Comments by "Nina Daly" (@ninadaly7639) on "LegalEagle" channel.

@hadronoftheseus8829 Here’s a better idea. Why don’t you point out ANY of my “explicit factual errors” that you say have been pointed out numerous times.”. Because I’ve asked before, but got back nothing but personal attacks.
1
@hadronoftheseus8829 I think you need to re-read the thread.
1
@ I think you’ll see I made no factual errors at all. Which renders your point moot.
1
Surely counselor, you’re not suggesting that people with $350k cars should be treated differently or not be held as accountable as someone who drives a $35k car??
1
@coreyrobinson8209 We don’t. We live in a state with a lot of entitled, disrespectful idiots.
1
@sonattyp6171 The cops’ fragile egos?? What about the idiot driving a $250k car recklessly in game day traffic? Talk about a fragile, insecure ego!!
1
@madman4043 But how do you know they are false statements? I’ve seen reports that say the suspect became uncooperative and combative and the defendant says they are lying. That would be a matter of opinion, wouldn’t it be?
1
@rodanone4895 Nobody is or will sign up for the job now!
1
@Furavara Qualified Immunity has to exist to do their jobs. Doesn’t make much of a difference.
1
@Grizabeebles Departments are on skeleton crews as it is. Nobody is signing up so they have LOWERED the education requirement in many jurisdictions. Now yu just need a GED and still few sign up. I think you are miscalculating the situation. Policing is a necessary component of society. There will come a backlash from this crap and I guarantee you’re not going to like it.
1
@Mialamorena1 Because the idiot in the McClaren wasnt complying. DUH! You would NOT like it if they lose “discretion”. That’s what allows them to tolerate people’s ignorant, entitled arguments, excuses, and bad behavior.
1
@Mialamorena1 Well, no actually. If you remove discretion, it would all be by the book; no human factor. There would be no discussions, only orders, and if yu don’t comply right away, you will be forced. That’s what lack of discretion is.
1
@rodanone4895 And your point is??? No other country’s law enforcement has to put up with such an ignorant, entitled, narcissistic, disrespectful public. You ought to watch some body cam footage if you don’t believe me. People turn into wild animals or 6 year olds, yelling and screaming and saying the same thing over and over and over. It’s really pathetic. What’s made it much worse is the influence of social media on the public. In the last few years, more and more yahoos watch some bad lawyer’s youtube channel once and think they know the law better than anyone. They start spewing Amendment numbers they’ve never even read and don’t begin to understand and telling cops what they will and will not do. I can’t even begin to tell you how stupid that is.
1
@Mialamorena1 And it never will. The onus is on the arrestee/detainee to de-escalate simply by complying. De-Escalation the way you mean it would get police officers KILLED. They cannot and should not lower their guard or give blanket benefit of the doubt to suspects. There are A LOT of sociopaths out there.
1
@ColdNorth0628 Not going to happen. In fact, you all keep this anti-cop crap up and you will see quite the opposite.
1
@geoff1025 So?
1
@joiea1928 Except nothing was illegal here.
1
@kieranelliott5607 They do.
1
@stephbenson7340 They do work for the people who need to be protected from idiots driving $250k cars recklessly in traffic!! DUH!!
1
What are you talking about? Those cops can’t see through those tinted windows. The driver could have had an arsenal in there and he rolls up the window on the cop?? How stupid can you be!!
1
@gonzalezvalencialeonel9563 Excuse me???
1
@StormsandSaugeye Really? I’d like to see you walk up to a McLaren yu didn’t see into.
1
@StormsandSaugeye It is not “by law and Supreme court rulings. That’s ridiculous. He handed the cop his license and put his heavily tinted window up on the cop. STUPID thing to do. Period.
1
@StormsandSaugeye I see. And this is in your legal expertise? Because you realize law is abut interpretation, right?
1
@StormsandSaugeye You are delusional. He could have had an AK in that car and opened fire. You leave your window rolled down. DUH!!!!
1
@StormsandSaugeye Which is nothing more than that actual lawyer’s opinion.
1
@StormsandSaugeye WRONG! Stop listening to these people like they’re speaking gospel. They’re not. There’s no way they could say things definitively. Lawyers argue. They don’t conclude.
1
@StormsandSaugeye You are wrong on almost every point in that post. It would take to long to go through it, but I think what’s missing is that you need to put yourself in the cops shoes.
1
@StormsandSaugeye Of course I haven’t tried to legally refute his argument, have I? That would take too much time and would be of no consequence. Just realize that every circumstance has its own set of facts and no two situations are exactly the same. Thus a case holding that says one thing may or may not apply in the same way to different sets of facts. A judge or a jury will decide whether in this particular case any laws have been broken.
1
@StormsandSaugeye Wrong. I said I haven’t tried to LEGALLY refute his argument. That would involve citing cases that refute his interpretation and authorities. I think the law is more complicated than you think it is.
1
@StormsandSaugeye Wrong. My argument has not changed. The cops did nothing wrong here. The fool did this to himself.
1
@StormsandSaugeye YOUR argument was that I was wrong because this lawyer cited case law. That is a silly argument.
1
@Lactosecow Wrong. A civilian is supposed to follow the cop’s instructions.
1
@Lactosecow Seriously, with those degree rod tinted windows that prevent swing into the car?? Don’t be daft!
1