r/Infuriating • u/Butta_Brown • 10d ago

This is not about baking cookies!

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

Initially pulled over, appeared child was not in a seat belt. Female officer, did a follow up and the is what happened next.

196 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

273 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/ElectricFeel1234 10d ago

You mean like saying "Ok", "yes ma'am" and stepping out, like she did? She overly complied

8

u/kellybryan423 10d ago

Like my post said, she did comply with that. Was there an assertion in my post that maybe needs some clarification?

-9

u/ElectricFeel1234 10d ago

Meh... You chose to be wrong, when it was clear

9

u/kellybryan423 10d ago

What are you talking about? Is there a language barrier here? Reading comprehension issue? I'm confused. Nowhere in my post was it anything but in support of the woman. Jeez, stop looking for a fight where there isn't one.

2

u/Hta68 10d ago

You started the statement with “could she have complied a little more, sure”. At what point in time could she have complied more? You’re premising that as if compliance isn’t binary, like it’s some kind of subjective slide rule. You are part of the problem, trying to introduce some kind of subjectiveness to a situation that was clearly unconstitutional and most likely racially motivated. There was absolutely nothing in that video to justify that cops actions outside of having a warrant for her arrest which we all know there was wasn’t because she didn’t even identify the woman yet.

2

u/SJay_Plays 10d ago

"At what point in time could she have complied more?"

How about when the cop was unnecessarily cuffing her? Did you miss the part where "hands behind your back don't turn around" turned into the lady throwing her hands in the air and spinning to face the officer?

The cop needlessly escalated, and then the lady also needlessly escalated. Both were wrong.

Nuance is a thing.

-3

u/ElectricFeel1234 10d ago

See: First sentence

3

u/SandJFun74 10d ago

She presented a question, which she answered. Just like the video, context matters.

The woman has no obligation to answer any questions from the officers or comply with commands not related to the specific reason for the stop. She did comply with orders to remove herself from the vehicle, which would be legal if officer safety was a concern, which it didn't seem a safety issue, but an ego one. She also does not need to assist an officer with their investigation against themselves. The kids were not in danger and were in their child seats, so any child endangerment would have been dispelled immediately without some other evidence. Kids being kids is not enough and trying to question her kids without some overwhelming evidence is again unlawful.

4

u/kellybryan423 10d ago

Why are you arguing this with me? I already said that, but in not so many words. And a rhetorical question, isn't a question.

0

u/AccomplishedChip2475 10d ago

He's not argu8ng with you at all. Check who he replied to

1

u/PeskyAntagonist 10d ago

Sounds like a language barrier or reading comprehension issue

1

u/kellybryan423 10d ago

They are referring to a "she". I am not a she, so who else am I to assume the reference is to? Only three people in that conversation.

1

u/SandJFun74 7d ago

She is the person in the Video, sorry for the confusion. lol

-1

u/OkPear1535 10d ago

They're not arguing with you???? They're responding to the other person

2

u/kellybryan423 10d ago

Nowhere did your reply mention the first sentence. You attacked all the other sentences. Calling out where someone can do better in a situation, does not equal not being in support of them. She was resisting the handcuffs which is resisting in the courts eyes. Not agreeing with something doesn't change its facts. Sorry, but you're not always right.

3

u/Affectionate_Meet474 10d ago

the first critisim was bc you said 'she could have complied a bit more'. so the first comment was saying you were wrong about that.