Reese goes nuts on dash cam.....

knothead wrote: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.

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

If this is not the definition of subservience I don't know what is . . .

Simple courtesy.

They have one of the toughest jobs in the world. Several get killed every year making a simple traffic stop or going on a domestic violence call. What purpose is served by my being a pain in the arse for no reason?

Your comment does reveal much more about yourself.

OOPS they didn't make the cut....

America’s 10 Most Dangerous Jobs

1. Fisherman: Fatality rate: 200 per 100,000 – Median wages: $23,600. I was surprised to see fishermen top the list of the most dangerous professions in the US, but then I remembered watching a few episodes of Deadliest Catch. Fishermen are routinely exposed to the elements and heavy equipment, all of which can be dangerous. The recent oil spill in the gulf exposed thousands of fishermen to oil and other chemical pollutants, so we may see the effects from that in the near future. Is it worth it? Some Alaskan fishermen have earned up to $100,000 for only a couple days work. But as you can see, most fishermen only scrape by, earning median wages of $23,600.

2. Logger: Fatality rate: 61.8 per 100,000 – Median wages: $34,440. Logging is the number two most dangerous job on the list, but a quick look at the numbers shows over 3 times as many fishermen die from work related injuries than the number two item on the list. Loggers work with heavy equipment and often in remote locations; the location and lack of full medical facilities often increasing the risk of injury related deaths.

3. Airline Pilots: Fatality rate: 57.1 per 100,000 – Median wages: $106,240. This statistic might be a little misleading as there aren’t many commercial airline crashes in the US in any given year. Most pilot deaths come from small one and two engine aircraft. The salary might be slightly misleading as well – it seems to be skewed toward higher paid commercial airline pilots, who generally have a safer job than other pilots. Still, piloting is a dangerous profession, even with new technology and arguably the safest aircraft and procedures in the history of man.

4. Farmers and ranchers: Fatality rate: 35.8 per 100,000 – Median wages: $32,350. Farmers are exposed to the elements, heavy machinery, large animals, and many other dangerous activities. Many farmers also work under pressure. For example, growing crops takes all season, but harvesting usually needs to be completed as quickly as possible because the machinery often needs to be used at other locations.

5. Roofers: Fatality rate: 34.7 per 100,000 – Median wages: $33,970. Roofing is a difficult and dangerous profession with injuries related to falls, tools and equipment, hot tar, exposure to the elements and more.

6. Ironworkers: Fatality rate: 30.3 per 100,000 – Median wages: $44,500. Have you ever seen a skyscraper being built? It’s amazing to watch those guys walking across a couple inch piece of steel several hundred feet above the street. It’s also incredibly dangerous. Safety measures and regulations have come a long way in the last few decades, but this is still one of the most dangerous professions.

7. Sanitation Worker: Fatality rate: 25.2 per 100,000 – Median wages: $32,070. Large equipment, and exposure to chemicals and the elements make this a more dangerous profession than many would assume.

8. Industrial machinist: Fatality rate: 18.5 per 100,000 – Median wages: $39,600. Accidents with heavy machinery are the most common cause of death for this career field.

9. Truckers and drivers/sales delivery workers: Fatality rate: 18.3 per 100,000 – Median wages: $37,730. Truck drivers don’t lead the list the list in terms of deaths per 100,000 workers, but they actually lead the list when it comes to total numbers of deaths because there are more truckers and deliverymen than the other professions. Accidents and weather are the main causes of death on the job.

10. Construction laborer: Fatality rate: 18.3 per 100,000 – Median wages: $29,150. Heavy machinery and accidents with construction equipment lead the way.

2seaoat wrote:In the video, Trooper First Class J. Pyland tells Witherspoon to stay in the couple's vehicle no fewer than five times.

"When a police officer tells you to stay in the car, you stay in the car," she said. "I learned that for sure. I learned a lot."

She pleaded guilty........legally blonde

So? She was stupid. There was already a supreme court ruling on police commands. A teenager refused to get out of the street when directed by an officer.He was arrested and the appeals court confirmed it and the supreme's overturned it saying he was in a public place and even it was a safety hazard he had a right to be there. So stuff it w/ your police commands.

This is going to be fun. Ok Ms legally blonde. Please post your case. Please show me your case which says that an officer who gives repeated instructions for somebody to stay in a car cannot make an arrest when a person leaves that car while they are attempting to investigate or arrest another person.

