Milwaukee police arrest woman for not agreeing with their story

Travis · 21st October 2015, 01:02 AM

In Milwaukee not agreeing with police fantasies is a good way to get in jail. Even if you are a 75 year old woman.

The setup: Joy McFarlin was driving her pickup truck when a car ran a red light and T-boned her. With her driver side door impassable and dangerous she tried to get out through the passenger door and was eventually able to with the help of a man who then drove away.

Then the cops showed up. They decided that she hadn't really been driving her truck. They seemed to reason that she only would have escaped through the passenger door if she was in that seat.

She kept telling them what happened even at the hospital and the cops decided that they were not going to put up with anymore of this piddling little woman not agreeing with their entirely concocted story that some fictitious "black man" had been driving. They took her into custody. Then eventually had to release her when someone reminded them that courts don't like convicting old women for the crime of "not showing complete deference and submission to bully cops."

Sgt. Timothy Gauerke of the Milwaukee Police even explained that they gave the old woman they arrested for no reason "a break" for not putting her in a stressful position while handcuffed.

He then explained that, “She stuck with her story and that’s why she was arrested.”

Remember folks, when the cops decide something you had better agree even if it requires suspension of reality.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/milw...n-at-the-scene

dellarte · 21st October 2015, 01:43 AM

Do officers face stress because of quotas?

Quote:

For example: he said if one officer makes eight stops and another makes four stops, then someone is going to want to know why the second officer is not making as many stops. So the next time that officer is going to come in with 10, he said.

Quote is from the Journal-Sentinel which is the very media outlet the arrested woman told her story to.

BStrong · 21st October 2015, 01:54 AM

A good example of officers making up their minds about an incident based on one witnesses account.

It happens. It's something they're instructed at the academy to avoid, and hopefully the same instructions are communicated by FTO's when they're probies, but there's always somebody that doesn't get the message.

ponderingturtle · 21st October 2015, 03:12 AM

Contempt of cop like that frequently earns a beating, she should count her self lucky.

The Central Scrutinizer · 21st October 2015, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

In Milwaukee not agreeing with police fantasies is a good way to get in jail. Even if you are a 75 year old woman.

The setup: Joy McFarlin was driving her pickup truck when a car ran a red light and T-boned her. With her driver side door impassable and dangerous she tried to get out through the passenger door and was eventually able to with the help of a man who then drove away.

Then the cops showed up. They decided that she hadn't really been driving her truck. They seemed to reason that she only would have escaped through the passenger door if she was in that seat.

She kept telling them what happened even at the hospital and the cops decided that they were not going to put up with anymore of this piddling little woman not agreeing with their entirely concocted story that some fictitious "black man" had been driving. They took her into custody. Then eventually had to release her when someone reminded them that courts don't like convicting old women for the crime of "not showing complete deference and submission to bully cops."

Sgt. Timothy Gauerke of the Milwaukee Police even explained that they gave the old woman they arrested for no reason "a break" for not putting her in a stressful position while handcuffed.

He then explained that, “She stuck with her story and that’s why she was arrested.”

Remember folks, when the cops decide something you had better agree even if it requires suspension of reality.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/milw...n-at-the-scene

That certainly is her side of the story.

marplots · 21st October 2015, 05:47 AM

Don't trust old people. They've had many years to practice being deceitful.

Travis · 21st October 2015, 06:33 AM

Even if you 100% believe the cops they still arrested a woman who had done nothing wrong except lie about who was driving when someone else hit them. Which is still ridiculous.

The Don · 21st October 2015, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

Even if you 100% believe the cops they still arrested a woman who had done nothing wrong except lie about who was driving when someone else hit them. Which is still ridiculous.

Sure but then why did she lie ?

To protect the drug dealer/home invader/unlicenced driver (delete as applicable) who was driving which is probably obstructing the police which is probably against the law.

edited to add......

I think the police exercised a great deal of restraint in not shooting such a dangerous suspect

eeyore1954 · 21st October 2015, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

Even if you 100% believe the cops they still arrested a woman who had done nothing wrong except lie about who was driving when someone else hit them. Which is still ridiculous.

Unless she was lying about what caused the accident. If she was lying about who was driving she might also be lying about what or who caused the accident.

Quote:

According to police spokesman Sgt. Timothy Gauerke, witnesses accused her of lying about driving the pickup, and so used “common police technique” to push her into saying so

.

