Young Mother TASED, CUFFED AND ARRESTED for Not Wearing Face-Mask at Mostly Empty Stadium to Watch H

Discussion in 'Political/Religious Topics' started by K75RT, Sep 24, 2020.

  1. TXplt

    TXplt Gun Toting Boeing Driver Forum Contributor

    Ya know, I got asked a question the other day (during a kind of interview about flying century series era fighters) if I had been in any scary situations or scrapes or really bad situations. I've certainly had my share of systems failures and tangles with weather (including having both engines compressor stall; when you've only got two that gets your attention) but none of them REALLY stood out as an aw sH!t gonna die moment (Mother Nature has probably given me the scariest rides of my life anyway). Most of that was because we simply kept the airplane flying and worked the procedures around this; we were doing what we trained for (realizing that there are many things not in the 'book') and it resulted in a positive outcome--no big deal. I think having a big picture (as an LE) and deescalating things is the same concept; you stop things in a situation such that they don't snowball into something REALLY bad.

    Rather than escalating them. Effectively using knowledge, experience, training, and common sense to nip things in the bud before they GOT into a really bad situation.

    I see the mask BS as a part of this. So a woman doesn't want to wear a mask (on public--not private--property). So what ? You don't have her assaulting anyone (in fact a year ago this'd be perfectly normal; it's the wacko paradigm that's shifted and people have gotten caught up in it). You might ask her to stay away from folks that might be for some reason afraid of her but let it go at that. Telling her "look, there are some folks here who are petrified--for whatever reason--of what they've heard on the news right or wrong. Can you keep your distance and not get in their face if they're from among that group and keep a low profile while doing your thing ? We're not FORCING you to mask up just to kinda respect others' space and not get in their face).
    K75RT, BigEd63, PaleHawkDown and 5 others like this.
  2. Jaison

    Jaison G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor


    Stayed out of the discussion until now, but the above rang too true.

    The LEO had every opportunity to de-escalate professionally. He didn't.

    Nuremburg on a smaller scale. Befehl ist befehl.
    K75RT, PaleHawkDown, Ten Man and 3 others like this.

  3. FortyXDM

    FortyXDM G&G Evangelist Staff Member

    Jim - I call this getting the "big" picture.
    Thank you for your LE and military service.
    rando, BigEd63, Jim Rau and 3 others like this.
  4. Rocky7

    Rocky7 G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    This was one of the most disgusting displays of cowardly bullying I have seen. I have a couple of scars from stepping in when a man was hurting a smaller, weaker woman. I don't think I could have sat still for this. Wrong is wrong and blue colors don't change that. If I had been wearing a uniform - same result.
    shanebrews, FortyXDM, BigEd63 and 6 others like this.
  5. Absolutely...well stated and too true...there is too much complacency in modern society...people are too tuned into their social their rights are rapidly being taken away...
  6. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob G&G Evangelist

    I’ve always supported the police, but this is nonsense! Forcing someone to wear a mask outside is Unconstitutional and the officer should have just left her alone. Me thinks he would have if she was Black!
    rando, Rocky7, Ten Man and 3 others like this.
  7. Jim Rau

    Jim Rau G&G Evangelist

    It is the 'GO ALONG TO GET ALONG' mentally that is so prevalent in ALL parts of our society, including LE that is the problem!:(
  8. Ranger4

    Ranger4 G&G Evangelist

    Actually brother bob I do not think you can find any law that says it is unconstitutional to require people to wear a mask at a football game. Not being argumentative, just I keep hearing people say mask are unconstitutional but have not seen one constitutional scholar who says that.

    I watched your OU play football on Saturday, they only allowed a few people in that huge stadium and I noticed all the coaches and refs wearing masks. The lead ref only took his off when he was in the middle of the field by himself making a ruling. OU has a big legal staff, in fact they have a major law school. That suggests to me, they do not think it is illegal in any way shape or form.

