Replies

SoldierDad, I’m likely with you; I certainly see the start of the video as a person too close to an active crime scene.

I also don’t have a problem with the police including part of someone’s yard in a crime scene, and asking people who live there to move away.

I think the cop was stupid to arrest her, and I think she’s a really good activist, with a good activist friend, who played this perfectly. It was a setup, and they scored big.

If everybody who ever won in traffic court could sue for having to drag their butts to traffic court, like people seem to think the standard should be here, we’d probably never give anybody a ticket.

I predicted in a prior thread that she’d get her case dismissed, and she did. I also predicted that in the end, she wouldn’t win a lawsuit. I’m standing by that prediction, but seeing how many good conservatives were taken in by her propaganda, I could lose this one.

After all, we still have freepers insisting she was arrested for filming the traffic stop, when the only reason to believe that is the woman put a title on her video saying that she was arrested for videotaping.

Even though she was never asked to stop, there is nothing on her own video where the officer mentions her stopping the video, the officer didn’t confiscate her video, and didn’t ask the guy who took her iphone to stop, or arrest him when he continued to film.

I tried this experiment, which everybody should try at work. Get 4 co-workers. Show two of them the full video, and two of them the video starting after the title.

You’ll be amazed at the difference of opinion at the end. Those who see the title will be looking for the cop to come after the woman, and will see it. Those who don’t see the title will see a woman being belligerant and interfering with a traffic stop, and might even clap when the cop finally arrests her.