Unhinged Cop Verbally Abuses Woman

[Polar]

I agree. He is unfit for any position of authority.
Imagine some sick sack like that come unhinged on your wife that way.
I would have him and his chief in a meeting

well he was suspended...or given time to reflect you could call it

 

[Runningman]

I agree. He is unfit for any position of authority.
Imagine some sick sack like that come unhinged on your wife that way.
I would have him and his chief in a meeting

What would you say in a meeting with them if a police officer yelled and cussed at someone you know?

 

[EndQualifiedImmunity]

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.

I am grateful she did not attempt to video record the interaction. The cop was so unhinged he could have escalated it even more into using physical force to outlet his contempt of a constitutionally protected activity (speaking and filming on public property).

 

[Runningman]

I think you mean very persuasive anti-cop information designed to influence public opinion

Yeah that's another way of putting it. I'm pretty stubborn like that, though. I don't get influenced very easily because I know 99% of all information we're fed is part of a bigger picture designed to influence us. I keep a healthy skepticism about many things.

 

[Runningman]

So you disagree that "freedom of speech" means we can do so without the fear of retaliation from the state?

That's like saying we have freedom to murder whoever we want. While it's technically true we can abuse our freedom and murder someone in cold blood, that doesn't mean we are free from consequences or retaliation. Freedom of speech means there are no consequences or retaliation by exercising our right to it.

I disagree that yelling voids someone first amendment. She can keep on talking if she wants.

 

[Dirtman]

well he was suspended...or given time to reflect you could call it

Lol. Sure more time for stinking thinking. No fire him.

 

[Polar]

Lol. Sure more time for stinking thinking. No fire him.

no worries. he is definitely approaching the cliff and the brakes are out

problem is though, he might really hurt someone before he proves he is having a problem with reality

 

[EndQualifiedImmunity]

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.

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.

 

[Runningman]

I am grateful she did not attempt to video record the interaction. The cop was so unhinged he could have escalated it even more into using physical force to outlet his contempt of a constitutionally protected activity (speaking and filming on public property).

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.

 

[Runningman]

I can't take you seriously anymore...although I did try

This isn't the first time you've disagreed with me. I think nearly every time we've talked you've disagreed. I think the last time was in a Bible discussion and you said I was possessed by an unclean spirit. Typically around the forum, no one speaks to me disparagingly. Maybe you're the problem? Idk...

 

[EndQualifiedImmunity]

No I like it actually. I am not really protecting police, I am just trying to be a voice of reason to settle the witch hunt down in this thread. He didn't do anything wrong except say some "bad words."

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?

 

[Runningman]

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.

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 .

 

[Polar]

This isn't the first time you've disagreed with me. I think nearly every time we've talked you've disagreed. I think the last time was in a Bible discussion and you said I was possessed by an unclean spirit. Typically around the forum, no one speaks to me disparagingly. Maybe you're the problem? Idk...

I know people who are in denial, but you take the cake and the frosting too

EVERYONE in this thread is disagreeing with you

 

[EndQualifiedImmunity]

Take what out? In the video she was told to sit down for some reason the video intentionally didn't mention. She probably did something to provoke him. If so, he responded like a normal cop; aggressively with the lowest level of force required, his voice.

Also, can you prove this cop has a history of this behavior or are we missing most of what happened in this story?

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.

 

[Polar]

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 .

The investigation is over and the cop was suspended and all charges dropped

you can have it your way in your imagination though

 

[Runningman]

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?

Yeah she could have been rushing him. That's plausible.

The video doesn't say everything the cop said. Remember, this video is about making him look bad, not justifying his actions.

 

[Runningman]

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.

No I think she stood up and was doing something, thus she got told to sit down.

 

[EndQualifiedImmunity]

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 .

The 1st amendment right to "free speech" is not lost when detained under suspicion of a crime committed. Neither is the 5th amendment right to remain silent. Are you aware of this?

 

[Runningman]

I know people who are in denial, but you take the cake and the frosting too

EVERYONE in this thread is disagreeing with you

They're disagreeing politely though. Your posts often contain jabs.

 

[Polar]

They're disagreeing politely though. Your posts often contain jabs.

gee. maybe I am rushing you please don't yell and use bad language