Then BLAM! It all goes to shit.

Right at the moment to put her hands up to push the cop's face or hit him weakly on the face to fend off his lawful arrest. As soon as she so much as tried to push his face away open-palmed, it became an assault on the police, possibly battery. And resisting arrest. On top of refusal to identify a lawful request for ID or a name and a minor in possession of alcohol. They could probably go after her for child endangerment as well since she was asleep/passed out with her infant nearby.

After pushing at his face to avoid the cuffs, it really went downhill.

Recall that mouthy bitch on the subway in L.A.? She was on her way to meet the DMV so she couldn't give ID. And this one has an aunt who is "on the way", supposedly the owner of the booze. This "aunt", if she exists, caused this situation directly by not taking her booze with her when she left the beach (assuming any of that stuff is true).

I don't blame the cops for investigating. You have a woman laying unconscious (sleeping or passed out) on the beach, alcohol containers near her, and an infant not being watched by anyone apparently as the baby daddy was way off down the beach somewhere, as we saw when she kept screaming for him to come help her and she clearly had no idea where he was.

A reminder of the Subway Cunt and her Cuntish Co-protector getting arrested, being filmed by the Gay Male Cunt Cameraman. (Yes, we do get to use the word 'cunt' any time we want now. Samantha Bee made it all part of the social conversation.)

As soon as she so much as tried to push his face away open-palmed, it became an assault on the police, possibly battery. And resisting arrest. On top of refusal to identify a lawful request for ID or a name and a minor in possession of alcohol.

Yep. 100%. But you know they're going to drop all the charges to make it go away. Then people like Deckard will conclude that the cops had nothing, were in the wrong, and are bullies.

I say we start charging people and make them go to court. Being nice to them by dropping the charges obviously isn't working.

By the way, did you read that study that showed that accusations of police brutality dropped 93% since body cams were installed? The money saved in out-of-court settlements more than paid for the cameras.

In such jurisdictions, assault (also called attempted battery) is a threat or physical act that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact, whereas battery is a physical act that results in that harmful or offensive contact.

TooCon: As soon as she so much as tried to push his face away open-palmed, it became an assault on the police, possibly battery.

I was taught the difference between assault and battery many moons ago. I dislike how the media and press misuse the terms all the time, usually using the word assault in many cases when there is physical contact.

Just a little thing that irks me and I wanted to share it here.

Edit: I remember back in college studying for a law class test in a group. My smart friend said, Fred, this is assault and he raised his fist aimed at my arm. Then he said, this is battery and his fist landed (lightly) on my bicep. Very clear and concise explanation that I recall to this day.

I was taught the difference between assault and battery many moons ago. I dislike how the media and press misuse the terms all the time, usually using the word assault in many cases when there is physical contact.

Well, these laws do vary state to state. They are not federal laws, uniform throughout the states. If in doubt about a particular state, ask nolu where you can find the relevant statutes.

But you know they're going to drop all the charges to make it go away. Then people like Deckard will conclude that the cops had nothing, were in the wrong, and are bullies.

Depends on whether his superiors and the D.A. have any balls. Even just having the videos out there on YouBoob may help deter some bad behavior at those beaches. Most police chiefs are focused on reducing crime to a low level, not in trying to utterly eradicate every breach of the statutes.

So the D.A. or police chief might say, yeah that video shook people up a little and now we're down to only a handful of complaints about alcohol on the beach per week. And if they'd had a dozen complaints a day previously, they could legitimately consider it a success.

The purpose of law enforcement is not to eradicate crime but to reduce it as much as possible without forcing the citizens to live in a police state.

By the way, did you read that study that showed that accusations of police brutality dropped 93% since body cams were installed?

I thought it was amusing that on a forum where we can find someone to disagree with anything, body cams seemed to enjoy uniform support here among LF posters. Everyone seemed to think it was a good idea, for lots of different reasons. A lot less of the he-says-he-says in court, protecting good cops from malicious accusations of brutality, protecting the public from bad cops abusing their authority, etc. We see how the bodycams are paying off in countless cases.

