(June 22, 2017 at 2:05 pm)FFaith Wrote: Ok, he "gave consent", but was then clearly trying to get away from the crazy broad. Another woman took a swing at him too, and the guy didn't give her "consent". Is the guy a jackass? Probably.

Being a jackass in his own yard wouldn;t have gotten him in handcuffs.  He wasn't being detained for being a jackass, he was being detained for being a public nuisance.

Quote:Does that mean he deserves to be assaulted for it? No.

Sure doesn't, but that's just the sort of difficult scenario a public nuisance creates for a responding officer..who has to show up largely after the fact..determine who the instigators are, and resolve the complaint.

That's exactly what the cop did ( let's all thank crom no one was shot...).  

Quote:Did the police officer have any business asking the broad if she was offended by something he said? Nope.

Sure did, in fact it was probably his duty in trying to figure out just what the hell was going on with this asshole and his camera and why he (the cop) had to respond there.

Quote:If he was doing something wrong and the business didn't want him around their bar or whatever, then fine, but the police officer had no business bringing offense into it. There is no right not to be offended in the United States of America, so the cop was acting dumb as hell no matter how big of a jackass the guy in question is.

You're acting as if he was being handcuffed for violating a persons right to not be offended..which he wasn't.  He was handcuffed...again, for being a public nuisance.  There is no right of being a public nuisance, and it is against the law to be a public nuisance.  Most of the time, despite being the party at fault, we let them off lightly, like the cops did with this jackass. Similarly, when a beligerant intentionally baits people into responding to them, we don;t generally find the fault with the person who responds to them unless it's compelling. Kid looks fine, and he liked it. Had she brutalized him with her stilletto and he was lying in critical condition at the nearest ER...I'd laugh my ass off, but she'd have gone to jail in ways that he..well..didn't..

Next.

---

Is -this- the nature of the system repressing men over women's fee-fees?  Strongly insisting that some douche stop being an asshole to women he sees on the street in illegal ways?  

Call me when they're rounding us up for our sperm.

(June 22, 2017 at 10:22 am)Losty Wrote: Not to mention that he wasn't actually arrested. Just placed in cuffs and asked for his name and birthdate.

He was detained, illegally; he should sue.

Are you his lawyer?  I hope not.  The city admin would bury him, and we both know this, lol.

(June 22, 2017 at 2:13 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(June 22, 2017 at 2:05 pm)FFaith Wrote: Ok, he "gave consent", but was then clearly trying to get away from the crazy broad. Another woman took a swing at him too, and the guy didn't give her "consent". Is the guy a jackass? Probably.

Being a jackass in his own yard wouldn;t have gotten him in handcuffs.  He wasn't being detained for being a jackass, he was being detained for being a public nuisance.

Quote:Does that mean he deserves to be assaulted for it? No.

Sure doesn't, but that's just the sort of difficult scenario a public nuisance creates for a responding officer..who has to show up largely after the fact..determine who the instigators are, and resolve the complaint.

That's exactly what the cop did ( let's all thank crom no one was shot...).  

Quote:Did the police officer have any business asking the broad if she was offended by something he said? Nope.

Sure did, in fact it was probably his duty in trying to figure out just what the hell was going on with this asshole and his camera and why he (the cop) had to respond there.

Quote:If he was doing something wrong and the business didn't want him around their bar or whatever, then fine, but the police officer had no business bringing offense into it. There is no right not to be offended in the United States of America, so the cop was acting dumb as hell no matter how big of a jackass the guy in question is.

You're acting as if he was being handcuffed for violating a persons right to not be offended..which he wasn't.  He was handcuffed...again, for being a public nuisance.  There is no right of being a public nuisance, and it is against the law to be a public nuisance.  Most of the time, despite being the party at fault, we let them off lightly, like the cops did with this jackass.  Similarly, when a beligerant intentionally baits people into responding to them, we don;t generally find the fault with the person who responds to them unless it's compelling.  Kid looks fine, and he liked it.  Had she brutalized him with her stilletto and he was lying in critical condition at the nearest ER...I'd laugh my ass off, but she'd have gone to jail in ways that he..well..didn't..

Next.

---

Is -this- the nature of the system repressing men over women's fee-fees?  Strongly insisting that some douche stop being an asshole to women he sees on the street in illegal ways?  

Call me when they're rounding us up for our sperm.

Nope, "did he offend you?" is not what the cop should have asked. Maybe "did he insult you?" or something like that, but I'm certain he should not have asked if the girl was offended. Someone having a tattoo of a demon or something would be enough to offend a Christian, or saying "There is no god" would be enough to offend them. Offense should not be an issue, period. If you replace "offend" with "insult" or something though, then ok.

(June 22, 2017 at 2:37 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Are you his lawyer?  I hope not.  The city admin would bury him, and we both know this, lol.

No, I am not his lawyer, but I think that he should at least consult one.  The cop probably found the woman to be sexually attractive, and to curry favor, he handcuffed her "assailant".  Cops do this sort of thing, because they know that they can (usually) get away with it.  One time I was driving, and after turning a corner, saw a sheriff's deputy, in his 50s, mildly obese, who had handcuffed some early 20s petite chick who had been walking down the road with her friend and was behind her staring up and down her ass.  I wanted to yell out the window, "Why don't you just f-her", but I simply could not connect the dots until later on.

I hope that's not the defense his lawyer goes with.  

@FFaith, he has to ask who is offended and by whom..if he's there to determine who is or is not a public nuisance and why. Asking whether or not she's insulted is asking the same question in different words.

We're not discussing a person with a tattoo of a demon, or someone standing on a street corner mumbling "there is no god" (though that guy probably would be a nuisance, lol)..............?

