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 4 of 7]

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:Seaoat is right on this.

Witherspoon has the means to get legal advice from the highest paid lawyers in the USA. I doubt that she has gone without legal advice from someone who knows the law very well....and she, without a doubt, knows that she screwed up.

Actually, you don't know what her reasons were.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Seaoat is right on this.

Witherspoon has the means to get legal advice from the highest paid lawyers in the USA. I doubt that she has gone without legal advice from someone who knows the law very well....and she, without a doubt, knows that she screwed up.

Actually, you don't know what her reasons were.

I can only guess what her reasons were for making a public statement/appearance. I would guess that she knew the police video would be broadcast for everyone to see what an idiot she was that night.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:I am glad that Reese actually went to an attorney who advised her of the law, and did not listen to legally blonde Dreams and her sidekick paddlefoot, but Dreams and Sal think that Reese was "STUPID", and the more I think about it......maybe Dreams can call Reese and offer her services in a malpractice suit against her attorney.......just terrible that he pled her out on the obstruction and got pretrial diversion......utter stupidity......yep.....I love this place. I can just see Dreams getting out of the car in this situation......do you know who I am......well you are going to find out who I am........I am the legal blonde on the Pensacola Discussion Forum, and that is my lap dog paddlefoot......we don't have to comply with no stinking officer's command.....you simply do not know who I am........legally blonde.

Actually, you don't have to comply unless it is a safety issue. As I have said before and I don't have time right now to argue or post cases now as I'm at work but the police command law has been greatly abused and overturned in most cases where no great risk to safety has been met. Seaoat is simply among the great majority of sheep that goes along w/ common beliefs.

Sal

Sal

Nekochan wrote:

I can only guess what her reasons were for making a public statement/appearance. I would guess that she knew the police video would be broadcast for everyone to see what an idiot she was that night.

Damn straight, she knew that video was coming out.

And, her publicist/agent/husband/whatever told her to plead no contest and go yuck it up with Matt Lauer, so whe could get back to being America's sweetheart.

By not fighting the charge, she instantly turned bad publicity into good publicity.

Smart move.

Make no doubt about it, however.

If she had fought the charge, she would have won.

She can afford the best counsel money can buy, and this is America, dammit.

We let our celebrities get away with premeditated murder half the time.

Nekochan

Nekochan

The best legal counsel that money can buy advised her to work out a deal with the prosecutor.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/21/showbiz/reese-witherspoon-arrested/index.html

Sal

Sal

Nekochan wrote:The best legal counsel that money can buy advised her to work out a deal with the prosecutor.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/21/showbiz/reese-witherspoon-arrested/index.html

Sho.

They went to their counsel and said this whole thing needs to go away toot sweet.

And, the counsel made it so.

Smart move.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Absolutely, Sal. She's smarter sober than she is drunk!

There are lawyers who make a lot of money handling celebrities like Witherspoon. But the arresting officer was just doing his job.

2seaoat



If she had fought the charge, she would have won.

Clueless.

If the Japanese had a big catcher's mitt they could have caught both atomic bombs.

Sal

Sal

2seaoat wrote:If she had fought the charge, she would have won.

Clueless.

If the Japanese had a big catcher's mitt they could have caught both atomic bombs.

Yep.

If you haven't noticed, we have a two-tiered justice system.

One for the rich and politically powerful, and one for schlubs like you.

Welcome to America.

2seaoat



Yep.

If you haven't noticed, we have a two-tiered justice system.

One for the rich and politically powerful, and one for schlubs like you.

Welcome to America.

No, actually we have expanded exceptions to the fourth amendment over the last 30 years starting with the Berger Court, and the result is that investigatory stops are an exception to the fourth amendment, and the two tiered justice system deals with those in law enforcement and those outside law enforcement.....it has nothing to do with the rich and powerful, because if that is your thesis, then Reese would have walked. She did not walk because the courts have consistently upheld for the last 30 years reasonable constraint during an investigatory period where they have probable cause and leave it within the officer's discretion to maintain that investigation.....all things a freshman in a government class would understand, but with legally blonde and you playing paddlefoot, I guess your view is that it is about schlubs...........

2seaoat



I don't have time right now to argue or post cases

I am getting giddy in anticipation of Dreams posting some more cases....its like watching my granddaughter blindfolded pin the tail on the Donkey.....and then she argues that the tail belongs on the nose.....this should be good.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Yep.