    Even though OU is a state school and gets millions in federal tax dollars, no citizen can go into most buildings on that campus unless they have business there. My grand daughter graduated from OU last year. They searched us when we went to the college graduation, meaning they made the women open their purses and made guys open camera cases or anything they carried. Being a former cop I asked their Lieutenant why all the security. He explained that public colleges are likely places for mass shootings, so anything like a graduation requires something like 30 security people. And the public is only allowed in certain buildings on campus. Does not matter if they are partially tax supported, their other funding comes from tuition, federal grants, private grants and donations, sales ( like ticket sales and charges for fees, students pay extra for everything, parking permits, etc), state funding from state taxes and other state income, and other sources. Public colleges are only partially tax funded is the point.

    School resource officers became a big deal after school shootings, and there is federal money to help pay for cops from the local PD or sheriff department. Today, unless you have a kid in that school, you cannot walk into any school, grade school high school or whatever. I donate blood as often as possible and last year went to a local blood drive at a high school. The place was locked up tight and people donating blood were only allowed into the gymnasium through one door. All the other doors were locked and security cameras were everywhere. Small towns may not have gotten there yet, but it is coming. School resource officer enforce all the school rules as well as things like the mask policy where the woman took hers off after she got in, the subject of this forum. We should know more about that case in just a few weeks. She intentionally took the mask off and then forced the issue. Why we do not know yet she later claimed she has asthma but neither her nor her lawyer have provided any evidence of that, so it looks like she just wanted to make a scene about the policy which she disagreed with, and not about her asthma, if she does have asthma.

    You cannot get in any courthouse without a mask and going through a metal detector and an ex-ray of everything in your pockets, just like TSA screening at the airport now. It is public property but you can only get in with strict rules.

    All of the above are funded by tax payers but they do not let you in with guns, or even tiny knives, or pepper spray of anything like that because they deem weapons unsafe. Some places now have an ordinance against wearing strong perfume, a notice on the door of a city hall I went to for building permits. All because they feel that it is a safety measure. Same with masks now, so regardless of how strange it might be in an open air ball game, that is not likely unconstitutional or even close. OU thinks it is a good idea. Oklahoma has no mask policy so they can force one or not on campus.

    And private industry, like Walmart and the NFL are now requiring masks to protect their employees. I asked the guy at Walmart a couple months ago about their policy, He explained that masking Walmart wide was decided solely for protecting their employees and had nothing to do protecting the public. Sick employees lose them money.

    I also noticed that NFL coaches have been fined $1.7 million dollars the last couple weeks for not wearing masks while on the sidelines. Some of them have appealed the fines. While the US Constitution has nothing to do with a private corporation like the NFL, it does suggest to me that all the smart people who run that organization would not have put a rule in place for coaches on the sidelines, unless they had a pretty good reason. We should learn more about masks from these NFL fines and appeals. NFL coaches are rich people and they can afford the top lawyers to tackle that issue.

    Just saying probably not a Constitutional issue at all, and along those same lines, just think about things like the polio vaccine, measles vaccines and others, which are forced on school children. They have always been found Constitutional. A recent segment of Fox News said a mandatory covid vaccination, would be Constitutional. Just saying, masks at a football field may be a dumb idea, but not illegal or unconstitutional.

    And here is another link where the American Bar Association explains that forcing people to wear a mask is not unconstitutional. It also give the exceptions under the Americans With Disability Act .

    I do not think it is a hard subject, I just think it is a hard sell. Nobody wants to go through the hassle of wearing a mask and being forced to do so, just makes it that much worse. If they tell everybody to wear the color purple, some will comply many will rebel.

    If Biden gets elected he has promised a national mask mandate, I support leaving it to the states as Trump has done, areas with crazy high infection rates might want them while areas with little or no infections might not want them at all.

    Going to be a very interesting election and Christmas season. And hoping everybody gets plenty of ammo in their stocking this year, if Biden gets elected the shortage will go on forever.

    Anyway, just some info on the Constitutional issue surrounding the government's right to require them. FWIW
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2020
    410dude likes this.
  9. Jim Rau

    Jim Rau G&G Evangelist

    What is funny here is that, across the board, in LE we were told to limit our citizen contacts to ONLY THOSE WHERE THEIR CONDUCT WAS VERY SERIOUS, IE LIFE THREATING. Now when a person is in their family group, maintaining proper distance from others, OUTDOORS, in other words FOLLOWING ALL THE RULES, why would this 'want-a-be' LE officer even contact them?????????o_O
    Rocky7, K75RT, TXplt and 1 other person like this.
  10. BigEd63

    BigEd63 G&G Evangelist

    Well the city Gov't needs to be put to task over this.

    Fayetteville Arkansas's politburo aka city council and comrade mayor jordan have forced the police to enforce similar horse crap.
    Me I decided to stop buying items in the city of Fayetteville AR.
    Even though there is one Gun &Pawn and a couple of outdoor stores I had delt with for decades within the city limits.
    No sales tax revenue for them.

    Boycotts, phone calls and lawsuits ought to follow.
    K75RT likes this.
  11. FortyXDM

    FortyXDM G&G Evangelist Staff Member

    The American People have a funny way of deciding what is unconstitutional and what is not.
    It could depend on what the high court says.
  12. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob G&G Evangelist

    The U.S Government can not force you to wear a mask, bikini underwear, etc. If you listen to Mark Levin, you’ll get a better grasp of the separation of powers. States and local governments may require you to do all kinds of things. Federalism is a two edged sword, hence the massive exodus from the Blue states. Again, the U.S. Government cannot force you to wear a mask, but your local government can.
    K75RT and ItstheHOFF like this.
  13. Rocky7

    Rocky7 G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    I think you have that backwards, friend. The burden of proving a law is constitutional is on the State. I don't think either you nor I need to prove anything. We have a God-given right to be left the he!! alone unless the Gov't can prove the need to restrict our God-given freedom and then only to the extent proved necessary by Gov't and not one inch farther. Masks are not proved necessary.

    ps: I have threatened to wear a welding helmet to the mall before this is over. I was kidding at first but I think I might...just for giggles.
    K75RT, neophyte, Jaison and 1 other person like this.
  14. Ranger4

    Ranger4 G&G Evangelist

    Not to be verbose, and I have no clue about Canadian law but in the US, all laws passed by Congress are "presumed to be Constitutional"? And the only way a court will look at them is if somebody files a lawsuit and claims the law is unconstitutional. The burden of proof is almost always on the moving party. But a federal mandate is only a Biden concept, so at least 3 months or so down the road.

    On state law cases dealing with Covid our Supreme Court has already weighed in on the power of states to make restrictions on people and their activities including the exercise of religion, a big deal, First Amendment issue which requires the highest level of scrutiny by the High Court.

    The Supreme Court has already denied one such challenge and ruled that the State of California can force churches to limit their attendance, denying 75% of the church members the right to attend a service at the same time. In fact California limited a church service to only 100 people. This is a protected First Amendment right, a big deal, but the Supreme Court refused to grant an injunction and let the State of California limit the amount of people who could attend church at one time.

    All levels of the federal courts refused to grant an injunction, so they went directly to the Supreme Court for their final act of challenging that state law.

    It does not matter if the law, like a mask mandate is popular or whether people believe it will help. It only matters as Justice Roberts said about the California church capacity limitation law, that the local elected officials believe it will help prevent the spread.

    Here is the language that Justice Roberts used to say the Supreme Court is going to let the elected officials in California decide what Covid measures were OK.

    Our Constitution principally entrusts “[t]he safety and the health of the people” to the politically accountable officials of the States “to guard and protect.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 38 (1905). When those officials “undertake[ ] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially broad.”

