AFTER they were given permission to speak? Got it... I guess we really do have to agree to disagree here.



Well, he clearly did something wrong. Was he not suspended? I can think that's a slap on the wrist, but isn't a slap on the wrist usually done after someone does something against procedure? Why was he suspended then?


By the way, can you answer my question about the speeding violation please? Does claiming ignorance mean we didn't really do anything wrong? To put it spiritually, is everyone who claims ignorance to Jesus Christ being the the Savior of the world going to be free from judgment? (Perhaps I shouldn't conflate God's law with man's faulty law."

Some people cant operate without a jackbooted thug riding rough shot over them.

 

[shittim]

"No big deal, San Francisco, Chicago and Oregon are all hiring cops. "
Seems that will exacerbate the problem, with those who should not have authority being mass hired on those police forces.
We had a deal at the college locally, seems all the guys who won't get there applications in till last minute got all lumped together in the only student dorms left, and we had a floor or two of young men without parental supervision doing the darnedest things at zero dark thirty in the morning, soda machine on the elevator and stuff like that.

 

[Dude653]

I edited my comment before the 5 minutes were up. What do you think about him just doing what he was told to do because sting operations on tobacco stores come through the police department managers?

And police arrest people under suspicion all the time. The facts of the law are supposed to be sorted out by a judge.

Suspicion of what? She complied with the law by appearing in person to pick up the citation so he would have had zero reason to arrest her

 

[Runningman]

Anyhoo, I

actually, the cop in question was suspended

no one was fired as far as I know

yes, police SHOULD do what is right and running your mouth like a trash can and yelling is not what they should do

I suspect you have an aversion to what really happened and have a personal reason for responding with believing the cop was right

again, in case you missed it:

THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED ON THE STORE AND OWNER

THE ABUSIVE COP WAS SUSPENDED

those are the facts and you are free to ignore them as you have so far done

Being suspended isn't being fired. They're just doing that because there's an investigation. He's still a cop

 

[Runningman]

So you're arguing the police officer was trained to give an unlawful directive to "shut your ****ing mouth" which violates the person's 1st amendment rights IF they politely start speaking AFTER they were given permission to do so?

If he was trained to do that, I wonder why he was suspended???



Once again, you believe it is rational and "right" to threaten to handcuff and tell someone to shut their "****ing mouth" (violating their 1st amendment right) AFTER they were given permission to speak? Got it... I guess we really do have to agree to disagree here.



Well, he clearly did something wrong. Was he not suspended? I can think that's a slap on the wrist, but isn't a slap on the wrist usually done after someone does something against procedure? Why was he suspended then?


By the way, can you answer my question about the speeding violation please? Does claiming ignorance mean we didn't really do anything wrong? To put it spiritually, is everyone who claims ignorance to Jesus Christ being the the Savior of the world going to be free from judgment? (Perhaps I shouldn't conflate God's law with man's faulty law."

I disagree with your premise that any rights were violated.

 

[Runningman]

Suspicion of what? She complied with the law by appearing in person to pick up the citation so he would have had zero reason to arrest her

Did you watch the video? At the police station she was told to sit down. We don't know what she did because there was mysteriously no video. Maybe she had stood up and did something or was approaching him.

 

[Runningman]

By the way, can you answer my question about the speeding violation please? Does claiming ignorance mean we didn't really do anything wrong? To put it spiritually, is everyone who claims ignorance to Jesus Christ being the the Savior of the world going to be free from judgment? (Perhaps I shouldn't conflate God's law with man's faulty law."

I answered this question in post #51. Someone who breaks the law unknowingly is still guilty of that. The police officer didn't break the law. I'm basically saying your comparison of their ignorance isn't the same. It depends what we're talking about exactly.