Police slam then hog tie a pregnant woman...because she was confused and scared....

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:We're making assumptions without knowing all the facts. We don't know if she's a foreigner who has limited English skills or taking medication that causing a hearing deficit. I was taught to exit the car in order to let the officer see I'm not carrying a weapon. Also it makes getting my drivers license from my wallet easier.

Not what I was taught at all. They don't want you to get out. Just open your window, put your hands on top of the steering wheel. They'll stop walking to your car when they are behind the driver. Then just do as they ask.

It's obvious students are taught different procedures at different areas. I was instructed by a drivers ed teacher, a county deputy and my dad. I will say that I've never had a policeman tell me to get back in the vehicle. I think how rapidly one indicates that they'll pull over is an indication of cooperation.

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:We're making assumptions without knowing all the facts. We don't know if she's a foreigner who has limited English skills or taking medication that causing a hearing deficit. I was taught to exit the car in order to let the officer see I'm not carrying a weapon. Also it makes getting my drivers license from my wallet easier.

Not what I was taught at all. They don't want you to get out. Just open your window, put your hands on top of the steering wheel. They'll stop walking to your car when they are behind the driver. Then just do as they ask.

You are so right --I was told by Escambia county! STAY IN YOUR CAR--- then he looked in the vehicle -do you have ins--yes sir--can I search your car -Yes sir-DL please -I gave it to him -he checked it out --once again will you allow me to search your car --yes sir I have nothing to hide--here is your speeding ticket sign it--Yes sir easy drove off after I sat there for about 10 min upset then I drove away most of the time you just need to do what your told to do


It's obvious students are taught different procedures at different areas. I was instructed by a drivers ed teacher, a county deputy and my dad. I will say that I've never had a policeman tell me to get back in the vehicle. I think how rapidly one indicates that they'll pull over is an indication of cooperation.

The main reason they want you to stay in your car is because your pulling over on the right side of the road --They dont want you to get run over--and the cop that got me went to passengers side to talk --He doesnt want to get hit either! I saw allot of videos where sometimes both the cop and the driver were hit .

cool1 wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:We're making assumptions without knowing all the facts. We don't know if she's a foreigner who has limited English skills or taking medication that causing a hearing deficit. I was taught to exit the car in order to let the officer see I'm not carrying a weapon. Also it makes getting my drivers license from my wallet easier.

Not what I was taught at all. They don't want you to get out. Just open your window, put your hands on top of the steering wheel. They'll stop walking to your car when they are behind the driver. Then just do as they ask.

You are so right --I was told by Escambia county! STAY IN YOUR CAR--- then he looked in the vehicle -do you have ins--yes sir--can I search your car -Yes sir-DL please -I gave it to him -he checked it out --once again will you allow me to search your car --yes sir I have nothing to hide--here is your speeding ticket sign it--Yes sir easy drove off after I sat there for about 10 min upset then I drove away most of the time you just need to do what your told to do


It's obvious students are taught different procedures at different areas. I was instructed by a drivers ed teacher, a county deputy and my dad. I will say that I've never had a policeman tell me to get back in the vehicle. I think how rapidly one indicates that they'll pull over is an indication of cooperation.

The main reason they want you to stay in your car is because your pulling over on the right side of the road --They dont want you to get run over--and the cop that got me went to passengers side to talk --He doesnt want to get hit either! I saw allot of videos where sometimes both the cop and the driver were hit .

Good Point. Considering my instruction was many years ago when there was less traffic, I may need to reconsider how I would respond to being pulled over. After all, gasoline was $0.18 a gallon. and roof sun visors and mirrors mounted on top the front fenders were all the rage. How we loved our cars with fins, whitewall tires and A.M. radio.

[quote="Slicef18"]

cool1 wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:We're making assumptions without knowing all the facts. We don't know if she's a foreigner who has limited English skills or taking medication that causing a hearing deficit. I was taught to exit the car in order to let the officer see I'm not carrying a weapon. Also it makes getting my drivers license from my wallet easier.

Not what I was taught at all. They don't want you to get out. Just open your window, put your hands on top of the steering wheel. They'll stop walking to your car when they are behind the driver. Then just do as they ask.

You are so right --I was told by Escambia county! STAY IN YOUR CAR--- then he looked in the vehicle -do you have ins--yes sir--can I search your car -Yes sir-DL please -I gave it to him -he checked it out --once again will you allow me to search your car --yes sir I have nothing to hide--here is your speeding ticket sign it--Yes sir easy drove off after I sat there for about 10 min upset then I drove away most of the time you just need to do what your told to do


It's obvious students are taught different procedures at different areas. I was instructed by a drivers ed teacher, a county deputy and my dad. I will say that I've never had a policeman tell me to get back in the vehicle. I think how rapidly one indicates that they'll pull over is an indication of cooperation.

The main reason they want you to stay in your car is because your pulling over on the right side of the road --They dont want you to get run over--and the cop that got me went to passengers side to talk --He doesnt want to get hit either! I saw allot of videos where sometimes both the cop and the driver were hit .

Good Point. Considering my instruction was many years ago when there was less traffic, I may need to reconsider how I would respond to being pulled over. After all, gasoline was $0.18 a gallon. and roof sun visors and mirrors mounted on top the front fenders were all the rage. How we loved our cars with fins, whitewall tires and A.M. radio.[/quot

LOL--18 cents a gallon --wow

[quote="cool1"]

Slicef18 wrote:

cool1 wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:We're making assumptions without knowing all the facts. We don't know if she's a foreigner who has limited English skills or taking medication that causing a hearing deficit. I was taught to exit the car in order to let the officer see I'm not carrying a weapon. Also it makes getting my drivers license from my wallet easier.

Not what I was taught at all. They don't want you to get out. Just open your window, put your hands on top of the steering wheel. They'll stop walking to your car when they are behind the driver. Then just do as they ask.

You are so right --I was told by Escambia county! STAY IN YOUR CAR--- then he looked in the vehicle -do you have ins--yes sir--can I search your car -Yes sir-DL please -I gave it to him -he checked it out --once again will you allow me to search your car --yes sir I have nothing to hide--here is your speeding ticket sign it--Yes sir easy drove off after I sat there for about 10 min upset then I drove away most of the time you just need to do what your told to do


It's obvious students are taught different procedures at different areas. I was instructed by a drivers ed teacher, a county deputy and my dad. I will say that I've never had a policeman tell me to get back in the vehicle. I think how rapidly one indicates that they'll pull over is an indication of cooperation.

The main reason they want you to stay in your car is because your pulling over on the right side of the road --They dont want you to get run over--and the cop that got me went to passengers side to talk --He doesnt want to get hit either! I saw allot of videos where sometimes both the cop and the driver were hit .

Good Point. Considering my instruction was many years ago when there was less traffic, I may need to reconsider how I would respond to being pulled over. After all, gasoline was $0.18 a gallon. and roof sun visors and mirrors mounted on top the front fenders were all the rage. How we loved our cars with fins, whitewall tires and A.M. radio.[/quot

LOL--18 cents a gallon --wow

************************************************************
A wage earner was about $50.00 a week and we bought cars by the pound. All pick-up trucks were utilitarian manual three speed on the column or four on the floor and no extended cabs.

All I see is (1) failure to comply with a lawful order (on several counts), (2) lose of vehicle control (she went over the curve), (3) endangering (crossing the solid white lines at the off-ramp when she started evading), (4) evading (when she failed to get off at the off-ramp and re-entered traffic on the main highway), (5) resisting arrest (failure to turn around and struggling when the handcuffs were put on), and let's not forget the biggy... (6) probable cause (when she failed to comply with the lawful orders of law enforcement right off and attempted evading).

Thankfully we have juries of our peers. It would be hard to find 12 people with such twisted perception.......she walks, and probably collects a nice settlement in the process. I am curious what a lawful order is?

Thanks seaoat,
We lack the ability to ask questions this will either go before a jury
Of her peers or a judge. Then both sides get their turn.

I can see both sides of this actually. I'm pretty middle of the road.
As a judge will want to give the police as much as he can he will ask
Why they chose that take down technique when there was no apparent
Threat or what did they see as the threat.

