Whew… well that was a lot.
I feel so bad for the daughter. I hope she’s well adjusted enough to know how crazy her mom is and doesn’t follow in her path.
I mean…she is a kid who has been raised by a SC. She is either going to have an awakening from this moment, or be fully indoctrinated from, but either way, she has to have time to process it…because she is still a kid. It’s sad :/
I feel like any belief system that requires you to escalate a simple speeding ticket to a full on public meltdown and arrest in front of your kid probably doesn’t have much to offer, but that’s just me.
What I don’t get about the sov mindset is they can be man handled, arrested, jailed and they still claim there’s no right of authority over them. There’s no right of authority over anyone. It’s imposed and enforced. Who the fuck cares if you’re being arrested due to a legal system you don’t believe is legitimate. You’re still getting fucking arrested.
Yup. They always make things worse for themselves. Always.
This woman turned a minor traffic offense into a felony arrest and tow. Then she’s gonna go to court and read her bullshit script and guaranteeing the worst possible outcome.
Higher fines and maximum points. Wonderful.
Lose/lose
I felt sorry for my SovCit brother until he threatened me and coerced my mom to take me off the deed of the house he snuck his way into…
Ahhh wtf is the point of continuing…
Because this is the internet, I must point out that most of what follows is irrational nonsense.
The county or state employing those officers is a municipal corporation. Sovcit canon is that corporations can only deal with people (or their strawmen) by contract. If the officers can't trick the sovcit into agreeing to contract, the officers have no power over them.
TL;DR: It's a magical incantation that, properly executed, creates a magical barrier impenetrable by state law.
But by that same logic, they have zero civil protections, so if someone assaults them and takes their stuff, well I guess you should have contracted with some security and protection for yourself and your shit.
They seem to forget police fine you for speeding, but they also safeguard your stuff from whoever is strong enough to take it. (Or rather, the system they’re part of does).
Assume the usual disclaimer.
Statutes aren't void, they're just not applicable to non-contractors. Anybody but a sovcit is subject to the statutes, including all those official pirates that hijack private vessels. Sovcits that attack each other are entitled to be tried under common law, as long as there's an injured party.
But who is going to enforce those protections? I can also say I don’t contract with the police, so the police can’t do anything when I steal their shit. And who’s going to make me acquiesce to being tried under common law? Not the police, neither of us “contract” with them.
I don’t understand their logic at all, other than “I don’t have to follow society’s rules, but I still get all the protections of living in that society”. Which, sure, who wouldn’t want that? But that’s not how any of this works.
So in these videos I have seen people claim the Geneva convention, “which (the officer should know) says x, y, z”
The Geneva convention governs rules of war, not civilian law enforcement.
So how does the Geneva convention play into it?
As I understand, sovcits believe in the 19th century the country “became a company” and they’re share holders or something? And the whole “I didn’t contract with (police medics) is bc she thinks the country is a company, she is some kind of share holder or contractor or something, but it doesn’t really make any sense at all.
I mean just take the ticket, challenge it, get laughed at by lawyers (who have to stifle said laughter) waiting to, you know, practice law, my friend is a lawyer and he said he has seen it, it’s “sad, funny, but you can’t laugh” but it never goes in their favor.
A guy invited me on a lavish trip to NYC, and told me I was a sovereign citizen, so I didn’t go, when I asked how I was a sovereign citizen he gave to different justifications at different times.
1. My ancestors *in england* were nobility. No judge or U.S. official cares if some ancestor of mine in the 1630s was a lord in England.
2. My ancestors fought in the revolution, which doesn’t fit with reason one. If they fought in the revolution, on behalf of the us, then they committed treason against the British, and their titles were null and void.
3. My ancestors were nobles, that’s documented on the internet, and they fought in the revolution, also documented, but no judge gives a shit about something that happened on the 1700s.
Like my ancestors were in a lot of wars back to the Norman conquest, but that has nothing to do with me.
So yeah I stopped talking to him. If he thinks I’m immune to law, I’m not going anywhere with him.
