Reese goes nuts on dash cam.....

Markle wrote:This has to be one of the goofiest threads ever. About 140 posts more than necessary.

Supposedly sane people advocating AGAINST common courtesy when stopped by any law enforcement officer.

These are the same idiots who vote and worst of all, raise children. Little question why so many kids are bullies and snot nosed losers.

Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves and re-evaluate your character and personal self respect.

In other words, grow up!

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

What...??? No graphs and charts...??

Go play with an "unloaded toy" gun.

Markle wrote:This has to be one of the goofiest threads ever. About 140 posts more than necessary.

Supposedly sane people advocating AGAINST common courtesy when stopped by any law enforcement officer.

These are the same idiots who vote and worst of all, raise children. Little question why so many kids are bullies and snot nosed losers.

Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves and re-evaluate your character and personal self respect.

In other words, grow up!

Let's talk about character, Markle. Yours could use an "extreme makeover" like in as you have none. The ridiculous shit you post should be in the "The Human Being Horrors " museum.

Guess you got really pissed off about the "God's will" stuff.

Not at all. People have the right to believe or not believe. Never a problem with me.......I have more questions than you do. However, this is the essence of why I have been persistent:

Read this carefully,speech doesn't rise to the level of obstruction. Over and out...and done. Laughing

You lack even cursory understanding of first amendment issues and the charge which she entered a guilty plea......it was obstruction. She failed five times to follow a command.....you can read the Supreme Court and there is no gray area on an investigatory stop with probable cause where an officer commands passengers. If they fail to follow a command to stay in a vehicle during that stop, they will be found guilty where an officer gave a clear command to remain in the vehicle. Here the officer tried five times. Speech has nothing to do with it......nothing. Yet, you do not read the cases, you fail to understand the central issue, and then in typical style you change the subject to something which is not represented in the fact pattern. If you made this mistake once, I would as I always do give folks the benefit of the doubt, but you intentionally do this......It is intellectual fraud........it is pretending to understand something, and when caught with your hand in the wanabee jar.....you try to change the subject. An honest discussion would have resulted in you recognizing that your conclusions were not correct, just like they were not correct in the Sheriff Joe thread. You simply admitted you did not know the trial was over.......did that hurt to admit a mistake. Yet, you persist telling a tall tale that she and her attorney were stupid.......that kind of idiocy gets people hurt.

2seaoat wrote:Guess you got really pissed off about the "God's will" stuff.

Not at all. People have the right to believe or not believe. Never a problem with me.......I have more questions than you do. However, this is the essence of why I have been persistent:

Read this carefully,speech doesn't rise to the level of obstruction. Over and out...and done. Laughing

You lack even cursory understanding of first amendment issues and the charge which she entered a guilty plea......it was obstruction. She failed five times to follow a command.....you can read the Supreme Court and there is no gray area on an investigatory stop with probable cause where an officer commands passengers. If they fail to follow a command to stay in a vehicle during that stop, they will be found guilty where an officer gave a clear command to remain in the vehicle. Here the officer tried five times. Speech has nothing to do with it......nothing. Yet, you do not read the cases, you fail to understand the central issue, and then in typical style you change the subject to something which is not represented in the fact pattern. If you made this mistake once, I would as I always do give folks the benefit of the doubt, but you intentionally do this......It is intellectual fraud........it is pretending to understand something, and when caught with your hand in the wanabee jar.....you try to change the subject. An honest discussion would have resulted in you recognizing that your conclusions were not correct, just like they were not correct in the Sheriff Joe thread. You simply admitted you did not know the trial was over.......did that hurt to admit a mistake. Yet, you persist telling a tall tale that she and her attorney were stupid.......that kind of idiocy gets people hurt.

I didn't know the trial was over and haven't followed it so the day you think you know what I know is the day... I'll call you a smart man. It is my opinion her an her atty. was stupid for pleading to an obstruction. She would have had her case dismissed. You don't like that,Seaoat? Tuff shit! LOL!

the day you think you know what I know is the day... I'll call you a smart man.

I need to correct you. The day I think I know what you know is not a day you should call me a smart man............an ignorant man.........dead cinch correct, but never would I be a smart man.

She would have had her case dismissed. Put a percentage on that probability.......just for grins and giggles.....just how ignorant are you. 1% or 100% certain that it would be dismissed?

Holy Shit....enough already. Reese is stoopid, SO is an arrogant know-it-all, and Dreams is dug in like a hair in a biscuit.