And now the crooks know about those bodycams and they are a lot less likely to try dumb stuff, tell easily disproved lies at their trials, etc. So when they go off to Crook College (prison), they learn to anticipate that their interactions with cops will be filmed and it will rarely help them instead of the cops. Which means the smart move for crooks is to think through anything you do that the cop's camera will record.

I wouldn't be surprised in coming years if cops come to think of bodycams as the best thing to come along in some years. But it is a process overall. We give them the cameras but it takes a while to see the real result as the implications of those cams sinks in with criminals of various types.

TooCon, see my edit above. Nolu Spam will have me reading all day with what I consider a simple concept with a simple explanation.

You'd better know the statutes of the state you're in before you believe that that is or ever was true. Your buddy sounds like a dumbass. And statutes may have changed since as a result of the courts or state legislature.

No two states have identical laws on murder, assault, battery, rape, etc.

Those things are considered crimes in all the states but the trigger for prosecution varies, the elements of the crime can vary considerably, etc.

We have 50 states and 50 criminal codes. Then the feds, due to their meddling federal criminalization, added another 5,000 or more federal violent crime statutes to the tally (no one can determine an exact count of just how many federal violent crimes there are).

And nolu is not spamming us when he gives us quotes or links to the actual governing statutes and to relevant court decisions.

... jusT shorT lived flowering youTh

afTer ThaT noThing

love
boris

Your buddy sounds like a dumbass.

Yeah, ninth in his class of 800 and a medical doctor with many years of service. He would have been higher if he wasn't helping his fellow friends/students so much with his compassion and brain power.

Screw you.

Yeah, ninth in his class of 800 and a medical doctor with many years of service.

Maybe you should go ask him whether the statutes of state criminal laws are reliably uniform across all 50 states.

So maybe he told the state of the law in your state some 40-50 years ago. Let's grant that it was accurate for the sake of argument. All of these statutes have changed considerably over the years in all the states, either by court decisions or the state legislatures changing the law themselves. In all 50 states.

You are a dumbass if you think what some guy told you about assault and battery 50 years ago in one state is somehow still the relevant standard for assault and battery in all 50 states today.

Screw you.

Yeah, it really isn't my fault that you're a dumbass.

Dumbass.

UCMJ - first word is Uniform.

The woman on the beach and the cops are all civilians.

So UCMJ is completely irrelevant.

Nolu Spam will have me reading all day with what I consider a simple concept with a simple explanation.

Your smart friend gave you the correct, classic example.

You’re allowed to carry alcohol if you’re under age.

Someone should beat the stupid out of her...

Someone should beat the stupid out of her...

Has the FBI knocked on your door to discuss why you have over 50,000 primers in your Mom's basement?

No? It just shows how slow the federal government is. Yes? You are hiding the questioning from us.

lol

It’s prey like you, that feed the need for bullies.

No offense, but your delusional rantings here have convinced me that you need to be put down like a rabid dog.

You and others of your blue ilk are a threat to society.

You and others of your blue ilk are a threat to society.

Just between me and you ... GrandIsland is an absolute idiot. If you create a root cause analysis of his posts .... he lives in his mother's basement, never to get out.

No offense, but your delusional rantings here have convinced me that you need to be put down like a rabid dog.

You’re just like every snowflake that flaps his shit smackers... just like that Hogg asshole. Real tough... but don’t have the ass or the balls to act.

All you gotta do is remove that geriatric diaper, put on your big boy pants... and complete the task you suggest.

lol

Lmfao

rational debating

You should go immediately to Hell, without passing go or collecting $200.00... for even typing those two words together.

lol

You should go immediately to Hell, without passing go or collecting $200.00... for even typing those two words together.

There is no objective evidence of "HELL," officer. Why did you pull me over? Is your opinion admissible in a court of law within the boundaries of the USA?

