Started By
Message

re: One of the best arrest melts of all time

Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:52 am to
Posted by teke184
Zachary, LA
Member since Jan 2007
96894 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:52 am to
quote:

You truly can't be this stupid.


We say stuff like this but we have a number of posters on this site which I won’t name.
Posted by Konkey Dong
Member since Aug 2013
2170 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:58 am to
This fricking guy here.
Posted by jchamil
Member since Nov 2009
16665 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:59 am to
quote:

Where is the evidence that she did that?


Quite the crawfish from "throwing rocks at people is ok" to "well there's no evidence of that"
Posted by AlterDWI
Durango, Colorado
Member since Nov 2012
2235 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:59 am to
This woman is not going to have sex with you
Posted by jchamil
Member since Nov 2009
16665 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:01 pm to
quote:

Tossing rocks and discharging a firearm are not similar.


Posted by jizzle6609
Houston
Member since Jul 2009
4540 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:16 pm to
Thought it was AOC at first and it made sense.
Posted by POTUS2024
Member since Nov 2022
12130 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:18 pm to
quote:

If your argument is that she didn’t actually strike them with the thrown objects, that isn’t a very good one.

Not my argument.

quote:

She admitted to throwing an object.

She is allowed to toss items into her yard.

quote:

She threw an object in the vicinity of the officers and, even if she did not strike them, the implication is that she attempted to, not to mention that the officers were actively leaving at the time.

People are not convicted because of an assumed implication, particularly when it rubs against protected activity. It requires evidence.

Officers leaving would enhance her case, not diminish it. She is angry, she never throws anything at them while cussing them out, but when they leave she throws rocks in the yard, not in their direction, and fully protected as an activity a property owner / resident can do. You're asking me to believe she thought she could get away with throwing rocks at police, then not only try to just deny it, but do so while she has a ring camera that she obviously knows about because she pleaded with them to look at the video to prove her case. I can buy an argument that she lost her temper and threw at police, but that position is then eroded by her immediate insistence that her own ring camera would prove her innocence.

That ring video may show her to be a criminal, but I'm not seeing any evidence of it so far. If the police were so confident rocks were thrown at them, why didn't they go look at that video immediately to lock this thing up? She was clearly willing to show them. It would take a minute or so to pull it up. Doing so may have sealed this up completely, one way or another. This works against the police and in her favor, until the video can be seen.

quote:

That aside, do you know how she could have avoided this?

By not acting like a moron.

If she had not tried to “keep it real”, that video would be 30 seconds long and very boring.

100% correct.
Posted by chryso
Baton Rouge
Member since Jul 2008
12008 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:24 pm to
quote:

Where is the evidence that she did anything, directed at any of those men?


This is not court. The officers acted on what the believed was happening at the time. The presenting of evidence is a later job for the lawyers.
Posted by chryso
Baton Rouge
Member since Jul 2008
12008 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:25 pm to
quote:

You still get a presumption of innocence in this country.


IN COURT. Cops are not court.
Posted by POTUS2024
Member since Nov 2022
12130 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:35 pm to
quote:

The presumption of innocence has nothing to do with this situation.

Not a good way to start when discussing a criminal matter.

quote:

Florida law: "(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another


Where is there evidence of her intent to do violence to another person?

quote:

You truly can't be this stupid.


This is a criminal matter and you don't think the presumption of innocence applies, but then call me stupid. You and a lot of others are just making assumptions and operating on confirmation bias. I get it and I understand the judgment against her, but the issue is criminal behavior and we don't have evidence of that in this video. I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to grasp.

Posted by POTUS2024
Member since Nov 2022
12130 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:35 pm to
quote:

Quite the crawfish from "throwing rocks at people is ok"

Where did I say this?
Posted by Geekboy
Member since Jan 2004
5047 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:39 pm to
If we had a way to figure out how people would turn out while they were in the womb, her alone is an excellent argument on why abortion should be legal.
In some cases like this, mandatory.
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 12:42 pm
Posted by jchamil
Member since Nov 2009
16665 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:45 pm to
quote:

Where did I say this?


quote:

"Did she just throw rocks at us?" is not justification to roll someone up.
Posted by LNCHBOX
70448
Member since Jun 2009
84488 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:46 pm to
quote:

and you don't think the presumption of innocence applies


We aren't a court We don't need to go through the whole trial to evaluate what happened here. There facts are the facts. She 100% misused 911. There is no question that didn't happen. There is also no question she threw rocks. in the yard occupied by the cops. She herself said she did.

If this was a 300lb black man instead of a young bouncy titty'ed ho, you wouldn't be making all these ridiculous posts.

Posted by jchamil
Member since Nov 2009
16665 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:48 pm to
quote:

You're asking me to believe she thought she could get away with throwing rocks at police, then not only try to just deny it, but do so while she has a ring camera that she obviously knows about because she pleaded with them to look at the video to prove her case.


She thought she could call 911 and lie about her dog being stolen. As stable as she appears, why wouldn't she think she could lie her way out of this situation?
Posted by GRTiger
On a roof eating alligator pie
Member since Dec 2008
63537 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:48 pm to
quote:

This is a criminal matter and you don't think the presumption of innocence applies


Cops are supposed to litigate a trial before arresting someone? How are any arrests legal if cops must presume innocence in real time?
Posted by HeadSlash
TEAM LIVE BADASS - St. GEORGE
Member since Aug 2006
50119 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:52 pm to
Should have tased her


Lazy cops don't want to do the paperwork
Posted by Gee Grenouille
Bogalusa
Member since Jul 2018
5046 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:57 pm to
Yeah I’m a piece of shite so I’m telling here “I can’t get your dog in a legal capacity tonight but when I get off work me and you going to get that dog”. I’d get to see them titties and get some crazy pussy.
Posted by teke184
Zachary, LA
Member since Jan 2007
96894 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:10 pm to
quote:

Yeah I’m a piece of shite so I’m telling here “I can’t get your dog in a legal capacity tonight but when I get off work me and you going to get that dog”. I’d get to see them titties and get some crazy pussy.


I’m reading that in Billy Madison’s voice.

“That’s a responsibility! You don’t just put up a few posters and go home, you get off your arse and find your frickin dog!”
Posted by POTUS2024
Member since Nov 2022
12130 posts
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:10 pm to
quote:

This is not court. The officers acted on what the believed was happening at the time. The presenting of evidence is a later job for the lawyers.


They had no evidence that she threw anything at them, only a question - when they turned around she presented no threat - as they ran toward her, nothing was thrown, they never mention "she's got something in her hand" or "she has more rocks" or "put that down" or anything of the sort. In those several seconds every bit of information they had indicated there was no threat. They still went forward. And when a reasonable explanation was given they did nothing to see if it was true, despite being offered that video. They went from facing no threat at all, to a potential arrest, and had the chance to see if an arrest was warranted and they could not be bothered to look at a few seconds of video. I know she acted like a jackass, but come on, look at the ring video and see if she's telling the truth. How hard is that?
first pageprev pagePage 7 of 9Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram