Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Reese goes nuts on dash cam.....

Reese goes nuts on dash cam.....

+4
Sal
knothead
ZVUGKTUBM
TEOTWAWKI
8 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Go down  Message [Page 5 of 7]

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
2seaoat wrote:Your case law doesn't apply to the elites,

Wow......now that was some amazing logic. The law of the land as interpreted by our courts does not apply to the elites.


lol

You're just now figuring that out?

Silly shlub.

You have a PM.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Most of the cases that were contested were thrown out and unconstitutional. If she had contested it, it would have been thrown out too.

I have waited all day for a valid case cite. You have not given one. It should be easy to do. The funniest thing is that you do not even understand what I have posted and what the Courts have done.....you just argued first amendment.....do you understand that the first amendment was not involved in Reese's arrest......of course you do not understand. As to making stuff up......well when a person of your limited knowledge tries to comprehend some sophisticated concepts, it is clear from your responses you lack the requisite ability to connect the dots....this was an elementary obstruction where Reese hindered the officer, not by her words, but by repeatedly not staying in the car.....actions......not words.......but I await your stellar use of your research skills to post your cases......gee....google cut and paste not working too well........certifiable Legal Blonde......and the best part....you called Reese and her attorney stupid........they needed your stellar legal research skills.

Wrong,Seaoat. She was told to sit in the car because she asked him the question. It's the whole premise of the case of obstruction. I did cite the 1987 case of a same situation.

Guest


Guest

awesome thread....


bump

2seaoat



Wrong,Seaoat. She was told to sit in the car because she asked him the question. It's the whole premise of the case of obstruction. I did cite the 1987 case of a same situation.


Just making stuff up as you go......nothing new here. First, you are incapable of understanding that it is standard police procedure on an investigatory stop, to have all passengers remain in the car. You have already answered the question when you recognized my regurgitation of the courts focus on officer safety. If Reese was Deaf and Dumb and got out of the car, the officer would try to get her back in the car, not because of something she was saying, but because they need passengers to remain in the car until they have processed the driver.

Your 1987 case which has no relevancy to the Reese arrest dealt with an overbroad local Houston ordinance which was overturned by the appellate court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. In that case about 40 people were present when a defendant was being arrested by the police. From the crowd one person kept yelling, leave the little guy alone........he was not in the immediate vicinity of the arrest, he was not with the defendant, and he was with an already large group of people who witnessed the arrest. The officer did not like his yelling comments and arrested him under that ordinance. He did not arrest him under the obstruction laws of Texas.....again, under an overbroad local ordinance......no relevancy to the Reese case where during an investigatory stop where the courts have clearly established the rule of law that an officer can temporarily detain a suspect and his passengers during an investigation where the officer has probable cause. So please, provide me cases which give exclusions to the exception to the 4th amendment detention of passengers during the investigatory stop, and make sure we stay focused Dreams that we are dealing with an officer asking a person to remain in the car...........just a clue for the clueless.......you are not going to have much luck providing that case......of course....you do not even know how to do the same.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Wrong,Seaoat. She was told to sit in the car because she asked him the question. It's the whole premise of the case of obstruction. I did cite the 1987 case of a same situation.


Just making stuff up as you go......nothing new here. First, you are incapable of understanding that it is standard police procedure on an investigatory stop, to have all passengers remain in the car. You have already answered the question when you recognized my regurgitation of the courts focus on officer safety. If Reese was Deaf and Dumb and got out of the car, the officer would try to get her back in the car, not because of something she was saying, but because they need passengers to remain in the car until they have processed the driver.

