[tankcommander007]

Democrats will say this had to do with race and they'll pay to have her buried in a 24k gold casket

[rohmell]

Originally Posted by Simone ↗

Attachment 967070
Attachment 967071
Attachment 967072
Attachment 967073
Attachment 967074
Attachment 967075

Thank You, Ms Simone for converting the PDF to images. Stupid me, I should have done that in the first place, rather than just posting a link.

[BluderFly]

Originally Posted by gimlet ↗

What a great country, with taxpayers assistance LaQueefa gets a coal black Camaro, a handgun and a sumptuous diet that could feed an entire Cambodian village ("it takes a village"). Taxpayers also pay for an Officer Friendly and his Dunkin' Donut diet to check up on LaQueefa and make sure she is acting like a responsible WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant), and to administer gentle electrical reminders if her behavior doesn't meet quality control standards.

That's Officer Porkins to you, sir.

[tbone79]

Originally Posted by K53 ↗

Appears she was defending herself from the racist cops

Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit!!!

She was resisting, obviously hiding something and shot the cop. For you to claim racism is blatantly ignorant

[tbone79]

Originally Posted by Vedderman ↗

What grounds did he have to search her and her bag?

He had cause to pull over the car, I get that. But once he saw that she was alone in the car and had no warrants on her, what possible cause did he have to execute a search and seizure?

How exactly is borrowing someone's car grounds for that fat pig pawing through her personal belongings?

Don't get me wrong. She's a black woman being pulled over and harassed by a white cop who outweighed her by a quarter ton. The smart move was to play ball. If she'd played ball, she'd likely be alive. She was foolish to resist in that situation.

She went for the gun when she should have rolled over. That's the core reason why she's dead.

But that aside, please explain to me what REASONABLE grounds this 500-pound shit-slopping, donut-munching pig had to search her personal possessions other than blatant harassment.

Her EXTENSIVE criminal history

[tbone79]

Originally Posted by kellyhound ↗

Maybe this has something to do with it. Maybe he pulled a few strings to get his obese son onboard.



Don't know why she went through her purse in a suspicious matter nor why she handed over her purse to him unless he asked her to do so, unlawfully, and that piece was cut out of the released vid and she maybe didn't know her rights. she was foolish enough to grab a gun and start shooting, signing her own death sentence.

What if you're borrowing your neighbor's car and he's a registered sex offender without you knowing and you get pulled over for a warrant on his behalf and they find out it's not him.

Does that mean the cops can raise a suspicion thinking you're also into whatever sex crimes your neighbor committed in the past and therefore can search your personal belongings because you act nervous and driving his car?

If you’ve got nothing to hide, who cares? Too many “Muh freedumbs..” people out there for their own good. FFS, it would only take a few minutes of time to get checked out

[Vedderman]

Originally Posted by tbone79 ↗

Her EXTENSIVE criminal history

No.

An 'extensive' history of minor offenses is NOT grounds to violate her 4th Amendment rights.

There are several reasons that an officer can legally execute a search during a traffic stop.

The driver having a criminal history is not one of them and never shall be one of them unless that driver has warrants outstanding relating to that history.

Why is this difficult for you authoritarian apologists to understand?

She asks him on camera why he stopped her.

"Because the car owner has warrants and I didn't know who was in the car."

"No one is in the car, sir."

"I see that now, but now we're going to address some other things."

His only reason for pulling her over was the warrants which did not apply to her. Her criminal history did NOT give him the right to search her purse, which was sitting on the seat.

If he'd seen a gun, then he'd have been justified. In this case, she had a gun but he obviously didn't see it or he would have drawn his far sooner.

He saw nothing but a woman's purse, which he decided it was his privilege to search.

The only possible way he could have justified a search is if he asked to search the car (with zero probable cause, I might add) and she gave him her consent because she didn't understand that he was trying to violate her constitutional Rights. But if that happened, it was not included in the video.

And given that it was the only possible justification he had for putting his piggy little hooves all over her personal possessions, I reckon it'd be included if she'd given it, don't you?

[Vedderman]

Originally Posted by tbone79 ↗

If you’ve got nothing to hide, who cares? Too many “Muh freedumbs..” people out there for their own good. FFS, it would only take a few minutes of time to get checked out

I care, you fucking fascist apologist.

The goddam Constitution exists for a reason.

The 4th Amendment exists for a reason.

I've never had 'anything to hide' when I was pulled over for a traffic stop, but why the fuck would that mean I want some sloppy-faced pig violating my Rights just because he can?

Jesus bleeding Christ, you are ten times more of a problem in this society than that dead black woman was. You have admitted in other threads here that you do not vote 'because every election just feels like Stalin vs Hitler' to you, yet you feel entitled to empower our rapidly-militarizing police force by telling people that their Rights don't matter and only a criminal with something to hide would stand up and refuse to have their Rights violated.

What the shit is wrong with you?

[Padraig Flaherty]

Originally Posted by Vedderman ↗

No.

An 'extensive' history of minor offenses is NOT grounds to violate her 4th Amendment rights.

There are several reasons that an officer can legally execute a search during a traffic stop.

The driver having a criminal history is not one of them and never shall be one of them unless that driver has warrants outstanding relating to that history.

Why is this difficult for you authoritarian apologists to understand?

She asks him on camera why he stopped her.

"Because the car owner has warrants and I didn't know who was in the car."

"No one is in the car, sir."

"I see that now, but now we're going to address some other things."

His only reason for pulling her over was the warrants which did not apply to her. Her criminal history did NOT give him the right to search her purse, which was sitting on the seat.

If he'd seen a gun, then he'd have been justified. In this case, she had a gun but he obviously didn't see it or he would have drawn his far sooner.

He saw nothing but a woman's purse, which he decided it was his privilege to search.

The only possible way he could have justified a search is if she asked to search the car (with zero probable cause, I might add) and she gave him her consent because she didn't understand that he was trying to violate her constitutional Rights. But if that happened, it was not included in the video.

And given that it was the only possible justification he had for putting his piggy little hooves all over her personal possessions, I reckon it'd be included if she'd given it, don't you?

It wasn't her car, but the property of a wanted criminal, for drugs particularly, so his property could be searched! Remember, when being a wanted felon (no doubt he had previous history), many "rights" are revoked for the safety of society, and the regulation of justice! As well, in many states, if drugs are found in a vehicle, the driver is responsible, EVEN IF NOT THERE OWN! And who's to say he wasn't in the trunk, etc. Completely justified here! If anything, the officer should have thrown her down, and had her cuffed and secure much earlier....

[Padraig Flaherty]

And obstinate behaviour connotes guilt, which can be grounds as well!