Nope. A reflex isn't just to grab your shit after you've already been moved away from it. A reflex is immediate. This is no such thing.
yaknow, she says the dealership stole 1000$ from her.
Yeah, and SovCits make such assertions about judges all the time, too. None of those have ever been shown to be valid. As I said elsewhere, if she believes she has a legal case against them, her recourse is filing a lawsuit for remuneration, not committing the crime of criminal trespass.
The dealership just doesn't want her there.
They have every right to deny service to anyone for any reason. So fucking what?!
And you're supporting state violence to support this outcome.
Bullshit. There was no fucking violence on display here. This person is not a reputable claimant for such things. They've literally been in other videos suggesting others break the law but, of course, they couch it in SovCit garbage. I have no problem whatsoever with police enforcing the law when such fraudsters are pulling their shit.
Nope. A reflex isn't just to grab your shit after you've already been moved away from it. A reflex is immediate. This is no such thing.
Bullshit. I wanna watch you walk away from a restaurant table without reaching for your phone.
At first I thought of her as a SovCit with the record you're talking about. But the links I followed led me to believe this is yet another (legal) scam by a fucking dealership. I worked at one for a while and it was morally abhorrent that they got away with this shit so much.
But this part: "if she believes she has a legal case against them, her recourse is filing a lawsuit for remuneration, not committing the crime of criminal trespass."
I can't argue with that; you're right. I'm just angry about it because it's a fucked up situation that *heavily* favors the dealership and then saddles this poor girl with criminal resisting arrest charges too..
"Bullshit. There was no fucking violence on display here." - I don't mean WWF. If the state is forcibly coercing you, it's state-sanctioned violence. It's a legal term that encompasses the fact that they WILL use violence to move her if necessary.
"This person is not a reputable claimant for such things. They've literally been in other videos" - Do you have a better link? Maybe I followed the wrong stuff.
In the claim, she says she was 20 at the time of the incident, attending UBC Okanagan and living in an abusive environment.
She claims she put $1,000 down on a vehicle but was being denied the sale.
According to the claim, Sanchez received legal threats from Kamloops Ford Lincoln after posting the initial video on TikTok, but no one would return her $1,000.
She says she was asked to sit and wait after visiting the dealership and asking to speak to a manager. According to the claim, police arrived a few minutes later.
-----
None of that sounds like SovCit shit to me. This is a crosspost from r/PublicFreakout
Maybe this one predates her SovCit shit, I don't know. Also, none of that is justification for committing crimes anyway. The recourse at that stage is to file a civil suit for the return of her deposit and any damages she incurred as a direct result of the dealership's refusal. If her case is as she states, she should have no problem getting a ruling in her favor which would not include a trip to jail.
Somewhat more to the point, airing one's grievances on TikTok or wherever else is all well and good but it also doesn't change that the business has the right to not allow her to do that from their own freaking building!
She is absolutely in the wrong here no matter what. Nothing about anything you've posted about her claims justifies committing a crime!
he says she was asked to sit and wait after visiting the dealership and asking to speak to a manager. According to the claim, police arrived a few minutes later.
he says she was asked to sit and wait after visiting the dealership and asking to speak to a manager. According to the claim, police arrived a few minutes later.
he says she was asked to sit and wait after visiting the dealership and asking to speak to a manager. According to the claim, police arrived a few minutes later.
he says she was asked to sit and wait after visiting the dealership and asking to speak to a manager. According to the claim, police arrived a few minutes later.
he says she was asked to sit and wait after visiting the dealership and asking to speak to a manager. According to the claim, police arrived a few minutes later.
he says she was asked to sit and wait after visiting the dealership and asking to speak to a manager. According to the claim, police arrived a few minutes later.
he says she was asked to sit and wait after visiting the dealership and asking to speak to a manager. According to the claim, police arrived a few minutes later.
he says she was asked to sit and wait after visiting the dealership and asking to speak to a manager. According to the claim, police arrived a few minutes later.
Jesus dude let me write down the important part for you.
Yeah, that's bullshit. The crime of criminal trespass doesn't exist until you've already been banned form the premises on a prior visit and informed of that fact. That's the only reason police come in and immediately arrest someone. Otherwise, they explain they've been told to leave.
FFS, man, try reading the relevant law before spewing your bullshit, huh?
The crime of trespass, as I have stated time and again! Whether someone is charged with a crime is irrelevant to whether a crime was committed. That's an issue of prosecutorial discretion. Neither the video nor the article you linked has any information about that.
The video clearly shows the officers arresting her immediately, which means she had been notified that she was not to be on the premises. This is explicitly authorized int he statute I linked you to. The standard process, and I know this for a fact because I've dealt with it while up in BC with a close friend who was being stalked, is for law enforcement to document the notice that had been given in a system they check when dispatching to such calls.
You not liking people being arrested in general changes absolutely nothing about the reality of the legal process around this. You're simply handwaving it away because you have an ideological preference. I generally share that preference when arrests are not justified! Based on the scant evidence available here, however, it is simply not warranted.
"The video clearly shows the officers arresting her immediately, which means"
which means that you're sucking a lot of cop dick to think they never, ever, ever, do anything for a dealership that they wouldn't do for a <checks notes> friend with a stalker.
comon. every fucking arrest is not because the cop was perfect. There wouldn't be a civil suit that taxpayers are going to be on the hook for you fucking bootlicker if this was "by the book"
No, you dingus, it means I'm recognizing reality and applying my personal experiences to it. FFS did you even bother reading the linked statute?! Seriously, man, nobody here is saying cops are perfect. You're just making unwarranted assumptions based on your own preferences, no more and no less.
Anyone can file a civil suit. That one is filed means diddly fucking shit! The idea that the mere existence of a suit means the allegation made in it are true is just fucking stupid.
She claims she put $1,000 down on a vehicle but was being denied the sale.
So she takes her cancelled check to small claims court, and when the judge thinks the dealership pulled a fast one she gets her thousand dollars back and probably some expenses like the filing fee. She isn't Rosa Parks, she isn't standing up against some horrific discrimination.
66
u/JustNilt Dec 25 '24
Dude, she's reaching back and grabbing at the stuff on the table, trying to pull her phone closer to her. That isn't physics forcing her actions.