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

[Tank]

Why was the she punching peoples cars?

 

[Asclepias]

Why was the she punching peoples cars?

Who told you she was punching anyones car?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why was the she punching peoples cars?

Who told you she was punching anyones car?

\
There were marks left that the cop couldnt see!!!!! THEY WERE THERE THO!!!

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

It had not been established whether or not a crime had been committed. The cop was investigating a complaint; exactly what he is supposed to do.

 

[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.

It had not been established whether or not a crime had been committed. The cop was investigating a complaint; exactly what he is supposed to do.

Yeah the cop plainly said no crime had been committed. Clean your ears.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

It had not been established whether or not a crime had been committed. The cop was investigating a complaint; exactly what he is supposed to do.

YOU DIDNT WATCH THE VIDEO

 

[EverCurious]

The officer wasn't sure if the white chick that called in the incident wanted to press charges/civilian arrest or not, therefore detention is warranted.

So when he states there is no evidence of a crime that means that he's arresting fir the crime he cant see? lol

Actually if you listen to what he said, he said he wasn't sure if it was a crime or not that the black chick threw something, and punched, the white chicks window. He said that the white woman /might/ be able to make a citizen's arrest on that basis.

The key bit is that he asked if the black woman was driving recklessly and the white chick says yes. That's it, done deal. The white woman has affirmed to the officer that a crime, driving recklessly [in a school parking lot mind you.] AKA the white woman /was/ the witness to the black chick committing a crime. At that point the officer has every right and in fact an obligation to investigate the situation.

The black woman opened up the conversation with the officer across the parking lot, she was just fine talking with the officer right up until he asked for her name. The WWB argument is bullshit.

Final nail in the coffin is that, yes, there is a specific law in California regarding obstruction of justice that requires everyone to provide their name if it is needed during an officer's investigation of a situation, considering the white chick called the police on the black chick the black chicks name is a /needed/ bit of information. I'll see if I can dig up the actual statute later, but here's some case law: Obstruction of Justice Charges in California - Southern California Criminal Lawyer Blog

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why do we need a new thread to rehash the same shit?
Hey OP! Go read the old thread and you'll be more enlightened and we wont have to type the same old shit over again.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The officer wasn't sure if the white chick that called in the incident wanted to press charges/civilian arrest or not, therefore detention is warranted.

So when he states there is no evidence of a crime that means that he's arresting fir the crime he cant see? lol

Actually if you listen to what he said, he said he wasn't sure if it was a crime or not that the black chick threw something, and punched, the white chicks window. He said that the white woman /might/ be able to make a citizen's arrest on that basis.

The key bit is that he asked if the black woman was driving recklessly and the white chick says yes. That's it, done deal. The white woman has affirmed to the officer that a crime, driving recklessly [in a school parking lot mind you.] AKA the white woman /was/ the witness to the black chick committing a crime. At that point the officer has every right and in fact an obligation to investigate the situation.

The black woman opened up the conversation with the officer across the parking lot, she was just fine talking with the officer right up until he asked for her name. The WWB argument is bullshit.

Final nail in the coffin is that, yes, there is a specific law in California regarding obstruction of justice that requires everyone to provide their name if it is needed during an officer's investigation of a situation, considering the white chick called the police on the black chick the black chicks name is a /needed/ bit of information. I'll see if I can dig up the actual statute later.

Nicely put.
But you know it's not going to be enough for the victim class...

 

[Asclepias]

The officer wasn't sure if the white chick that called in the incident wanted to press charges/civilian arrest or not, therefore detention is warranted.

So when he states there is no evidence of a crime that means that he's arresting fir the crime he cant see? lol

Actually if you listen to what he said, he said he wasn't sure if it was a crime or not that the black chick threw something, and punched, the white chicks window. He said that the white woman /might/ be able to make a citizen's arrest on that basis.

The key bit is that he asked if the black woman was driving recklessly and the white chick says yes. That's it, done deal. The white woman has affirmed to the officer that a crime, driving recklessly [in a school parking lot mind you.] AKA the white woman /was/ the witness to the black chick committing a crime. At that point the officer has every right and in fact an obligation to investigate the situation.

The black woman opened up the conversation with the officer across the parking lot, she was just fine talking with the officer right up until he asked for her name. The WWB argument is bullshit.

Final nail in the coffin is that, yes, there is a specific law in California regarding obstruction of justice that requires everyone to provide their name if it is needed during an officer's investigation of a situation, considering the white chick called the police on the black chick the black chicks name is a /needed/ bit of information. I'll see if I can dig up the actual statute later, but here's some case law: Obstruction of Justice Charges in California - Southern California Criminal Lawyer Blog

No thats not what the cop said. He said no crime had been committed. He actually said it twice to be exact. Once there is no evidence of a crime the cop has no right to do anything except help the white chick fill out a report and make a citizens arrest.. There is a cop somewhere in California right now that was punished for messing with me in this fashion.

 

[Tank]

Here is the full video, check out the racist sheboon

 

[ClosedCaption]

The key bit is that he asked if the black woman was driving recklessly and the white chick says yes. That's it, done deal.

In what world is this enough to prove anything?

She said yes! Done deal!

lol whut?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Excuse me white lady, did that person commit a crime?

yes!

Oh well, thats good enough! Even though I dont see evidence your word is better than my eyes!

 

[Asclepias]

Here is the full video, check out the racist sheboon

I dont think the white chick is necessarily a racist sheboon. She just probably got PO'd that something didnt go her way so she decided to lie to spice things up.

 

[chikenwing]

The cop also said he would give her two min,then grabber her after about 20 sec,we don't need cops behaving this way.Bad training,the default is always I will put you down,when there are times that needs to be the route taken,but certainly not in this authoritarian dick heads doing what authoritarians do without question.What would Andy Griffith had done?

 

[Asclepias]

Hopefully the cop turns up with a bullet in his head with his tongue cut out and stuffed up his ass. I cant believe he had the audacity to touch a pregnant Black woman or any pregnant woman for that matter.

 

[chikenwing]

Hopefully the cop turns up with a bullet in his head with his tongue cut out and stuffed up his ass. I cant believe he had the audacity to touch a pregnant Black woman or any pregnant woman for that matter.

No so you want to lower yourself to that level? Putting his face to the ground maybe,but kill?? no.A simple country ass kicking is all that is needed.

 

[Asclepias]

Hopefully the cop turns up with a bullet in his head with his tongue cut out and stuffed up his ass. I cant believe he had the audacity to touch a pregnant Black woman or any pregnant woman for that matter.

No so you want to lower yourself to that level? Putting his face to the ground maybe,but kill?? no.A simple country ass kicking is all that is needed.

I dont consider protecting females lowering myself. He needs more than an ass kicking. Imagine what he has done prior to wearing a body cam?

 

[chikenwing]

Hopefully the cop turns up with a bullet in his head with his tongue cut out and stuffed up his ass. I cant believe he had the audacity to touch a pregnant Black woman or any pregnant woman for that matter.

No so you want to lower yourself to that level? Putting his face to the ground maybe,but kill?? no.A simple country ass kicking is all that is needed.

I dont consider protecting females lowering myself. He needs more than an ass kicking. Imagine what he has done prior to wearing a body cam?

Protecting yes,you want to kill you do see the difference,you think he should have been shot on sight for this?

 

[Asclepias]

Hopefully the cop turns up with a bullet in his head with his tongue cut out and stuffed up his ass. I cant believe he had the audacity to touch a pregnant Black woman or any pregnant woman for that matter.

No so you want to lower yourself to that level? Putting his face to the ground maybe,but kill?? no.A simple country ass kicking is all that is needed.

I dont consider protecting females lowering myself. He needs more than an ass kicking. Imagine what he has done prior to wearing a body cam?

Protecting yes,you want to kill you do see the difference,you think he should have been shot on sight for this?

No I dont see the difference. Yes I wish someone had shot him on sight right between the eyes. There is nothing more disgusting to me than these feral baboons given license to go out and harm women..