Tased and Arrested for not wearing a Mask at a Middle School Football Game!

[Realville]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[Realville]

It’s ok to burn &  loot businesses but god forbid you go to middle school football game stay socially distant from others. I’d sue the you no what out of that individual and the police dept! Bank on it. Enough of Americans civil liberties being violated! Enough of the Police State! Stand up!

[Realville]

Sheep!

[SmashMouth]

18 minutes ago, Realville said:

It’s ok to burn &  loot businesses but god forbid you go to middle school football game stay socially distant from others. I’d sue the you no what out of that individual and the police dept! Bank on it. Enough of Americans civil liberties being violated! Enough of the Police State! Stand up!

You know Realville, I agree with EVERYTHING you said. I would pitch unholy hell were I that lady. BUT, she should have gone peacefully and it would have gone a lot better for her. If EVERYONE would learn to do what the cop says, then life would be a lot simpler. Same rules apply on both sides of the fence. 

[Realville]

I agree she should have peacefully went with the officer. That’s not the point. The most current CDC survival rate for people 0-19 years old is 99.997%! 20-35 years old 99.998%! The mask nonsense is a vehicle to control just like the extreme Muslim Religion does with making women wear a Burqas. The physiological and mental damage is does to individuals is sickening! The Government does not have that right to impose such a physiological restraint on a individual. I would have asked a family member to video the whole situation. Then peacefully got up an went with the officer. Then I would sue the 💩 out of the officer and the police department! 

 

[Realville]

42 minutes ago, SW1966 said:

Realville, wearing masks and social distancing are not about civil liberties.  This sounds like militia talk.

Watch an see how many entities get sued over this mask nonsense when this is all said and done. Has nothing to do with militia talk. Has everything to do with following the science and data like they are supposedly suppose to do. This is a big over reaction and power grab. Think about it people 0-19 years old have a 99.997% survival rate. Guess what the survival rate of an abortion is? Almost ZERO %. Although in rare occasions a baby will survive an abortion. Over 2000 babies a DAY! are aborted/murdered. If you can’t see the hypocrisy I can’t help you. 

[Realville]

38 minutes ago, SW1966 said:

Realville, wearing masks is not nonsense, overreaction, or power grab.  What does this have to do with abortion?

If the government was so concerned about the sanctity of life they wouldn’t allow over 2000 babies a month to be murdered. Do I need to write it in crayon for you?

[AggiesAreWe]

I do not believe in abortion. But you cannot argue civil liberties about not wearing masks and throw abortion in the argument.

[Realville]

37 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I do not believe in abortion. But you cannot argue civil liberties about not wearing masks and throw abortion in the argument.

Why does the government want people to wear mask? Because the government supposedly cares about saving lives?  Doing away with abortions except in very rare cases is saving lives. Either a life matters or it doesn’t. You can’t have it both ways. There’s a reason sheriffs across Texas has said they are not going to enforce the mask issue because they know they’d get sued. This is my opinion if you don’t agree that’s your prerogative.

[Reagan]

39 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I do not believe in abortion. But you cannot argue civil liberties about not wearing masks and throw abortion in the argument.

Aggie, just think about it:  In the extreme, an argument could be made.  In both cases no laws were ever passed! 

[SmashMouth]

3 hours ago, Realville said:

I agree she should have peacefully went with the officer. That’s not the point. The most current CDC survival rate for people 0-19 years old is 99.997%! 20-35 years old 99.998%! The mask nonsense is a vehicle to control just like the extreme Muslim Religion does with making women wear a Burqas. The physiological and mental damage is does to individuals is sickening! The Government does not have that right to impose such a physiological restraint on a individual. I would have asked a family member to video the whole situation. Then peacefully got up an went with the officer. Then I would sue the 💩 out of the officer and the police department! 

 

And nothing would happen...

[Realville]

31 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

And nothing would happen...

My wife has worked for a Law Firm on the defense side for almost 20 years an believe me there would be a settlement. But you are entitled to your opinion.

[5GallonBucket]

2 hours ago, Realville said:

If the government was so concerned about the sanctity of life they wouldn’t allow over 2000 babies a month to be murdered. Do I need to write it in crayon for you?

Try the crayon technique or possibly play dough technique 

[BS Wildcats]

One could only imagine the destruction that would have played out in this city if the cop were white, and the girl that was arrested was black.  

[tvc184]

10 hours ago, Realville said:

My wife has worked for a Law Firm on the defense side for almost 20 years an believe me there would be a settlement. But you are entitled to your opinion.