Off-camera, either she or her friend explains, “We didn’t even drink alcohol. You’re allowed to carry alcohol if you’re under age. You are. You’re not allowed to drink it. And we’re not drinking it.”

And that will be not less than $500 for disorderly stupid.

NJ Rev Stat § 2C:33-15 (2013)

2C:33-15 Possession, consumption of alcoholic beverages by persons under legal age; penalty.

1. a. Any person under the legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages who knowingly possesses without legal authority or who knowingly consumes any alcoholic beverage in any school, public conveyance, public place, or place of public assembly, or motor vehicle, is guilty of a disorderly persons offense, and shall be fined not less than $500.00.

[snip]

And that will be not less than $500 for disorderly stupid.

NJ Rev Stat § 2C:33-15 (2013)

We can always count on you to bring some relevant facts.

I hope they throw the book at her.

I'm sick of seeing all these videos of people who don't know the laws and don't care what they are and then start mouthing off to cops who are just doing their jobs.

When it's all done, I think this mouthy beach bitch will have a lot more respect for the police. And she will learn some valuable facts about the laws and why we should obey them.

It includes such favorites a "girl tells cop what the law is", quibbling about "we can carry alcohol if we're not drinking it", refusing to empty the bottle, not giving her name, cursing, and walking away. Then BLAM! It all goes to shit.

So predictable in all these videos.

Yes,and it NEVER means the cops are right to beat on and abuse citizens who aren't being violent or threatening.

And she will learn some valuable facts about the laws and why we should obey them.

...said the sheep to the butcher.

Right at the moment to put her hands up to push the cop's face or hit him weakly on the face to fend off his lawful arrest. As soon as she so much as tried to push his face away open-palmed, it became an assault on the police, possibly battery. And resisting arrest.

HorseHillary! We are NOT subjects,we are free citizens with rights,and the cops had no right to start the physical confrontation over such a nickel and dime "offense".

Most cops today are assholes because the job is a asshole magnet.

I'm pretty sure he's breaking some laws down there.

HorseHillary! We are NOT subjects,we are free citizens with rights,and the cops had no right to start the physical confrontation over such a nickel and dime "offense".

He made a lawful arrest and he was within his rights and his duty to uphold the laws.

You are a dumbass if you think what some guy told you about assault and battery 50 years ago in one state is somehow still the relevant standard for assault and battery in all 50 states today.

And YOU are a dumbass if you think that FACTS can change. PERCEPTION can change,but not facts,and the FACTS are those pompous asses in blue were the ones that committed assault and battery.

You’re allowed to carry alcohol if you’re under age.

Someone should beat the stupid out of her...

Because she was right and knew her rights?

Is that you,Cartman?

Any person under the legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages who knowingly possesses without legal authority

What makes you so sure she didn't have legal authority to possess it? Maybe she was carrying it for her adult friends,or just watching it for them?

He made a lawful arrest and he was within his rights and his duty to uphold the laws.

The asshole CREATED a situation that borderline gave him the authority to make an arrest. If she were a lawyer or made it known her father was a lawyer,he would have tucked his little tail up into the crack in his ass and fled,whimpering for mercy.

IF she goes to court and tries to represent herself she WILL be found guilty of resisting arrest,but that represents nothing more than the thugs in the legal system protecting themselves and the system by scratching each other's backs. 99 percent of the time what will happen is the cops will threaten to charge her with felony resisting arrest unless she drops her charges they beat her and used excessive force,and that she was not guilty of the original charge. That is NOT justice,it is abuse of official power and it goes on every day in every state in this nation,while idiots like you stand by and applaud.

IF she has a close friend or relative that is a lawyer and is bored and interested in taking the case,all the charges will be dropped against her in exchange for a written agreement that she will not sue the cops or the PD they work for for excessive use of force.

It ain't right,it ain't justice,but it is what happens everyday in every courtroom in the country.

You’re allowed to carry alcohol if you’re under age.

Someone should beat the stupid out of her...