If you even know what a citation is.....please give the same. Oh, and in regard to ......."so....she is stupid." Do you really think she made this decision without consulting a lawyer. Gee Dreams.......what do you think that lawyer advised her? I heard this really incoherent person who posts on a forum in Pensacola says that police while making an arrest cannot make a person stay in their car.....its the rage of the internet.....she once sold legal forums, and she was once a security guard at a Kmart, so you know she knows the law.....she is blonde too.....and I played this role where I was legally blonde.....well she says police cannot arrest a person because a person disobeys a verbal command to stay in a car.........what should I do......you say she does not have a clue what she is talking about......you say she is clueless.......you say she looks things up on google and pieces the parts together.....and the result is not coherent......ok......I will plead guilty.

Will you:
a. Change the subject and argue something else.
b. Try to say you were arguing a different fact pattern
c. Simply shut down and not respond.
d. Call Seaoat names because once again he had the audacity to.............

Here is the Georgia law which Reese was charged and entered a no contest plea and was fined $100:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, a person who knowingly and willfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Dreams has argued that the Supreme Court says that citizens do not have to obey an officers directions. She is going to post the cite to show that Reese Witherspoon was.....to use her words......STUPID...........

Resse played a role in a movie called Legally Blonde.......we are now blessed to have presented daily on these forums entertainment value unmatched in the theaters.....and it is for free.

What is about to follow is normally going to be rated PG, but Dreams may elevate this to an R rating as she uses profane language after she removes her head from her asz.

I have a Sunday afternoon poker tournament......I will be back this evening to learn about being legally blonde......at least I will be smiling....win or lose this afternoon, knowing a new legal standard has been established.....right here on this forum.......it is likely that Justice Roberts will be using this forum for authority in future cases......and to think I knew her when she was legally blonde.........

2seaoat wrote:Here is the Georgia law which Reese was charged and entered a no contest plea and was fined $100:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, a person who knowingly and willfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Dreams has argued that the Supreme Court says that citizens do not have to obey an officers directions. She is going to post the cite to show that Reese Witherspoon was.....to use her words......STUPID...........

Resse played a role in a movie called Legally Blonde.......we are now blessed to have presented daily on these forums entertainment value unmatched in the theaters.....and it is for free.

What is about to follow is normally going to be rated PG, but Dreams may elevate this to an R rating as she uses profane language after she removes her head from her asz.

No,that is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing what constitutes obstruction and what is a lawful command. You're not comprehending.Just because police give a command doesn't mean it's a lawful command and they have the right to enforce it. Most of the laws that police enforce as lawful commands have to do w/ traffic safety not any command they deem. You seem to think any command police make is a lawful command and you must obey.Not accurate and misleading. Your snide and contemptuous comments don't enhance your case.

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681596/are-you-an-american-citizen-defying-the-border-patrol-in-viral-videos#1

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

This is not the same situation discussed here regarding Reese Witherspoon but it is about American citizens having the right to not comply with Federal authorities (done correctly). May I see your papers please Fraulein?

It does shed some light on the fact that authorities do over reach on their power over citizens but an informed citizen can 'just say no'!

knothead wrote:http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681596/are-you-an-american-citizen-defying-the-border-patrol-in-viral-videos#1

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

This is not the same situation discussed here regarding Reese Witherspoon but it is about American citizens having the right to not comply with Federal authorities (done correctly). May I see your papers please Fraulein?

It does shed some light on the fact that authorities do over reach on their power over citizens but an informed citizen can 'just say no'!

I was just reading about that yesterday where a guy was crossing back into the US from China and was asked what his business was there? He said "none of your business". He was held and questioned and refused to answer other than his name and address. They finally let him go because he had the right to refuse to answer those questions.

No,that is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing what constitutes obstruction and what is a lawful command. You're not comprehending.Just because police give a command doesn't mean it's a lawful command and they have the right to enforce it. Most of the laws that police enforce as lawful commands have to do w/ traffic safety not any command they deem. You seem to think any command police make is a lawful command and you must obey.Not accurate and misleading. Your snide and contemptuous comments don't enhance your case.



Here we go again......legally blonde......You state without qualification that Reese was stupid for pleading guilty. Now you change the subject. You are arguing what constitutes obstruction and what is a lawful command......you are a piece of work. So, tell me again why was Reese stupid in light of how she was charged? You come off the rails more than a ride at space mountain.....you have the space part down, but really, are you still insisting that after being asked five times not to leave the vehicle that the Supreme Court will find Reese innocent, and she is stupid for entering the plea.

If you have not guessed......I got my butt kicked in poker.....two and a half hours and never played a hand until I was finally dealt an ace queen of clubs and with as little as I had left went all in......person had two pair.......see ya Seaoat........so Dreams where are those promised cites from the Supreme Court showing why Reese was stupid pleading guilty for disobeying an officer command at an arrest site.

