Cops Gone Wild Again, or Not...........?

It seems we have another case where it seems at first glance that a cop has gone too far in the performance of his duties.

I watched the video, and it seems the officer was polite and courteous, until the woman refused to follow his instructions. In fact, he kept telling her that he did not want for this to escalate.

Of course, the defendant just happens to be a college professor, who it seems from the video was belligerent from the beginning, and seemed to think that she does not have to obey a Police Officer when he is performing his duties.

The news people tend to say that the "crime" was rather petty, but by accounts she was walking down the middle of the street, at night. It seems that the simple thing for her to do would have been to show the cop her ID, sign the ticket, and be done.

Most of us out here in the real world know that when a cop tells you to do something when he is performing his duty as a cop, you best just do it, or your ass will wind up in jail.

You be the judge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...cs&ir=Politics

Yes, I saw this last night as well at The Blaze.com. I have some questions of my own before I can render a judgement.
Is it really the law that everyone has to carry ID at all times?
The street looked empty in the video, was she really walking in the traffic at night? By traffic I mean cars and not just the street.
She claimed that construction had made crossing the street difficult. Is this true?

Off the bat it looks like an overreaction by the police for a fairly insignificant crime. I note from her course that she probably already has a chip on HER shoulder for men (forget just being a policeMAN) When dealing with the cops you kind of have to meet them half way and follow the rules. If it is required on campus to carry ID then she should have produced it. These are campus cops. It also sounds like that she expected special privilege for being what? Woman, professor, black, etc?

On the face this just looks like one of those unfortunate cases where both parties are partially at fault and I think she is going to make it worse by making charges we have yet to hear about. I guess it all comes down to did she jaywalk (yes, by all accounts), was it a dangerous place to jaywalk (public protection), and is it required to have ID available? Is there a policy in place for how much force is allowed in a case like this and do these policemen have any other beefs on their record like this.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...artime-enemies

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/the-u...e-state_062014

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/police-brutality/

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/...pe-spying.html

Yes, I saw this last night as well at The Blaze.com. I have some questions of my own before I can render a judgement.
Is it really the law that everyone has to carry ID at all times?
The street looked empty in the video, was she really walking in the traffic at night? By traffic I mean cars and not just the street.
She claimed that construction had made crossing the street difficult. Is this true?

Off the bat it looks like an overreaction by the police for a fairly insignificant crime. I note from her course that she probably already has a chip on HER shoulder for men (forget just being a policeMAN) When dealing with the cops you kind of have to meet them half way and follow the rules. If it is required on campus to carry ID then she should have produced it. These are campus cops. It also sounds like that she expected special privilege for being what? Woman, professor, black, etc?

On the face this just looks like one of those unfortunate cases where both parties are partially at fault and I think she is going to make it worse by making charges we have yet to hear about. I guess it all comes down to did she jaywalk (yes, by all accounts), was it a dangerous place to jaywalk (public protection), and is it required to have ID available? Is there a policy in place for how much force is allowed in a case like this and do these policemen have any other beefs on their record like this. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

We had this discussion a while back when that bunch of clowns were on an overpass with a Rifle trained on a group of Police Officers carrying out their lawful duties.

Whe give cops the power of arrest, and I do not think there is any circumstance where a citizen can refuse the orders of a Certified Peace Officer when that Officer is lawfully carrying out his duties.

As for the ID thing, that only comes into play when you have not "broke" some law. The minute you are in violation of some law, regardless how petty, you must do as the cop says.

Next time you get pulled over for something as minor as a traffic violation, just tell the Officer, "no, I did not run that stop sign, so I am not signing that ticket", and see what happens.

It will be interesting to see how this case comes out.

We had this discussion a while back when that bunch of clowns were on an overpass with a Rifle trained on a group of Police Officers carrying out their lawful duties.

Whe give cops the power of arrest, and I do not think there is any circumstance where a citizen can refuse the orders of a Certified Peace Officer when that Officer is lawfully carrying out his duties.

As for the ID thing, that only comes into play when you have not "broke" some law. The minute you are in violation of some law, regardless how petty, you must do as the cop says.

Next time you get pulled over for something as minor as a traffic violation, just tell the Officer, "no, I did not run that stop sign, so I am not signing that ticket", and see what happens.

It will be interesting to see how this case comes out. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Funny, I don't remember anyone saying that the people on the overpass were aiming guns at anyone. The charge was that the police were actively targeting citizens that were exercising a constitutional right. Citizens were armed but I never heard anyone scream that they were sighing in (which would be a crime).

And I don't see what that has to do with this.

Funny, I don't remember anyone saying that the people on the overpass were aiming guns at anyone. The charge was that the police were actively targeting citizens that were exercising a constitutional right. Citizens were armed but I never heard anyone scream that they were sighing in (which would be a crime).

And I don't see what that has to do with this. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...bundy.html.csp
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A3G26620140417

I saw two written passages that someone SAW someone level a rifle at federal agents including by one photographer....where are the photos? I saw no photos that show me someone AIMING at federal agents. I have looked at things through a telescopic sight but I wasn't aiming at anyone. So where is the proof? Once again, what does that have to do with the OP?

I saw two written passages that someone SAW someone level a rifle at federal agents including by one photographer....where are the photos? I saw no photos that show me someone AIMING at federal agents. I have looked at things through a telescopic sight but I wasn't aiming at anyone. So where is the proof? Once again, what does that have to do with the OP? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Halfwit continues to defend the actions of Bundy and his band of merry idiots.....limp-dicks who get their rocks off by dressing up and toting their rifles around pretending like they are about to engage the NVA at LZ X-Ray. Laughable.

Now, break out those goddamn photographs because nothing less will satisfy the burden of proof, per the admiral.....who must "render a judgment"......fucking goofball.

Funny, I don't remember anyone saying that the people on the overpass were aiming guns at anyone. The charge was that the police were actively targeting citizens that were exercising a constitutional right. Citizens were armed but I never heard anyone scream that they were sighing in (which would be a crime). Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Then why did they bring guns in the first place?

What were they there for?

I tend to believe that the law enforcement agencies tend to over reach in their so called duties and create situations that rapidly escalate.

From the demeanor of the cop before the woman refused to show him her ID, I suspect that if she indeed would have showed her ID and identified herself, he would have let things drop. Probably even helped her if she needed any.

She chose to allow the situation to escalate. Her actions caused the entire situation to get out of controle.

That is, unless you believe the cop should have just got in his car and drove off the minute she told him to, in a sense, fuck off.