Ironsights wrote:As far as the treatment of the woman, Everyone on this forum may see it as excessive and i know i am going to fight with this post but oh well.
Look at this from a police prospective, A person who was supposed to be a routine traffic stop suddenly to them decides to try and evade them. They finally get her to pull over and out of a car. the first thing she does is try to charge the officers. They don't know if she is armed and why she tried to evade them. Also they don't know if there is someone else in the vehicle that may harm them. What if when they tried to approach she decided to attack them with an as yet unseen weapon. You would have had a different view and so would the cops as they might have been dead. When they got her down and secured they didn't beat her more. They simply tried to secure her so that they themselves didn't get hurt. There was still the question in their mind as to why the hell did she try and evade, what is she hiding in her vehicle.

BS.. She didn't charge anybody, Look again, Her feet remained planted when approached.. That was excessive and abusive force.. totally uncalled for.. I'll bet that SoB has a record of beating on women..

2seaoat wrote:All I see is (1) failure to comply with a lawful order (on several counts), (2) lose of vehicle control (she went over the curve), (3) endangering (crossing the solid white lines at the off-ramp when she started evading), (4) evading (when she failed to get off at the off-ramp and re-entered traffic on the main highway), (5) resisting arrest (failure to turn around and struggling when the handcuffs were put on), and let's not forget the biggy... (6) probable cause (when she failed to comply with the lawful orders of law enforcement right off and attempted evading).

Thankfully we have juries of our peers. It would be hard to find 12 people with such twisted perception.......she walks, and probably collects a nice settlement in the process. I am curious what a lawful order is?

There is no such thing as a lawful order. Well, now we all know it is a crime to lose control of a vehicle.LOL!

2seaoat wrote:All I see is (1) failure to comply with a lawful order (on several counts), (2) lose of vehicle control (she went over the curve), (3) endangering (crossing the solid white lines at the off-ramp when she started evading), (4) evading (when she failed to get off at the off-ramp and re-entered traffic on the main highway), (5) resisting arrest (failure to turn around and struggling when the handcuffs were put on), and let's not forget the biggy... (6) probable cause (when she failed to comply with the lawful orders of law enforcement right off and attempted evading).

Thankfully we have juries of our peers. It would be hard to find 12 people with such twisted perception.......she walks, and probably collects a nice settlement in the process. I am curious what a lawful order is?

I might say the same about your perception.

Who's wearing the law enforcement uniform? The woman or the police officers? If the police weren't giving lawful orders then what were they?

I've seen and heard of people being shot for not complying with the orders of police officers so I would consider it a lawful order until I could prove otherwise. If it's the latter then I'll take my court date and a healthy law suit against the governmental entity that these law officers represent.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

Dreamsglore wrote:
Well, now we all know it is a crime to lose control of a vehicle.LOL!

Tell that to the kid you say you ran over.

Can you prove that you weren't drunk or high when you did it?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw0YKg07Zz0

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Cops should be held to the same laws and standards as any concealed carry person...

So they should not be able to arrest someone in the commission in the crime, or perhaps the concealed carry person should be able to arrest a suspect. Not to mention the investigative authority you would either be expanding or retracting. And are we asking people with a concealed carry permit who is carrying to put themselves in harms way for our protection? no but we demand that of the police. So since we don't demand that of the concealed carry person maybe we shouldn't demand that of the police.

Dreamsglore wrote:

As someone who went through the academy I can say you are totally full of it. Nowhere was it ever taught to block lane on a busy freeway to arrest somebody. In fact, it is stressed to never incur more injury by doing that. They could have pulled behind her. You make no sense what so ever in your assertions. If she is handcuffed she can't attack them either for crying out loud! There were no other suspects.Jesus! They could see that.

Actually i am not, while i have never had the opportunity (nor requested it) to teach high liability class, I know it is in fact a part of it. And its not just to arrest someone but in the incident of and accident or other such situation where you would need some room behind because you and/or someone else would be in the road and thus be exposed to oncoming traffic.
And if you went through the academy (which ever academy) as you claimed then you would know as it would be beaten into your head that just because a person is in hand restraints, or even in leg restraints does not mean that they can not and will not attack you. It happens constantly and is something that is stressed in every in service that any department has not to mention it being drilled in you in the academy.