The "legally blondes" are making you look like a chump.


Great a surrogate. Tell me how that great lawyer was going to beat the charge where I have given you what she was charged with........are you going to cite the Supreme Court case in her stead.......or will we just exchange air.....mostly hot. You say she would have won with a good lawyer, on what basis?

2seaoat wrote:The "legally blondes" are making you look like a chump.


Great a surrogate. Tell me how that great lawyer was going to beat the charge where I have given you what she was charged with........are you going to cite the Supreme Court case in her stead.......or will we just exchange air.....mostly hot. You say she would have won with a good lawyer, on what basis?

There was no physical obstruction, Perry Mason. Your interpretation of the law is wrong. The video proves it.

There was no physical obstruction, Perry Mason. Your interpretation of the law is wrong. The video proves it.

Please show me the source of your presumption that she was charged with physical obstruction? I have given you the statute which she pled guilty.....please show me why you have decided once again to go off into the hills with some snipe hunt concerning physical obstruction when that is not what she was charged with, nor was it what she pled guilty. I wonder if I could dye my hair and become a blonde? I might post that with a good lawyer she could have beat the fornication charge.........relevance.......focus Dreams.

Obstructs and hinders.......key language used all over the country. Not a word about the Dreams corollary that when charging a person with obstruction......that person must physically obstruct or the charges will be dismissed on motion as a matter of law........I love this place......what utter idiocy. Perry Mason was a TV show in the fifties.....it was bogus....but Ironsides......now that rocked.

2seaoat wrote:There was no physical obstruction, Perry Mason. Your interpretation of the law is wrong. The video proves it.

Please show me the source of your presumption that she was charged with physical obstruction? I have given you the statute which she pled guilty.....please show me why you have decided once again to go off into the hills with some snipe hunt concerning physical obstruction when that is not what she was charged with, nor was it what she pled guilty. I wonder if I could dye my hair and become a blonde? I might post that with a good lawyer she could have beat the fornication charge.........relevance.......focus Dreams.

"3. Although the preservation of liberty depends in part upon the maintenance of social order, the First Amendment requires that officers and municipalities respond with restraint in the face of verbal challenges to police action, since a certain amount of expressive disorder is inevitable in a society committed to individual freedom and must be protected if that freedom would survive. Pp. 471—472."

789 F.2d 1103, affirmed.

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. ----. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. ----. POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which O'CONNOR, J., joined, in Parts I and II of which REHNQUIST, C.J., joined, and in Parts II and III of which SCALIA, J., joined, post, p. ----. REHNQUIST, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. ----.

Robert J. Collins, Houston, Tex., for appellant.

Charles Alan Wright, Austin, Tex., for appellee.

Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

I used to call you a fool.......ignorance which is the realm of foolishness can be corrected, but giving a 20 year old Supreme Court case which has been cut and pasted and you are not even capable of understanding that this case is not about the obstruction charge at hand.......that is idiocy.

Number 1........there is no need to have one iota of physical obstruction for the charges to stick.....so I will now take the time to dissect your post, and one has to wonder......am I a bigger fool extending the courtesy of a conversation with such an obvious void of knowledge. I will break it down in five minutes.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1912777,00.html


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

2seaoat wrote:I used to call you a fool.......ignorance which is the realm of foolishness can be corrected, but giving a 20 year old Supreme Court case which has been cut and pasted and you are not even capable of understanding that this case is not about the obstruction charge at hand.......that is idiocy.

Number 1........there is no need to have one iota of physical obstruction for the charges to stick.....so I will now take the time to dissect your post, and one has to wonder......am I a bigger fool extending the courtesy of a conversation with such an obvious void of knowledge. I will break it down in five minutes.

It's the same thing, you idiot. I don't need you to dissect my post. If you can't comprehend what the Justice said then you are much stupider than I imagined. You want me to post more?

Geez,

What idiocy. I actually looked the damn case up. First, the Houston ordinance was found to be overbroad by the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case you cite has absolutely no relevance to this case. None.....zero. This is a standard for a person who was standing in a crowd of thirty or forty people who yelled why are you picking on the little guy. The police officer then interacts with him verbally, and he repeats why are you picking on the little guy.......well he charged the person who yelled under that very specific Houston Municipal Ordinance. The lower court found him guilty. The Defendant filed an appeal which sought to have the Municipal Ordinance found unconstitutional.......the Appeals court and the Supreme Court found the ordinance overbroad and found it unconstitutional.

