AZ Police Officer Acted "Within Policy" Assaulting 15-Year Old Girl...

[there4eyeM]

^why oh why don't others see it that way? That is how I see it, too.

Because either they are not looking at the situation objectively or they do not understand proper police work.

 

[Esmeralda]

^why oh why don't others see it that way? That is how I see it, too.

Because either they are not looking at the situation objectively or they do not understand proper police work.

Or maybe they have more common sense.

 

[Noomi]

^why oh why don't others see it that way? That is how I see it, too.

Because either they are not looking at the situation objectively or they do not understand proper police work.

Or maybe they have more common sense.

Which you do not.

 

[there4eyeM]

^why oh why don't others see it that way? That is how I see it, too.

Because either they are not looking at the situation objectively or they do not understand proper police work.

Or maybe they have more common sense.

Refusal to admit the facts does not refute them. Can you answer how the police could have been so certain?

 

[Wicked Jester]

^why oh why don't others see it that way? That is how I see it, too.

They don't see it that way, 'cause you and many others are full o' shit.

 

[paulitician]

Our Police (Gestapo), waved bye bye to 'Innocent until proven Guilty' a long long time ago. Such is life in this Police State.

 

[MikeK]

The girl TURNED when the officer was following her - right before he jumped her, she turned toward him. Why didn't the cop wait and left her face him before slamming her to the ground? She had already acknowledged his presence, what reason did he have to throw her to the ground?

I believe the answer to that is police are becoming conditioned to the notion that their personal safety transcends any consideration of Fourth Amendment concerns. So the new order of business is to immobilize every potential subject of arrest regardless of how minor the suspected offense or how unnecessary the action might be. And immobilize means knock down and handcuff. It's become a standard operating procedure, which is what police spokesman meant by explaining this officer's conduct as being within "policy."

 

[MikeK]

Our Police (Gestapo), waved bye bye to 'Innocent until proven Guilty' a long long time ago. Such is life in this Police State.

It is interesting how a rising percentage of the population has assumed an authoritarian/submissive response to increasing militarization of domestic police agencies. The number of police-oriented tv programs alone is evidence of the trend toward authority worship -- as is the increasing tendency to accept and approve of examples of unnecessary or excessive use of force by police.

According to Dr. Erich Fromm (Escape From Freedom), this tendency preceded and accompanied the rise of the Third Reich.

 

[paulitician]

Our Police (Gestapo), waved bye bye to 'Innocent until proven Guilty' a long long time ago. Such is life in this Police State.

It is interesting how a rising percentage of the population has assumed an authoritarian/submissive response to increasing militarization of domestic police agencies. The number of police-oriented tv programs alone is evidence of the trend toward authority worship -- as is the increasing tendency to accept and approve of examples of unnecessary or excessive use of force by police.

According to Dr. Erich Fromm (Escape From Freedom), this tendency preceded and accompanied the rise of the Third Reich.

Yeah, fear and anxiety has led to them completely rolling over. Anything to keep them 'safe' i guess. It's 'Shoot first, ask questions later' for our Police now. But that's how it goes in Police States.

 

[martinjlm]

Police have a responsibility to present evidence to a judge and get a warrant before they arrest people, they do not have a responsibility to randomly arrest people just because someone else says they did something wrong. My point still stands, there is nothing a police officer does that a citizen cannot do, therefore police should be required to adhere to the same standards. If they arrest me for doing something,and ignore it when a fellow cop does it, they are wrong.

Period.

By the way, everyone has the responsibility to not only obey the law, but to enforce it. I see no reason to expect police to do something I do not expect to do myself.

Your point was negated by the use of the term randomly. His apprehending the girl was not random.

My point is bigger than this one incident.

Yeah, I've kinda noticed that. Seems whenever someone makes a point you can't dispute about THIS issue you manage to deflect it to a greater societal issue. Thing is, this incident is not pro-forma for police interactions. It is what it is and trying to make it more than it is does a disservice to the people we pay (through our taxes) to keep the peace and to those who were actually on the scene and know what happened way more than you or I.