I formed that opinion by not giving a shit and reading this thread.




This just in:

Selena caught smoking pot and snorting coke off of Biebie's pee-pee.

Henery Hawk wrote:Holy Shit....enough already. Reese is stoopid, SO is an arrogant know-it-all, and Dreams is dug in like a hair in a biscuit.

I formed that opinion by not giving a shit and reading this thread.




This just in:

Selena caught smoking pot and snorting coke off of Biebie's pee-pee.

I know, right? I'm through w/ this thread and Seaoat's assholeness.People's true selves come out eventually.

SO is an arrogant know-it-all

You got my number.......but somebody has to correct stupid on this thread.....I make no apologies, and simply let the Supreme Court cases tell the whole story, and have fun letting her repeat stupid......like I said.......its like burning ants on a sunny day. I actually look forward to the day when somebody corrects me and I have to admit I am wrong........that is when some of us learn.

2seaoat wrote:SO is an arrogant know-it-all

You got my number.......but somebody has to correct stupid on this thread.....I make no apologies, and simply let the Supreme Court cases tell the whole story, and have fun letting her repeat stupid......like I said.......its like burning ants on a sunny day. I actually look forward to the day when somebody corrects me and I have to admit I am wrong........that is when some of us learn.

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

No need to apologize for being a dick. It took you almost a fucking year to eat your words about Bama.

Happy Mother's day bitch.

No need to apologize for being a dick. It took you almost a fucking year to eat your words about Bama.

Happy Mother's day bitch.


You gotta admit I manned up when I was wrong. I respect passion, I have no use for stupid. Even my love for Auburn could not cloud my judgment.....Alabama played good football, and Georgia was not the best.

All Dreams ever has to do is read the cases.......gee, your right.....the lawyer was right.....Reese was right......when an officer commands you to remain in the car, and does it repeatedly, and you repeatedly disobey that command....you will be charged with obstruction and you will be found guilty. It has nothing to do with speech.

2seaoat wrote:No need to apologize for being a dick. It took you almost a fucking year to eat your words about Bama.

Happy Mother's day bitch.


You gotta admit I manned up when I was wrong. I respect passion, I have no use for stupid. Even my love for Auburn could not cloud my judgment.....Alabama played good football, and Georgia was not the best.

All Dreams ever has to do is read the cases.......gee, your right.....the lawyer was right.....Reese was right......when an officer commands you to remain in the car, and does it repeatedly, and you repeatedly disobey that command....you will be charged with obstruction and you will be found guilty. It has nothing to do with speech.

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

Apology accepted.

2seaoat wrote:No need to apologize for being a dick. It took you almost a fucking year to eat your words about Bama.

Happy Mother's day bitch.


You gotta admit I manned up when I was wrong. I respect passion, I have no use for stupid. Even my love for Auburn could not cloud my judgment.....Alabama played good football, and Georgia was not the best.

All Dreams ever has to do is read the cases.......gee, your right.....the lawyer was right.....Reese was right......when an officer commands you to remain in the car, and does it repeatedly, and you repeatedly disobey that command....you will be charged with obstruction and you will be found guilty. It has nothing to do with speech.

You take it up w/ Justice Brennen then. He says you're full of shit.LOL!

Dreamsglore wrote:Well, now we're going into territory you have no knowledge of at all. LOL! Torture me? You would have to assume your opinions have significance to me.They do not. You can post all the cases you want to support your stance but the facts are as I said before it is a very arbitrary law w/ broad interpretations that have failed when challenged in most cases. It doesn't rise to the level of obstruction.That's my opinion and one that's been upheld. You might want to look at your own persona and the fact that you keep carrying on about a difference of opinion. I have been reserved in your case and mindful you are on medication but have no doubt you personify the traits you accuse me of. Interesting, isn't it? But you left out some important criteria that distinguishes Borderline Personality Disorder.This is a typical example of your attempts to bullshit on subjects you have little knowledge of.You undoubtedly don't like anyone challenging your knowledge and what you perceive yourself to be. Apparently, your need to feel superior has deep seated connotations that are rooted in an underlying poor self image. Typical of religious zealots and those who fear a loss of control. No doubt your upbringing in Alabama had a lot to do w/ it. It is a populace that is full of ignorance,bigotry and flawed beliefs. Have a good day, Seaoat.

But then neither do you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0Cbfm1PStA

2seaoat wrote:There are right and wrong answers. There are objective standards. When you post things which are clearly wrong, you refuse to accept those standards. This thread was not even close to a gray area. It is clear cut law. Yet, just like the thread on Sheriff Joe, you say that the jury viewing the interview is subject to a mistrial.......yet the trial is over. There are simply objective and understandable standards. When you continually confuse concepts and standards and then argue absurd connectors of your random dots, it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation because you think you understand legal concepts.........this thread attests that you are lost, and that your continuing attacks on Chrissy, Pace, and others often starts when they question you......the problem is beyond the lack of knowledge.

Does she do that? I hadn't noticed...

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrd2xf5DIlU

Dreamsglore wrote:That's what you say,Seaoat and your standards of right and wrong are based on interpretation just like the legal cases. I wasn't aware the Arias trial was over as I didn't follow it and said so. I don't put a lot of credence in what you say. Sometimes you're right and someones you're very wrong even though you try to throw out a lot of twisted bullshit and logic. You're trying very hard to insult me but it's not working.Guess you got really pissed off about the "God's will" stuff.LOL! Good. Maybe you'll realize how silly it is to say that stuff. Using PD and Chrissy as an example(the forum lunatics) knocked you way down there. Read this carefully,speech doesn't rise to the level of obstruction. Over and out...and done.

You live in a dream world. I'm smarter, prettier and funnier and more successful than you will ever be. And you just hate it. You'll never realize its YOU who's the lunatic.

*Sage* wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:That's what you say,Seaoat and your standards of right and wrong are based on interpretation just like the legal cases. I wasn't aware the Arias trial was over as I didn't follow it and said so. I don't put a lot of credence in what you say. Sometimes you're right and someones you're very wrong even though you try to throw out a lot of twisted bullshit and logic. You're trying very hard to insult me but it's not working.Guess you got really pissed off about the "God's will" stuff.LOL! Good. Maybe you'll realize how silly it is to say that stuff. Using PD and Chrissy as an example(the forum lunatics) knocked you way down there. Read this carefully,speech doesn't rise to the level of obstruction. Over and out...and done.

You live in a dream world. I'm smarter, prettier and funnier and more successful than you will ever be. And you just hate it. You'll never realize its YOU who's the lunatic.

Right. And you had to move to So.Fl. to get a job after Baptist kicked you to the curb because you were just too smart, pretty,funny and successful.Ok-everyone can see that.LOL!

Dreamsglore wrote:

*Sage* wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:That's what you say,Seaoat and your standards of right and wrong are based on interpretation just like the legal cases. I wasn't aware the Arias trial was over as I didn't follow it and said so. I don't put a lot of credence in what you say. Sometimes you're right and someones you're very wrong even though you try to throw out a lot of twisted bullshit and logic. You're trying very hard to insult me but it's not working.Guess you got really pissed off about the "God's will" stuff.LOL! Good. Maybe you'll realize how silly it is to say that stuff. Using PD and Chrissy as an example(the forum lunatics) knocked you way down there. Read this carefully,speech doesn't rise to the level of obstruction. Over and out...and done.

You live in a dream world. I'm smarter, prettier and funnier and more successful than you will ever be. And you just hate it. You'll never realize its YOU who's the lunatic.

Right. And you had to move to So.Fl. to get a job after Baptist kicked you to the curb because you were just too smart, pretty,funny and successful.Ok-everyone can see that.LOL!

keep tellin that lie to yourself if it makes you feel better. Because no matter how many times you keep telling yourself that, it still wont be true.

Just like you do everything else. You lie to yourself and when faced with reality, you refuse to accept it.

Markle wrote:

knothead wrote:Well I am going to depart from the ordinary view and say that the officer was over reacting . . . . . . she was not doing more than asking what the problem was and not being disrespectful at all. The law, of course, is designed to force citizens to cower to LEO no matter what and I think this was an over reaction on the cop's part. If she became actually 'obstructive' then it would be different but the law officer holds all the cards no matter the circumstance. If a cop were cuffing my wife you better believe I would NOT remain in my vehicle . . . . maybe I would also be cuffed but there would be a problem if the cop behaved in this manner.

Appears you have a lot of first hand experience in this matter.

The law was never designed to force citizen to cower. That's just foolish. You just wait in your car, keep your hands on top of the steering wheel and do what they ask. Problem solved.

You really sound foolish making it sound like you would do something if YOUR wife was being handcuffed and you would not remain in the vehicle. Foolish, foolish, foolish.

The officers were respectful and courteous. She was told to stay in the car, LEO's do not want an incident escalate in a dangerous location. They knew the husband was intoxicated, they had no idea what condition she was in and were protecting her from danger.

She played the "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM"; she also played the "I'M Pregnant. I'm sure all original excuses.

Ms. Weatherspoon DID man up (excuse the expression) the next day. When interviewed she said they had to much to drink, it was a mistake for them to be driving and when a cop tells you to stay in the car, you STAY IN THE CAR.

Hubby might still be sleeping on the couch. She tried to defend him but once she was tucked away in the car, Hubby told the cop, I didn't have anything to do with that....

Personally I think he should sleep on the couch for a year. Or maybe out in the doghouse. What a dork....she's defending him and he throws her under a whole line of buses?

I take it back. He'd be on the porch with his suitcases.

PBulldog2 wrote:

Markle wrote:

knothead wrote:Well I am going to depart from the ordinary view and say that the officer was over reacting . . . . . . she was not doing more than asking what the problem was and not being disrespectful at all. The law, of course, is designed to force citizens to cower to LEO no matter what and I think this was an over reaction on the cop's part. If she became actually 'obstructive' then it would be different but the law officer holds all the cards no matter the circumstance. If a cop were cuffing my wife you better believe I would NOT remain in my vehicle . . . . maybe I would also be cuffed but there would be a problem if the cop behaved in this manner.

Appears you have a lot of first hand experience in this matter.

The law was never designed to force citizen to cower. That's just foolish. You just wait in your car, keep your hands on top of the steering wheel and do what they ask. Problem solved.

You really sound foolish making it sound like you would do something if YOUR wife was being handcuffed and you would not remain in the vehicle. Foolish, foolish, foolish.

The officers were respectful and courteous. She was told to stay in the car, LEO's do not want an incident escalate in a dangerous location. They knew the husband was intoxicated, they had no idea what condition she was in and were protecting her from danger.

She played the "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM"; she also played the "I'M Pregnant. I'm sure all original excuses.

Ms. Weatherspoon DID man up (excuse the expression) the next day. When interviewed she said they had to much to drink, it was a mistake for them to be driving and when a cop tells you to stay in the car, you STAY IN THE CAR.

Hubby might still be sleeping on the couch. She tried to defend him but once she was tucked away in the car, Hubby told the cop, I didn't have anything to do with that....

Personally I think he should sleep on the couch for a year. Or maybe out in the doghouse. What a dork....she's defending him and he throws her under a whole line of buses?

I take it back. He'd be on the porch with his suitcases.

*********************************************************

Well I was clearly wrong and you guys nailed me . . . . it was a foolish post as I was reacting with my heart (to protect) instead of my head.

I hate the couch btw!!! Thanks for keeping me straight!

I take it back. He'd be on the porch with his suitcases.

Her husband really did not throw her under the bus......he was simply making it clear that he had nothing to do with her criminal behavior and that he had not hindered the officer by contributing to her conduct. I would say the exact same thing if my wife behaved like Reese did, and my wife would say the exact same thing about me, if I had behaved like she did. A good marriage means you tell the truth, and when the officer repeatedly asked her to stay in the vehicle........I would be angry that my wife was only contributing to the problem........now would I make my wife sleep on the couch? Nope......that would probably make her happy.

You exaggerate,Seaoat. Reese didn't really act bad. She questioned the cop and was indignant when he reacted like that.. She didn't cuss or call him names. The husband was was wuss and trying to save himself. The fact that you would be a wuss doesn't surprise me. The job has expectations to have verbal abuse.

The job has expectations to have verbal abuse.


It has nothing to do with verbal abuse. It has everything to do with officer safety during and investigatory stop. The commands must be followed not because the officer does not like what the passenger is saying, rather the commands must be followed during the investigatory stop so he or she is not exposed to danger. There is zero danger from reese witherspoons mouth..................

I think we've all seen police videos where, during a routine stop, a drunk female (or male) passenger or driver jumps on the cop when he's conducting his routine traffic stop and asking for driver's license, insurance, etc. Like Seaoat says, it was not her speech which was potentially dangerous, it was her physical action and her physical motion of continuing to get out of the car when she was told to stay put. EVERY traffic stop is potentially dangerous for an officer and can suddenly become out of control.