    In other words, there is not really any burden of proof at issue, the state gets to decide and not the federal courts. There are other ways to get the same issue before the Supreme Court but most cases take about 36 months to get there, so not really much chance of having the Supreme Court stop a state mask mandate. IMHO
  15. Rocky7

    Rocky7 G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    Um, that's not exactly what I was replying to. You had said:

    Actually brother bob I do not think you can find any law that says it is unconstitutional to require people to wear a mask at a football game. Not being argumentative, just I keep hearing people say mask are unconstitutional but have not seen one constitutional scholar who says that.

    I was pointing out that there is no need to find a law that says anything is unconstitutional.

    As for finding no scholar who disagrees with your position, it only took me a minute to find this:

    Your quote from Roberts is correct. I remember that bit. Whether Roberts is a good source and/or whether his judgments will be followed is another question.
    neophyte likes this.
  16. Ranger4

    Ranger4 G&G Evangelist

    Again not being argumentative but just academic. What I said was there has been has been a public outcry from day one about masks being forced on people. We see dozens of statements even on this forum and the big armed protests a few months ago, ranting and raving about the states that have the mask mandates. The immediate statement is that it is "unconstitutional" and I assume they mean under the federal constitution. What I said was that I did not believe there had ever been a similar medical mandate by a state that was found as unconstitutional. There have been a few odd cases like Skinner vs Oklahoma, 1952 where they had a law that said every career criminal would be castrated because they thought crime was genetic. But that was just a goofy law without any basis is science. The Supreme Court said you cannot cut off mans nuts because he is a career criminal. But that it totally different than making people take a vaccine or wear a mask.

    Your comment was that the guy in this article disagreed with me, how so? If you read the last 2 paragraphs he comments that while some judges somewhere have questioned the precedent of the case of Massachussetts vs Jacobson, in his last sentence he says the Courts will rely on that case to uphold a mask mandate law.

    He also has a link in there to the "Balkinization". If you read his source is just talks about what issues might be raised in a legal challenge. But he also said that the Courts had never really required states to actually prove that the masks or other procedure works. So really, I think he is not opposing what I said, that the Courts will uphold a mask mandate if a state thinks it will help stop the rate of infection.

    And here is what his cited source said near the end of his discussion:
    Failing to wear a mask in a pandemic characterized by asymptomatic transmission may well be negligent or even reckless, which in either case would put the unmasked individual at fault. Moreover, even the very conservative early 20th Century Supreme Court upheld state power to regulate activity of the kind that can cause tortious injuries without proof that the particular subject of the regulation was doing so.

    He says the state does not have to prove that masks work, the state gets to make that call. That is the same thing Chief Justice Roberts said in the California case.

    That requested injunction in the California case. That is not idle chatter. Roberts is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. All the lower federal courts refused to stop the California restriction on worship. They all ruled that it was OK to limit churches. So they went directly to Justice Kagen because it was her day in the box, she refused and it went to the full Supreme Court. It was a 5 to 4 decision with Roberts once again voting with the liberals. When we get the new Justice in place that will probably change, but right now, there is just about zero chance that they would rule that a mask mandate violated some right. And like I said, it usually takes several years to get to the Supreme Court so the same issue can not just be presented again, there is supposed to be a new issue before they hear the same subject twice.

    Anyway that is my take and the link you gave I do not see as disagreeing. IMHO
  17. neophyte

    neophyte Wonderment :) Forum Contributor

    Rocky7: Sir; interesting argument

    And, to be frank, most people simply assumed the analogy was making people eat broccoli. The public at large didn't really understand, or care, about the subtle distinction between consuming it and buying it. Intrinsically, people understood there was a difference between forced not to do something, and being forced to do something. The former was common enough. The latter was thankfully rare. And this concept permeated all aspects of society.