Your 1987 case which has no relevancy to the Reese arrest dealt with an overbroad local Houston ordinance which was overturned by the appellate court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. In that case about 40 people were present when a defendant was being arrested by the police. From the crowd one person kept yelling, leave the little guy alone........he was not in the immediate vicinity of the arrest, he was not with the defendant, and he was with an already large group of people who witnessed the arrest. The officer did not like his yelling comments and arrested him under that ordinance. He did not arrest him under the obstruction laws of Texas.....again, under an overbroad local ordinance......no relevancy to the Reese case where during an investigatory stop where the courts have clearly established the rule of law that an officer can temporarily detain a suspect and his passengers during an investigation where the officer has probable cause. So please, provide me cases which give exclusions to the exception to the 4th amendment detention of passengers during the investigatory stop, and make sure we stay focused Dreams that we are dealing with an officer asking a person to remain in the car...........just a clue for the clueless.......you are not going to have much luck providing that case......of course....you do not even know how to do the same.

uh huh, remember how these things goes with this one? she simply will go on and on and on and on till you give up. you will have to say the same thing 500 different times, while she continues to change her stance to get wiggle room.

Yes, seaoat, you have and will be saying the same damn thing over and over and over and over again. They absolutely love this method. se they don't need to be right, just persistent and to have backup occasionally. Pay attention, they are using this method all over this forum.

Sal

Sal

*Sage* wrote:
uh huh, remember how these things goes with this one? she simply will go on and on and on and on till you give up. you will have to say the same thing 500 different times, while she continues to change her stance to get wiggle room.

Yes, seaoat, you have and will be saying the same damn thing over and over and over and over again. They absolutely love this method. se they don't need to be right, just persistent and to have backup occasionally. Pay attention, they are using this method all over this forum.

Ahhhhh, yeeeah ...

... Mr. Oats gets his own surrogate paddlefoot ...

... and it's none other than the forum's trailer-trash, drooling, ignoramus.

Good for you, schlub.

You needed the backup.

Very Happy

2seaoat



It has now been two days, and Dreams has failed to provide the case law which says that a police officer during an investigatory stop, does not have the authority to ask passengers to remain in the car.

Not one case

Just more mumbo jumbo from our legal blonde

Not one scintilla of understanding that Reese and her attorney were not stupid..........the only stupidity has been the legal blonde and her side kick paddlefoot..........of course paddlefoot possibly got hit with his son's liner causing him temporary stupid syndrome.........and possibly Dreams was watching the game and got hit in the head also.......nope......it would be hard to explain the half dozen other threads which she melted down legally blonde.........of course in those threads she did not have her sidekick paddlefoot.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
*Sage* wrote:
uh huh, remember how these things goes with this one? she simply will go on and on and on and on till you give up. you will have to say the same thing 500 different times, while she continues to change her stance to get wiggle room.

Yes, seaoat, you have and will be saying the same damn thing over and over and over and over again. They absolutely love this method. se they don't need to be right, just persistent and to have backup occasionally. Pay attention, they are using this method all over this forum.

Ahhhhh, yeeeah ...

... Mr. Oats gets his own surrogate paddlefoot ...

... and it's none other than the forum's trailer-trash, drooling, ignoramus.

Good for you, schlub.

You needed the backup.

Very Happy

..............................................

Two words......Ben Ghazi. What a schmuck he is.


Deconstruction is hard....

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:It has now been two days, and Dreams has failed to provide the case law which says that a police officer during an investigatory stop, does not have the authority to ask passengers to remain in the car.

Not one case

Just more mumbo jumbo from our legal blonde

Not one scintilla of understanding that Reese and her attorney were not stupid..........the only stupidity has been the legal blonde and her side kick paddlefoot..........of course paddlefoot possibly got hit with his son's liner causing him temporary stupid syndrome.........and possibly Dreams was watching the game and got hit in the head also.......nope......it would be hard to explain the half dozen other threads which she melted down legally blonde.........of course in those threads she did not have her sidekick paddlefoot.

Maybe you have figured out by now,Seaoat, it's just not important to me to prove anything to you. Reese Witherspoon would have had her case thrown out on obstruction charges had she fought it. Speech does not rise to the level of obstruction.Simple as that. Most people just don't fight it.The officer would have lost.

