Nobody said that but ok. And "but this is true, he's done bad things too but I won't say what" is nothing but a pointless comment.
Obstruction charge secondary to what?
He didn't break any laws.
A simple "I'll talk to you when I'm finished here", after he had already shown willingness to wait, would have sufficed. He became visibly annoyed when speaking to her, which she chose to initiate mid stop. Her poor time management is on her.
Aggressive is just being melodramatic.
If they're breaded they aren't low carb lol
You've got your head in the sand here, mate. "Calling out" is in idiotic idea best left to children.
Your opinion doesn't change the legality.
Even so, so one said doing that was dangerous. Walking up to a traffic stop is.
Which is not what he did. Why couldn't she put that conversation off until finished with her current task? It's really not a difficult question.
You don't want to engage on anything other than your really superficial level though.
Laughable coming from someone who can't even accurately state what was shown or answer a very direct and simple question.
"but even if accurate, why couldn't she just say "I'll come talk to you when my stop is done"? Especially as he was already clearly waiting for it to finish. Her poor time management is on her."
Covered that already.
And I, once again, question calling it a cop being inherently "stupid" or dangerous. It being viewed that way is sad. But I see I've gotten as far as I can in regards to your self awareness. Have a great day.
Nah I'll just repeat that dancing around responses isn't an explanation and that you're a hypocrite.
Unless you're a cop apparently. [Insert pointless emojis here]
You are condoning illegal actions by criticizing legal actions when an unlawful arrest was made, whether or not you say otherwise.
And their interaction wasn't finished, she was mid traffic stop.
Not sure how you figured that but even if accurate, why couldn't she just say "I'll come talk to you when my stop is done"? Especially as he was already clearly waiting for it to finish. Her poor time management is on her.
Then why didn't they charge him with that instead of the bullshit they went with?
And, if they ‘make something up’ then they must prove it in court. If they can’t, then that is just another part of the lawsuit against them.
You're living in fantasy land.
He stood to the side until their interaction was finished. That is not walking into it.
You are condoning their actions when you highlight his perfectly legal "wrongs" in the context of an entirely illegal arrest.
I watched the video. No laws were broken. Again.
How do you tire of something you never did? Enjoy gloating about being a hypocrite I guess.
He wanted a badge number, per his repeatedly stating this. And again, still broke no laws. Any reason you went with "shouting" despite it not happening?
And she should have answered herself "get in my car and leave as there are no laws being broken".
Right. We SHOULD expect more maturity from an adult than from a child.
One person says mean words. The other made an unlawfully arrested despite BEING PAID to not do so. I expect more from officers than citizens. Which is why I specified police. I have no expectations of random citizens beyond not breaking laws, adult or not. I hope you didn't think I wouldn't catch that attempt to misrepresent what I had actually stated.
And I agree, it is the officer's job to de-escalate, which, by apologizing, is exactly what she attempted to do. More than once. But the driver consistently refused to disengage, and gave no clear indication as to when he intended to do so.
Arresting him for not breaking any laws is not the solution. See above. I never heard her give name or number when repeatedly asked which could have deescalated things rather easily.
Oh yeah, and he was arrested for not breaking any laws. Yet again. Ad nauseam.
ETA:
"and then kept speaking...and shouting, and repremanding, and criticizing."
Shouting is just being dramatic and none of that is illegal. Again.
And still more useful than defending unlawful actions will ever be. This also doesn't answer why viewing it as "stupid" or, as you seem to be implying, dangerous, isn't giving you any pause whatsoever. Does it not at all bother you that that's your go-to opinion, rather than "there may not be much point but he should be able to do it without having to worry about the impact it will have on being arrested"? Shouldn't we expect officers at a base level to handle even the most "stupid" (as bafflingly defined by calling out a cop for something) people with a bit of restraint and decorum?
I find it incredibly stupid to continue condoning officers making unlawful arrests but I'm not about to swat you, and that's with not being literally paid to make decisions based on law rather than my feelings.
You highlighting perfectly legal behavior on his part as wrong and a reason for the unlawful arrest is defending it.
Either story being accurate would not change the fact that they arrest was unlawful and, maybe this time it will stick, she repeatedly apologizes. Who does that if they think they weren't in the wrong? For the millionth time.
The courts do not give a damn about feelings, morals, or thoughts. They only care about facts and how they pertain to the law.
Duh. The only one arguing feelings here is you. He did nothing illegal therefore the arrest was unlawful. The law doesn't care about your feelings regarding his entirely legal actions.
You also, unsurprisingly, have yet to give a legitimate reason the officer couldn't have just said "my name is blah and my number is ####". Your assumptions about what he could or couldn't see are irrelevant, which I imagine you realized when you glossed over the "not everyone has perfect eyesight" part. Or the fact that many department policies require it be provided when requested. Withholding information that's so readily available also makes zero sense outside of all that. There's no reason to refuse.
And they can’t just ‘bullshit up another charge’ because they would fall to ‘double jeopardy’.
That's exactly what they did do. Which wouldn't have been necessary had he committed the actions you hypothesized as those charges would be readily present. Again.
Do you even know what you're arguing at this point?
ETA: and it was her responsibility to deescalate, not his. Another point that was unsurprisingly danced around. What a shock.
What you should be thinking is why you automatically view calling a cop out as "stupid" as opposed to a basic right afforded to all us citizens. That certainly well have more affect than continuously defending blatantly unlawful behavior.
but it's not illegal.
Nothing more needs to be said. It was an unlawful arrest.
The sibling who hits will probably be disciplined regardless of the reason and aside from that I don't think it's terrible to expect a slightly higher maturity rating than "I'm not touching you" age children.
Then there's the fact that nothing he was doing even approached that and she had as much opportunity to leave as he did. It's also the officers job to deescalate, not his.
Oh yeah, and he didn't break any laws. Yet again.
The Sargent believed he saw the man preventing the woman cop from doing her job. Was he? No. But that is what the Sargent believed he saw. In court, the video would absolve the man from any charges.
And he was wrong. So defending him is stupid. Especially based on an assumption.
But, I can walk up to any officer in Austin, talk to them, look at their badge, and see the number and name. It is in plain site. No need to ask.
Unless the sun is in your eyes, or your eyesight isn't great, or they aren't wearing it per policy. I imagine there are plenty of factors I'm not considering as well. Which is why, even if for no other reason than simple courtesy, many policies say to give it when asked. Again. As usual, your personal experience is not universal.
And, if we accept his story why should we not accept hers? If she had her lights and sirens on and he failed to yield, is that not on him?
I don't care which story is accurate. We have an unlawful arrest caught on video, and her repeated apologies would likely include a mention of him not being honest if that were the case. Also they wouldn't have had to bullshit up a charge if that one were so readily available.
Arguing the same points rather than the responses they've already received is kinda weird, btw.
What would the obstruction charge, as a secondary charge, be secondary to?
Anyone is within their rights to blindly shrug and go "oh well", of course, but justifying illegal actions with that argument is ridiculous.
"He was right and they were wrong, but..."
It's 2024. Nobody falls for that one anymore. They made an unlawful arrest, but nothing. Blaming anyone but the ones who made the illegal arrest dilutes this fact.
That would involve, you know...harassment.
"Whoever threatens unlawful harm to any public servant or to any other person with whose welfare the public servant is interested shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree"
From:
While Florida specific, that's a pretty standard definition of harassment. None of which happened in this video.
So are you for or against blindly following and accepting things as they are?
Standing to the side and waiting until it's over is not obstruction, regardless of you not liking that action. Also what would the obstruction be secondary to? As i can't imagine any functionally intelligent person commenting so decisively on something they know nothing about, I'm sure you're already well aware that it is a secondary charge.
Oh and watching or even filming police while they are performing their duties is 1000% legal, as it should be.
It's totally true but it's not their business so they won't expand on it. But somehow commenting vaguely about it is fine lmao
Top Chef 20: Who is the favorite?
TopChef