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

[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?

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..

Ok then your no different

 

[Uncensored2008]

There has been a thread running on this for several days.
To sum it up, the black woman refused to give her name, attempted to walk away from the officer and then struggled with the officer when he attempted to detain her.
She copped an attitude and it did not work out well for her.
She should be charged with resisting arrest and risk of injury to her unborn child.

Why should someone be required to give a cop their name? And the best thing to do with cops IS to walk away from them. This cop needs to be charged with false imprisonment. We still have a bill of rights, whether the cops like it or not.

 

[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..

Ok then your no different

I would never slam a woman, pregnant or not, on the ground. Of course I am different.

 

[EverCurious]

Alright here it is, California code. And like I said, Done Deal.

~ CA Codes pen 142-181 and CA Codes veh 23100-23135


This is the code she was arrested upon:

"148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment."


That above is enough, but here is a list of /other/ laws the court /will/ consider in this situation.

836.5. (a) A public officer or employee, when authorized by ordinance, may arrest a person without a warrant whenever the officer or employee has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a misdemeanor in the presence of the officer or employee that is a violation of a statute or ordinance that the officer or employee has the duty to enforce.


23103. (b) A person who drives a vehicle in an offstreet parking facility, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12500, in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.


Here are the statutes that specifically note the /officers/ legal obligation’s regarding getting the black chick’s name:

Because the white chick who called the cops had said the black chick had thrown something at her window and banged on it (the wording of it is very likely why the officer said he wasn’t sure it was a crime, because it did not take place on the highway.)

23110. (a) Any person who throws any substance at a vehicle or any occupant thereof on a highway is guilty of a misdemeanor.

For GP here is the statute regarding civilian arrest:

837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

And if the white chick ultimately decided to make a citizen’s arrest based on the black chick throwing shit at her car THEN officer would be, in fact, legally fined or jailed if he had /NOT/ arrested the black chick. -- Assault being a felony and thus a criminal offense...

142. (a) Any peace officer who has the authority to receive or arrest a person charged with a criminal offense and willfully refuses to receive or arrest that person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and imprisonment.


Here are just a couple of statutes that verify the full legality of the officer’s actions:

“835a. Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.

A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.”


Also, regarding civilian arrest:

847. (a) A private person who has arrested another for the commission of a public offense must, without unnecessary delay, take the person arrested before a magistrate, or deliver him or her to a peace officer.
(b) There shall be no civil liability on the part of, and no cause of action shall arise against, any peace officer or federal criminal investigator or law enforcement officer described in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 830.8, acting within the scope of his or her authority, for false arrest or false imprisonment arising out of any arrest under any of the following circumstances:
(1) The arrest was lawful, or the peace officer, at the time of the arrest, had reasonable cause to believe the arrest was lawful.
(2) The arrest was made pursuant to a charge made, upon reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony by the person to be arrested.
(3) The arrest was made pursuant to the requirements of Section 142, 837, 838, or 839. (Guaranteed one of the other three would relate to the "assault" charges if the white chick decided to push for citizen arrest, but I don't feel like looking them all up.)



Also:

23109.2. (a) (1) Whenever a peace officer determines that a person was engaged in any of the activities set forth in paragraph (2), the peace officer may immediately arrest and take into custody that person and may cause the removal and seizure of the motor vehicle used in that offense in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650). A motor vehicle so seized may be impounded for not more than 30 days.
(2) (C) Reckless driving in an offstreet parking facility, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 23103.





Look, I understand that you folks do/might not like the laws, but you forget that officers do not write them and are, in fact, legally obligated to act as they do in the majority of cases. I highly suggest that you actually learn the laws before you attempt to act out against them. You’ll find that most judges have no patience for your “I don’t have to give you my name” bullshit, and let me tell you, you do /not/ want to piss off an impatient judge. You think /cops/ are assholes? Try disrespecting, or hell even thinking about disrespecting, a judge's authority...

 

[Asclepias]

What part of that statute says he can bother her when he was caught on tape saying no crime has been committed?

 

[CMike]

It was a good arrest.

The officer had reasonable suspicion to stop her. Once stopped she can not leave while the officer is conducting his investigation.

She was trying to leave that's why she was arrested.

She was then resisting and obstructing which are both criminal acts.

 

[CMike]

There has been a thread running on this for several days.
To sum it up, the black woman refused to give her name, attempted to walk away from the officer and then struggled with the officer when he attempted to detain her.
She copped an attitude and it did not work out well for her.
She should be charged with resisting arrest and risk of injury to her unborn child.

Yeah, except no. She did walk anywhere. The cop had no reason to put his hands on her since no crime was committed.

Unless you believe anytime a cop comes in contact with you you're under arrest. The laws dont care what you believe tho thats not the case.

She attempted to walk away. That's why she was arrested.

 

[chikenwing]

There has been a thread running on this for several days.
To sum it up, the black woman refused to give her name, attempted to walk away from the officer and then struggled with the officer when he attempted to detain her.
She copped an attitude and it did not work out well for her.
She should be charged with resisting arrest and risk of injury to her unborn child.

Yeah, except no. She did walk anywhere. The cop had no reason to put his hands on her since no crime was committed.

Unless you believe anytime a cop comes in contact with you you're under arrest. The laws dont care what you believe tho thats not the case.

She attempted to walk away. That's why she was arrested.

She was never under arrest, we should still have some liberties,where was she going to go? you think its appropriate to handle the people like that? Rational people understand that it is not!

 

[CMike]

There has been a thread running on this for several days.
To sum it up, the black woman refused to give her name, attempted to walk away from the officer and then struggled with the officer when he attempted to detain her.
She copped an attitude and it did not work out well for her.
She should be charged with resisting arrest and risk of injury to her unborn child.

Yeah, except no. She did walk anywhere. The cop had no reason to put his hands on her since no crime was committed.

Unless you believe anytime a cop comes in contact with you you're under arrest. The laws dont care what you believe tho thats not the case.

She attempted to walk away. That's why she was arrested.

She was never under arrest, we should still have some liberties,where was she going to go? you think its appropriate to handle the people like that? Rational people understand that it is not!

She wasn't arrested. However, the cop was doing a legal stop.

Walking away when he is telling you not to is obstructing during a stop.

He never said she was arrested for not showing ID. She was arrested for obstructing and resisting. Bad move.

 

[Asclepias]

There has been a thread running on this for several days.
To sum it up, the black woman refused to give her name, attempted to walk away from the officer and then struggled with the officer when he attempted to detain her.
She copped an attitude and it did not work out well for her.
She should be charged with resisting arrest and risk of injury to her unborn child.

Yeah, except no. She did walk anywhere. The cop had no reason to put his hands on her since no crime was committed.

Unless you believe anytime a cop comes in contact with you you're under arrest. The laws dont care what you believe tho thats not the case.

She attempted to walk away. That's why she was arrested.

You can walk away if you are not under arrest. You dont have to answer any questions.

 

[Asclepias]

There has been a thread running on this for several days.
To sum it up, the black woman refused to give her name, attempted to walk away from the officer and then struggled with the officer when he attempted to detain her.
She copped an attitude and it did not work out well for her.
She should be charged with resisting arrest and risk of injury to her unborn child.

Yeah, except no. She did walk anywhere. The cop had no reason to put his hands on her since no crime was committed.

Unless you believe anytime a cop comes in contact with you you're under arrest. The laws dont care what you believe tho thats not the case.

She attempted to walk away. That's why she was arrested.

She was never under arrest, we should still have some liberties,where was she going to go? you think its appropriate to handle the people like that? Rational people understand that it is not!

She wasn't arrested. However, the cop was doing a legal stop.

Walking away when he is telling you not to is obstructing during a stop.

He never said she was arrested for not showing ID. She was arrested for obstructing and resisting. Bad move.

She was illegally detained. She is going to be rich.

 

[chikenwing]

There has been a thread running on this for several days.
To sum it up, the black woman refused to give her name, attempted to walk away from the officer and then struggled with the officer when he attempted to detain her.
She copped an attitude and it did not work out well for her.
She should be charged with resisting arrest and risk of injury to her unborn child.

Yeah, except no. She did walk anywhere. The cop had no reason to put his hands on her since no crime was committed.

Unless you believe anytime a cop comes in contact with you you're under arrest. The laws dont care what you believe tho thats not the case.

She attempted to walk away. That's why she was arrested.

She was never under arrest, we should still have some liberties,where was she going to go? you think its appropriate to handle the people like that? Rational people understand that it is not!

She wasn't arrested. However, the cop was doing a legal stop.