2seaoat



Speech does not rise to the level of obstruction.

You cannot even analyze this arrest. You keep focusing on speech. This has nothing to do with speech. I am beginning to wonder if you even graduated from high school, because you cannot distinguish an officer commanding that a person stay in the vehicle, and that person disobeying the command. There is no charge for speech. The charge is for leaving the vehicle. However, I am still waiting for that case you promised. We are going on 48 hours and the law is well established on this subject. I gave you the cases, and you promised me cases. You said you were busy. All I get from you is excuses and complete idiocy talking about the facts of this case. Reese was asked five times to stay in the car. She got out. She was arrested. She pled guilty to the charge of obstruction. Her attorney knew the law, and fully understood that her ACTIONS leaving the vehicle hindered the officer from safely completing the investigatory stop. Did you even bother to read the cases I provided you, or is simply that you cannot comprehend something which is not a second hand simplification, rather than direct rulings from judges. I do not think you comprehend the difference between her actions and speech, nor do you understand the cases.

Guest


Guest

lol!

Nekochan

Nekochan

Dreams, the obstruction charge wasn't about anything Witherspoon said or about free speech. She could have sat in the car and called the cop all sorts of names and cussed and carried on and she wouldn't have been charged with anything. The obstruction charge was about her actions. The officer was attempting to make a DUI arrest and Witherspoon was physically hindering it by not staying put. Cops have been killed way too many times in situations like this.

2seaoat



Cops have been killed way too many times in situations like this.


Amen, and if Dreams would read the cases provided, she would see that the courts are saying and why they are not going to interfere with the officers discretion as to what is necessary to secure the stop and the investigation. Routine stops can have a passenger coming out with a weapon, or getting out tossing contraband. What Dreams fails to recognize is that the courts have been expanding exceptions to fourth amendment rights for over thirty years and they have always erred in favor of officer safety, and have already ruled very clearly on this subject, and that is why she cannot find a case to back up her absurd logic.

You very correctly stated that she could have rolled down the window and remained seated in the car, and said every word she said and she would not have been charged with obstruction. It is amazing to me how Dreams has just gone brain dead on this thread.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:Dreams, the obstruction charge wasn't about anything Witherspoon said or about free speech. She could have sat in the car and called the cop all sorts of names and cussed and carried on and she wouldn't have been charged with anything. The obstruction charge was about her actions. The officer was attempting to make a DUI arrest and Witherspoon was physically hindering it by not staying put. Cops have been killed way too many times in situations like this.

..............................

She got off lucky this time.

Why folk do such stupid shit plumb evades me.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:Dreams, the obstruction charge wasn't about anything Witherspoon said or about free speech. She could have sat in the car and called the cop all sorts of names and cussed and carried on and she wouldn't have been charged with anything. The obstruction charge was about her actions. The officer was attempting to make a DUI arrest and Witherspoon was physically hindering it by not staying put. Cops have been killed way too many times in situations like this.

That's absolutely untrue. She could have easily killed him from sitting in the car.It was about her speech. She did not have any actions that obstructed him. It was about disobeying his command which didn't rise to the level of the charge. These failure to obey charges have been thrown out in courts. Some have held them and many have not. In many states you cannot charge a failure to obey unless it is a safety issue. She would have won.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Cops have been killed way too many times in situations like this.


Amen, and if Dreams would read the cases provided, she would see that the courts are saying and why they are not going to interfere with the officers discretion as to what is necessary to secure the stop and the investigation. Routine stops can have a passenger coming out with a weapon, or getting out tossing contraband. What Dreams fails to recognize is that the courts have been expanding exceptions to fourth amendment rights for over thirty years and they have always erred in favor of officer safety, and have already ruled very clearly on this subject, and that is why she cannot find a case to back up her absurd logic.

You very correctly stated that she could have rolled down the window and remained seated in the car, and said every word she said and she would not have been charged with obstruction. It is amazing to me how Dreams has just gone brain dead on this thread.

