Police Defend Arrest Over Loud Cell Phone Call

The Washingto Post ^ | 9/28/04 Go Figure | By Lyndsey Layton

[Sthitch]

Actually as liberal as Montgomery County is, the juries have not been very sympathetic to police brutality charges. If this had taken place in DC or one of the Prince George's County stations I would agree with you. Then again get just a few jurors who have been annoyed by rude cell phone talkers, and I do not think that the officer is going to have a problem.

[Rakkasan1]

"The cop should have been more sensitive to the woman's culture. I think he ought to attend a "Loud-Mouthed Bitch" sensitivity training course."


or just get married.

[Carling]

The police officer told Aaron, who is five months pregnant, to lower her voice. She told the officer he had no right to tell her how to speak into her cell phone.

She's right, and the cop should be ashamed of himself for shoving a pregnant lady to the ground for talking on the phone.

[freebilly]

or just get married

Ironically, any other guy who pushed his pregnant wife to the ground FOR ANY REASON would be thrown in jail, lose his house, car, child custody, etc....

[DSBull]

He should arrest her.
If she was talking to loudly on the phone and disturbing others, he had a duty to tell her to tone it down. People like this woman are stupid.
They yell into their cell phones like that helps the person on the other side hear them better, like they were talking into cans tied together with strings.
People are convinced that they have the right to do anything that they like and they don't. You have to obey the law or pay the price.

[cyborg]

He should have given her a ticket instead.

[beezdotcom]

She needs to watch this Chris Rock training video...

[BWare]

now do you see where big government leads?? :-)

[Carling]

If she was talking to loudly on the phone and disturbing others, he had a duty to tell her to tone it down.

Wrong. Call me crazy, but I'm a believer in the 1st Amendment. I don't want the cops being able to dictate my actions (IF NOT CRIMINAL) because they happen to have an admitted bias against cell phones.

The officer was wrong, he abused his power, and he should be disciplined. Let's leave the thought governmental thought control to the left, huh?

[Iconoclast2]

rofl

[steplock]

Everything was proper until he ... "grabbed Aaron by the arm and pushed her to the ground"

He crossed the line into brutality and over-reaction. He should be seriously reprimanded if this is his first offense - or fired if he has a history of this poor training and action.

Wanna bet this is NOT his first offense???

[cyborg]

If the cop had his screws in tight he could have given her a ticket for disturbing the peace. She'd look like an idiot going to court for a ticket for loud cussing on the cell.

[Rakkasan1]

cops get special rights ya' know. like right to carry in
all states now after they retire.

[steplock]

"She told the officer he had no right to tell her how to speak into her cell phone. Another constitutional scholar. Future Supreme Court Justice?"

You agree with hitler's gestapo and ss also then?

What CRIME did she commit? NONE!

[Weirdad]

According to her statement, her conversation was already done, so the "crime" was over.

The only decision on the cop's part is whether or not a crime was committed.

If there was a crime then he should have already arrested her and i would support that.

If there was no crime committed then he should drop it and leave her alone.

But instead of deciding what to do based on the law and his observations, he apparently decided what to do based upon either his emotional reaction to the woman not cowtowing to his opinion about the "crime" or perhaps because he was already prepared to illegally ignore the crime provided that she cowtowed enough to suit him. Neither rationale is acceptable.

It's the exact same thing that happened on a much larger scale with the macho raid on the "Waco Compound." In Idaho, what should Randy Weaver's wife have done?

Rudeness is not a crime. "Having an attitude" is not a crime. This policeman probably missed actual crimes being committed in that station because of the energy he wasted on this.

I am disgusted with the wholesale willingness of many commenting here to carte blanche defend the police over a citizen when there is not very much evidence of any crime other than possible rudeness. Rather than accepting a little disorder for the sake of freedom the prevailing sentiment seems to be in favor of a police state.

It is perfectly possible to respect policemen and the law without agreeing with their actions on matters like this.

[freebilly]

What CRIME did she commit? NONE!

Verbal littering.....

[Michael Barnes]

cops get special rights ya' know. like right to carry in all states now after they retire.

And your point about a retired blue suiter serving for 30+ years carrying his piece?

[Diddle E. Squat]

lol

[Weirdad]

Thank you for your preference to at first blush side with freedom and liberty rather than the alternative.

[Sthitch]

1st Amendment? It gives you the right to say what you wish, but does not give you license to force people to listen to you. Does your interpretation mean that if I feel like it I can drive down a residential street at 4:00 am honking my horn for no apparent reason? Isn't my horn simply an extension of my voice? Then again you could say that it is amplified, sure, then can I walk down that same street and yell at the top of my lungs at the same hour? No you can't, why? I am also trying to come to grips with the idea of someone being told to keep it down as being some sort of thought control. As to the bias against cell phones, if you yell while not on a cell phone in the Metro they will tell you to keep it down.