    I see shades of the broccoli-mandate in debates over mask-mandates. There are some similarities. Forcing people to eat broccoli will make them healthier, and in turn, improve the public's health, thereby helping the health care system. Forcing people to wear masks will make them healthier, and in turn, improve the public's health, thereby helping the health care system. The parallels are not perfect, but they are close enough.

    This sort of constitutional challenge would sound in Due Process. (David Super speculates about this question at Balkinzation). Even the most ardent critic of substantive due process would agree that forcing people to put something on, or in their body, triggers heightened scrutiny.
    Rocky7 likes this.
  18. Get Out

    Get Out G&G Evangelist

    IMOA, she was fighting, resisting and yelling with no sign of asthma coming on for over three minutes. She could have also put on a mask when asked and then let it hang off her ear when he leaves.
  19. FortyXDM

    FortyXDM G&G Evangelist Staff Member

    We could actually simplify the amount of verbage in this post by means of a single sheet of paper with a vertical line in the center. One column for..."What I observed wasn't right." Other column..."What I observed was fine by me."
    We all saw the same clip. No need to explain yourself as you were not there. Takes away explaining what you thought happened verbally.

    (A) reply, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read.

    Winston Churchill (quote modified slightly)
    Rocky7 and neophyte like this.
  20. Ranger4

    Ranger4 G&G Evangelist

    What I observed was a totally incomplete video showing the final moments of a woman being arrested. There is no way from those last few minutes that I can form a rational opinion without of police misconduct or not, without knowing the actual facts that led up to that arrest. And I never expect the shock jock media to provide the full story.

    The videos posted on line only shows the conduct after she was told she was under arrest, videos posted on line range from 39 seconds to 3:35. Nothing is shown in the 2-3 minutes before the arrest or her conduct in escalating the incident. So all we got was the arrested part.

    Facts matter in the law. Because reasonable force to effect an arrest, 100% of the time are based on what was happening at the time. You cannot form an opinion of wrongdoing without knowing (1) facts, and (2) relevant law.

    Witness testimony is as follows. She took off her mask and was asked politely multiple times to put the mask back on as per the school policy, and here was her response:
    "A video of the incident has since surfaced on social media, showing school resource officer Chris Smith attempting to handcuff the woman as she sat on the bleachers. The woman, identified as Alecia D. Kitts, is heard shouting, "What the f???k is wrong with you?" before she repeatedly states, "You're not arresting me for nothing ... not doing nothing wrong!"
    So then he told her she would be arrested for trespass. Sometime after that the video starts.

    She does not appear to have remembered her asthma until after she was told she was being arrested for trespass. Facts matter.

    In the law there is such a concept as fighting words which means that some things you say are not protected under the First Amendment. It matters because when a cop is told he is going to be in a fight or the person is not going to allow themselves to be taken into custody, the entire matter changes. She escalated the matter by her words, they are NOT a protest they fall into that unique category called fighting words.

    The Supreme Court of the United States had adopted the doctrine of "fighting words" as being only for the purpose of, well starting a fight. She started the fight with him not by taking off her mask, but by her words, when asked to put it back on. That changes the legal status, she was not engaging in free protecting protest or speech, she was engaged in fighting. People outside law enforcement may not understand why it matters. It was a simple matter, she changed it into a fight, a fight with a cop by the way, her choice.

    It also appears the taser never launched the darts, that he simply hit her with the stun gun probes. A tiny shock, I have performed demonstrations with them many times shocking myself. I have used them in law enforcement only on dogs and they work very well, minimal one second shock. They also work very well if you have a muscle cramp.

    My point is that you cannot form a complete opinion unless you know all the facts and circumstances and any sudden emotional response, is exactly that. If the cop did anything wrong, the judge will throw that case out in 2 seconds. And her lawyer will sue for big bucks. I am not hearing anything, so maybe the video is not showing the whole story? Anybody hear any update please post. Let's find out if the cop did anything wrong.
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2020
    neophyte likes this.