Attorney says TPD subjected woman to 'police brutality' during DUI arrest (Warning Graphic video)

I'll keep saying it ... and it is not "siding with LE" ... just comply with the requests. It is in your best interests

thats about it.

nothing like a belly full of booze to help you forget who you're fucking with Originally Posted by CJ7

That is always the best approach if possible, but what if the "requests"/orders are illegal and/or you decide to calmly politely assert your constitutional rights and they arrest you for contempt of cop (disturbing the peace usually)? I've witnessed it several times when police escalate an issue because they didn't get immediate and subservient compliance (and in one case they were pissed because of a completely separate incident earlier and apparently decided to take it out on anyone in the way) so it was totally wrong place at the wrong time, but no way to know or avoid it.

The cops I've met appreciate my attitude of giving them the benefit of the reasonable doubt that is protected by the due process and equal protection clause ... and the same one that I expect them to give to those with whom they have contact while on duty .... Originally Posted by LexusLover

OK, now it's my turn to say "WTF?"

You just butchered about a half dozen different concepts of law.

Don't drink while posting. Get a designated poster if you are going to be drinking.

So you don't like what I have to say, so you attack me. I take it for what it's worth. ZERO!

"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

You keep saying I hang out with bimbo's and I will keep saying you hang out with cops.

The fact of the matter is you do not know who I hang out with, just like I do not know who the fuc you hang out with.

But like I said, if you say the bimbo thing, expect me to say the cop thing. Mine is just a reaction to wtf you are saying. Stop speculating about me and I will afford you the same courtesy.

You keep saying I hang out with bimbo's and I will keep saying you hang out with cops. Originally Posted by WTF

A difference is ......

...... any cops I would hang with have 10x's the intellect as your bimbos!

You want some more differences?

That is always the best approach if possible, but what if the "requests"/orders are illegal and/or you decide to calmly politely assert your constitutional rights and they arrest you for contempt of cop (disturbing the peace usually)? Originally Posted by austxjr

#1: an "unlawful" is not a defense to resisting arrest, search, etc...

Texas Penal Code (following the "Model Penal Code," which is used by most states)

Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or search.


#2: Which constitutional rights are you suggesting? How about NOT TALKING, except for "name, rank, and serial number"! You might inquire for what reason the officer is "TAKING YOU INTO CUSTODY" .... and if the officer says you are "NOT IN CUSTODY" .. asking the officer if you "ARE FREE TO LEAVE" ... here is another "novel" approach ....

how about saying "yes, sir" ... "yes, ma'am" ... "no, sir" ... "no, ma'am" .... when addressing them in the CONVERSATION you are having.

Of course, I recognize (based on some of the posts on here) that there are a number of people posting on here that have some sort of mental block against respect for authority or APPARENT AUTHORITY ... EVEN IF IT MEANS GOING HOME TONIGHT!!!!

#3: There are roughly 1,000,000 peace officers in the U.S. .... and statistically speaking generalizing about "police conduct" and applying it to the other 100's of thousands of officers as a character trait is as inappropriate and dishonest as generalizing about "provider conduct" and applying it to all other providers.


#4: ..generally speaking one cannot disturb a "peace officer's" ... "peace" ... one can unnecessarily piss some of them off by disrespecting them (spitting on them, pushing them, grabbing them, ignoring their requests, name calling, and generally being the "asshole" so "bravely" displayed in the "Political Forum" ...)

Now .. go back and revisit the video of the "respectful" 40 year old problem in a skating skirt with three young guys ... in the car with her when she ran into a house drunk.


BTW: Did she have a green light?
Or did the house run a red light?

OK, now it's my turn to say "WTF?"

You just butchered about a half dozen different concepts of law.

Don't drink while posting. Get a designated poster if you are going to be drinking. Originally Posted by ExNYer

What concepts of law?

Please don't tell me you are going to lecture me on "legal concepts"!
But if you must?

"Begin with "presumption of innocence" ... are cops entitled to it? Yes or No
(if no explain below)?

______________________________ _____________________________

Then, "due process" .... are cops entitled to it? Yes or No
(if no explain below)?

______________________________ _____________________________

Then, "equal protection" ...... are cops entitled to it? Yes or No
(if no explain below)?

______________________________ _____________________________

Finally, DO you actually think that because I believe that ALL CITIZENS have a RIGHT to the presumption of innocence, due process, and equal protection that .....

...... I some how or another "protect" or give "bad cops" a pass for their behavior .... or even more ridiculous that I "hang out with cops" or THAT I AM A COP ???????????

Now Professor NY ... let's see it ... tell me about the law and ...
................how I "butchered it"!!!!!

...... I some how or another "protect" or give "bad cops" a pass for their behavior .... or even more ridiculous that I "hang out with cops" or THAT I AM A COP ???????????

!! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Wait, it is ok for you to imply/speculate that others hang out with bimbo's but not ok to imply/speculate that you hang out with cops?

That double standard is why you get called out so often. You had convicted Martin before his trial yet defend cops throwing down drunk ladies , quite a double standard. Nothing new there though.

Wait, it is ok for you to imply/speculate that others hang out with bimbo's but not ok to imply/speculate that you hang out with cops?

You had convicted Martin before his trial yet defend cops throwing down drunk ladies , quite a double standard. Nothing new there though. Originally Posted by WTF

#1: You are a lying sack of shit.
#2: I never "convicted" Martin of anything!!!
#3: I never defended any "cops" for "throwing down drunk ladies"!!

Is that how you treat your bimbos?

Make up shit you claim they said to win an argument with them.

You are an amateur.

I recommend you keep your day job ... of impressing the bimbos.

What concepts of law?

Please don't tell me you are going to lecture me on "legal concepts"!
But if you must?

"Begin with "presumption of innocence" ... are cops entitled to it? Yes or No
(if no explain below)?
______________________________ _____________________________

Then, "due process" .... are cops entitled to it? Yes or No
(if no explain below)?
______________________________ _____________________________

Then, "equal protection" ...... are cops entitled to it? Yes or No
(if no explain below)?
______________________________ _____________________________

Finally, DO you actually think that because I believe that ALL CITIZENS have a RIGHT to the presumption of innocence, due process, and equal protection that .....

...... I some how or another "protect" or give "bad cops" a pass for their behavior .... or even more ridiculous that I "hang out with cops" or THAT I AM A COP ???????????

Now Professor NY ... let's see it ... tell me about the law and ...
................how I "butchered it"!!!!! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Now you are rephrasing what you wrote above. What you actually wrote was was:

"...my attitude of giving them the benefit of the reasonable doubt that is protected by the due process and equal protection clause."

Whatever legal concepts you were trying to convey were butchered by your writing.

My comment had nothing to do with whether or not the police are entitled to the presumption of innocence, due process, equal protection, etc.

It had everything to do with your writing skills. That's why I wanted to know "WTF" you were talking about.

It had everything to do with your writing skills. That's why I wanted to know "WTF" you were talking about. Originally Posted by ExNYer

______________________________ _____________

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

______________________________ ______________

Would one of those help?

Do you have a clue as to what "the benefit of a reasonable doubt" refers?

The prosecution's burden of proof, which is "beyond a reasonable doubt" ...

........... that would be "due process" and .........

............peace officers are entitled to "enjoy" by virtue of "equal protection" ...

With all due respect I can imagine why you would blame it on the "writing" ...

.. after all it can get somewhat confusing when one desires to ignore the constitution.

Now that there is some clarity to the communication, do you understand?

Originally Posted by LexusLover
The cops I've met appreciate my attitude of giving them the benefit of the reasonable doubt that is protected by the due process and equal protection clause ... and the same one that I expect them to give to those with whom they have contact while on duty ....

#1: You are a lying sack of shit.
#2: I never "convicted" Martin of anything!!!
#3: I never defended any "cops" for "throwing down drunk ladies"!!

Is that how you treat your bimbos?

Make up shit you claim they said to win an argument with them.

You are an amateur.

I recommend you keep your day job ... of impressing the bimbos. Originally Posted by LexusLover

you showing off for your cop buddy?

you showing off for your cop buda? Originally Posted by WTF

I don't "show off" ... I leave that for you amateurs ....

Do you have a clue as to what "the benefit of a reasonable doubt" refers?
Yes. Do you? I recall explaining it to you in another thread - the one where you gave them a reasonable doubt instead of the presumption of innocence.

The prosecution's burden of proof, which is "beyond a reasonable doubt" ...

........... that would be "due process" and .........
Actually, due process is a whole lot more than that. Due process is a constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. It is also a guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. The prosecution's burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is one small part of what we call due process.

............peace officers are entitled to "enjoy" by virtue of "equal protection" ...

With all due respect I can imagine why you would blame it on the "writing" ... Yes. Because the writing was lousy.

.. after all it can get somewhat confusing when one desires to ignore the constitution. No, it was the lousy writing.

I've never ignored the constitution. I only gave my opinion of the cops' actions based on an actual audio/video tape. I can't see them explaining their way out of it. And you haven't given an alternative explanation that would raise a reasonable doubt.

All you've done is point at a small woman screaming in agony as a 250 pound cop kneels on her neck and say "See! Look at her arm twitch! She is assaulting him!" You're just a shill for rogue cops.

Now that there is some clarity to the communication, do you understand?
See above. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I guess you have sobered up.

#1: an "unlawful" is not a defense to resisting arrest, search, etc...

Texas Penal Code (following the "Model Penal Code," which is used by most states)

Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Good to know. It IS a defense against the alleged charge justifying that arrest or search.

I find it interesting that the Texas Penal code seems to contradict U.S. law as in - “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

http://constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

#2: Which constitutional rights are you suggesting? How about NOT TALKING, except for "name, rank, and serial number"! You might inquire for what reason the officer is "TAKING YOU INTO CUSTODY" .... and if the officer says you are "NOT IN CUSTODY" .. asking the officer if you "ARE FREE TO LEAVE" ... here is another "novel" approach .... Originally Posted by LexusLover

How about freedom of speech and your right to disagree (preferably politely) with a police officer as in:

City of Houston v. Hill (1987) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment "protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers."

how about saying "yes, sir" ... "yes, ma'am" ... "no, sir" ... "no, ma'am" .... when addressing them in the CONVERSATION you are having. Originally Posted by LexusLover

How about respect is earned not required? Also, I already agreed with you that it is wise not to test the waters unless you are to spend the night in jail or more (and spend lots of time and money in court) to defend those rights and views.

I always try to respect everybody I interact (don't always succeed but mostly IMHO) with until they break my initial assumption that they might warrant that respect. I tend to operate on the theory that you get more flies with honey.

Of course, I recognize (based on some of the posts on here) that there are a number of people posting on here that have some sort of mental block against respect for authority or APPARENT AUTHORITY ... EVEN IF IT MEANS GOING HOME TONIGHT!!!!

#3: There are roughly 1,000,000 peace officers in the U.S. .... and statistically speaking generalizing about "police conduct" and applying it to the other 100's of thousands of officers as a character trait is as inappropriate and dishonest as generalizing about "provider conduct" and applying it to all other providers. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Couldn't agree more on the generalizing part, however, I had an ex-police officer, sheriff, DA, Judge and defense attorney friend of mine opine that about a third of most police forces try to do a great lawful job, about a third go along to get along (which means they do the right thing with a good partner and not so much with a bad partner) and the last third mainly wants to drive fast cars, carry a gun and lord it over people, plus didn't have an offense on their record when they applied to the police academy.

My personal experience has been similar as I have been threatened and even assaulted by police when totally unprovoked and even when I was a victim, yet treated very well when not even necessary in other cases so I have to assume that since it was a mixed bag for me, it is as well for most folks in their dealings with law enforcement.

#4: ..generally speaking one cannot disturb a "peace officer's" ... "peace" ... one can unnecessarily piss some of them off by disrespecting them (spitting on them, pushing them, grabbing them, ignoring their requests, name calling, and generally being the "asshole" so "bravely" displayed in the "Political Forum" ...)

Now .. go back and revisit the video of the "respectful" 40 year old problem in a skating skirt with three young guys ... in the car with her when she ran into a house drunk.

BTW: Did she have a green light? Or did the house run a red light? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Wasn't really talking about that incident but will do. I believe that police should "protect and serve" and ideally would try to deescalate confrontations and harm to even guilty parties when possible. I am saddened that based on the evidence I see that is less the case than I would like it to be much of the time.

Also, "contempt of cop" is a well known and remarkably common phenomena not confined only to real law officers, but occasionally by security guards, TSA officers and other uniformed but not working as licensed law officer types - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_cop