Walking away when he is telling you not to is obstructing during a stop.

He never said she was arrested for not showing ID. She was arrested for obstructing and resisting. Bad move.

She was illegally detained. She is going to be rich.

Could be,I believe there is strong grounds for two counts of assault,one for her one for her child.

 

[CMike]

There has been a thread running on this for several days.
To sum it up, the black woman refused to give her name, attempted to walk away from the officer and then struggled with the officer when he attempted to detain her.
She copped an attitude and it did not work out well for her.
She should be charged with resisting arrest and risk of injury to her unborn child.

Yeah, except no. She did walk anywhere. The cop had no reason to put his hands on her since no crime was committed.

Unless you believe anytime a cop comes in contact with you you're under arrest. The laws dont care what you believe tho thats not the case.

She attempted to walk away. That's why she was arrested.

You can walk away if you are not under arrest. You dont have to answer any questions.

You can't walk away legally in a legal stop.

 

[Asclepias]

There has been a thread running on this for several days.
To sum it up, the black woman refused to give her name, attempted to walk away from the officer and then struggled with the officer when he attempted to detain her.
She copped an attitude and it did not work out well for her.
She should be charged with resisting arrest and risk of injury to her unborn child.

Yeah, except no. She did walk anywhere. The cop had no reason to put his hands on her since no crime was committed.

Unless you believe anytime a cop comes in contact with you you're under arrest. The laws dont care what you believe tho thats not the case.

She attempted to walk away. That's why she was arrested.

You can walk away if you are not under arrest. You dont have to answer any questions.

You can't walk away legally in a legal stop.

You can if you are not under arrest. There was nothing legal about the stop. He even said there was no crime.

 

[ClosedCaption]

There has been a thread running on this for several days.
To sum it up, the black woman refused to give her name, attempted to walk away from the officer and then struggled with the officer when he attempted to detain her.
She copped an attitude and it did not work out well for her.
She should be charged with resisting arrest and risk of injury to her unborn child.

Yeah, except no. She did walk anywhere. The cop had no reason to put his hands on her since no crime was committed.

Unless you believe anytime a cop comes in contact with you you're under arrest. The laws dont care what you believe tho thats not the case.

She attempted to walk away. That's why she was arrested.

You can walk away if you are not under arrest. You dont have to answer any questions.

You can't walk away legally in a legal stop.

that wasnt a legal stop. you guys have a weird time travel thing going on where someone can resist arrest before they are arrested or charged with anything. Just the mere fact that a cop approaches you means, to you guys, that you cant move because you are under mental arrest.

Then dont even miss the fact that the judge threw out the resisting charge because you cant resist something taht isnt happening in the first place...time travel yanno.

You guys are silly as hell, talking about you are pro-rights while encouraging the bs that you must do anything a cop tells you and you are mentally detained or implied arrested

 

[Asclepias]

There has been a thread running on this for several days.
To sum it up, the black woman refused to give her name, attempted to walk away from the officer and then struggled with the officer when he attempted to detain her.
She copped an attitude and it did not work out well for her.
She should be charged with resisting arrest and risk of injury to her unborn child.

Yeah, except no. She did walk anywhere. The cop had no reason to put his hands on her since no crime was committed.

Unless you believe anytime a cop comes in contact with you you're under arrest. The laws dont care what you believe tho thats not the case.

She attempted to walk away. That's why she was arrested.

You can walk away if you are not under arrest. You dont have to answer any questions.

You can't walk away legally in a legal stop.

that wasnt a legal stop. you guys have a weird time travel thing going on where someone can resist arrest before they are arrested or charged with anything. Just the mere fact that a cop approaches you means, to you guys, that you cant move because you are under mental arrest.

Then dont even miss the fact that the judge threw out the resisting charge because you cant resist something taht isnt happening in the first place...time travel yanno.

You guys are silly as hell, talking about you are pro-rights while encouraging the bs that you must do anything a cop tells you and you are mentally detained or implied arrested

Typical white monkey logic. They use it when they want to make it seem as if the Black person was in the wrong.

 

[EverCurious]

HAHAHA I just watched the actual media clip on this thread. What a joke...

Flat out lies "first contact the Barsow officer had," then the male show host is bitching "I didn't hear the officer ask the white lady for her id" NO shit Sherlock she called the ******* police and gave her info and her side on the phone, duh. (At least their expert caught and called that bullshit out at the end there.)

