Reese goes nuts on dash cam.....

Nekochan wrote:

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?

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

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?

lol

I think I'll just let that turd sit in the sun and petrify.

2seaoat wrote:Sal,

Please read the list......then tell me what pricks these people are....

http://www.odmp.org/agency/1422-georgia-state-patrol-georgia

My best man's father was a policeman who walked into a robbery and was killed with a shotgun blast.......this was in the late fifties.....his brother was one, he was four.......his family lived in poverty as the pension was nothing. You can make all the fun you want to...... but everyday an officer goes out there to keep you and your family safe they take risks.....yes, there are pricks.....yes they overreact at times.....yes they abuse the constitution at times, but this officer was dead cinch correct. He followed the law. The Defendant was ill informed as you and Dreams, and got out of the car after being commanded to remain. She admitted she was wrong. Her attorney was top notched and knew the court cases which allow the officer to command a passenger to remain in the vehicle, yet you and Dreams think the officer is a prick, and that the attorney was stupid. You are beginning to lose my respect if you continue to defend Dreams absurd ignorance.

2seaoat wrote: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........

Nekochan wrote:The cop told her numerous times to get back into the car. After she got out of the car several times, he told her he would arrest her the next time she got out of the car. Even after that, he gave her a chance to get back into the car when she got out of the car again.

How was he over zealous? I mean, really? What should he have done differently? Maybe if you were in his position and faced the same dangers that he faces every time he stops someone, you'd have a little different outlook about it?

Nekochan wrote:The cop told her numerous times to get back into the car. After she got out of the car several times, he told her he would arrest her the next time she got out of the car. Even after that, he gave her a chance to get back into the car when she got out of the car again.

How was he over zealous? I mean, really? What should he have done differently? Maybe if you were in his position and faced the same dangers that he faces every time he stops someone, you'd have a little different outlook about it?

Dreamsglore wrote:

Nekochan wrote:The cop told her numerous times to get back into the car. After she got out of the car several times, he told her he would arrest her the next time she got out of the car. Even after that, he gave her a chance to get back into the car when she got out of the car again.

How was he over zealous? I mean, really? What should he have done differently? Maybe if you were in his position and faced the same dangers that he faces every time he stops someone, you'd have a little different outlook about it?

It's a silly argument,Neko. They usually make you get out. The command was not based on safety and that is the issue.

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:The cop told her numerous times to get back into the car. After she got out of the car several times, he told her he would arrest her the next time she got out of the car. Even after that, he gave her a chance to get back into the car when she got out of the car again.

How was he over zealous? I mean, really? What should he have done differently? Maybe if you were in his position and faced the same dangers that he faces every time he stops someone, you'd have a little different outlook about it?

I'm married.

I'm used to dealing with disagreeable, uncooperative, belligerent women.

Dreamsglore wrote:This is the thing. If the officer wants to assert a safety issue, he should have had her get out of the car and put her hands on the vehicle within his view when he conducted his investigation. He could have done this. He was alone and took the chance they could have had a gun and putting her back in the vehicle increased his chances of getting shot. He did not because it wasn't a safety issue. He did not want to hear her arguing. This is my argument about the obstruction charge.

2seaoat wrote:Good morning......now waiting three days for Dreams to post her cases after she said the following:

Yeah, he overreacted and may get sued for false arrest

She pled guilty which was dumb. The situation didn't rise to a criminal charge. The officer was ineffective in handling intoxicated people.

Did you just make that up? The safety zone of the officer? No such thing. There was no physical obstruction at all or any law or safety zone for arguing. Pure bullshit.

Oh really, Seaoat? I have no experience or understanding? Just goes to show what you know.Squat! I've talked many times about being a police officer

There are no safety zones and other shit like that taught in the police academy.

The officer had the ability to ignore her questions or tell her he didn't have to answer them but to escalate it to physical obstruction was an abuse. You have far too many erroneous beliefs,Seaoat.

Unless she was physically obstructing the situation she had a right to be where ever she wanted to be. Just because an officer tell you to sit in the car and you don't doesn't qualify as a criminal offense.

So? She was stupid. There was already a supreme court ruling on police commands..... So stuff it w/ your police commands.

I could cite supremes cases but I want you to keep putting your foot in your mouth,Seaoat.



I have waited long enough so I will help our legally blonde Dreams......In Wilson the Supreme Court said:

the Supreme Court decided Maryland v. Wilson, they cited Summers and stated that “the risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation

The Court asserted: “It is also reasonable for passengers to expect that a police officer at the scene of a crime, arrest, or investigation will not let people move around in ways that could jeopardize his safety. In Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997), we held that during a lawful traffic stop an officer may order a passenger out of the car as a precautionary measure, without reasonable suspicion that the passenger poses a safety risk. Id., at 414-415; cf. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (per curiam) (driver may be ordered out of the car as a matter of course). In fashioning this rule, we invoked our earlier statement that "'[t]he risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation.'" Wilson, supra, at 414 (quoting Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 702-703 (1981)). What we have said in these opinions probably reflects a societal expectation of "'unquestioned [police] command'" at odds with any notion that a passenger would feel free to leave, or to terminate the personal encounter any other way, without advance permission.”

So Neko......you do not have to wait for a link or a Supreme Court case from Dreams.....as you can see by what I have posted.....She simply does not know what she speaks, and in fact the Supreme Court has crafted an exception to the 4th amendment which allows a police officer to COMMAND an investigatory stop, and when somebody hinders an arrest by not following the command to remain in the vehicle, they will be charged with obstruction and the courts will back the officer