If you haven't noticed, we have a two-tiered justice system.

One for the rich and politically powerful, and one for schlubs like you.

Welcome to America.

No, actually we have expanded exceptions to the fourth amendment over the last 30 years starting with the Berger Court, and the result is that investigatory stops are an exception to the fourth amendment, and the two tiered justice system deals with those in law enforcement and those outside law enforcement.....it has nothing to do with the rich and powerful, because if that is your thesis, then Reese would have walked. She did not walk because the courts have consistently upheld for the last 30 years reasonable constraint during an investigatory period where they have probable cause and leave it within the officer's discretion to maintain that investigation.....all things a freshman in a government class would understand, but with legally blonde and you playing paddlefoot, I guess your view is that it is about schlubs...........

This is where you're wrong,Seaoat. Obstruction of Justice pertains to lying or falsifying something. The mere fact that Witherspoon approached the officer and questioned him does not rise to the level of obstruction. She was within her First Amendment rights and only after she was handcuffed did she say all the other things. The case would have been thrown out had she decided to fight it. Mere annoyance by the officer does not rise to the level of obstruction. Threats, intimidation or violence applies to obstruction other than lying. There was no safety issues.

2seaoat



Dreams.....do you really want to keep doing this.......Obstruction deals with the basic concept of a person hindering an officer performing his official duty, and where in the sole discretion of the officer he feels that he may lose control of the investigation and stop, which may involve contraband, time away from an analysis of the field sobriety test, safety to the officer where he has to take time to deal with the person who is not following his verbal command to stay in the vehicle, and more importantly the possibility that the suspect may ditch evidence while dealing with the drunk who cannot follow a standard command at an investigatory stop.......it has nothing.....and I repeat nothing to do with words, rather actions....the first amendment does not protect you from actions......you simply are confused beyond rehabilitation, but it funny now how you are talking about safety......hmmmmmm maybe you are reading some of the cases.....and that absurd concept of the zone of safety I introduced you to earlier where you laughed at me......keep reading.....in a couple months you may be able to comprehend this subject matter.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Dreams.....do you really want to keep doing this.......Obstruction deals with the basic concept of a person hindering an officer performing his official duty, and where in the sole discretion of the officer he feels that he may lose control of the investigation and stop, which may involve contraband, time away from an analysis of the field sobriety test, safety to the officer where he has to take time to deal with the person who is not following his verbal command to stay in the vehicle, and more importantly the possibility that the suspect may ditch evidence while dealing with the drunk who cannot follow a standard command at an investigatory stop.......it has nothing.....and I repeat nothing to do with words, rather actions....the first amendment does not protect you from actions......you simply are confused beyond rehabilitation, but it funny now how you are talking about safety......hmmmmmm maybe you are reading some of the cases.....and that absurd concept of the zone of safety I introduced you to earlier where you laughed at me......keep reading.....in a couple months you may be able to comprehend this subject matter.

Hmmm? you're pretty good at bullshitting,Seaoat. What were the actions that prevented him from doing his job? Let's see what bullshit road you go down on this. Obstruction doesn't have to do w/ words,huh? You're unbelievable.

Guest


Guest

This thread is a prime example of why I don't come here anymore. Thank your bean bags. I cant stand stupid people.

Guest


Guest

*Sage* wrote:This thread is a prime example of why I don't come here anymore. Thank your bean bags. I cant stand stupid people.

You were one of the stupidest on the forum-hands down. Don't come back, you damn mental case!

Guest


Guest

Dreamsglore wrote:
*Sage* wrote:This thread is a prime example of why I don't come here anymore. Thank your bean bags. I cant stand stupid people.

You were one of the stupidest on the forum-hands down. Don't come back, you damn mental case!

dream on dreams.

im smarter, prettier and sexier than you will ever be.

the only thing im not over you is you are way a bigger bitch bulldog never give up when your wrong fuckin asshole.

I have fans in other places.

your just a fucking drag, along with your dog w

Guest


Guest

*Sage* wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
*Sage* wrote:This thread is a prime example of why I don't come here anymore. Thank your bean bags. I cant stand stupid people.

You were one of the stupidest on the forum-hands down. Don't come back, you damn mental case!

dream on dreams.

im smarter, prettier and sexier than you will ever be.

the only thing im not over you is you are way a bigger bitch bulldog never give up when your wrong fuckin asshole.

I have fans in other places.

your just a fucking drag, along with your dog w

Well,stay over there w/ your bulldyke friends. Your vulgar stupidity is just not appreciated here.

Guest


Guest

"The Houston ordinance is much more sweeping than the municipal ordinance struck down in Lewis. It is not limited to fighting words nor even to obscene or opprobrious language, but prohibits speech that "in any manner . . . interrupt[s]" an officer. 10 The Constitution does not allow such speech to be made a crime. 11 The freedom of individuals verbally [482 U.S. 451, 463] to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state. 12 [482 U.S. 451, 464] "

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=482&invol=451

Guest


Guest

Dreamsglore wrote:
*Sage* wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
*Sage* wrote:This thread is a prime example of why I don't come here anymore. Thank your bean bags. I cant stand stupid people.

You were one of the stupidest on the forum-hands down. Don't come back, you damn mental case!

dream on dreams.

im smarter, prettier and sexier than you will ever be.

the only thing im not over you is you are way a bigger bitch bulldog never give up when your wrong fuckin asshole.

I have fans in other places.

your just a fucking drag, along with your dog w

Well,stay over there w/ your bulldyke friends. Your vulgar stupidity is just not appreciated here.

lol my bull dyke friends. too funny

actually dreams, from reading the forum here, your stupidity isn't appreciated much either lol

you like the forum duntz lmao

you latch on, and no matter how much shit you have to eat, you just keep on suckin lmao

I find it funny in my spare time Very Happy

Sal

Sal

2seaoat wrote:Yep.

If you haven't noticed, we have a two-tiered justice system.

One for the rich and politically powerful, and one for schlubs like you.

Welcome to America.

No, actually we have expanded exceptions to the fourth amendment over the last 30 years starting with the Berger Court, and the result is that investigatory stops are an exception to the fourth amendment, and the two tiered justice system deals with those in law enforcement and those outside law enforcement.....it has nothing to do with the rich and powerful, because if that is your thesis, then Reese would have walked. She did not walk because the courts have consistently upheld for the last 30 years reasonable constraint during an investigatory period where they have probable cause and leave it within the officer's discretion to maintain that investigation.....all things a freshman in a government class would understand, but with legally blonde and you playing paddlefoot, I guess your view is that it is about schlubs...........

Idiotic.

Your case law doesn't apply to the elites, it only applies to schlubs like you ...

... and me.

You obviously don't understand America in the 21st Century.

Not surprising.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
2seaoat wrote:Yep.

If you haven't noticed, we have a two-tiered justice system.

One for the rich and politically powerful, and one for schlubs like you.

Welcome to America.

No, actually we have expanded exceptions to the fourth amendment over the last 30 years starting with the Berger Court, and the result is that investigatory stops are an exception to the fourth amendment, and the two tiered justice system deals with those in law enforcement and those outside law enforcement.....it has nothing to do with the rich and powerful, because if that is your thesis, then Reese would have walked. She did not walk because the courts have consistently upheld for the last 30 years reasonable constraint during an investigatory period where they have probable cause and leave it within the officer's discretion to maintain that investigation.....all things a freshman in a government class would understand, but with legally blonde and you playing paddlefoot, I guess your view is that it is about schlubs...........

Idiotic.

Your case law doesn't apply to the elites, it only applies to schlubs like you ...

... and me.

You obviously don't understand America in the 21st Century.

Not surprising.

Seaoat makes this shit up. Most of the cases that were contested were thrown out and unconstitutional. If she had contested it, it would have been thrown out too.

2seaoat



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.

2seaoat



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. So when the police officers are asking the passengers in a vehicle to remain in the vehicle on an investigatory stop........is there an elite button that he presses to override the schlubs.......Is it a secret handshake.......did Reese tumble into the world of Schlubs.......what incoherent drivel. At least you have the intelligence to understand these concepts, but you choose to take the easy road and dismiss our system as flawed......therefore dismissing the law and the cases.....that puts you awfully close to our legal blonde as both of you think you can leave a car while the driver is being processed in an investigatory stop and after an officer has asked you to stay in the car.....you would be wrong, my only lack of satisfaction is that I cannot see you test your hypothesis........and get one of those really good lawyers and get off the obstruction charge.......brilliant. legally blonde and paddlefoot blazing a new path for schlubs.....I mean elites.

Sal

Sal

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.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 4 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