Talk:Deescalate: Difference between revisions
(Created page with " Ann They are not being ruthless She should comply. Stubbornness gets you in trouble Carolyn Gregory Williams, you are wrong. If she has complied with his original request...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Dan Furbush you are ignorant of the law. The officer failed to follow de-escalation protocols listed in the Oklahoma manual for police officers. He did the opposite. She made mistakes but he is supposed to be the professional. Supreme court justice. If you did not watch the whole video you are a part of the problem. She was exercising her right to question what she was being told to do when told to sign. She does not have to sign. At that point the officer failed to follow clear police protocol and guidelines and abused his power instead of doing his duty. | |||
"He was, however, speaking to a representative of government, the police. And it is to government that one goes 'for a redress of grievances,' to use an almost forgotten phrase of the First Amendment. But it is said that the purpose was 'to cause inconvenience and annoyance.' Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet." William O Douglas | |||
---- | |||
Latest revision as of 20:36, 26 August 2022
Dan Furbush you are ignorant of the law. The officer failed to follow de-escalation protocols listed in the Oklahoma manual for police officers. He did the opposite. She made mistakes but he is supposed to be the professional. Supreme court justice. If you did not watch the whole video you are a part of the problem. She was exercising her right to question what she was being told to do when told to sign. She does not have to sign. At that point the officer failed to follow clear police protocol and guidelines and abused his power instead of doing his duty. "He was, however, speaking to a representative of government, the police. And it is to government that one goes 'for a redress of grievances,' to use an almost forgotten phrase of the First Amendment. But it is said that the purpose was 'to cause inconvenience and annoyance.' Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet." William O Douglas
Ann
They are not being ruthless
She should comply. Stubbornness gets you in trouble
Carolyn Gregory Williams, you are wrong. If she has complied with his original request this would not have escalated. She is the one that blew his simple request all out of proportion.
Carolyn Kees Varcoe police are supposed to be peace keepers. Yes she could have been better educated about traffic stops but people are getting the whole story. I just shared some more info above
Yarborough Gregory Williams NOPE. HE WAS SPOT ON.
Maria
So childish, she should have done what the police told her to do.
Steven This is all BS she should be being compliant and not deciding what she wants to do she broke the law she was putting up so much of a fight
Elizabeth Mcdonald McPhillips so now it is okay to tax unreasonable old women. We are going to need extra batteries.
Larry Smith he did not need to arrest her. He did not need her signature. She was not a threat.