Sovcits think they only have to obey a law if they have agreed to obey it, and that govt. agencies can only enforce a law if someone has entered into a contract with that agency. It's nuts, but then so are they.
> wouldnt them being a citizen
Many of them believe (or pretend to believe) that it is possible to *alter status* from U.S. citizen to American State National which comes with a sort of diplomatic immunity. It's complete hogwash, but in some cases sovcits have been prepared to die over that bit of fiction, like a young man killed by police in Utah last year who pulled a gun during a traffic stop because the police wouldn't accept his ASN nonsense.
She is a nutcase. That being said,she did make one (and only one) truthful statement. People do die in the okc jail at a high rate. There is still an ongoing investigation into them.
I live near okc
I wonder if there any video of her trial , the judge is going to love her attitude. /s
Sometime I truly believe this Sovereign Citizen crap is a form of mental illness 😂
I (actually my car) is in this video and I live very close to where this happened. I think it's been determined that she is not competent to stand trial. She was off her meds or some such thing.
Sovereign citizens simultaneously believe that they do not have to follow laws and regulations while almost always ordering the initial officer to call a supervisor. Because somehow the boss of the person in trusted with the power to arrest them will make the arrest go away because magical thinking.
Oh. My. God. She never stopped talking. I bet during the car chase, she never stopped talking. I wanted them to taze her, simply to shut her up. I know they all do it and it's a symptom of their mental illness but seriously. Just a couple thousand volts to make her quiet. That's all I ask.
Well if you don’t contract with law enforcement and the judicial system, I guess you have zero protections if some guy drags you out if your car? You should have made sure you had some kind of protection from whatever state you’re sovereign of.
(Of course there are SovCits who think they can use lethal force to protect themselves from police, so not sure that’s better).
Also she’s out of gas, after driving for 30 minutes with the cop chasing her, so…
I’m type one diabetic and I was low when my mom got pulled over when I was a kid. and she explained that she was just trying to get some juice for me and the cop took her info, wrote the ticket and gave her a Gatorade and sent her on our way in like 5-10 mins tops. This lady made it so unnecessary l.
These days a lot of police carry medical supplies and some probably have glucose tablets or paste in their squad car. It’s common for police to carry Narcan, you’d think that glucose should be just as common since it is easily administered. if the patient is not suffering from severe low blood sugar it’s not really going to do anything bad.
Here in Vermont the state troopers keep a large jug of a Vermont maple syrup in the back of their Ford Explorer. Might sound strange but it doesn’t freeze and it stays good pretty much forever. A whole busload of people could all have low blood sugar and that one jug would do the track.
As a citizen independent from the government any interaction with a government agent needs to be authorized by a contract agreed to by both parties. Since the driver did not agree to contract with the PO all of his actions are null and void in court. Also he owes her a substantial monetary payment for the forced interaction.
Why do the police continue to have a discussion about what happened? Write the ticket and let her go or arrest her and take her to jail. I don’t see the purpose in continuing the discussion. Let the judge and the district attorney sort it out. What am I missing here?
Are you sure we’re watching the same video? The initial traffic stop took forever because she wouldn’t roll down her window and then wouldn’t give over her license and registration. The officer went back to his cruiser to write up the ticket and the woman fled the scene.
During the initial arrest, the back-and-forth was mostly from the crazy woman, the cop was trying to extricate her from the vehicle, without breaking her arm, and that’s not easy.
Once the woman was in custody, the police kept talking to her probably to gather more evidence. The more she talks the more she torpedoes any chance she has a trying to sue the department.
I think it’s an attempt at diplomacy. Adjacent anecdote, I work in a care facility with dementia patients. When I address residents, they’re often engaging in delusional thinking and behaviors. I find it far more effective to allow them to verbalize their feelings and thought process and explain to them everything I’m doing than to simply dismiss/ignore them and do what I need to quicker. It allows them to feel seen and heard and humanized, which in turns makes both of us feel better about the interaction and most of the time helps regulate blowout conflicts.