That's bullshit.

Sal

Sal

Case law is for schlubs like Mr. Oats and his trailer park, porno-queen, paddlefoot, Chrissie.

Elites don't give a rat's fart about case law.

Nekochan

Nekochan

This is the officer's report of the events of the night. She was arrested because she kept getting out of the car, not because of what she said to the officer.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/weblogs/buzz/2013/apr/21/reese-witherspoon-arrested-atlanta-read-report/


I had Mr. Toth back his car into the driveway of the Walgreens to get it out of the roadway. Mr. Toth was medically qualified for field sobriety. Mr. Toth performed all field sobriety asked of him. Just before Walk and Turn, Mr. Toth stated that he had a problem with his left leg. I asked Mr. Toth if it would prevent him from continuing and he stated that it would not. I asked Mr. Toth if he wanted to continue with the tests. Mr. Toth stated that he did. Before we began field sobriety, Mrs. Witherspoon got out of the vehicle. I told Mrs. Witherspoon to stay in the vehicle and she sat back in the vehicle.
I observed that Mr. Toth was chewing on something and asked if him if it was gum. Mr. Toth stated that it was a mint. As I performed HGN on Mr. Toth, Mrs. Witherspoon got back out of the vehicle. I had to tell Mrs. Witherspoon several times to get back into the vehicle before she did so. I told Mrs. Witherspoon that I would arrest her the next time she got out of the vehicle. I finished HGN with Mr. Toth. I went and explained to Mrs. Witherspoon the reason why I wanted her to stay in the vehicle. The reason was for my safety. Mrs. Witherspoon stated, "Yes sir." I went back to Mr. Toth and continued field sobriety.
During the rest of field sobriety, I observed that Mr. Toth had a hard time listening to and following my directions. Mr. Toth wanted to finish the rest of the tests on the sidewalk next to the Walgreen's building.
After I had administered the PBT, Mrs. Witherspoon began to hang out the window and say that she did not believe that I was a real police officer. I told Mrs. Witherspoon to sit on her butt and be quiet. I placed Mr. Toth under arrest for DUI. When asked his age, Mr. Toth stated that he was 42 years old. I had Mr. Toth sit on my push bumper. Mrs. Witherspoon got out of the vehicle and walked up to me and Mr. Toth. I asked, 'What had I already told you? Mrs. Witherspoon asked what was going on.
I told Mrs. Witherspoon that Mr. Toth was under arrest. I told Mrs. Witherspoon to get back into the car. Mrs. Witherspoon stated that she was a 'U.S. Citizen' and that she was allowed to 'stand on American ground.' I put my hands on Mrs. Witherspoon's arms to arrest her. Mrs. Witherspoon was resistant but I was able to put handcuffs on her without incident due to Mr. Toth calming her down.
Mrs. Witherspoon asked, 'Do you know my name?' I answered, 'No, I don't need to know your name.' I then added, 'right now.'
Mrs. Witherspoon stated, 'You're about to find out who I am.' I stated, 'I am not worried about you ma'am.'
I stated, 'I already told you how things work.' I told Mrs. Witherspoon that she was obstructing my investigation of Mr. Toth. I placed Mrs. Witherspoon in the rear of my patrol car on the right side. At approximately 0100 hours, I read Implied Consent Notice/Suspects Age 21 Or Over from the orange card dated 06/08 and requested breath. Mr. Toth gave a verbal 'yea.'
I took Mrs. Witherspoon out of the right side and placed Mr. Toth in the right side of the rear of my patrol car. As I put Mrs. Witherspoon in the left side rear of my patrol car, she told me her name.
Mrs. Witherspoon also stated, 'You are going to be on national news'" I advised Mrs. Witherspoon that was fine.