In all fifty states the obstruction statues have stood for a hundred years. They have not been thrown out, and the Georgia statue which I cut and pasted is about the same as all others. Your cite has no relevance and it is one more snipe hunt by you. When an officer gives an instruction for a person to stay in a car, and does that five times while he is attempting to execute an arrest.......and the person comes out of the car and hinders the arrest........there is no court in this nation which will find that person innocent. It has nothing to do with her words.......it has everything to do with the officer not losing control of his subject, or having to worry about that person hindering his arrest.

Please try again using state Obstruction law where an officer has asked a person to get back into a vehicle, and having been repeatedly warned disobeys an officers instruction while he is making an arrest. I actually wasted five minutes of my life responding to this idiocy.

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



HeeeeeeHeeeeeee legally blonde again.....you cite a disorderly conduct charge.........can you read......she was charged with obstruction, she pled guilty to obstruction, and she was found guilty and fined.

What in the hell does disorderly conduct have to do with Reese? Fricking idiocy.......hey there is a snipe over there seaoat.....its called disorderly conduct.......she was NOT charged with disorderly conduct.....why would you provide a link for the same......I thought you could at least distinguish the charge.....but please post one Supreme Court case which deals with an obstruction charge.....please I have been waiting all day, and you have failed to post one Supreme Court Case concerning the same......I know.....Reese was stupid for pleading guilty..........and what did she plead guilty to Dreams.......Obstruction......help me now.....give me that cite.........or let just spend the entire evening legally blonde.

2seaoat wrote:Geez,

What idiocy. I actually looked the damn case up. First, the Houston ordinance was found to be overbroad by the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case you cite has absolutely no relevance to this case. None.....zero. This is a standard for a person who was standing in a crowd of thirty or forty people who yelled why are you picking on the little guy. The police officer then interacts with him verbally, and he repeats why are you picking on the little guy.......well he charged the person who yelled under that very specific Houston Municipal Ordinance. The lower court found him guilty. The Defendant filed an appeal which sought to have the Municipal Ordinance found unconstitutional.......the Appeals court and the Supreme Court found the ordinance overbroad and found it unconstitutional.

In all fifty states the obstruction statues have stood for a hundred years. They have not been thrown out, and the Georgia statue which I cut and pasted is about the same as all others. Your cite has no relevance and it is one more snipe hunt by you. When an officer gives an instruction for a person to stay in a car, and does that five times while he is attempting to execute an arrest.......and the person comes out of the car and hinders the arrest........there is no court in this nation which will find that person innocent. It has nothing to do with her words.......it has everything to do with the officer not losing control of his subject, or having to worry about that person hindering his arrest.

Please try again using state Obstruction law where an officer has asked a person to get back into a vehicle, and having been repeatedly warned disobeys an officers instruction while he is making an arrest. I actually wasted five minutes of my life responding to this idiocy.

You found no relevance to this case? Really? It's a good thing you never went to law school then. It has everything to do w/it. She questioned the officer. The guy in that case questioned the officer.Both were arrested. See spot run,Seaoat? You are now making up explanations.LOL!

2seaoat wrote:I could cite supremes cases but I want you to keep putting your foot in your mouth,Seaoat.



HeeeeeeHeeeeeee legally blonde again.....you cite a disorderly conduct charge.........can you read......she was charged with obstruction, she pled guilty to obstruction, and she was found guilty and fined.

What in the hell does disorderly conduct have to do with Reese? Fricking idiocy.......hey there is a snipe over there seaoat.....its called disorderly conduct.......she was NOT charged with disorderly conduct.....why would you provide a link for the same......I thought you could at least distinguish the charge.....but please post one Supreme Court case which deals with an obstruction charge.....please I have been waiting all day, and you have failed to post one Supreme Court Case concerning the same......I know.....Reese was stupid for pleading guilty..........and what did she plead guilty to Dreams.......Obstruction......help me now.....give me that cite.........or let just spend the entire evening legally blonde.

So you believe asking questions is an obstruction of justice? Correct me if the charge was not physically obstructing justice? Wasn't that what she was charged with? Or was it failing to obey a police command? LOL! Or was it just arguing? That's a criminal offense,correct?

She questioned the officer. The guy in that case questioned the officer.Both were arrested. See spot run,Seaoat? You are now making up explanations.LOL!


Well at least I have you admitting that you do not even comprehend what the States prima facia case is to prove obstruction. Guess what Dreams.......it has nothing to do with what Reese said. Nothing. To meet their burden the officer would have to enter into evidence that he instructed her not to leave the car. In this case he did this five times. Second, he would have to establish that he was in the process of an arrest. That he left the subject and did not get compliance from the defendant, and placed her under arrest. Nothing she said would make his prima facia case.....nothing.....but when you are legally blonde......you simply do not understand the prosecutors burden, the law, or in this case the facts.