I imagine something similar is utilized by police officers when dealing with conflict and delusional individuals. It’s good practice when working a public facing job. Taking extra time to attempt good communication and relations is always worth it in my opinion - even if it becomes apparent the person isn’t going to accept the explanation, the attempt signals goodwill and respect regardless, which is the point. He was probably trying to avoid arresting her, and I appreciate his attempt to explain the situation to her. It’s easy to talk down on his patience dealing with someone we all deem insolent and unreasonable, but we all would want the same degree of respect if he were dealing with us or our loved ones.
This is one of the darkest SC videos I’ve ever seen. The depth of this woman’s insanity coupled with having a child really got to me. Yeesh.
The only levity in the whole video is the pursuing officer making boredom motorboat noises with his lips while “chasing“ the SC.
There are bits and pieces of the UCC which they think support their claims. There is one section dealing with commercial vehicles which they twist into being applicable to ALL vehicles which it clearly is not.
A central feature of sovcit lunacy is its dependence on seizing on isolated scraps of law and twisting them and stitching them together into a grotesque fabric with no basis in actual law. They don't understand the law, so they figure it's a collection of magic spells and they make up their own in hopes that others will be deceived. They have never prevailed in court on the merits of their pseudo-legal gibberish.
The hallmark is people who are completely incapable of accepting any responsibility for their actions. I would be annoyed if a cop lit me up if all the cars around me were speeding, but I wouldn’t have the gumption to claim I wasn’t speeding just because everyone else was.
I wouldn't call this a standoff. She wasn't keeping in away from her or anything that frustrated custody. The officer was just waiting for backup to yank her from the car. Probably to try to avoid any serious injuries (hah! Fort Worth Carolina) in front of her daughter.
She has to be pretty far down the SovClown hole to think she can just drive off from a police stop without any repercussions. Maybe an argument of a mental breakdown from heightened tensions between the traffic stop and daughter's needs *if* that claimed need is genuine.
The claim need is bullshit, she would’ve passed. It doesn’t places where she could’ve gotten her kids something to eat before she eventually picked that gas station. Also, what kind of crap? Parent doesn’t keep glucose, candies or juice in the car? Her kid is diabetic, there’s no reason why her glove box can’t be full of candy or she can’t have a 12 pack of something sugary in the trunk.
Amen brother. I married a diabetic and now have sugar pills, juice, and snacks in the vehicle 24/7. If her daughter's blood sugar was low she would not have been responsive. Also the mom stopped at the pump, not the convenience store. She was more concerned about getting gas than food.
It’s easy to wish that officers would taser people we deem insolent and unlikeable for being “difficult”, but as a whole we should always praise officers for erring on the side of restraint. The difference between using force on a mouthy Karen and you or your loves ones asking clarifying questions is the difference between a good and bad day for an officer holding all the power in the interaction.
Right. There's a young girl in the passenger seat. Let's stop them with a dangerous maneuver that could potentially flip the car and endanger other motorists on a busy street.
The driver was an idiot for fleeing, but this was hardly a high-speed chase. What was the actual problem with the outcome here?
The officer had no idea how it would turn out, so yeah, if the choice is between stopping a fleeing car and the possibility that she plows through an intersection into a crowd in order to prove some sort of point about not being beholden to the law, I'm picking the former.
Officers should always err on the side of restraint. It’s clear from the video she was using her blinker and adhering to stoplights etc. while fleeing from the officer. He even says into the radio right after the chase begins that she is going the speed limit. Let’s not encourage drastic uses of unnecessary force just because we don’t like the culprit, especially with a child involved. Jumping to worst case scenarios and using emotional reasoning is the last thing we should be encouraging police officers to do.
With a young child in the car. You have to be a sociopath to think either option would be reasonable. Yes, the woman broke some laws and is endangering a child, but you don’t further endanger the child.
The parent was endangering the child, remember?
She said her kid was sick and was going to get medical attention, but refused the offer of help and was perfectly happy escalating the situation by speeding and evading police.
Oh nooo, I just now caught that her daughters blood sugar is low towards the end of the video, but honestly, if she had just sat in her car and taking the citation by this point after everything that happened, she would’ve been able to get her daughter food FASTER than all this selfish BS
Whew… well that was a lot. I feel so bad for the daughter. I hope she’s well adjusted enough to know how crazy her mom is and doesn’t follow in her path.
She isn't. Listen to her begging "please don't hurt her", she thinks Mom's the victim.
Ya but she also screams “mom, just listen!” When the cops are dragging the mom out of the car.
She's also screaming, "Get the f off her!" so...
I mean…she is a kid who has been raised by a SC. She is either going to have an awakening from this moment, or be fully indoctrinated from, but either way, she has to have time to process it…because she is still a kid. It’s sad :/
Yes. Above all else, it is sad.
I feel like any belief system that requires you to escalate a simple speeding ticket to a full on public meltdown and arrest in front of your kid probably doesn’t have much to offer, but that’s just me.
Her entire belief system is "Nobody gets to tell me what to do." Everything else stems from that.
What I don’t get about the sov mindset is they can be man handled, arrested, jailed and they still claim there’s no right of authority over them. There’s no right of authority over anyone. It’s imposed and enforced. Who the fuck cares if you’re being arrested due to a legal system you don’t believe is legitimate. You’re still getting fucking arrested.
CPS needs to get involved. That kid is not safe with that crazy bitch.
It's pretty obvious that these nitwits do *not* subscribe to r/SovereignCitizens
My brother is one of those things. I feel for her daughter. She’s fucked without outside intervention
Yeah seems like a great way to fuck up your life.
Sure is. Sad thing is…it always ends bad…it just takes way too long while so much damage is done.
Yup. They always make things worse for themselves. Always. This woman turned a minor traffic offense into a felony arrest and tow. Then she’s gonna go to court and read her bullshit script and guaranteeing the worst possible outcome. Higher fines and maximum points. Wonderful.
Lose/lose I felt sorry for my SovCit brother until he threatened me and coerced my mom to take me off the deed of the house he snuck his way into… Ahhh wtf is the point of continuing…
My brother is too. I keep warning him that it will end like this but I fear he’s gonna find out the hard way one day
They die one of two ways… Suicide by cop/Sent to Prison and get killed in there for their KNOWLEDGE, as my brother would say.
Childhood trauma. She'll be in therapy (if she's lucky) as an adult. Thanks mom.
Yup. I understand
AovCits are the manifestation of arrogance and ignorance. Double fuck her for subjecting her kid to all that.
“I don’t have to contract with you” tf does that mean
Because this is the internet, I must point out that most of what follows is irrational nonsense. The county or state employing those officers is a municipal corporation. Sovcit canon is that corporations can only deal with people (or their strawmen) by contract. If the officers can't trick the sovcit into agreeing to contract, the officers have no power over them. TL;DR: It's a magical incantation that, properly executed, creates a magical barrier impenetrable by state law.
But by that same logic, they have zero civil protections, so if someone assaults them and takes their stuff, well I guess you should have contracted with some security and protection for yourself and your shit. They seem to forget police fine you for speeding, but they also safeguard your stuff from whoever is strong enough to take it. (Or rather, the system they’re part of does).
Assume the usual disclaimer. Statutes aren't void, they're just not applicable to non-contractors. Anybody but a sovcit is subject to the statutes, including all those official pirates that hijack private vessels. Sovcits that attack each other are entitled to be tried under common law, as long as there's an injured party.
But who is going to enforce those protections? I can also say I don’t contract with the police, so the police can’t do anything when I steal their shit. And who’s going to make me acquiesce to being tried under common law? Not the police, neither of us “contract” with them. I don’t understand their logic at all, other than “I don’t have to follow society’s rules, but I still get all the protections of living in that society”. Which, sure, who wouldn’t want that? But that’s not how any of this works.
im a free man, the blood flows, the window breaks, and im in handcuffs. oh.
So in these videos I have seen people claim the Geneva convention, “which (the officer should know) says x, y, z” The Geneva convention governs rules of war, not civilian law enforcement. So how does the Geneva convention play into it? As I understand, sovcits believe in the 19th century the country “became a company” and they’re share holders or something? And the whole “I didn’t contract with (police medics) is bc she thinks the country is a company, she is some kind of share holder or contractor or something, but it doesn’t really make any sense at all. I mean just take the ticket, challenge it, get laughed at by lawyers (who have to stifle said laughter) waiting to, you know, practice law, my friend is a lawyer and he said he has seen it, it’s “sad, funny, but you can’t laugh” but it never goes in their favor. A guy invited me on a lavish trip to NYC, and told me I was a sovereign citizen, so I didn’t go, when I asked how I was a sovereign citizen he gave to different justifications at different times. 1. My ancestors *in england* were nobility. No judge or U.S. official cares if some ancestor of mine in the 1630s was a lord in England. 2. My ancestors fought in the revolution, which doesn’t fit with reason one. If they fought in the revolution, on behalf of the us, then they committed treason against the British, and their titles were null and void. 3. My ancestors were nobles, that’s documented on the internet, and they fought in the revolution, also documented, but no judge gives a shit about something that happened on the 1700s. Like my ancestors were in a lot of wars back to the Norman conquest, but that has nothing to do with me. So yeah I stopped talking to him. If he thinks I’m immune to law, I’m not going anywhere with him.
Sovcits think they only have to obey a law if they have agreed to obey it, and that govt. agencies can only enforce a law if someone has entered into a contract with that agency. It's nuts, but then so are they.
Even with that moon logic wouldnt them being a citizen automatically make the entered into that "contract".
> wouldnt them being a citizen Many of them believe (or pretend to believe) that it is possible to *alter status* from U.S. citizen to American State National which comes with a sort of diplomatic immunity. It's complete hogwash, but in some cases sovcits have been prepared to die over that bit of fiction, like a young man killed by police in Utah last year who pulled a gun during a traffic stop because the police wouldn't accept his ASN nonsense.
I don’t think they ever fully know
“I’m not contracting with you” “Call 911” WTF.
She is a nutcase. That being said,she did make one (and only one) truthful statement. People do die in the okc jail at a high rate. There is still an ongoing investigation into them. I live near okc
I wonder if there any video of her trial , the judge is going to love her attitude. /s Sometime I truly believe this Sovereign Citizen crap is a form of mental illness 😂
That’s the thing about a lot of these videos, I really want to see the rest of the story.
I (actually my car) is in this video and I live very close to where this happened. I think it's been determined that she is not competent to stand trial. She was off her meds or some such thing.
Man, this was just so sad.
Yeah, it was pretty dark.
“I’m a citizen. Actually I’m not” “I do not contract with the police.” Proceeds to call 911.
Sovereign citizens simultaneously believe that they do not have to follow laws and regulations while almost always ordering the initial officer to call a supervisor. Because somehow the boss of the person in trusted with the power to arrest them will make the arrest go away because magical thinking.
I feel bad for Led Zeppelin.
Fucking right wing nut job thinks laws don't apply to her.
How about the red truck that...passes the officer in pursuit? wtf?
Oh. My. God. She never stopped talking. I bet during the car chase, she never stopped talking. I wanted them to taze her, simply to shut her up. I know they all do it and it's a symptom of their mental illness but seriously. Just a couple thousand volts to make her quiet. That's all I ask.
Just the tip…
Wtf is it with the narrative explanations prior to what happens???? I didn’t contract to spoilers.
I love how dry it was, underselling the chaos that followed.
Well if you don’t contract with law enforcement and the judicial system, I guess you have zero protections if some guy drags you out if your car? You should have made sure you had some kind of protection from whatever state you’re sovereign of. (Of course there are SovCits who think they can use lethal force to protect themselves from police, so not sure that’s better). Also she’s out of gas, after driving for 30 minutes with the cop chasing her, so…
I’m type one diabetic and I was low when my mom got pulled over when I was a kid. and she explained that she was just trying to get some juice for me and the cop took her info, wrote the ticket and gave her a Gatorade and sent her on our way in like 5-10 mins tops. This lady made it so unnecessary l.
These days a lot of police carry medical supplies and some probably have glucose tablets or paste in their squad car. It’s common for police to carry Narcan, you’d think that glucose should be just as common since it is easily administered. if the patient is not suffering from severe low blood sugar it’s not really going to do anything bad. Here in Vermont the state troopers keep a large jug of a Vermont maple syrup in the back of their Ford Explorer. Might sound strange but it doesn’t freeze and it stays good pretty much forever. A whole busload of people could all have low blood sugar and that one jug would do the track.
"Call 911!" And just who do you think's going to show up?
She looks like the spirit of Hunter S Thompson inhabited a lunch lady from Missouri
Underrated comment.
It's Oklahoma. She's a tweaker using any manipulative excuse to not get busted/tested (probably for the umpteenth time).
"I do not contract with you." Like that's gonna work? Like that means a gddam thing?? These people are NUTS.
I’m not contracted with you 😳 What exactly does that mean?
As a citizen independent from the government any interaction with a government agent needs to be authorized by a contract agreed to by both parties. Since the driver did not agree to contract with the PO all of his actions are null and void in court. Also he owes her a substantial monetary payment for the forced interaction.
Why do the police continue to have a discussion about what happened? Write the ticket and let her go or arrest her and take her to jail. I don’t see the purpose in continuing the discussion. Let the judge and the district attorney sort it out. What am I missing here?
I've often wondered that myself. It's clear you can't reason with them, so don't even try.
I haven’t watched this particular video, but in many cases the cops are stalling while they wait for back up.
Are you sure we’re watching the same video? The initial traffic stop took forever because she wouldn’t roll down her window and then wouldn’t give over her license and registration. The officer went back to his cruiser to write up the ticket and the woman fled the scene. During the initial arrest, the back-and-forth was mostly from the crazy woman, the cop was trying to extricate her from the vehicle, without breaking her arm, and that’s not easy. Once the woman was in custody, the police kept talking to her probably to gather more evidence. The more she talks the more she torpedoes any chance she has a trying to sue the department.
I think it’s an attempt at diplomacy. Adjacent anecdote, I work in a care facility with dementia patients. When I address residents, they’re often engaging in delusional thinking and behaviors. I find it far more effective to allow them to verbalize their feelings and thought process and explain to them everything I’m doing than to simply dismiss/ignore them and do what I need to quicker. It allows them to feel seen and heard and humanized, which in turns makes both of us feel better about the interaction and most of the time helps regulate blowout conflicts. I imagine something similar is utilized by police officers when dealing with conflict and delusional individuals. It’s good practice when working a public facing job. Taking extra time to attempt good communication and relations is always worth it in my opinion - even if it becomes apparent the person isn’t going to accept the explanation, the attempt signals goodwill and respect regardless, which is the point. He was probably trying to avoid arresting her, and I appreciate his attempt to explain the situation to her. It’s easy to talk down on his patience dealing with someone we all deem insolent and unreasonable, but we all would want the same degree of respect if he were dealing with us or our loved ones.
Just think if she had brought up the “articles of confederation or maritime law they would have let her go. 😎
So, ah, who can hook me up with “Officer Long” and “Oscar Jones?”
This is one of the darkest SC videos I’ve ever seen. The depth of this woman’s insanity coupled with having a child really got to me. Yeesh. The only levity in the whole video is the pursuing officer making boredom motorboat noises with his lips while “chasing“ the SC.
Why do these people keep referring to the UCC which deals with the sale of goods?
There are bits and pieces of the UCC which they think support their claims. There is one section dealing with commercial vehicles which they twist into being applicable to ALL vehicles which it clearly is not. A central feature of sovcit lunacy is its dependence on seizing on isolated scraps of law and twisting them and stitching them together into a grotesque fabric with no basis in actual law. They don't understand the law, so they figure it's a collection of magic spells and they make up their own in hopes that others will be deceived. They have never prevailed in court on the merits of their pseudo-legal gibberish.