Either way unless the police are lying about witnesses it was not just the police "fantasies" about what happened.

Babbylonian · 21st October 2015, 12:12 PM

Police haters gotta hate.
/sarcasm

cullennz · 21st October 2015, 12:47 PM

And I am sure there is no other side to the episode

Hype story

Ranb · 21st October 2015, 12:53 PM

Well, if the reporter can be trusted this is the police side of the story;

Quote:

A police spokesperson, Sgt. Timothy Gauerke, told the Journal-Sentinel that the officers gave McFarlin “a break” by handcuffing her with her arms in front, rather than behind her. He also said that witnesses accused her of lying about driving the pickup, and so used “common police technique” to push her into saying so.

“It’s to encourage the person, ‘Look, the jig is up, we know what happened. You may as well just tell us,” he said. “She stuck with her story and that’s why she was arrested.”

I wonder who the witnesses were?

Ranb

Cavemonster · 21st October 2015, 12:58 PM

I'm moreso than most into waiting for all sides of the story, but this article includes an interview with the police where they seem to confirm exactly what the victim here says.

There may be more to it, but unless this news outlet is outright lying the police have weighed in with the view that they think there's nothing wrong with arresting an old woman because her testimony differs from another witness.

cullennz · 21st October 2015, 12:58 PM

Sounds like your standard

Drunk driver did a runner before the cops get there

She claimed she was driving to cover for them

cosmicaug · 21st October 2015, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Ranb

Well, if the reporter can be trusted this is the police side of the story;

Quote:

A police spokesperson, Sgt. Timothy Gauerke, told the Journal-Sentinel that the officers gave McFarlin “a break” by handcuffing her with her arms in front, rather than behind her. He also said that witnesses accused her of lying about driving the pickup, and so used “common police technique” to push her into saying so.

“It’s to encourage the person, ‘Look, the jig is up, we know what happened. You may as well just tell us,” he said. “She stuck with her story and that’s why she was arrested.”

I wonder who the witnesses were?

Ranb

The Raw Story is referencing and quoting the Journal Sentinel and doing a poor job. The quoted piece in the original article actually makes it seem like the spokesperson is admitting that the police lied (which is not against the law --police officers are under no obligation to tell you the truth) and that it is a commonly employed tactic. From http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwauk...333682681.html :

Quote:

Milwaukee police spokesman Sgt. Timothy Gauerke talked to the officers Friday and told me witnesses at the crash scene said McFarlin was lying about being the driver. But traffic cam video did not capture the incident, despite their claims to her that it had, so they released her.

I asked if she received an apology. Gauerke said McFarlin told the officers she understood they were doing their job. The officers told Gauerke they gave the woman a break, because of her age, by handcuffing in front rather than behind her back.

It's a common police technique to tell someone we know you're lying based on witness statements, Gauerke said.

"It's to encourage the person, 'Look, the jig is up, we know what happened. You may as well just tell us.' She stuck with her story and that's why she was arrested," he said.

cosmicaug · 21st October 2015, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

Even if you 100% believe the cops they still arrested a woman who had done nothing wrong except lie about who was driving when someone else hit them. Which is still ridiculous.

Indeed. She might have been doing this thing or that thing, in covering for the "real driver". However the thing itself has to be an articulable criminal act of some sort and there has to be some sort of probable cause to think that it actually happened. That is, she still needs to be accused of a concrete thing to be arrested and there needs to be some minimal reason to believe that said concrete thing actually happened. That we don't specifically know how to reconcile different eyewitness testimonies is not sufficient grounds to determine that a crime occurred (much less a specific, actionable crime). Having conflicting witness testimonies is simply not a crime.

theprestige · 21st October 2015, 01:25 PM

So really, the thread title should be, "Milwaukee police arrest woman for not agreeing with the story given by other witnesses"?

Babbylonian · 21st October 2015, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

So really, the thread title should be, "Milwaukee police arrest woman for not agreeing with the story given by other witnesses"?

"Milwaukee police arrest woman because they think she's lying about an unknown crime."

cullennz · 21st October 2015, 01:38 PM

For all we know the women could have criminal history as long as your arm and a history of lying her **** off

Babbylonian · 21st October 2015, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by cullennz

For all we know the women could have criminal history as long as your arm and a history of lying her **** off

She could have issued orders that led to the massacre of My Lai.

cullennz · 21st October 2015, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

She could have issued orders that led to the massacre of My Lai.

Good point

deadrose · 21st October 2015, 03:04 PM

She could be a 5th columnist even!

Travis · 21st October 2015, 04:05 PM

If police arrest people every time witness testimony conflicts our for-profit prison system is going to be making lots of money.

gregthehammer · 21st October 2015, 04:17 PM

she's a 75 year old white woman in milwaukee. MILWAUKEE! Odds are pretty good that there never was a black man driving her truck.

The Norseman · 21st October 2015, 05:55 PM

Can't be busted for lying if you actually... don't say anything to the cops. You know... like that silly fifth amendment thing.

Checkmite · 21st October 2015, 10:57 PM

I don't think this is that big of a deal. Apparently witnesses to the accident claimed she was lying and that somebody else had been driving, someone who if they existed obviously must've fled the scene, which is suspicious. They kept her for what, an hour or so? And then let her go when they couldn't get her to budge on her story. Not that worried.

ddt · 22nd October 2015, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

"Milwaukee police arrest woman because they think she's lying about an unknown crime."

This.

I'm at a loss what crime would have been committed here. Even more so what crime Ms. McFarlin would have committed.

A traffic accident certainly is no crime.

And I have to wonder about those witnesses the police claimed to have seen. What could they have really seen? The Good Samaritan who helped her out of her truck stayed with her a while until the paramedics showed up. That suggests a couple of minutes. Then it took another while until the police showed up. That's another couple of minutes. And the police really found witnesses still staying around who had witnessed the traffic accident? I'm very skeptical about that claim.

cullennz · 22nd October 2015, 12:10 AM

A driver with a warrant out for heavy stuff connected to the woman

Who did a runner

We only know half the story

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

a_unique_person · 22nd October 2015, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by cullennz

A driver with a warrant out for heavy stuff connected to the woman

Who did a runner

We only know half the story

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

I am prepared to accept the police had a reasonable suspicion that something was not right with her story. I would think, though, that it would be the job of detectives to follow it up and find the evidence, not the job of the cops to arrest her on suspicion based on a small amount of evidence.

Checkmite · 22nd October 2015, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by ddt

And I have to wonder about those witnesses the police claimed to have seen. What could they have really seen? The Good Samaritan who helped her out of her truck stayed with her a while until the paramedics showed up. That suggests a couple of minutes. Then it took another while until the police showed up. That's another couple of minutes. And the police really found witnesses still staying around who had witnessed the traffic accident? I'm very skeptical about that claim.

In another thread on this subforum you will read of the case of a motorcycling couple who were wrecked and injured when a car they were passing intentionally swerved and collided with them. The incident is caught on video and several witnesses to the accident can be seen stopping at the scene and waiting.

Ladewig · 22nd October 2015, 01:54 AM

deleted

WildCat · 22nd October 2015, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by ddt

This.

I'm at a loss what crime would have been committed here. Even more so what crime Ms. McFarlin would have committed.

A traffic accident certainly is no crime.

A driver fleeing the scene of an accident is certainly a crime.

Cavemonster · 22nd October 2015, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I don't think this is that big of a deal. Apparently witnesses to the accident claimed she was lying and that somebody else had been driving, someone who if they existed obviously must've fled the scene, which is suspicious. They kept her for what, an hour or so? And then let her go when they couldn't get her to budge on her story. Not that worried.

The burden for arrest is probable cause. In the US, that generally means a prudent and cautious person would be fairly certain that a specific crime has been committed by the person being arrested.

We can't have people arrested on hunches, no matter how short that arrest is.

Even if the worst suspicion turns out to be true here, this is a major problem.

pgwenthold · 22nd October 2015, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

A driver fleeing the scene of an accident is certainly a crime.

That she didn't commit. So why arrest her?

Foolmewunz · 22nd October 2015, 06:16 AM

Jeez, this is like watching Blue's Clues with people who only speak Swahili. Someone in a uniform says something and they all nod up and down "Oooh, he's a police officer. Must be telling the truth."

The spokescop even said that cops make crap up all the time. That's as close to winking at the story as you could want.

If you read the article, she has a great chance of being contradicted if she's lying. The good samaritan could show up and say, "Yeah, I helped her out after that no good black dood ran away." They lied about the video but we're supposed to dismiss that as "cops do that all the time" and accept their other potential lie that they had witnesses.

