That wasn’t the escalation. Yelling at the police, shoving a phone in their face, verbally assaulting them, obstructing their investigation, fleeing the scene, and whatever interaction she had with the second officer involved - that was escalation.
They saw and heard nothing that proved that she was of the age of consent.
I get it now. She engaged in illegal hyperbole and aggravated making up stuffery.
Well, yes. Did you listen to the tapes?
Your persistence is admirable, but you’re arguing with a bot. An evil bot the fascist overlords of the future have sent back in time to force us to rewrite the constitution. Or drive us insane. Whichever comes first.
No, but I understand she yelled at them. From a legal perspective she didn’t do either of those things, but your impressions of the law don’t have much to with the law.
And she made knowingly false and defamatory accusations towards them, which is slander to boot.
No, just a patriotic American liberal.
Let’s try to fix your stupidity in one area of the law before jumping to a whole other issue.
Thanks. United States v. Grigg, 498 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2007) was much easier to locate than the US v Grigg.
As I understand the Watts stop, the officer questioned the white male first (which also seems to have pissed off Watts) and then questioned Watts. I don’t know if his version of what was said has been released to the public. That might provide more information? One of the media outlets said that the officer had asked Watts if she wanted to go to the hospital. Since Watts wasn’t bleeding or bruised, I assumed it was because she was act-ing in a possibly erratic manner. Without having the benefit of having read the actual police report, is it possible for police to detain a person for acting irrationally? For their own good, of course?
It’s not, and slander isn’t illegal. It’s a civil tort, but I suspect this is yet another factual distinction that will be lost in the abyss between your ears.
It is literally the very first thing that comes up when I google “US V Grigg.” It couldn’t be easier to locate.
Well, that explains why she isn’t suing the department, then.
The standard is that the person must be: a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled. Such a person may be involuntarily committed for up to 72 hours.
That’s not the test. The need to see or hear things that prove she’s below the age of consent.
Which could definitely have been a concern given her behavior and mannerisms. Once they determined she was merely hyperbolic and not hepped up on goofballs (which coincided happily with the time it took them to verify her identity), they let her go.
The irony of it is that you are providing proof of why society needs to have laws that restrict the power of the police. You’ve now spent a bunch of posts accusing Watts of all sorts of criminal behavior in the hope that something will stick. (Oh, and you’re accusing her of libel to boot.) The police agree she didn’t break any laws, and it’s not good for anyone if the police arrest people and then try to figure out a way to charge them with a crime.
In the pictures from the incident she barely looks like she’s old enough to drive.
With liberals like you, who needs conservatives?