Then the host says Cali has a law that says someone doesn't have to give their name, shall we take bets on if that law says something about "in consensual conversation"? (see my post in the other thread for clarification on that distinction between consensual and detainment conversations with officers.) Notice how quickly they shut their expert up straight away when he tries to point out that it's not as cut and dry as "you don't have to give your name."

Then he blows off his "expert" who says she should have just given her name and further if she hadn't ******* resisted then NONE of it would have happened... The expert even says flat out that the officer couldn't arrest UNLESS THE OFFICER BELIEVED A CRIME MAY HAVE BEEN COMMITED. He notes at the end that the officer felt he had reason to arrest her, regardless of anything else.

Then the chick show guest just lies out of her ******* ass: She gave her name then said she wanted to call her boyfriend - bull-*******-shit that's not what happened. SHE REFUSED to give her name from the get-go, started off the ******* conversation talking about that [racist] white chick, and said she "wasn't about to get harassed by no cops" BEFORE she "called her boyfriend" she was supposed to be looking it up like she'd told the officer she was going to do - EVEN SO the officer still was going to give her a chance to "check out if it was legal for him to get her name" except /she/ decided to start walking away so the officer moved to detain her and brought out the cuffs because she started fighting with him.

Whiny white ***** show guest continues lying through her ******* teeth: "He treats her completely different" My ass, and of course they ******* cut out the officer talking to her about the white chick saying "well ya know some people" blah blah and the black chick being a ***** - they only show the "bad officer" parts because the media are a bunch of lying assholes. Then just so you're fully aware of the bullshit and LIES the media pushes on you - the male show host guy even flat out says once you give an officer attitude the entire dynamic changes - you mean like telling the officer "I'm not about to be harassed by no cops" - Oh but this was a woman so somehow the same dynamic shift doesn't apply?

Then the white guest chick tries to "cinch her point" saying Oh it was just a verbal altercation in a school parking lot - love how they purposefully leave out the white chicks claim that the black chick was driving around like a maniac through the parking lot and endangering kids and parents lives here... "Police shouldn't be escalating the situation" - Of course because the black chick strongly eluding to racism in her version of what happened, and flat out saying the cop wanted to harass her because he asked for her name, and resisting isn't "escalating" the situation at all... *rolls eyes* I despise the media sometimes...

I wonder how many people are going to follow CNN show hosts terrible legal advice and get arrested, I hope they heard the "expert" saying whoa, don't do it because this and this and circumstances, between the hosts trying to shut him up for stepping in lock and file with their "police brutality" storyline....

On the plus side, the judge let her off with a warning. Wonder if we'll ever hear what the judge actually told her...

 

[Asclepias]

He's been reduced to ranting now. ^^^^^^

 

[EverCurious]

that wasnt a legal stop. you guys have a weird time travel thing going on where someone can resist arrest before they are arrested or charged with anything. Just the mere fact that a cop approaches you means, to you guys, that you cant move because you are under mental arrest.

Then dont even miss the fact that the judge threw out the resisting charge because you cant resist something taht isnt happening in the first place...time travel yanno.

You guys are silly as hell, talking about you are pro-rights while encouraging the bs that you must do anything a cop tells you and you are mentally detained or implied arrested

Reposting from Barstow cops are fucked US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum If you want to see the rest.

Probable cause is not equal to absolute certainty. That is, a police officer does not have to be absolutely certain that criminal activity is taking place to perform a search or make an arrest. Probable cause can exist even when there is some doubt as to the person's guilt.

~ One may refuse to provide their name /only/ under a "consensual" request, /not/ under a "detention" request such as in this case.
~ IF one wishes to argue the 4th amendment then you had BEST understand case law related to it and the difference between these two

(Consensual Application of Probable Cause) At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the police also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack "specific and articulable facts" that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time. Police are not usually required to tell a person that he is free to decline to answer questions and go about his business; however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, "Am I free to go?"

(Detention Application of Probable Cause) A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave.

Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority. In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established that police may conduct a limited search for weapons (known as a "frisk") if they reasonably suspect that the person to be detained may be armed and dangerous.

Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer. However, many states have "stop and identify" laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to police, and in some cases, provide additional information.

 

[Asclepias]

Refuses to hear the cop say plain as day there is no crime. ^^^^^