Read the full article. This doesn't read like someone setting up a social justice sting. My spidey senses tell me that her version sounds much more plausible than the cops'. We already have them in one lie.

eeyore1954 · 22nd October 2015, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
A driver fleeing the scene of an accident is certainly a crime.

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

That she didn't commit. So why arrest her?

If there was a driver who fled the scene wouldn't hiding who the driver was be obstruction of justice.

pgwenthold · 22nd October 2015, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

If there was a driver who fled the scene wouldn't hiding who the driver was be obstruction of justice.

Was she arrested for harboring a fugitive? Was the person who supposedly fled the scene actually a fugitive?

What justice was she obstructing? There was no suspect of any crime being sought.

eeyore1954 · 22nd October 2015, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Jeez, this is like watching Blue's Clues with people who only speak Swahili. Someone in a uniform says something and they all nod up and down "Oooh, he's a police officer. Must be telling the truth."

The spokescop even said that cops make crap up all the time. That's as close to winking at the story as you could want.

If you read the article, she has a great chance of being contradicted if she's lying. The good samaritan could show up and say, "Yeah, I helped her out after that no good black dood ran away." They lied about the video but we're supposed to dismiss that as "cops do that all the time" and accept their other potential lie that they had witnesses.

So if they arrested her because of claimed multiple witness accounts and it turns out they were lying they should get arrested.
The spokesman said they make crap up all the time to trick someone not they make up stuff all the time to justify an arrest. Those are different things and the former is legal (to the best of my knowledge) and the later is not.

This doesn't mean I agree with making up stuff in order to get a confession or information.

Quote:

Read the full article. This doesn't read like someone setting up a social justice sting. My spidey senses tell me that her version sounds much more plausible than the cops'. We already have them in one lie.

Do you think the full article tells the full story. Or might it be biased?

eeyore1954 · 22nd October 2015, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Was she arrested for harboring a fugitive? Was the person who supposedly fled the scene actually a fugitive?

What justice was she obstructing? There was no suspect of any crime being sought.

I am not a lawyer but I would be willing to bet if I get in an accident and flee the scene leaving my wife in the car and then she lies and says she was the driver she has broken the law. Whether they know who I am or not.

eeyore1954 · 22nd October 2015, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

The burden for arrest is probable cause. In the US, that generally means a prudent and cautious person would be fairly certain that a specific crime has been committed by the person being arrested.

We can't have people arrested on hunches, no matter how short that arrest is.

Even if the worst suspicion turns out to be true here, this is a major problem.

An eyewitness account is not the same as a hunch.

21st October 2015, 01:02 AM	#1
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 24,098	Milwaukee police arrest woman for not agreeing with their story In Milwaukee not agreeing with police fantasies is a good way to get in jail. Even if you are a 75 year old woman. The setup: Joy McFarlin was driving her pickup truck when a car ran a red light and T-boned her. With her driver side door impassable and dangerous she tried to get out through the passenger door and was eventually able to with the help of a man who then drove away. Then the cops showed up. They decided that she hadn't really been driving her truck. They seemed to reason that she only would have escaped through the passenger door if she was in that seat. She kept telling them what happened even at the hospital and the cops decided that they were not going to put up with anymore of this piddling little woman not agreeing with their entirely concocted story that some fictitious "black man" had been driving. They took her into custody. Then eventually had to release her when someone reminded them that courts don't like convicting old women for the crime of "not showing complete deference and submission to bully cops." Sgt. Timothy Gauerke of the Milwaukee Police even explained that they gave the old woman they arrested for no reason "a break" for not putting her in a stressful position while handcuffed. He then explained that, “She stuck with her story and that’s why she was arrested.” Remember folks, when the cops decide something you had better agree even if it requires suspension of reality. http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/milw...n-at-the-scene
	Last edited by Travis; 21st October 2015 at 01:04 AM.

21st October 2015, 01:43 AM	#2
dellarte Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 2,580	Do officers face stress because of quotas? Quote: For example: he said if one officer makes eight stops and another makes four stops, then someone is going to want to know why the second officer is not making as many stops. So the next time that officer is going to come in with 10, he said. Quote is from the Journal-Sentinel which is the very media outlet the arrested woman told her story to.
dellarte Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 2,580

21st October 2015, 03:12 AM	#4
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,461	Contempt of cop like that frequently earns a beating, she should count her self lucky.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

21st October 2015, 05:33 AM	#5
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 53,042	Originally Posted by Travis In Milwaukee not agreeing with police fantasies is a good way to get in jail. Even if you are a 75 year old woman. The setup: Joy McFarlin was driving her pickup truck when a car ran a red light and T-boned her. With her driver side door impassable and dangerous she tried to get out through the passenger door and was eventually able to with the help of a man who then drove away. Then the cops showed up. They decided that she hadn't really been driving her truck. They seemed to reason that she only would have escaped through the passenger door if she was in that seat. She kept telling them what happened even at the hospital and the cops decided that they were not going to put up with anymore of this piddling little woman not agreeing with their entirely concocted story that some fictitious "black man" had been driving. They took her into custody. Then eventually had to release her when someone reminded them that courts don't like convicting old women for the crime of "not showing complete deference and submission to bully cops." Sgt. Timothy Gauerke of the Milwaukee Police even explained that they gave the old woman they arrested for no reason "a break" for not putting her in a stressful position while handcuffed. He then explained that, “She stuck with her story and that’s why she was arrested.” Remember folks, when the cops decide something you had better agree even if it requires suspension of reality. http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/milw...n-at-the-scene That certainly is her side of the story.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer

21st October 2015, 06:33 AM	#7
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 24,098	Even if you 100% believe the cops they still arrested a woman who had done nothing wrong except lie about who was driving when someone else hit them. Which is still ridiculous.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale Humor blog

21st October 2015, 01:54 AM	#3
BStrong Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: San Francisco Posts: 13,081	A good example of officers making up their minds about an incident based on one witnesses account. It happens. It's something they're instructed at the academy to avoid, and hopefully the same instructions are communicated by FTO's when they're probies, but there's always somebody that doesn't get the message.

21st October 2015, 05:47 AM	#6
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Don't trust old people. They've had many years to practice being deceitful.

21st October 2015, 06:43 AM	#8
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 31,360	Originally Posted by Travis Even if you 100% believe the cops they still arrested a woman who had done nothing wrong except lie about who was driving when someone else hit them. Which is still ridiculous. Sure but then why did she lie ? To protect the drug dealer/home invader/unlicenced driver (delete as applicable) who was driving which is probably obstructing the police which is probably against the law. edited to add...... I think the police exercised a great deal of restraint in not shooting such a dangerous suspect
	Last edited by The Don; 21st October 2015 at 06:45 AM.

21st October 2015, 11:17 AM	#9
eeyore1954 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,745	Originally Posted by Travis Even if you 100% believe the cops they still arrested a woman who had done nothing wrong except lie about who was driving when someone else hit them. Which is still ridiculous. Unless she was lying about what caused the accident. If she was lying about who was driving she might also be lying about what or who caused the accident. Quote: According to police spokesman Sgt. Timothy Gauerke, witnesses accused her of lying about driving the pickup, and so used “common police technique” to push her into saying so . Either way unless the police are lying about witnesses it was not just the police "fantasies" about what happened.
eeyore1954 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,745

21st October 2015, 12:12 PM	#10
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,497	Police haters gotta hate. /sarcasm

21st October 2015, 12:47 PM	#11
cullennz Suspended Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 19,832	And I am sure there is no other side to the episode Hype story

21st October 2015, 12:53 PM	#12
Ranb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 10,263	Well, if the reporter can be trusted this is the police side of the story; Quote: A police spokesperson, Sgt. Timothy Gauerke, told the Journal-Sentinel that the officers gave McFarlin “a break” by handcuffing her with her arms in front, rather than behind her. He also said that witnesses accused her of lying about driving the pickup, and so used “common police technique” to push her into saying so. “It’s to encourage the person, ‘Look, the jig is up, we know what happened. You may as well just tell us,” he said. “She stuck with her story and that’s why she was arrested.” I wonder who the witnesses were? Ranb

21st October 2015, 12:58 PM	#13
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,528	I'm moreso than most into waiting for all sides of the story, but this article includes an interview with the police where they seem to confirm exactly what the victim here says. There may be more to it, but unless this news outlet is outright lying the police have weighed in with the view that they think there's nothing wrong with arresting an old woman because her testimony differs from another witness.
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,528	__________________ The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON

21st October 2015, 01:15 PM	#15
cosmicaug Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,464	Originally Posted by Ranb Well, if the reporter can be trusted this is the police side of the story; Quote: A police spokesperson, Sgt. Timothy Gauerke, told the Journal-Sentinel that the officers gave McFarlin “a break” by handcuffing her with her arms in front, rather than behind her. He also said that witnesses accused her of lying about driving the pickup, and so used “common police technique” to push her into saying so. “It’s to encourage the person, ‘Look, the jig is up, we know what happened. You may as well just tell us,” he said. “She stuck with her story and that’s why she was arrested.” I wonder who the witnesses were? Ranb The Raw Story is referencing and quoting the Journal Sentinel and doing a poor job. The quoted piece in the original article actually makes it seem like the spokesperson is admitting that the police lied (which is not against the law --police officers are under no obligation to tell you the truth) and that it is a commonly employed tactic. From http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwauk...333682681.html : Quote: Milwaukee police spokesman Sgt. Timothy Gauerke talked to the officers Friday and told me witnesses at the crash scene said McFarlin was lying about being the driver. But traffic cam video did not capture the incident, despite their claims to her that it had, so they released her. I asked if she received an apology. Gauerke said McFarlin told the officers she understood they were doing their job. The officers told Gauerke they gave the woman a break, because of her age, by handcuffing in front rather than behind her back. It's a common police technique to tell someone we know you're lying based on witness statements, Gauerke said. "It's to encourage the person, 'Look, the jig is up, we know what happened. You may as well just tell us.' She stuck with her story and that's why she was arrested," he said.
	__________________ -- August Pamplona

21st October 2015, 01:25 PM	#16
cosmicaug Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,464	Originally Posted by Travis Even if you 100% believe the cops they still arrested a woman who had done nothing wrong except lie about who was driving when someone else hit them. Which is still ridiculous. Indeed. She might have been doing this thing or that thing, in covering for the "real driver". However the thing itself has to be an articulable criminal act of some sort and there has to be some sort of probable cause to think that it actually happened. That is, she still needs to be accused of a concrete thing to be arrested and there needs to be some minimal reason to believe that said concrete thing actually happened. That we don't specifically know how to reconcile different eyewitness testimonies is not sufficient grounds to determine that a crime occurred (much less a specific, actionable crime). Having conflicting witness testimonies is simply not a crime.
	__________________ -- August Pamplona

21st October 2015, 01:25 PM	#17
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,661	So really, the thread title should be, "Milwaukee police arrest woman for not agreeing with the story given by other witnesses"?

21st October 2015, 01:29 PM	#18
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,497	Originally Posted by theprestige So really, the thread title should be, "Milwaukee police arrest woman for not agreeing with the story given by other witnesses"? "Milwaukee police arrest woman because they think she's lying about an unknown crime."

21st October 2015, 01:38 PM	#19
cullennz Suspended Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 19,832	For all we know the women could have criminal history as long as your arm and a history of lying her **** off

21st October 2015, 01:41 PM	#20
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,497	Originally Posted by cullennz For all we know the women could have criminal history as long as your arm and a history of lying her **** off She could have issued orders that led to the massacre of My Lai.

21st October 2015, 01:43 PM	#21
cullennz Suspended Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 19,832	Originally Posted by Babbylonian She could have issued orders that led to the massacre of My Lai. Good point

21st October 2015, 03:04 PM	#22
deadrose Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: the wet side of the mountains Posts: 3,558	She could be a 5th columnist even!

21st October 2015, 04:05 PM	#23
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 24,098	If police arrest people every time witness testimony conflicts our for-profit prison system is going to be making lots of money.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale Humor blog

21st October 2015, 04:17 PM	#24
gregthehammer Muse Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 721	she's a 75 year old white woman in milwaukee. MILWAUKEE! Odds are pretty good that there never was a black man driving her truck.
gregthehammer Muse Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 721

21st October 2015, 05:55 PM	#25
The Norseman Meandering fecklessly Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,424	Can't be busted for lying if you actually... don't say anything to the cops. You know... like that silly fifth amendment thing.
	__________________ A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned. -Shepard Book

21st October 2015, 10:57 PM	#26
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 26,393	I don't think this is that big of a deal. Apparently witnesses to the accident claimed she was lying and that somebody else had been driving, someone who if they existed obviously must've fled the scene, which is suspicious. They kept her for what, an hour or so? And then let her go when they couldn't get her to budge on her story. Not that worried.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

22nd October 2015, 12:02 AM	#27
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 19,576	Originally Posted by Babbylonian "Milwaukee police arrest woman because they think she's lying about an unknown crime." This. I'm at a loss what crime would have been committed here. Even more so what crime Ms. McFarlin would have committed. A traffic accident certainly is no crime. And I have to wonder about those witnesses the police claimed to have seen. What could they have really seen? The Good Samaritan who helped her out of her truck stayed with her a while until the paramedics showed up. That suggests a couple of minutes. Then it took another while until the police showed up. That's another couple of minutes. And the police really found witnesses still staying around who had witnessed the traffic accident? I'm very skeptical about that claim.
	__________________ "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf "I think accuracy is important" - Vixen

22nd October 2015, 12:10 AM	#28
cullennz Suspended Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 19,832	A driver with a warrant out for heavy stuff connected to the woman Who did a runner We only know half the story Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

22nd October 2015, 12:21 AM	#29
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open. Posts: 43,043	Originally Posted by cullennz A driver with a warrant out for heavy stuff connected to the woman Who did a runner We only know half the story Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2 I am prepared to accept the police had a reasonable suspicion that something was not right with her story. I would think, though, that it would be the job of detectives to follow it up and find the evidence, not the job of the cops to arrest her on suspicion based on a small amount of evidence.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. “Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos

22nd October 2015, 12:21 AM	#30
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 26,393	Originally Posted by ddt And I have to wonder about those witnesses the police claimed to have seen. What could they have really seen? The Good Samaritan who helped her out of her truck stayed with her a while until the paramedics showed up. That suggests a couple of minutes. Then it took another while until the police showed up. That's another couple of minutes. And the police really found witnesses still staying around who had witnessed the traffic accident? I'm very skeptical about that claim. In another thread on this subforum you will read of the case of a motorcycling couple who were wrecked and injured when a car they were passing intentionally swerved and collided with them. The incident is caught on video and several witnesses to the accident can be seen stopping at the scene and waiting.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

22nd October 2015, 01:54 AM	#31
Ladewig I lost an avatar bet. Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 28,039	deleted
	__________________ I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly. Last edited by Ladewig; 22nd October 2015 at 01:57 AM.

22nd October 2015, 05:24 AM	#32
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	Originally Posted by ddt This. I'm at a loss what crime would have been committed here. Even more so what crime Ms. McFarlin would have committed. A traffic accident certainly is no crime. A driver fleeing the scene of an accident is certainly a crime.
	__________________ Vive la liberté!

22nd October 2015, 05:45 AM	#33
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,528	Originally Posted by Checkmite I don't think this is that big of a deal. Apparently witnesses to the accident claimed she was lying and that somebody else had been driving, someone who if they existed obviously must've fled the scene, which is suspicious. They kept her for what, an hour or so? And then let her go when they couldn't get her to budge on her story. Not that worried. The burden for arrest is probable cause. In the US, that generally means a prudent and cautious person would be fairly certain that a specific crime has been committed by the person being arrested. We can't have people arrested on hunches, no matter how short that arrest is. Even if the worst suspicion turns out to be true here, this is a major problem.
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,528	__________________ The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON

22nd October 2015, 06:00 AM	#34
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,133	Originally Posted by WildCat A driver fleeing the scene of an accident is certainly a crime. That she didn't commit. So why arrest her?
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

22nd October 2015, 06:16 AM	#35
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 41,468	Jeez, this is like watching Blue's Clues with people who only speak Swahili. Someone in a uniform says something and they all nod up and down "Oooh, he's a police officer. Must be telling the truth." The spokescop even said that cops make crap up all the time. That's as close to winking at the story as you could want. If you read the article, she has a great chance of being contradicted if she's lying. The good samaritan could show up and say, "Yeah, I helped her out after that no good black dood ran away." They lied about the video but we're supposed to dismiss that as "cops do that all the time" and accept their other potential lie that they had witnesses. Read the full article. This doesn't read like someone setting up a social justice sting. My spidey senses tell me that her version sounds much more plausible than the cops'. We already have them in one lie.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

22nd October 2015, 06:23 AM	#36
eeyore1954 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,745	Quote: Originally Posted by WildCat View Post A driver fleeing the scene of an accident is certainly a crime. Originally Posted by pgwenthold That she didn't commit. So why arrest her? If there was a driver who fled the scene wouldn't hiding who the driver was be obstruction of justice.
eeyore1954 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,745