Unhinged Cop Verbally Abuses Woman
- Thread starter EndQualifiedImmunity
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I used the term "unlaw" and "directive". I explicitly stated the officer violated her 1st amendment by issuing a directive and a consequence/retaliatory threat to handcuff her if she did not comply to that unlaw command. You are saying the cop did nothing wrong because he was doing what he THOUGHT was right, even though he was wrong.
I am choosing to not assume he would have used physical force, but you're free to believe that if it's your preference. However, it's a strawman argument.
Her rights weren't violated inside the police station. If she would have recorded nothing else would have happened. In fact it would have been helpful.
Her rights weren't violated inside the police station. If she would have recorded nothing else would have happened. In fact it would have been helpful.
I can't take you seriously anymore...although I did try
-
1
- Show all
You mean with the exception of:
1.) Citing her for an explicitly stated activity allowed under state law.
2.) Unlawfully commanding her to shut her "****ing mouth" while threatening to put her in cuffs if she did not comply.
You make these huge stretches like he was telling her to "sit down" as if she COULD have been rushing him... yet, he never mentions anything like that. He only threatened action if she didn't shut her mouth... Why are you trying to change the story using hypothetical scenarios when we actually have facts?
1.) Citing her for an explicitly stated activity allowed under state law.
2.) Unlawfully commanding her to shut her "****ing mouth" while threatening to put her in cuffs if she did not comply.
You make these huge stretches like he was telling her to "sit down" as if she COULD have been rushing him... yet, he never mentions anything like that. He only threatened action if she didn't shut her mouth... Why are you trying to change the story using hypothetical scenarios when we actually have facts?
Right, in commuting a crime or under suspicion of a crime, certain rights are lost. Think if police showed up to a call of shots fired somewhere, and they saw someone who fit the description, they'd just politely walk up and ask them nicely if they did anything wrong? In this case, he was under the belief she had broken a law and she was being dealt with like a criminal. Later, the facts came out that she was right and no actual crime committed. The investigation will likely show that the police officer was acting within reason .
You head the audio yourself... What she did to "provoke" him was politely ask if they could speak, then after he agreed, she questioned him. That's it... We can agree to disagree, but asking to engage in a conversation, and then engaging once the other party agrees is not "provoking" in my opinion. It your right to view that as provoking.