No doubt the officer had more options to apprehend the girl than the one he chose. Some of those options would likely not have resulted in her being taken down as roughly as she was. But that's all it was. A rough takedown. How the heck do we get into rants about random arrests from a situation that was anything but random? It is what it is. She was walking away from an incident. Some people call that fleeing the scene. I don't care what you call it. The police did not want her to walk away. They may have instructed her to remain at the scene (we cannot hear clearly so we do not know). We do know that she showed no proclivity towards returning to the scene and the officer took her down. Was he too rough? You say yes, I say no. Doubt either of us will change the other's mind. That doesn't make one of us a police state supporting fascist or the other a lilly livered commie sympathizer. It is what it freakin' is. Nothing more.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To really do our 'homework', look again at the facts.

The police arrived at the scene of an altercation they had not witnessed. They did not know who did what.

All the allegations against this girl were just that, allegations, nothing proved in court. That a phone call was received is not proof.

The police are there to maintain order, protect people (and property), and arrest suspects. This girl was only a suspect to the police who arrived.

The police are not there to hand out punishment. That is for the court to do.

The cop violently, even sadistically, forced a non-resisting girl to the ground, knocking her obviously senseless.

His actions are beyond his duty.

It has been said over and over again: the school called the police because she assaulted a teacher. They were there to take her into custody. What the cop did was standard procedure, was not sadistic by any means. You think it is so easy to be a cop, be one. You'll be singing a different tune.

And the police, being psychic, were able to take a description and accurately asses that the person they were looking for was the girl walking away from them. I am impressed at your ability to excuse police based on what you think happened instead of looking at the reality that, at best, the police had a vague description of a Hispanic girl wearing a green dress.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

^why oh why don't others see it that way? That is how I see it, too.

Because either they are not looking at the situation objectively or they do not understand proper police work.

Or maybe they have more common sense.

Common sense tells me that people make mistakes. You, apparently, think police are exempt from being wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your point was negated by the use of the term randomly. His apprehending the girl was not random.

My point is bigger than this one incident.

Yeah, I've kinda noticed that. Seems whenever someone makes a point you can't dispute about THIS issue you manage to deflect it to a greater societal issue. Thing is, this incident is not pro-forma for police interactions. It is what it is and trying to make it more than it is does a disservice to the people we pay (through our taxes) to keep the peace and to those who were actually on the scene and know what happened way more than you or I.

No doubt the officer had more options to apprehend the girl than the one he chose. Some of those options would likely not have resulted in her being taken down as roughly as she was. But that's all it was. A rough takedown. How the heck do we get into rants about random arrests from a situation that was anything but random? It is what it is. She was walking away from an incident. Some people call that fleeing the scene. I don't care what you call it. The police did not want her to walk away. They may have instructed her to remain at the scene (we cannot hear clearly so we do not know). We do know that she showed no proclivity towards returning to the scene and the officer took her down. Was he too rough? You say yes, I say no. Doubt either of us will change the other's mind. That doesn't make one of us a police state supporting fascist or the other a lilly livered commie sympathizer. It is what it freakin' is. Nothing more.

This issue is symptomatic of the larger issue, which is the loss of freedom for everyone. The fact that you refuse to accept that does not change reality, anymore than the fact that some people refuse to admit that climate change is real changes the fact that it is happening.

No I can deal with your bullshit. No one instructed her to do anything because she was already gone when the police arrived. You can clearly see one of the witnesses clearly pointing in her direction when the police first arrive. That means that the police officer, relying only on the word of someone who could have actually instigated the altercation, attacked an innocent bystander.

That, believe it or not, makes whatever point you think you have moot.

 

[beagle9]

My point is bigger than this one incident.

Yeah, I've kinda noticed that. Seems whenever someone makes a point you can't dispute about THIS issue you manage to deflect it to a greater societal issue. Thing is, this incident is not pro-forma for police interactions. It is what it is and trying to make it more than it is does a disservice to the people we pay (through our taxes) to keep the peace and to those who were actually on the scene and know what happened way more than you or I.