Dreamsglore wrote:
That's where you and I part ways. LE's job is not to punish you for not listening. They should have ticketed her for whatever they claim she did and went on.

You don't give a citation for police evasion.

cool1 wrote:
The main reason they want you to stay in your car is because your pulling over on the right side of the road --They dont want you to get run over--and the cop that got me went to passengers side to talk --He doesnt want to get hit either! I saw allot of videos where sometimes both the cop and the driver were hit .

usually the main reasons law enforcement wants you to stay in your car has more to do with controlling the situation and safety of the officers, people install weapons in several parts of the car, and if you are out you have more mobility not only to hurt/kill officers, but also to run. yes there is a personal safety issue of not only you but the officer and that is also considered in wanting you in the car.

Ironsights wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

As someone who went through the academy I can say you are totally full of it. Nowhere was it ever taught to block lane on a busy freeway to arrest somebody. In fact, it is stressed to never incur more injury by doing that. They could have pulled behind her. You make no sense what so ever in your assertions. If she is handcuffed she can't attack them either for crying out loud! There were no other suspects.Jesus! They could see that.

Actually i am not, while i have never had the opportunity (nor requested it) to teach high liability class, I know it is in fact a part of it. And its not just to arrest someone but in the incident of and accident or other such situation where you would need some room behind because you and/or someone else would be in the road and thus be exposed to oncoming traffic.
And if you went through the academy (which ever academy) as you claimed then you would know as it would be beaten into your head that just because a person is in hand restraints, or even in leg restraints does not mean that they can not and will not attack you. It happens constantly and is something that is stressed in every in service that any department has not to mention it being drilled in you in the academy.

LOL! I'd like to see someone who was in hand and leg restraints attack you. And no, they do not teach you to block a lane in traffic. Unbelievable.

Ironsights wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:
That's where you and I part ways. LE's job is not to punish you for not listening. They should have ticketed her for whatever they claim she did and went on.

You don't give a citation for police evasion.

How do you know what she was charged with? LOL! She didn't evade. She pulled over and was told to go to an exit.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Ironsights wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:
That's where you and I part ways. LE's job is not to punish you for not listening. They should have ticketed her for whatever they claim she did and went on.

You don't give a citation for police evasion.

How do you know what she was charged with? LOL! She didn't evade. She pulled over and was told to go to an exit.

Someone needs to hogtie you.

2seaoat wrote:All I see is (1) failure to comply with a lawful order (on several counts), (2) lose of vehicle control (she went over the curve), (3) endangering (crossing the solid white lines at the off-ramp when she started evading), (4) evading (when she failed to get off at the off-ramp and re-entered traffic on the main highway), (5) resisting arrest (failure to turn around and struggling when the handcuffs were put on), and let's not forget the biggy... (6) probable cause (when she failed to comply with the lawful orders of law enforcement right off and attempted evading).

Thankfully we have juries of our peers. It would be hard to find 12 people with such twisted perception.......she walks, and probably collects a nice settlement in the process. I am curious what a lawful order is?

A lawful order is an order that is given and does not violate the law. And the courts will outline each and everyone of these should she go to trial.
The lawful order that was being referred to (unless i am mistaken) in this case was to pull off at the exit.

Dreamsglore wrote:
There is no such thing as a lawful order. Well, now we all know it is a crime to lose control of a vehicle.LOL!

again showing your ignorance,

(3) OBEDIENCE TO POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS.—It is unlawful and a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, for any person willfully to fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any law enforcement officer, traffic crash investigation officer as described in s. 316.640, traffic infraction enforcement officer as described in s. 316.640, or member of the fire department at the scene of a fire, rescue operation, or other emergency. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, certified emergency medical technicians or paramedics may respond to the scene of emergencies and may provide emergency medical treatment on the scene and provide transport of patients in the performance of their duties for an emergency medical services provider licensed under chapter 401 and in accordance with any local emergency medical response protocols.


there are a great many other Florida and other state laws which have consequences for not following a lawful order of a law enforcement officer.
Something you should know if you went to any academy.

Ironsights wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Cops should be held to the same laws and standards as any concealed carry person...

