‘Appalling’ Video Shows the Police Yanking 1-Year-Old From His Mother’s Arms

[Exactice]

Did you really just invoke fire code?

They apologized to her. They dropped all charges.

Why are you continuing to defend this odious abuse of state power?

It's delusional. And yes, I stopped reading the second you mentioned fire code. Fire code is not a justification for this egregious abuse.

Because It was stated in the report. I am just regurgitating the statements.

Obscurity, in a debate as what I hope we are doing we need to justify our statements. the point of Fire Code is...... The LEO asked the women to stand. ASKING the women to stand without reason is an abuse of power IS THIS FACTUAL? The justification FROM the report stated the reason for the women to stand was because she was blocking the access aisle which was the concern of the fire access/fire code. THIS was the Justification for the reason of asking her to stand from the report and from the LEO, (WHICH IS FAIR not illegal)

NOW do I Agree? NO I do NOT I have conceded that this was an abuse. BUT my point is that a Lawful order was given to a compliant individual. The individual then decided to NOT comply (WHILE MORALLY WE all can agree) By legality, there is JUSTIFICATION. HOW and why this escalated was both the Individual NOT complying with the request and then the LEO abusing their power by "excessive" force.

With that YES all additional FOLLOW on charges were dismissed, to include resisting arrest, endangering a child etc..... BUT this was ALL AFTER the individual chose NOT to comply with the initial request.


THIS IS BUT one case..... How many more do you think like this happens where the individual did NOT comply and got excessive force used on them by context...... How many individual while MORALLY in the RIGHT were still legally not complying.

YOU BUT emotion in your decision I put lawful orders. So please excuse my seemingly justifying the situation. I AM NOT. I am regurgitating the statements the led UP to it.

 

[Obscurity]

Because It was stated in the report. I am just regurgitating the statements.

Obscurity, in a debate as what I hope we are doing we need to justify our statements. the point of Fire Code is...... The LEO asked the women to stand. ASKING the women to stand without reason is an abuse of power IS THIS FACTUAL? The justification FROM the report stated the reason for the women to stand was because she was blocking the access aisle which was the concern of the fire access/fire code. THIS was the Justification for the reason of asking her to stand from the report and from the LEO, (WHICH IS FAIR not illegal)

NOW do I Agree? NO I do NOT I have conceded that this was an abuse. BUT my point is that a Lawful order was given to a compliant individual. The individual then decided to NOT comply (WHILE MORALLY WE all can agree) By legality, there is JUSTIFICATION. HOW and why this escalated was both the Individual NOT complying with the request and then the LEO abusing their power by "excessive" force.

With that YES all additional FOLLOW on charges were dismissed, to include resisting arrest, endangering a child etc..... BUT this was ALL AFTER the individual chose NOT to comply with the initial request.


THIS IS BUT one case..... How many more do you think like this happens where the individual did NOT comply and got excessive force used on them by context...... How many individual while MORALLY in the RIGHT were still legally not complying.

YOU BUT emotion in your decision I put lawful orders. So please excuse my seemingly justifying the situation. I AM NOT. I am regurgitating the statements the led UP to it.

Emotion? I am not being emotional. I simply do not agree that any order given by an LEO is legal unless the cause of the interaction is also legal. For example, I am in Walmart, walmart calls the police for a disturbance. I am not the cause of the disturbance, nor am I related to it. A policeman detains me and attempts to obtain my identification. This is illegal. He has to have cause to obtain those things and detain me.

 

[Exactice]

Emotion? I am not being emotional. I simply do not agree that any order given by an LEO is legal unless the cause of the interaction is also legal. For example, I am in Walmart, walmart calls the police for a disturbance. I am not the cause of the disturbance, nor am I related to it. A policeman detains me and attempts to obtain my identification. This is illegal. He has to have cause to obtain those things and detain me.

If they have NO reasonable cause to stop you for the disturbance. BUT if you match the description of the individual they can stop you for questioning. If you decline to answer by legal right the officer must then choose to Arrest you as a suspect or release you on your own accord. Again Detaining is NOT a statement of guilt it is the process which care custody and control is established.

You walking around Walmart is NOT the same as the women who was in direct violation and was ASKED FIRST to comply which she DID NOT. That is the difference.

NOW if you are specifically identified on Walmart security or a specific individual and the officer detains to arrest there is a HUGE difference.

*Edit* Yes emotion, Just because you dont like the LEO does not mean you do not comply. Just because MORALLY it was not nice of the LEO to ask the women to stand, but if by legal justification blocking the access isle causing a hazard then to comply is one and then arguing the justification is another.