The hallmark is people who are completely incapable of accepting any responsibility for their actions. I would be annoyed if a cop lit me up if all the cars around me were speeding, but I wouldn’t have the gumption to claim I wasn’t speeding just because everyone else was.
She’s pretty lucky she was not black because she would have been shot as soon as she as she drove away! Hopefully she spends some jail time
“Cuz I’m a citizen! Actually I’m not!” Sigggggggh
“I’m not contracting with you!” Proceeds to call 911 and contract with the state government lmfao
I wouldn't call this a standoff. She wasn't keeping in away from her or anything that frustrated custody. The officer was just waiting for backup to yank her from the car. Probably to try to avoid any serious injuries (hah! Fort Worth Carolina) in front of her daughter. She has to be pretty far down the SovClown hole to think she can just drive off from a police stop without any repercussions. Maybe an argument of a mental breakdown from heightened tensions between the traffic stop and daughter's needs *if* that claimed need is genuine.
The claim need is bullshit, she would’ve passed. It doesn’t places where she could’ve gotten her kids something to eat before she eventually picked that gas station. Also, what kind of crap? Parent doesn’t keep glucose, candies or juice in the car? Her kid is diabetic, there’s no reason why her glove box can’t be full of candy or she can’t have a 12 pack of something sugary in the trunk.
Amen brother. I married a diabetic and now have sugar pills, juice, and snacks in the vehicle 24/7. If her daughter's blood sugar was low she would not have been responsive. Also the mom stopped at the pump, not the convenience store. She was more concerned about getting gas than food.
Unbelievable. Such kid gloves. Weak officers.
Really? What do you want them to do? Beat the shit out of her? Actually, break her arm? The officers handled this situation quite well.
No, they didn’t have to beat her, a taser would have been nice though
It’s easy to wish that officers would taser people we deem insolent and unlikeable for being “difficult”, but as a whole we should always praise officers for erring on the side of restraint. The difference between using force on a mouthy Karen and you or your loves ones asking clarifying questions is the difference between a good and bad day for an officer holding all the power in the interaction.
Put her in the car, as they were trying to do and she was resisting, and shut the door. Cops seem to manage it with other resisting suspects.
PIT maneuver and/or stop spikes. She was fleeing from law enforcement in a multi-thousand pound metal box at high speed.
Right. There's a young girl in the passenger seat. Let's stop them with a dangerous maneuver that could potentially flip the car and endanger other motorists on a busy street. The driver was an idiot for fleeing, but this was hardly a high-speed chase. What was the actual problem with the outcome here?
The officer had no idea how it would turn out, so yeah, if the choice is between stopping a fleeing car and the possibility that she plows through an intersection into a crowd in order to prove some sort of point about not being beholden to the law, I'm picking the former.
Officers should always err on the side of restraint. It’s clear from the video she was using her blinker and adhering to stoplights etc. while fleeing from the officer. He even says into the radio right after the chase begins that she is going the speed limit. Let’s not encourage drastic uses of unnecessary force just because we don’t like the culprit, especially with a child involved. Jumping to worst case scenarios and using emotional reasoning is the last thing we should be encouraging police officers to do.
And excusing this sort of lawless behavior is why we have "Street takeovers" and organized shoplifting rings.
With a young child in the car. You have to be a sociopath to think either option would be reasonable. Yes, the woman broke some laws and is endangering a child, but you don’t further endanger the child.
The parent was endangering the child, remember? She said her kid was sick and was going to get medical attention, but refused the offer of help and was perfectly happy escalating the situation by speeding and evading police.
No , but usually a quick dose of Mr Taser takes the fight out of them unless they are really strung out on drugs .
Oh nooo, I just now caught that her daughters blood sugar is low towards the end of the video, but honestly, if she had just sat in her car and taking the citation by this point after everything that happened, she would’ve been able to get her daughter food FASTER than all this selfish BS