• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

RIOT police arrest hot lady thats wearing a summer dress.

The police appear to be already blocking that roadway - do you see any cars passing by? Perhaps the pollice decalred a "safe space" and were giving anyone else a "ime out" if they dared to enter it. ;)

Perhaps. Could be. Maybe. Possible. OBEY the ****ing police, for God's sake. WTH is wrong with people?
 
Got to admit the optics are terrible!

You're missing the part about "proportional response" - she's clearly passive & unarmed! :doh

Oh I get that. You miss the part where police ar procedural and that's a "picture".
 
It is amazing how many are advocating "innocent until proven guilty" and "give them the benefit of the doubt" when we are discussing alleged criminals, but cops are always guilty when the are trying to protect us and themselves.
 
Perhaps. Could be. Maybe. Possible. OBEY the ****ing police, for God's sake. WTH is wrong with people?

As far as I can tell she is not resisting arrest and, quite possibly, asking for it. What crime, exactly, was she being charged with that the police were not also doing in order to make the arrest?

Look at that photo and tell me if the police had already blocked the road. Perhaps after a judge sees that photo then a "blocking traffic" charge will be dismissed. While I generally do not agree with blackliesmatter claims, to expect protestors not to be as disruptive (in your face?) as possible ignores the whole idea behind "civil rights" protests historically.

Nobody would care if they simply planted signs on their own lawns (stayed in the hood?) or held their protest rallies out in some remote field, park or on a website. Will the police hold union strikers to the (new?) "never block traffic" standard to keep scabs out or make the news?

I am not advocating that the police "go all Baltimore" and let rioters loot, set fires and otherwise destroy property but until that peaceful protest line is crossed I can see not overreacting to people simply "taking it to the streets".
 
As far as I can tell she is not resisting arrest and, quite possibly, asking for it. What crime, exactly, was she being charged with that the police were not also doing in order to make the arrest?

Look at that photo and tell me if the police had already blocked the road. Perhaps after a judge sees that photo then a "blocking traffic" charge will be dismissed. While I generally do not agree with blackliesmatter claims, to expect protestors not to be as disruptive (in your face?) as possible ignores the whole idea behind "civil rights" protests historically.

Nobody would care if they simply planted signs on their own lawns (stayed in the hood?) or held their protest rallies out in some remote field, park or on a website. Will the police hold union strikers to the (new?) "never block traffic" standard to keep scabs out or make the news?

I am not advocating that the police "go all Baltimore" and let rioters loot, set fires and otherwise destroy property but until that peaceful protest line is crossed I can see not overreacting to people simply "taking it to the streets".

Why do you assume she was being arrested?
 
Why do you assume she was being arrested?

The police approaching her have zip ties (disposable hand restraints?) at the ready and she appears to be presenting her wrists. There is also the thread title, of course, but perhaps that is no clue. ;)
 
She was blocking the road. She wasn't arrested.

Baton Rouge Protest: The Woman in the Photo

From your link:

Although he did not reveal her identity, he subsequently tweeted that she had been released from prison on Sunday evening.

I suspect that a prison (probably really a jail) release typically follows an arrest. Charges may have been dropped but I doubt that she was released without first being taken into custody (aka arrested).
 
From your link:



I suspect that a prison (probably really a jail) release typically follows an arrest. Charges may have been dropped but I doubt that she was released without first being taken into custody (aka arrested).

Half truths are part of the problem. Sometimes I think Tust but Verify doesn't work on the Internet. Ought to be just Verify.
 
Looks like the police have the most power.

:lol:

My money's on them in this kerfuffle.
 
Got to admit the optics are terrible!

You're missing the part about "proportional response" - she's clearly passive & unarmed! :doh

..and what does the area immediately behind her (and out of frame) look like??? Were they facing a mob of people screaming threats or was she the only person in the street?? The picture is framed to make it look like the latter, yet I suspect that it was more like the former...
 
Justify it however you want, but if you can look at that photo and not see there's something going wrong in this country, you're far different person than I.

Optics like this broadcast around the world only solidify the growing perception that America is becoming a militarized police state. And there's truth in that.

It's become too much to turn a blind eye, and the results can be seen nearly every day on the nightly news ...

Hyperbolic nonsense.
A dozen police just got shot, in a place where the primary new incidents didn't happen.
This is the place where one of the incidents did happen, with the potential to have greater danger present.

I suppose they should wear their summer shorts, Hawaiian tees and flip flops when in these situations.
 
Where would she be hiding any weapons? They could have shot her just in case, I suppose. Does it need three heavily armored policemen to take out a girl in a summer dress?
From their point of view, she could have had weapons at her back. Unlikely I agree but as I said, it would be wrong of them to make any unconditional assumptions.

They could have just shot her. They could have tased her, used tear gas, rubber bullets or batons. They didn’t though. It’s almost as if it’s been predetermined that the police are always in the wrong and this is just a case of coming up with a reason. Can’t you accept even the slightest possibility that in this one tiny incident, the officers involved didn’t actually do anything significantly wrong?

Her gender or clothing doesn’t really seem relevant. Her frame and size certainly could be but again, there’s nothing to be gains from unconditional assumptions in that kind of environment. They probably didn’t need three heavily armoured policemen but since they were the officers present, they were the ones who addressed her. Given we don’t know what is happening out of frame, it could be perfectly legitimate to have two officers covering the one actually apprehending her, protecting them both from harm.

Again, are you suggesting the officers should have taken off the body armour because they were encountering a slight woman in a dress and then put it all back on in a heavily set man in fatigues arrived behind her?
 
She was refusing to stop blocking the roadway, hence her arrest. What on earth does a dress have to do with anything, she is the one that wore a dress knowing she may be arrested. One does not draw a rifle, me thinks someone does not know much about firearms.

According to the linked article, it was a beautiful dress like that in any way has relevance to the situation.

Are there no journalists anymore?
 
Come on. The last time officers went to a BLM demonstration without protective gear, five officers ended up dead. To not allow them to protect themselves right now would be malfeasance.
Police riot gear usually isn't bulletproof.

It's protection from blunt force trauma, like rocks or stones or baseball bats. And let's face it, it's also designed to intimidate people.

Police were showing up at protests in riot gear long before last week. It's standard issue, has been for years (if not decades).

What the photo really captures is the militarization of the current police, their desire for total control, and the fear the police have of the public -- even when it's just a woman in a sun dress.
 
They could have just shot her. They could have tased her, used tear gas, rubber bullets or batons. They didn’t though. It’s almost as if it’s been predetermined that the police are always in the wrong and this is just a case of coming up with a reason.
No one is accusing those two officers with mistreating her.

Rather, at a bare minimum it shows how militarized the police have become, in the face of peaceful protest. Do you really think that's a good thing?


They probably didn’t need three heavily armoured policemen....
There were only two. Perhaps that helps illustrate how much armor they were wearing.
 
It is the image, the photograph that carries the weight.

One unarmed young woman all alone face to face with a phalanx of armed storm troopers.

The photo makes the US look like any other highly militarized society.
 
Yes, it looks like she's wearing a powerful police-repellent!

She is not the only person out there, so that is absurd comment from you to make.
 
She is not the only person out there, so that is absurd comment from you to make.

I see no others, just two to one. You're being ridiculous.

160709-baton-rouge-iconic-photo-feature.jpg
 
Last edited:
Got to admit the optics are terrible!

You're missing the part about "proportional response" - she's clearly passive & unarmed! :doh

She was but one person of 100 arrested. They didn't all group up and put on riot gear for her. She was standing in the road. She was removed. What do you want? Them to change out of their riot gear to grab her and then put it back on once she was secured?
 

First of all, she ain't no hottie!

Secondly, when the police give you a lawful command for any reason, in this case to get out of the street, and you don't comply, you are violating the law. Doesn't matter if you are a peaceful protester or an asshole protester.


What part of "you are violating the law", don't these people get?

The cops did what they are supposed to do! End of story!

Moving on..............................................................................
 
I see no others, just two to one. You're being ridiculous.

160709-baton-rouge-iconic-photo-feature.jpg

So you are saying they called all those police out there for one woman? You are full of it.What about the area behind that woman that the photograph does not show?
 
Justify it however you want, but if you can look at that photo and not see there's something going wrong in this country, you're far different person than I.

Optics like this broadcast around the world only solidify the growing perception that America is becoming a militarized police state. And there's truth in that.

It's become too much to turn a blind eye, and the results can be seen nearly every day on the nightly news ...

Yes...I agree. The police should have sent in one of their unarmed, female teenage cadets, in a police hat and shirt, to take her into custody.

Of course, they had better gotten it right and hope she didn't have a firearm under her dress or up her crotch. (I've been present on two separate occasions, when female officers removed firearms from vaginas) I've been truly amazed how large some of these cavities really are.
 
Last edited:
I would have effected this arrest a bit differently. I would have walked past her about 3 -4 feet(both officers), turned around and coming from behind her, picked her up bodily from each side, one under each arm, and carted her off.

She could yell, kick and squirm and resist all she wanted to, but it would have been futile. Resistance is always futile.
 
Back
Top Bottom