Public...nuisance. Say it with me. Hold on to it, it's what we're discussing.

(June 22, 2017 at 3:04 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I hope that's not the defense his lawyer goes with.  

@FFaith, he has to ask who is offended and by whom..if he's there to determine who is or is not a public nuisance.  Asking whether or not she's insulted is asking the same question in different words.  

..............?

I am not a criminal defense attorney; to be defined a "public nuisance," I believe, can only be issued by a city official or a sitting judge.  The police, I believe, are at least required to give a verbal warning to any potential offenders.  The police cannot simply stop, detail and handcuff a person on a whim, just because they do not like the person's behavior.  The issue is one of probable cause to arrest or even detail an individual for having committed a criminal act.  Certainly, there are grounds for a lawsuit which, in the end, will probably end up being a "slap suit" in that a judge will not rule it frivolous but will allow it to go to a civil trial, where the cop will be forced to testify under oath.  In the end, our would-be plaintiff will likely lose but any lawsuit will consume resources (the cop's salary, lawyer & court costs, etc.), which the judge will likely feel is a justifiable burden to be imposed upon the municipality, which will act as a deterrent to any such future police abuses.

(June 22, 2017 at 3:11 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(June 22, 2017 at 3:04 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I hope that's not the defense his lawyer goes with.  

@FFaith, he has to ask who is offended and by whom..if he's there to determine who is or is not a public nuisance.  Asking whether or not she's insulted is asking the same question in different words.  

..............?

I am not a criminal defense attorney; to be defined a "public nuisance," I believe, can only be issued by a city official or a sitting judge.  The police, I believe, are at least required to give a verbal warning to any potential offenders.  The police cannot simply stop, detail and handcuff a person on a whim, just because they do not like the person's behavior. 

Irrelevant, since that's not what happened here even if all we had to go by was the jackasses own edited video...so?  The police -can- detain and question anyone involved in a public disturbance to ascertain the nature of the disturbance and whether or not further action is required.  Looks like, in this jackasses case..the cop decided that further action -wasn;t- required.  It was him, and now you, that choose to make a mountain of a molehill.

Quote:The issue is one of probable cause to arrest or even detail an individual for having committed a criminal act.  Certainly, there are grounds for a lawsuit which, in the end, will probably end up being a "slap suit" in that a judge will not rule it frivolous but will allow it to go to a civil trial, where the cop will be forced to testify under oath.  In the end, our would-be plaintiff will likely lose but any lawsuit will consume resources (the cop's salary, lawyer & court costs, etc.), which the judge will likely feel is a justifiable burden to be imposed upon the municipality, which will act as a deterrent to any such future police abuses.

Was he arrested or jailed..did he go to trial.....have there been any criminal charges...or was he told to get the fuck outta heya...so that's alot of wasted breath.

(June 22, 2017 at 3:14 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(June 22, 2017 at 3:11 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I am not a criminal defense attorney; to be defined a "public nuisance," I believe, can only be issued by a city official or a sitting judge.  The police, I believe, are at least required to give a verbal warning to any potential offenders.  The police cannot simply stop, detail and handcuff a person on a whim, just because they do not like the person's behavior. 

Irrelevant, since that's not what happened here even if all we had to go by was the jackasses own edited video...so?  The police -can- detain and question anyone involved in a public disturbance to ascertain the nature of the disturbance and whether or not further action is required.  Looks like, in this jackasses case..the cop decided that further action -wasn;t- required.  It was him, and now you, that choose to make a mountain of a molehill.

Quote:The issue is one of probable cause to arrest or even detail an individual for having committed a criminal act.  Certainly, there are grounds for a lawsuit which, in the end, will probably end up being a "slap suit" in that a judge will not rule it frivolous but will allow it to go to a civil trial, where the cop will be forced to testify under oath.  In the end, our would-be plaintiff will likely lose but any lawsuit will consume resources (the cop's salary, lawyer & court costs, etc.), which the judge will likely feel is a justifiable burden to be imposed upon the municipality, which will act as a deterrent to any such future police abuses.

Was he arrested or jailed..did he go to trial.....have there been any criminal charges...or was he told to get the fuck outta heya...so that's alot of wasted breath.

I am not his attorney, of course; I just hope that he gets one.  Usually, in civil trials, only 75% of the jury has to agree with the plaintiff(s).  Simply being an asshole is not a criminal offense.  A police officer is supposed to enforce the law, not impose one of his/her own making.

(June 22, 2017 at 3:28 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(June 22, 2017 at 3:14 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Irrelevant, since that's not what happened here even if all we had to go by was the jackasses own edited video...so?  The police -can- detain and question anyone involved in a public disturbance to ascertain the nature of the disturbance and whether or not further action is required.  Looks like, in this jackasses case..the cop decided that further action -wasn;t- required.  It was him, and now you, that choose to make a mountain of a molehill.


Was he arrested or jailed..did he go to trial.....have there been any criminal charges...or was he told to get the fuck outta heya...so that's alot of wasted breath.

I am not his attorney, of course; I just hope that he gets one.  Usually, in civil trials, only 75% of the jury has to agree with the plaintiff(s).  Simply being an asshole is not a criminal offense.

OFC it isn;t...but since that;s not what we're discussing I don;t know why you keep making comments to that effect?  Public...nuisance.  Say it with me.

Quote: A police officer is supposed to enforce the law, not impose one of his/her own making.

Looks like he did a good job in this instance, to me..which is uncharacteristic of police of late, lol.  No one's rights were abused, no one went to jail, no charges, and no one was shot.  It's unlikely that the officer in question devised the city statutes himself..you realize?

Some asshole just had to back the fuck up off the club.....then ran to the youtubes to say "help, help, I'm being oppressed!"