So they should not be able to arrest someone in the commission in the crime, or perhaps the concealed carry person should be able to arrest a suspect. Not to mention the investigative authority you would either be expanding or retracting. And are we asking people with a concealed carry permit who is carrying to put themselves in harms way for our protection? no but we demand that of the police. So since we don't demand that of the concealed carry person maybe we shouldn't demand that of the police.

The court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect you. Also a citizen can and have arrested criminals lawfully under citizens arrest provisions. Also the citizen is more liable to lawsuits and prosecution because police get a pass due to the uber imperative of officer safety.

Dreamsglore wrote:

LOL! I'd like to see someone who was in hand and leg restraints attack you. And no, they do not teach you to block a lane in traffic. Unbelievable.

actually they do and you see it if you cross a bridge and there is an accident or a car on the side as best it can. It is continually practiced here in Florida and several other states.
and are you seriously claiming that you a person in hand and leg restraints will not attack you? If so then that casts even greater doubt as to the authenticity of your claim of going into the academy.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

The court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect you. Also a citizen can and have arrested criminals lawfully under citizens arrest provisions. Also the citizen is more liable to lawsuits and prosecution because police get a pass due to the uber imperative of officer safety.

I did not say to protect you i said put themselves in harms way. They can arrest a person under civilian arrest authority but that definition is far more constraining then that of the law enforcement officer, you have to actually see the crime being committed, not know that someone has committed it. For example a person commits a break in and leaves without being seen. Police find his/her fingerprints at a scene, DNA from the window he/she broke into the house through, and Video evidence that he/she was the one who did it, only the police can go and arrest them not a civilian. Further we are not asking the civilian to go to the home of a person who is armed and dangerous to execute said arrest. And police are under just as much scrutiny after every use of force, but they generally know what they can and cannot legally do and act accordingly. Which was one of the problems with the use of force matrix when we had it because police officers in Florida were getting her trying to figure out just what they could and could not do to a suspect or even a convicted violent offender in the prison system because they had to think well they are at this level which means i can use force of this level to counter them. Now its just the least amount of force necessary.

Ironsights wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:
There is no such thing as a lawful order. Well, now we all know it is a crime to lose control of a vehicle.LOL!

again showing your ignorance,

(3) OBEDIENCE TO POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS.—It is unlawful and a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, for any person willfully to fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any law enforcement officer, traffic crash investigation officer as described in s. 316.640, traffic infraction enforcement officer as described in s. 316.640, or member of the fire department at the scene of a fire, rescue operation, or other emergency. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, certified emergency medical technicians or paramedics may respond to the scene of emergencies and may provide emergency medical treatment on the scene and provide transport of patients in the performance of their duties for an emergency medical services provider licensed under chapter 401 and in accordance with any local emergency medical response protocols.


there are a great many other Florida and other state laws which have consequences for not following a lawful order of a law enforcement officer.
Something you should know if you went to any academy.

Can you read Ironsights? It says it is unlawful AT THE SCENE OF A FIRE, RESCUE OPERATION OR OTHER EMERGENCY. Good grief,man!

Ironsights wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

The court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect you. Also a citizen can and have arrested criminals lawfully under citizens arrest provisions. Also the citizen is more liable to lawsuits and prosecution because police get a pass due to the uber imperative of officer safety.

I did not say to protect you i said put themselves in harms way. They can arrest a person under civilian arrest authority but that definition is far more constraining then that of the law enforcement officer, you have to actually see the crime being committed, not know that someone has committed it. For example a person commits a break in and leaves without being seen. Police find his/her fingerprints at a scene, DNA from the window he/she broke into the house through, and Video evidence that he/she was the one who did it, only the police can go and arrest them not a civilian. Further we are not asking the civilian to go to the home of a person who is armed and dangerous to execute said arrest. And police are under just as much scrutiny after every use of force, but they generally know what they can and cannot legally do and act accordingly. Which was one of the problems with the use of force matrix when we had it because police officers in Florida were getting her trying to figure out just what they could and could not do to a suspect or even a convicted violent offender in the prison system because they had to think well they are at this level which means i can use force of this level to counter them. Now its just the least amount of force necessary.

It has always been the least amount of force necessary. That has never changed.Police just use more force now.