Last edited by Nekochan on 5/8/2013, 10:45 pm; edited 4 times in total

Sal

Sal

Nekochan wrote:This is the officer's report of the events of the night. She was arrested because she kept getting out of the car, not because of what she said to the officer.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/weblogs/buzz/2013/apr/21/reese-witherspoon-arrested-atlanta-read-report/

He's lucky he's not punching tickets in a parking garage.

He should put Reese on his Xmas card list.

2seaoat



That's bullshit.


Where are your cases Dreams? You say Neko is wrong. You say I am wrong. You promised 48 hours plus now to provide cases which say that an officer during an investigatory stop with probable cause cannot command that passengers remain in the vehicle. You spew nonsense, fail to comprehend issues, fail to read the cases provided which clarify the issue such that a senior in high school could understand it, and then you tell Neko that the passenger could harm the officer still in the vehicle........are you really this challenged to use such absurd logic. Huge fail......but once I see your cases, I will finally understand why you called her and her lawyer STUPID.....your words, and that in the meantime it is pretty obvious you have nothing, and if you even bothered to read the cases, the courts have clearly stated they will not invade the subjective assessment of the officers stop in asking the passengers to remain in the vehicle, and that on balance the temporary constraint on their free movement must be weighed against that officers need to control the stop and investigation.......which means to maximize their safety.....which means when the command to stay in the car is given, the courts will enforce the same......it is in black and white Dreams......but not even a cursory try to be legally blonde and provide a case......yep there is some BS..........put your cases up......or please take a class and learn something.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Sal wrote:
Nekochan wrote:This is the officer's report of the events of the night. She was arrested because she kept getting out of the car, not because of what she said to the officer.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/weblogs/buzz/2013/apr/21/reese-witherspoon-arrested-atlanta-read-report/

He's lucky he's not punching tickets in a parking garage.

He should put Reese on his Xmas card list.

He was just doing his job.

2seaoat



He's lucky he's not punching tickets in a parking garage.

He should put Reese on his Xmas card list.


Listen paddlefoot, are you sure you were not watching your grandson hit that double........parking garages are automated.........maybe back in the day when you drove your model T into a parking garage there was a fella who took your ticket, right after you stopped at the local Sinclair station, and the guy with the green overhauls and crisp white hat filled you up with 21 cents gas and did your windows........are you still going down with Dreams, or are you going to engage your brain and admit that an officer during an investigatory stop has the full authority to command passengers to remain in the vehicle........or do you like going down with Dreams................its a long way down........

Sal

Sal

Nekochan wrote:

He was just doing his job.

True.

He is a Georgia state trooper.

And, every Georgia state trooper's first order of business is to be a prick.

He did his job.

Unfortunately, he did it to the wrong class of citizen.

He's lucky it was bad publicity to make him a bad candidate for Cobb County dog catcher.

Sal

Sal

2seaoat wrote:

Listen paddlefoot, are you sure you were not watching your grandson hit that double........parking garages are automated.........maybe back in the day when you drove your model T into a parking garage there was a fella who took your ticket, right after you stopped at the local Sinclair station, and the guy with the green overhauls and crisp white hat filled you up with 21 cents gas and did your windows........are you still going down with Dreams, or are you going to engage your brain and admit that an officer during an investigatory stop has the full authority to command passengers to remain in the vehicle........or do you like going down with Dreams................its a long way down........

lol

Mr. Oats thinks he has the stuff to be a Georgia state trooper.

But, he's too old and soft.

I just paid a parking attendant at John's Pass last week.

And, if you can't acknowledge our two-tiered justice system, you're not qualified to do his job.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Sal wrote:
Nekochan wrote:

He was just doing his job.

True.

He is a Georgia state trooper.

And, every Georgia state trooper's first order of business is to be a prick.

He did his job.

Unfortunately, he did it to the wrong class of citizen.

He's lucky it was bad publicity to make him a bad candidate for Cobb County dog catcher.
In what case has any LEO ever lost his/her job for making a legal arrest of a celebrity?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 5 of 7]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Reese goes nuts on dash cam.....

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum