Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Officer Shoves, Arrests Pregnant Woman Over Loud Call

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Officer Shoves, Arrests Pregnant Woman Over Loud Call

    In message <[email protected]> "Child"
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    I expected to be just as lovely was the stereotypical Winston Churchilllookalike baby Or Alfred Hitch**** <g>Thats neither Winston or Alfred, its Uncle Fester
    Ouch.


    --
    I've given up on sigs. I just couldn't think of anything clever to say.

    Comment


    • #77
      Officer Shoves, Arrests Pregnant Woman Over Loud Call

      In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on 8 Oct 2004
      12:40:53 -0400, tjab wrote: Begin
      In article <[email protected]>,Bart Bailey <[email protected]> wrote:
      In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on 4 Oct 200413:24:20 -0400, tjab wrote: Begin
      My theory is that a lot of people here are expressing opinions withoutlistening to the woman's side of the story. And that talking loud on acell phone is Constitutionally protected free expression. It may berude, but it's not a legitimate police matter.
      Curious;If there's some decibel level or grammatical content when spoken inpublic that could ever be construed as a disturbance, how does having anelectronic device placed next to ones ear provide dispensation?
      Unlike what some here appear to believe, the fact that there was a cellphone involved is utterly irrelevant. As for "construed as a disturbance,"there are a great many things that might disturb you or me that arenonetheless Constitutionally protected.
      I used the term "construed as a disturbance" to mean falling under legal
      sanctions, regardless of my personal preferences.

      (rhetorical)
      Are the generally recognized proscriptions against such utterances as
      the old "fire in a theater" or so-called "fighting words" rendered
      inapplicable when a cell phone is employed in the scenario?
      (/rhetorical)

      --

      Bart

      Comment


      • #78
        this is dissapointing...

        This whole situation is dissapointing for many reasons. It's obveous that this young woman has little concern for others and is selfish to say the least. But I do believe she has the right to speak as she wishes. The rights of Americans are slowly being taken away. Granted, what about the rights of those who have to be around her?? My reply...They have a right to walk away. I believe there are such things as a true disturbance of the peace. But I fear that officer Saoutis is a little confussed about his role in this situation of his new career. Police Officers should be repected and for the most obeyed, they are supose to know best, right? Unfortunatley, this is not always the case. Sometimes lessons are hard learned for all. We need to look at our mistakes and be honest with ourselves! In this case, the officer became angry (makes for irrational discisions), the young woman became diffensive ( again, makes for irrational discisions), and a very avoidable situation occurs. They both need attutude adjustments. In the end... I think she had the right to speak her ugly, unwanted thoughts. From what I could tell from the article, she was not consitantly yelling or hurting anyone physically. The Officer maybe should have just, in concerned tones, talk to this woman for as long as need be till she calmed down. If you give people time and show them that you care things change, usually for the better. Isn't that what we all really want? A caring, concerned, old fashioned police officer? I know this world is messed up! It seems to get worse everyday... but the change must first start in the individual. We are each responsible to make that change. There difinately is need for force and discipline. This is much to often necessary! But in this case??????????
        Last edited by concerned patron; 08-26-2008, 07:46 AM.

        Comment


        • #79
          And you are resurrecting a four year old thread because...?
          The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

          Comment


          • #80
            response to a bored LLT surfer...

            why not?
            Maybe I have a personal reason as
            to why I would comment on this?

            Are you going to take me in for
            commenting, officer blog?
            Last edited by concerned patron; 08-26-2008, 07:50 AM.

            Comment

            Working...
            X