Comments by "Matthew Loutner" (@Matthew_Loutner) on "Body camera footage released in fatal Ohio police shooting of pregnant woman" video.

  1. Technically she used her vehicle as a weapon. In some states you can lose your driver's license for life.
    57
  2. She was fighting back. She was driving her car at the police officer.
    4
  3. It is because when they were children they figured out that if they treat their parents (mother) that way, the parents will give in and let them go. So if works with mom, it should work with the police . . . right? It is partly the result of divorces and having children out of wedlock and partly the result of having 2 breadwinners in the family. Not having proper parenting causes children to grow up selfish and disrespectful. Keep following this story in the news and it will be revealed that there is no father in this family.
    2
  4. Garland? 🤷‍♂️ 🤷‍♀️ 😄😃😂😁😀
    1
  5. I love tires too. And brand new tires smell great. I sure miss my old job working in a tire warehouse.
    1
  6. You really do not understand Black people, do you? They do not think anything like what you just described.
    1
  7. She was not being arrested. She was asked to step out of the car. She has no "right" to resist. She has a right to OBEY a direct police order. There is no "right to resist arrest." You have a right to explain to the police officer why you should not be arrested and then it is his decision. If he proceeds to arrest you, you have a right to explain it to the magistrate when you are called before the bench. It is NOT illegal for a police officer to restrain you from moving away from a potential crime scene. He is THE AUTHORITY on the scene. A police officer has the right to "restrain the movement" anyone at anytime if it falls within the performance of his official duties. You can get jail time for failing to obey any officer's direct order anytime for any reason. You do not "know" anything.
    1
  8.  @orcoastgreenman  Wrong. The law says you have to obey any officer's LAWFUL ORDER. There is no exception that it has to be "reasonable" or "under suspicion." If an officer walks up to you and says, "Move your car from in front of this building" you have to move your car or he can arrest you for failure to obey and tow your car. If he needs the car moved, he needs the car moved and it is his job to get the car moved.
    1
  9. Black people need to learn to respect authority and obey an officer's orders immediately and no lip.
    1
  10.  @PDVism  What the utube community thinks has nothing to do with the law.
    1
  11.  @PDVism  You are making a premature judgment. But he will probably get off because this is a clear case of self-defense. The woman was not "unarmed." She was armed with a vehicle and attacking an officer of the law with her vehicle-weapon. Which has more power? A bullet or a vehicle? Police are not allowed to shoot unarmed people. They should not have their gun drawn unless there is an imminent threat and they cannot shoot somebody unless their own or someone else's life is in direct jeopardy. There are no "hundreds of other cases" -- you are making up lies and spreading propaganda. Every police shooting is thoroughly investigation to make sure the guidelines have been followed.
    1
  12.  @ELijAHN0EL  1. Whether she had liquor in the car or not is immaterial to the case. She was accused and suspected. She also has to obey any direct lawful police order. It was her civic duty to obey the officer's orders and when she failed to do that she became a law-breaker. 2. Police have what is called "limited immunity." Limited immunity means that he cannot be held responsible for making a mistake while in the performance of his job duties -- it would have to be serious gross negligence before he could be held responsible. His forgetting the policy of not putting yourself in harm's way would not pass as gross negligence. It is reasonable that he might forget something or make a mistake in the hustle and bustle of activity. 3. That gets him completely off the hook legally, the DA knows what the law says, and probably will not charge him because the law is completely on the officer's side and the DA cannot bring a case to court unless there is a reasonable chance of getting a conviction. 4. If it does go to court, the chances of getting a conviction are slight because all of this will be thoroughly explained to the jury. Also the officer's mistake is slight compared to the girl's driving her car at the officer. What she did was police assault and endangering the life of an officer. The jury would not forgive what she did at all and would probably lay the blame on her. 5. The general public does not know the law or understand how any of this works and will be all up in arms as usual when they do not understand why the officer gets off.
    1
  13.  @ELijAHN0EL  You know nothing for me to listen to. "There must be something here" is not "knowing." They will not release his name because the nutcase public will figure out where he lives and go lynch him. That is the ONLY reason they are withholding his name. (and you appear to be taking the side of the lynch mob.) He did not "just do whatever he wants" and your saying that is just lies and propaganda. He performed his job up to the limit and ability of his training. And karma will not judge him -- Jesus will. Karma does not even have a brain to think with.
    1
  14.  @BootLegJustice  She certainly did!
    1
  15. I disagree with the cop. He should have fired a warning and blown the windshield out.
    1
  16. In any normal situation you would not have to say to an officer "Don't shoot." That is crazy. If you think you have to do that, there is something serioisly wrong with you and your country and you are the one who has no freedom.
    1