Any chance she works for the BBC?

 

Surely she works for the BBC…a ‘free inhabitant’, she belongs to the Earth, she does not belong to any corporation or any country, she recognises no sovereignty, no borders, no laws…US laws have no jurisdiction over ‘human beings’…..nevertheless she does claim all the rights and protections of a US citizen….as the cop says…that way lies anarchy…..one day the BBC journo’s may grow up……

 

 

 

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Any chance she works for the BBC?

  1. crist says:

    I’m sure a thorough tasering and a night in jail would do her the world of good

       44 likes

  2. Mice Height says:

    What an annoying, squeaky bitch.
    Sounds like Laurie Penny putting on an American accent.

       47 likes

  3. Larry Dart says:

    She may well be a lunatic and you may disagree with her opinion, but in the USA, she has the 1st Amendment right to free expression. She also has protection under the 4th Amendment. She does not have to consent to the search and/or seizure of her property and can only be detained or arrested for a specific offence.
    From what I have seen in this video, I would side with the woman being harassed, however strange her views may appear to be. In my opinion (not worth very much I know) she is the victim here.
    There are umpteen gazillion videos on Youtube about 1st/2nd/4th Amendment audits where US police officers are shown to be completely ignorant of or willfully in contempt of the constitutional rights afforded to US citizens.

    The U.S. Constitution is very precious to many U.S. citizens. I wish we had similar protections here. It is there for both ‘loonies’ (who we disagree with) and ‘sane’ people (who we agree with).

       15 likes

    • Spider says:

      While I would agree in principle with you, I have dealt with similar people in the UK. They call themselves freeman of the land, claim to not recognise the crown, and therefore the law does not apply to them. In other words utter b@#£%&s. She was misquoting the law in an attempt to confuse or disrupt the officer, and at the very least make his job very difficult. She was totally wrong and as precious as the constitution is she was wrong. The officer showed plenty of patience with her and at a certain point she could be found to be obstructing him in his duties. Criminals do this frequently in the hope that they can divert the officers attention from some other nefarious activity that may be going on. Look beyond your perception that her “rights were violated” and think why her driver did not have a license.

         62 likes

      • Larry Dart says:

        What is it that you disagree with? What is the law she was misquoting?
        Where is she wrong? Why do you believe police officers tell the truth?. Non- criminals also do this frequently in the hope that they will be left alone. I don’t give a toss why the driver did not have a licence. She was not the driver.

           3 likes

        • Spider says:

          Ok you asked for it.
          She quotes article 4 of the laws of confederation. This applies to interstate law and is fully superseded by local and federal law.
          Here is article 4.
          The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

          “If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense.

          “Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.”

          She is wrong because this is an old confederate law which has been superseded. It aint the constitution by the way.

          I believe that police tell the truth because having served as one for the past twelve years, lying tends to get you in more shit than its worth. I.E your job. Why lie when you could just walk away.

          No she was not the driver, but the officer was required to two the car. Obviously not a good idea with her in it. And as for her cries of “I am being raped” really you believe that as well I suppose.

          Her rights were not violated and she was being a royal pain in the arse. Cops in America have to deal with an armed general public. It is not a situation i envy and that officer did a fine job.

             59 likes

          • Grant says:

            Spider,

            I would add that, if that nasty bitch does not like living in one of the freest countries in the world, she could try N. Korea or Saudi and see how she gets on there. However, I suspect she may have been on drugs or, more likely, mentally ill.

               46 likes

            • johnnythefish says:

              Interesting she claimed to retain her rights as a US citizen.

              Cake and eat it comes to mind.

              That anybody e.g Larry, should choose to defend her actions – well, moral relativism might be your default operating mode but it won’t do you much good when you’re on the receiving end of a crime.

                 22 likes

    • Moodswing6 says:

      Mr Dart you are of course welcome to your views but really defending the behaviour of this woman is the kind of stupidity that has led us to political correct sucide. Had the video not been available, this woman’s behaviour is a fine example of playing the victim in grand style and I have no doubt she would have brought charges against this police officer for things that he had not done. The media would have loved it and you would condone it. Have you had past issues with authority? In particular the police? If the driver of the car has no licence then there is an issue. As this woman is in the car, while she may well be innocent of any crime, certain procedures have to be followed. This was attempted politely and patiently. A gun may have been produced and the officer shot but your take would be she is the victim and acted in self defence. Regardless of this incident had the woman acted with politeness and calmness everything would have gone smoothly. I’m imagining a scenario where the car was allowed to proceed only to crash killing and or causing severe injuries. On enquiry the officer is found to be negligent for allowing the vehicle to proceed. It’s easy for us to watch this and quickly conclude that she may well be mentally ill, however the officer on the spot wouldn’t have been able to identify this, if indeed she is sick. If she isn’t I pity the poor people who are going to come into contact with her in the future. If she is ill I hope she gets help. I thoroughly congratulate this policeman for his total professionalism.