Why,because she is right and you are mad because she was questioning the authora-TAY of goobermint dawgs?

Supposes she was with her family and carrying the beer because her father was carrying the umbrella and towels,and her mother was carrying something else?

Carrying is NOT consuming. Even you should be able to understand this.

He made a lawful arrest and he was within his rights and his duty to uphold the laws.

Bullshit! He CREATED the confrontation because citizens not breaking any laws stood up to him and pointed that out,and it pissed him off.

And YOU are a dumbass if you think that FACTS can change.

Really? Let's take another example of a class of gun laws.

How many states in this country allowed civilians to carry a concealed handgun lawfully 50 years ago?

How many allow CCW now?

The underlying facts of a crime don't change but the laws change all the time, state by state.

And that is a fact.

Carrying is NOT consuming. Even you should be able to understand this.

So carrying narcotics is just fine as long as the cops don't observe you selling them or using them?

Alcohol is a powerful, addictive, regulated recreational drug.

IF she has a close friend or relative that is a lawyer and is bored and interested in taking the case,all the charges will be dropped against her in exchange for a written agreement that she will not sue the cops or the PD they work for for excessive use of force.

I saw no egregious use of force. The arresting officers acted lawfully based on what we have seen.

There's a rising lawlessness on beaches around the country. Local PDs are strained in dealing with it.

The longer this went on, the more I was hoping someone would accidentally kick her in the head two or three times or just light her up with a Taser for a half-hour or so.

You're an a-hole, like your homo friend FireIsland.

She did nothing wrong to deserve what happened. I hope you post a follow-up article once the dust settles.

Apparently NJ cops are a-holes too. What a crock.

Really? Let's take another example of a class of gun laws.

How many states in this country allowed civilians to carry a concealed handgun lawfully 50 years ago?

How many allow CCW now?

The underlying facts of a crime don't change but the laws change all the time, state by state.

And that is a fact.

There ARE no facts in your brain fart. It only proves that what people like YOU call "Facts" are temporary things that change with the wind.

AND.......WTF is up with your rabid approval of a state ALLOWING someone to enjoy a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?

Here is a little factoid for you,it is the nature of authorities,including cops and states to try to expand their power,and there is nothing they would forbid themselves from doing if it weren't for the US Constitution preventing them from overreaching.

Carrying is NOT consuming. Even you should be able to understand this.

So carrying narcotics is just fine as long as the cops don't observe you selling them or using them?

Alcohol is a powerful, addictive, regulated recreational drug.

If they are legal prescribed narcotics,the obvious answer is "YES!"

If they are illegal narcotics,as you so obviously want to imply,the answer is "No,and it would not be legal for them to be carried if the girls had been over 21,either.

Alcohol is a powerful, addictive, regulated recreational drug.

So what? Are you their daddy? Who died and gave you the authority to regulate who can and can not BE AROUND BUT NOT CONSUMING legal,tax-paid alcoholic beverages?

I saw no egregious use of force. The arresting officers acted lawfully based on what we have seen.

You are ok with a 200+ lb cop punching a minor female in the head that is on the ground?

Good to know.

You're an a-hole, like your homo friend FireIsland.

It's somewhat of an honor to be considered an a-hole by you.

I must be doing something right.

You are ok with a 200+ lb cop punching a minor female in the head that is on the ground?

Well, only if it is too inconvenient to just kick her in the head.

AND.......WTF is up with your rabid approval of a state ALLOWING someone to enjoy a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?

If she wants no interference from the state, then stay off patrolled state-owned property. Like the beach.

If they are illegal narcotics,as you so obviously want to imply,the answer is "No,and it would not be legal for them to be carried if the girls had been over 21,either.

. . .

So what? Are you their daddy? Who died and gave you the authority to regulate who can and can not BE AROUND BUT NOT CONSUMING legal,tax-paid alcoholic beverages?

You sure switched fast from "Of course, it's against the law" for narcotics and went to "you ain't their daddy" when it comes to alcohol.