Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I must disagree with you on this issue.In what way?
.
They do not try to prove that phones were in use during accidents, all they do is track who has a phone, and whether they were involved in an accident. In fact, the only study that actually tracked making calls with actual accidents showed that hands free cell phone use is actually safer than not using a phone.
While some people, probably including you, are capable of maintaining full concentration and alertness while talking on a cell phone everyone is not. A woman walked right into me in a parking lot recently -- as if I wasn't there. It appeared she was totally absorbed in her conversation and was so startled she dropped her purse and shopping bag.
Some people are susceptible to that kind of complete distraction while others aren't. It's a kind of hypnotic trance, similar in nature to sleep-walking.
I use the seat belt on the parkway but I don't while driving around locally -- and I resent the law that requires me to. But I would not use my cell phone while driving and I agree with the law that prohibits it. The seat belt law protects only me. The cell phone law protects everyone and I agree with it.
Start arresting and prosecuting officers who commit crimes like this, and watch how quickly their behavior and tactics change. Right now our Police know they will not be treated like the rest of us. Arrest these two assholes, and change will happen instantly.
It is very likely these cops won't even be reprimanded for their conduct in this incident because they followed procedure, which requires them to force a "resisting" subject to the ground. This "procedure" rule actually serves as a convenient substitute for punching or kicking a subject who provokes them in some way or is not sufficiently submissive.If you take a look at the shape that woman was in and then ask what she had been arrested for and she says she was talking on her phone while driving, something seems amiss.
There certainly has to be an investigation. When she was body slammed while cuffed, that would appear to be the end of their careers. Could they not control this woman by putting her chest on the car hood? The "fist celebration" showed a mind set.
The arrest seemed a little dubious as well.
I disagree with you and I told you why. I don't know what you mean by "addressing" the issue. You disapprove of the law and I don't. What more is there to be said?I must disagree with you on this issue.They do not try to prove that phones were in use during accidents, all they do is track who has a phone, and whether they were involved in an accident. In fact, the only study that actually tracked making calls with actual accidents showed that hands free cell phone use is actually safer than not using a phone.
While some people, probably including you, are capable of maintaining full concentration and alertness while talking on a cell phone everyone is not. A woman walked right into me in a parking lot recently -- as if I wasn't there. It appeared she was totally absorbed in her conversation and was so startled she dropped her purse and shopping bag.
Some people are susceptible to that kind of complete distraction while others aren't. It's a kind of hypnotic trance, similar in nature to sleep-walking.
I use the seat belt on the parkway but I don't while driving around locally -- and I resent the law that requires me to. But I would not use my cell phone while driving and I agree with the law that prohibits it. The seat belt law protects only me. The cell phone law protects everyone and I agree with it.
Funny how you say you must disagree with me on the issue, and never actually address it. Is there a reason for that? Is it that you don't have enough brains to actually understand the issue?
It is very likely these cops won't even be reprimanded for their conduct in this incident because they followed procedure, which requires them to force a "resisting" subject to the ground. This "procedure" rule actually serves as a convenient substitute for punching or kicking a subject who provokes them in some way or is not sufficiently submissive.
the black panthers are liberals? Who told you that? If they are I guess the kkk are republicans?Why was she being a bitch?
Because she got pulled over for being on her cell phone when driving! Such a big brother stupid law is going to piss people off.
But then again when you mess with the bull you sometimes get the horns.
I wonder if the NAACP, Sharpton, Jackson, New Black pPanthers, ACLU and all the liberal groups that protest constantly about police brutality will come out and protest this one? Nope, because white people who are the MAJORITY of the victims of police brutality get beat by police these hypocritical organizations don't give a fuck!
I thought I already answered that question... o.0I agree... For a lot of people that would be enough information. But not for me. I would be asking what else she did.If you take a look at the shape that woman was in and then ask what she had been arrested for and she says she was talking on her phone while driving, something seems amiss.
With that said... So far as I can see she was thrown down for something she SAID. I didn't see anything that suggested she was harmful to anyone. And you know what? I don't give a flying flip what she said. She could have said they both were cum gurgling gutter sluts, their grandma's sucked eggs, or that Mitt Romney was a cocksucker and she had the pictures to prove it... I don't care what she said. In no way shape or form does that give those officers the right to take her down in that fashion. Not for something she said.
What could she possibly have done? She was cuffed, and in custody, all she could do is talk. What could she have said that would justify the actions you saw?
This one should really excite all the usual suspect Big Brother Goose Steppers here at USMB. BOOYAH! Fist Bumps all around.
Brutal LAPD arrest caught on video; Department investigating cops seen bodyslamming nurse twice during cell phone traffic stop
LA Cops Bodyslamming Nurse Twice during Cell Phone Traffic Stop - YouTube
This one should really excite all the usual suspect Big Brother Goose Steppers here at USMB. BOOYAH! Fist Bumps all around.
Brutal LAPD arrest caught on video; Department investigating cops seen bodyslamming nurse twice during cell phone traffic stop
LA Cops Bodyslamming Nurse Twice during Cell Phone Traffic Stop - YouTube
There is a fine line between abuse and stupidity, this appears to be a case of both...
We abuse the rights of law enforcement on a regular basis, I am guilty of this as well, recently being pulled over for minor infractions, I tend to be too defensive, I lack respect for authority, thank god my wife was in the car...
I am not certain what the women did, but I can clearly see she went over the line, the officer used excessive force, both need to be disciplined, case closed...
Lesson? Show law enforcement more respect....
I thought I already answered that question... o.0I agree... For a lot of people that would be enough information. But not for me. I would be asking what else she did.
With that said... So far as I can see she was thrown down for something she SAID. I didn't see anything that suggested she was harmful to anyone. And you know what? I don't give a flying flip what she said. She could have said they both were cum gurgling gutter sluts, their grandma's sucked eggs, or that Mitt Romney was a cocksucker and she had the pictures to prove it... I don't care what she said. In no way shape or form does that give those officers the right to take her down in that fashion. Not for something she said.
What could she possibly have done? She was cuffed, and in custody, all she could do is talk. What could she have said that would justify the actions you saw?
You are likely right... But I doubt that after hearing all the facts that I would promote that she should get money. I do think that the cops should lose their jobs either way.I thought I already answered that question... o.0What could she possibly have done? She was cuffed, and in custody, all she could do is talk. What could she have said that would justify the actions you saw?
What could she possibly have done? STFU is what she possibly could have done. She chose to be a ****. I've seen assholes rampage against the horrid system that might cost them a ticket. If you have a legit beef with the ticket and you're so enraged: fight it. Go to court and argue your case. I know we're not zombies, you can't expect a zombie-like response if you're being a douche. What? These are the same people who'll kick and beat a fucking candy machine if it doesn't give up the goods. Now, the **** is going to get money--for being a ****.
I disagree with you and I told you why. I don't know what you mean by "addressing" the issue. You disapprove of the law and I don't. What more is there to be said?I must disagree with you on this issue.
While some people, probably including you, are capable of maintaining full concentration and alertness while talking on a cell phone everyone is not. A woman walked right into me in a parking lot recently -- as if I wasn't there. It appeared she was totally absorbed in her conversation and was so startled she dropped her purse and shopping bag.
Some people are susceptible to that kind of complete distraction while others aren't. It's a kind of hypnotic trance, similar in nature to sleep-walking.
I use the seat belt on the parkway but I don't while driving around locally -- and I resent the law that requires me to. But I would not use my cell phone while driving and I agree with the law that prohibits it. The seat belt law protects only me. The cell phone law protects everyone and I agree with it.
Funny how you say you must disagree with me on the issue, and never actually address it. Is there a reason for that? Is it that you don't have enough brains to actually understand the issue?
Rule 1 - Shut your mouth
Rule 2 - Comply with the law enforcement officers
Case fucking closed.
So she breaks the law, resists arrest, is beligerent towards the law enforcement officers, and you guys want to bitch and whine about the police?
Any one wonder why our nation is a fucking disaster with a radical marxist asshole in the White House?
So she has a few bumps and scrapes? They'll all heal in a couple of weeks. And this idiot deserved every last one of them....
Maybe you could point out where she 'resisted arrest' AFTER being body slammed the first time and being handcuffed? Or even BEFORE, for that matter. What she SAID is unknown, but I've yet to see where the 1st Amendment has been repealed.
Look, I'm as conservative to my core as anyone here, and nobody wants more freedom and less government than I do. But what you just said was asinine. There is a HUGE difference between 1st Amendment rights and anarchy. We have to have some rules. Like screaming "fire" in a crowded theater to cause panic is not a 1st Amendment right. And being belligerent to law enforcement officers trying to do a very important (not to mention extremely difficult) job is simply unacceptable.
As far as "what she said being unknown" - well, might I suggest you read the article before commenting? Her boyfriend flat out admitted she was belligerent and resisting arrest.
Rule 1 - Shut your mouth
Rule 2 - Comply with the law enforcement officers
Case fucking closed.
Obey
Rule 1 - Shut your mouth
Rule 2 - Comply with the law enforcement officers
Case fucking closed.
Obey
Loyal Goose Stepping at its worst. Sums up today's America unfortunately.
