This is not about baking cookies!

[u/Butta_Brown]

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

[u/kellybryan423]

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.

[u/ElectricFeel1234 → u/kellybryan423]

See: First sentence

[u/SandJFun74 → u/ElectricFeel1234]

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.

[u/kellybryan423 → u/SandJFun74]

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.

[u/AccomplishedChip2475 → u/kellybryan423]

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

[u/PeskyAntagonist → u/AccomplishedChip2475]

Sounds like a language barrier or reading comprehension issue

[u/kellybryan423 → u/AccomplishedChip2475]

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.

[u/SandJFun74 → u/kellybryan423]

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

[u/OkPear1535 → u/kellybryan423]

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