         26 likes

  4. PeterT says:

    She was not being harassed. She is not the victim. The police officer was tolerant and polite in the face of unnecessary and hysterical provocation. He even said he had no problem with her videoing the event. The driver was being arrested at the beginning of the video but we don’t know what for. Something about not having a licence (driving licence?). She should have remained calm and complied with the police officers instructions. He has every right to take her bag which may have contained a weapon and he had every cause to think that a person as hysterical as she was may become violent – and it sounded as though she did. She was lucky that the police officer was so decent, patient and tolerant.

       55 likes

    • Grant says:

      The way she speaks sounds as it it was computer-generated.

         14 likes

    • Larry Dart says:

      Bullshit – pussy

         2 likes

    • Larry Dart says:

      The Police Officer was not being provoked. The PO is a public servant. If you want to remain calm and comply with bullshit orders from tinpot wankers who assume an authority they do not have then God help you.

         0 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        ‘Tinpot wankers’.

        If you are ever the victim of a serious crime, Larry, you might try using that as your opener when Plod comes to your aid.

        You are so funny.

        P.S. Do you talk in one of those squeaky Snowflake voices too?!

           16 likes

    • Larry Dart says:

      The Police Officer was not being provoked. The PO is a public servant. If you want to remain calm and comply with bullshit orders from tinpot wankers who assume an authority they do not have then God help you.

         0 likes

      • Spider says:

        Where as fighting authority with made up laws and being a general arsehole will win every time. Or you could use the actual law and a good lawyer if your rights are actually violated. Good manners cost nothing.

           32 likes

      • Owen Morgan says:

        Nonsense. She was spouting drivel (you know the stuff – it emerges from you on a consistent basis), claiming that she was not subject to any laws, although she somehow changed her tune, when she decided the policeman was acting illegally, according to her own idiosyncratic law code. The policeman said he was going to have the vehicle towed away and that the woman was, by law, not permitted to be inside it when that happened; i.e. both he and she would be breaking the law, if he allowed her to stay inside as the vehicle was towed. He was perfectly clear that she would be breaking the law by not getting out of the car and he remained calm and polite.

        Simple enough, even for you.

           27 likes

  5. deegee says:

    My response if I was the police officer would be, “Madam, You may be right or on the other hand you may be quite wrong. My professional experience would incline to the second option. If your friend doesn’t produce his license I will have no choice but to arrest him. You can make your legal case to the police legal advisor at the police station”.

    The alternative is fast talking out of a ticket. It only works in the movies.

       30 likes

  6. RJ says:

    It’s not rocket science. Obey the Law.

       22 likes

  7. Owen Morgan says:

    Please tell me that was Hillary Clinton. (Loretta Lynch would do.)

       7 likes

  8. Grant says:

    Larry seems to have gone quiet.

       9 likes

    • Larry Dart says:

      I went quiet because I had had enough of the stupidity being directed towards me.
      The woman was a passenger in the vehicle and as such did not have to ID herself. She got out of the car and complied with the PO (the one with the firearm). You may regard her as a fool because she spouts a load of shite (she may well be) but there are laws in place that protect fools and clever people like you Crist and Mike Height and Spider (who believes that the Police tell the truth (naive fool)) and Grant (even though he has a black wife (as do I)).
      The Police are not the best arbiters of what is lawful.

      So, pardon me if I don’t want to be hugged because I’m having a ‘bad night’. I think I had a very good night defending the innocent victim of harassment – even though I disagree with her. If any of you fine, upstanding defenders of liberty disagree with me then so be it – I can live with that. If you can’t – then fuck off.
      I forgot to mention Owen Morgan – is my explanation simple enough for even you?
      p.s. Congratulations to Prof. Haggarty for looking up Larry Dart, you have excelled yourself.

         1 likes

      • Larry Dart says:

        All you defenders of liberty seem to have gone quiet.
        “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” – Thomas Jefferson.

           0 likes

        • Spider says:

          Larry. We have moved on with our lives. This conversation is ancient history in terms of internet blogs, and I only noticed that you had posted in the recent comments table. If you want the last word, fine thats OK.

             0 likes

  9. Professor Haggerty says:

    Hello Larry
    Colonel Raeburn has given you two months leave because he thinks you have been working too hard. He has asked me to give you counselling before you return to your duties.
    Prof H

       12 likes

  10. Cranmer says:

    I have a certain sympathy with Freemen arguments, and do not think they are nutters, but to my mind they go too far and fail to recognise that civilized society must involve some form of consent to be governed, we cannot all simply say we do not recognise the authority of the Crown (or the US government, or whatever). All that does is force those who govern to do so by coercion, not consent.

       2 likes

Leave a Reply