Started By
Message

re: POS cop begs judge for mercy at sentencing

Posted on 8/16/25 at 9:19 pm to
Posted by BeesWax
Member since Mar 2025
695 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 9:19 pm to
Yea I mean I’m not defending poor officers. On the other hand people always are arguing there is no suspicion when there is and they believe they are justified in resisting because they’ve watched YouTube videos. They are playing with fire when they resist. There is no constitutional right to resist when you are legally detained. I do agree in most cases an officer should say why. If they believe someone committed a murder, I don’t expect them to have to have a back and forth dialogue with the suspect until the suspect is in full agreement before they can detain. Nor is there a legal requirement for them to do so.
Posted by Relham10
Ridge
Member since Jan 2013
19692 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 9:22 pm to
Dude is a POS for sure with anger issues. Should have muzzled that lady if she was hitting a nerve. Also funny that she was on the stand with her alligator tears talking about her huge disfigurement.
Posted by This GUN for HIRE
Member since May 2022
5475 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 9:24 pm to
quote:

First amendment guys think they are entitled to it and they aren’t.


And I said if a crime hasn't been committed they are entitled. To know why LEO is violating their rights. The Supreme Court has ruled on this, & the ruling favors us, the law abiding citizens & auditors. Cops can't turn a constitutionally protected activity into a crime. No matter how bad they want to.

Had you said criminals instead of auditors or first amendment guys, I would have agreed.
Posted by BeesWax
Member since Mar 2025
695 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 9:28 pm to
I said auditors because many of them teach that an officer is required to give reasonable suspicion to them and they are wrong. I wasn’t arguing they are usually committing a crime. It is not true that the courts say you have to give someone reasonable suspicion if they haven’t committed a crime. That makes no sense. The requirement is that in order to detain and require ID in states that are stop and ID states, an officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion. There is no requirement the suspect gets to hear it in the moment.
Posted by Dex Morgan
Member since Nov 2022
3074 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 9:29 pm to
It goes way beyond auditors. There was the recent case of a cop assaulting and arresting an employee simply waiting on a bench for his ride. The cop asked to see his ID, the guy asked what crime he was commiting, the cop immediately went apeshit and assaults the guy.
Posted by novabill
Crossville, TN
Member since Sep 2005
10722 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 9:30 pm to
quote:

There is one that tries to pick fights so he can get roughed up and sue the department. He got called out during one of them by a cop saying are you just looking to get paid again? Those 1st amendment auditors are massive douche bags


If cops know the law and enforce the law there is no reason them to get upset at most of the auditors I see.

Yes, you have the right to get here and to film. No I do not need your ID nor need to talk to you.

Have a nice day.

Do this and all is good and the videos are boring
Posted by thelawnwranglers
Member since Sep 2007
41656 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 9:31 pm to
quote:

Business' confront them then call the cops. Cops respond, ask them what they are doing, and can I see your ID? Almost everyone them repeats the same thing. Am I being detained? Yes. Then hits the cop with R A S, you have to have reasonable articulate suspicion that I've committed a crime or about to commit a crime.


I have no issue with this
Posted by BeesWax
Member since Mar 2025
695 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 9:37 pm to
quote:

It goes way beyond auditors. There was the recent case of a cop assaulting and arresting an employee simply waiting on a bench for his ride. The cop asked to see his ID, the guy asked what crime he was commiting, the cop immediately went apeshit and assaults the guy.

Yea I’m mainly just responding to the initial post that police have to give RAC to the person in the moment. I do think it’s a good idea to do so. I’m not familiar with the case you’re talking about it so I won’t comment. None of what I’m saying is at all condoning assault.
Posted by This GUN for HIRE
Member since May 2022
5475 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 9:47 pm to
They are not wrong if no crime has been committed. What about that is hard for you to understand?

There are no stop & ID states. That would violate federal law & the constitution. More specifically the 4A.

You keep moving the goalpost so we'll agree to disagree & move on.
Posted by imjustafatkid
Alabama
Member since Dec 2011
62147 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 9:48 pm to
quote:

The cop lost his shite in jail to a woman who was not a cooperative or compliant detainee, and he should have been fired. And pleading no contest, he automatically gets a felony on his record which fricks him. I don't think 6 months for that, given all the context, was lenient. I would have given him the 11 days time served, you can't be a cop, and you are now a convicted felon. That's a lot of punishment for a one-time frickup, without additional jail time.


