Arizonaffcep Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 What statute prohibits lippyness? In my kingdom (read as: my house), the bottom of my boot. None...freedom of speach (double edged sword-but worth it!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I'm betting that the shoe was simply the final straw after probably over an hour of her mouth and physical resistance. I'm sure she was warned to get her attitude straight or face the consequences. She decided to play, and she got to pay. No injuries, but a nice lesson for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I'm betting that the shoe was simply the final straw after probably over an hour of her mouth and physical resistance. I'm sure she was warned to get her attitude straight or face the consequences. She decided to play, and she got to pay. No injuries, but a nice lesson for her. I'd be surprised if the officer neglected to mention that she physically resisted any order, such as to remove her shoes, as well as everything else we see her doing on the tapes, while he cited her exercise of her Constitutional right to free speech as a factor in his attack. On my understanding, the law guarantees detained suspects the right to preserve attitudes that law-enforcement agents may find crooked, and whose violent straightening is not their duty and not their right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diazepam618 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I fail to see were this 120lb girl assaulted the SO's, I hope they fry for their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I fail I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itku2er Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 What statute prohibits lippyness? In my world ask my boys its "THE LOOK" and going quiet. They run. Well she didn't really do a good interview at all, I wasnt impressed. But if you take a car without permission isnt that stealing it? If you stretch it you can see that kicking off her shoe he could have taken that as a threat of violence against him. With the new terriorist laws in effect and a damn good lawyer he will get off. He was a little too forceful when she was cuffed and he pulled her up by her hair and even when he had her in the other room he was still leading her by her hair. Once she was cuffed there was no need for that at all. But on the other hand we still had no audio to go with the video so its really hard to tell what happened what words were exchanged to go alone with the actions we see. Some times a picture is worth a thousand words but audio will save your ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Beware of all in whom the urge to punish is very strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 The problem with that theory is that it is difficult to tell who is trying to "punish", and who is simply trying to deter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 The problem with that theory is that it is difficult to tell who is trying to "punish", and who is simply trying to deter. To the case in point, the question is whether an LEO has a right violently to deter free speech because it hurts his feelings. Generally, I'd also be wary of those in whom the desire to deter is very strong. As you advised on another thread, "One should certainly give serious consideration to the possible results of his or her actions, and whether one is prepared to deal with those consequences. But to spend a significant part of your life obsessing about it when it quite possibly may never happen is an unreasonable stressor that most people do not need in their life." That goes double for inflicting unreasonable stressors on other people, and multiple times for physically attacking them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizonaffcep Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 pwn3d Ok...I've seen you use this saying before, but perhaps it's just me, but I'm not understanding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts