Comment: Feel free to read my original story...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: She Scared the Officer (see in situ)

Feel free to read my original story...

"It's obvious that she scared the officer."

How so? Should refusing to roll down your window so the officer can smell your breath be considered an act of terrorism? Do violent people normally cower in fear of thugs before they attack? I'm not being a smart ass. I would like to know why you think the officer's "fear" was obvious. I would also like to know how you determined that she was hiding something, INSTEAD OF asserting her rights as a respectable human being. Remember, there was NO DUI issued after the breathalyzer AND the circus act performance. Got any idea what she might have been hiding?

.... There a couple other mistakes in your post. Allow me to eliminate some of the confusion.

She was "pulled over" AS SHE WAS ENTERING the parking lot to the bar, NOT leaving.

The officer went all "Chairman Mao" on her because she answered his request/demand/order with a polite, but firm,"No sir. I'm not required to roll my window all of the way down." Even if he WANTED to smell her breath to check for alcohol, under the fifth amendment, she is in no way obligated to "help the officer investigate" herself. He pulled her for a faulty light. Once she properly identified herself, he has all of the evidence he needs to pursue THAT SPECIFIC INFRACTION. I know without a doubt that what he done was illegal in the truest sense of the word.

As far as h er "obviously" scaring him, things like this are based on REASONABLE suspicion. A person that has REASONABLE suspicion that he is in danger doesn't insert his arm into a small crack in the window, unlock a stranger's door, stand in the way of the door, and commence to stealing that stranger's private property, in this case, her cellphone. These are NOT things that a person with REASONABLE suspicion of danger does. This is what a person with mental problems that inhibit their reason might do, and something that sane person would do to intimidate another. I don't think it's REASONABLE to assume that person who will invade another's "bubble", commandeer their personal property, stand within arm's reach of that person while waiting for back up, and still claim that his fear was justified....

...You can't logically use a person's actions to justify their fear. That would be confusing cause with effect. Even if you COULD, the officers actions don't correlate with the emotion "fear" in any way.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."