Honestly I'm not sure what people want him to have done there. Jail isn't a fun place. If you don't comply in jail, the police have to make you comply. She was stupid to lock her legs as he's trying to force her to sit down. What is he supposed to do? Wait till she decides compliance is convenient for her?

We already have a problem finding people to work in jails and prisons. Rulings like this are going to make that problem much worse.
This post was edited on 8/16/25 at 9:49 pm
Posted by BeesWax
Member since Mar 2025
695 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 9:52 pm to
Yea I hear you. You are wrong though. You’re referring to courts saying that yes the cops violated rights if there was no reasonable suspicion. I never claimed that doesn’t exist. However, the cop has to provide that evidence in court, not on the street.

You are wrong about there being no stop and ID states. In fact, when you are watching first amendment auditors, you are usually watching them in stop and ID states. And the surpreme court has decided that these state policies do not violate the 4th amendment IF the officer has reasonable suspicion. Ironically, auditors usually know this and that’s exactly why they are asking for it.
This post was edited on 8/16/25 at 9:53 pm
Posted by deeprig9
Unincorporated Ozora
Member since Sep 2012
72648 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 9:56 pm to
quote:

Honestly I'm not sure what people want him to have done there. Jail isn't a fun place. If you don't comply in jail, the police have to make you comply. She was stupid to lock her legs as he's trying to force her to sit down. What is he supposed to do? Wait till she decides compliance is convenient for her?

We already have a problem finding people to work in jails and prisons. Rulings like this are going to make that problem much worse.


The mistake is this- he and the female cop (yes, that's a female cop next to him) should have tried to gently set her down in the chair, and let the detainee spit and bite and kick, then charge her with felonies. That's where he went wrong. He tried to shortcut the situation and just throw her down.

As I said before, I agree with him being fired. But 6 months in jail for felony assault is too harsh given the circumstances.

But there's people here who think Derek Chauvin is a murderer, so I expect downvotes.
Posted by This GUN for HIRE
Member since May 2022
5475 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 9:58 pm to
Posted by imjustafatkid
Alabama
Member since Dec 2011
62147 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 10:01 pm to
quote:

let the detainee spit and bite and kick


I completely disagree with this. In no way should they be required to get assaulted.
Posted by BeesWax
Member since Mar 2025
695 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 10:02 pm to
You were out of your depth and talking about things you have heard. Now you have been told the truth and don’t like it. No one moved the goalpost. From the beginning I said there is no requirement to give RAS on the street. I am right and you are wrong. You are also wrong about stop and ID states. You can stay believing wrong things or you can learn from this and argue better next time.
Posted by deeprig9
Unincorporated Ozora
Member since Sep 2012
72648 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 10:07 pm to
quote:

I completely disagree with this. In no way should they be required to get assaulted.


Oh I agree in spirit.

They probably should have just tased her. Then set her down.
Posted by imjustafatkid
Alabama
Member since Dec 2011
62147 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 10:09 pm to
quote:

They probably should have just tased her. Then set her down.


I guess. Not sure how that's different in this case, but would have probably protected him from catching charges.
Posted by TutHillTiger
Mississippi Alabama
Member since Sep 2010
49797 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 10:15 pm to
I know a kid, (white upper middle class if it matters), went to a party and got too drunk to drive home, walked to a convenience store to call someone to come get him, and as he is waiting for his ride, cops come up and frick with hm, as he is getting off the ground to talk to cops, he falls a little bit forward and the pos ride along cop panics and shoots him in the stomach.

Decades ago now, so this shite isn’t new. The kid was very popular and his dad was a player so the convenience store owner apologized and ponied up the video to media immediately to show how fricking stupid the cop was etc
Posted by pankReb
Defending National Champs Fan
Member since Mar 2009
71195 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 10:15 pm to
quote:

quote:Business' confront them then call the cops. Cops respond, ask them what they are doing, and can I see your ID? Almost everyone them repeats the same thing. Am I being detained? Yes. Then hits the cop with R A S, you have to have reasonable articulate suspicion that I've committed a crime or about to commit a crime.

I have no issue with this


Same. They’re participating in an activity well within their rights.
Posted by deeprig9
Unincorporated Ozora
Member since Sep 2012
72648 posts
Posted on 8/16/25 at 10:15 pm to
quote:

I guess. Not sure how that's different in this case, but would have probably protected him from catching charges.


That's what I mean when I said fire him, he doesn't make good decisions. A smart person who knows how things work (for better or worse) wouldn't have thrown her like that. He shouldn't be in law enforcement with that mindset.

But six months in jail is harsh.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 5Next pagelast page

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

FacebookXInstagram