There almost is always a settlement. That is the problem with the legal system. You can pay off someone for about a third the price then you could pay to fight it and we are in court. If your homeowner’s insurance defended you while you were being sued and told you that it would cost $100,000 in legal fees with years of depositions and court filings but you would win the case or you could settle out of court for $30,000… Which is the expedient answer? The deep pockets insurance company is going to pay the $30,000 settlement, the lawyer for the plaintiff will get $10,000 of that and in the meantime the person being defended might have been 100% within the civil law but the insurance company has to put up the $30,000 because it is much cheaper just to pay the sometimes (extortion) money. Yes, there are absolutely valid cases but the system is corrupted enough that even if you’re completely correct, you will still likely have to pay either in unbelievable legal fees to prove your innocence of settle out of court just save the money. 

[Realville]

7 hours ago, tvc184 said:

There almost is always a settlement. That is the problem with the legal system. You can pay off someone for about a third the price then you could pay to fight it and we are in court. If your homeowner’s insurance defended you while you were being sued and told you that it would cost $100,000 in legal fees with years of depositions and court filings but you would win the case or you could settle out of court for $30,000… Which is the expedient answer? The deep pockets insurance company is going to pay the $30,000 settlement, the lawyer for the plaintiff will get $10,000 of that and in the meantime the person being defended might have been 100% within the civil law but the insurance company has to put up the $30,000 because it is much cheaper just to pay the sometimes (extortion) money. Yes, there are absolutely valid cases but the system is corrupted enough that even if you’re completely correct, you will still likely have to pay either in unbelievable legal fees to prove your innocence of settle out of court just save the money. 

Like I said she will be awarded a sum of money. It will only cost her time not money.

[CardinalBacker]

9 hours ago, tvc184 said:

There almost is always a settlement. That is the problem with the legal system. You can pay off someone for about a third the price then you could pay to fight it and we are in court. If your homeowner’s insurance defended you while you were being sued and told you that it would cost $100,000 in legal fees with years of depositions and court filings but you would win the case or you could settle out of court for $30,000… Which is the expedient answer? The deep pockets insurance company is going to pay the $30,000 settlement, the lawyer for the plaintiff will get $10,000 of that and in the meantime the person being defended might have been 100% within the civil law but the insurance company has to put up the $30,000 because it is much cheaper just to pay the sometimes (extortion) money. Yes, there are absolutely valid cases but the system is corrupted enough that even if you’re completely correct, you will still likely have to pay either in unbelievable legal fees to prove your innocence of settle out of court just save the money. 

This.... Everybody knows that way to fix it is to have the loser pay the winner's legal fees.  But most politicians are lawyers (or heavily indebted to lawyers) so the laws will never change.  

Gilbert Adams was on 6 news earlier this week advising somebody who had pulled out in front of an 18 wheeler to sue the company anyways... they should still have to pay for the at-fault driver's damages and injuries.  The other problem is that anybody smart enough to make a decent decision on a jury is also smart enough to get out of jury duty.  You get left with all of the dingbats that would normally be at home watching Jerry Springer which is literally littered with ads for attorneys promising large cash settlements.  It's not an accident... you just won the lottery, foo!

[Realville]

1 hour ago, SW1966 said:

She will not win and get no money.  Just watch.  There may be much more to this.

You could be right an at this point you do not know what that much more is. Go tell Lucian Lincoln “Lin” Wood Jr. that. She will receive a sum of money bank on it.

[Realville]

 

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

This.... Everybody knows that way to fix it is to have the loser pay the winner's legal fees.  But most politicians are lawyers (or heavily indebted to lawyers) so the laws will never change.  

Gilbert Adams was on 6 news earlier this week advising somebody who had pulled out in front of an 18 wheeler to sue the company anyways... they should still have to pay for the at-fault driver's damages and injuries.  The other problem is that anybody smart enough to make a decent decision on a jury is also smart enough to get out of jury duty.  You get left with all of the dingbats that would normally be at home watching Jerry Springer which is literally littered with ads for attorneys promising large cash settlements.  It's not an accident... you just won the lottery, foo!

Yes, it is a corrupt system. It is not corrupt because a lawyer might be doing something illegal but it is morally corrupt because it potentially forces the innocent to pay large settlements  

If this was done in criminal law then people would be outraged. If an officer wrote you a speeding ticket then you have the right to contest it in court and appeal it if possible all the way to the SC. If you win then that is it. You have to pay your lawyer but many attorneys will take traffic ticket cases fairly cheaply.
 

But what if we did this… An officer writes you a speeding ticket and you can plea guilty for $150 or you can plead not guilty and pay $2000.

That is in effect what many lawsuits do with deep pockets.