No doubt the officer had more options to apprehend the girl than the one he chose. Some of those options would likely not have resulted in her being taken down as roughly as she was. But that's all it was. A rough takedown. How the heck do we get into rants about random arrests from a situation that was anything but random? It is what it is. She was walking away from an incident. Some people call that fleeing the scene. I don't care what you call it. The police did not want her to walk away. They may have instructed her to remain at the scene (we cannot hear clearly so we do not know). We do know that she showed no proclivity towards returning to the scene and the officer took her down. Was he too rough? You say yes, I say no. Doubt either of us will change the other's mind. That doesn't make one of us a police state supporting fascist or the other a lilly livered commie sympathizer. It is what it freakin' is. Nothing more.

This issue is symptomatic of the larger issue, which is the loss of freedom for everyone. The fact that you refuse to accept that does not change reality, anymore than the fact that some people refuse to admit that climate change is real changes the fact that it is happening.

No I can deal with your bullshit. No one instructed her to do anything because she was already gone when the police arrived. You can clearly see one of the witnesses clearly pointing in her direction when the police first arrive. That means that the police officer, relying only on the word of someone who could have actually instigated the altercation, attacked an innocent bystander.

That, believe it or not, makes whatever point you think you have moot.

What a leap you are making here in these words you have spoken...wow! It just keeps getting muddier and muddier in this room I'd say....LOL

 

[martinjlm]

My point is bigger than this one incident.

Yeah, I've kinda noticed that. Seems whenever someone makes a point you can't dispute about THIS issue you manage to deflect it to a greater societal issue. Thing is, this incident is not pro-forma for police interactions. It is what it is and trying to make it more than it is does a disservice to the people we pay (through our taxes) to keep the peace and to those who were actually on the scene and know what happened way more than you or I.

No doubt the officer had more options to apprehend the girl than the one he chose. Some of those options would likely not have resulted in her being taken down as roughly as she was. But that's all it was. A rough takedown. How the heck do we get into rants about random arrests from a situation that was anything but random? It is what it is. She was walking away from an incident. Some people call that fleeing the scene. I don't care what you call it. The police did not want her to walk away. They may have instructed her to remain at the scene (we cannot hear clearly so we do not know). We do know that she showed no proclivity towards returning to the scene and the officer took her down. Was he too rough? You say yes, I say no. Doubt either of us will change the other's mind. That doesn't make one of us a police state supporting fascist or the other a lilly livered commie sympathizer. It is what it freakin' is. Nothing more.

This issue is symptomatic of the larger issue, which is the loss of freedom for everyone. The fact that you refuse to accept that does not change reality, anymore than the fact that some people refuse to admit that climate change is real changes the fact that it is happening.

No I can deal with your bullshit. No one instructed her to do anything because she was already gone when the police arrived. You can clearly see one of the witnesses clearly pointing in her direction when the police first arrive. That means that the police officer, relying only on the word of someone who could have actually instigated the altercation, attacked an innocent bystander.

That, believe it or not, makes whatever point you think you have moot.

At least you've confirmed the origin of half of your screen name.

 

[Esmeralda]

Our Police (Gestapo), waved bye bye to 'Innocent until proven Guilty' a long long time ago. Such is life in this Police State.

It is interesting how a rising percentage of the population has assumed an authoritarian/submissive response to increasing militarization of domestic police agencies. The number of police-oriented tv programs alone is evidence of the trend toward authority worship -- as is the increasing tendency to accept and approve of examples of unnecessary or excessive use of force by police.

According to Dr. Erich Fromm (Escape From Freedom), this tendency preceded and accompanied the rise of the Third Reich.

When you guys start talking 3rd Reich, authoritarian/totalitarian government, police state, our diminishing freedoms, etc., you prove what nut cases you are. Not one of you has the tiniest, itty bitty idea what it is like to live in a real police state, what it is like to live in a totalitarian government. Your American freedoms are not dinimishing. You have no idea what it would be like if they actually were. You're just a bunch of ranting, intellectual babies. No one with any real intelligence would take you seriously.

The police don't need a photograph of the suspect or a video of the crime to arrest someone. She was identified not by miscellaneous passers by, but by her mother. Who was on the ground after the girl walked away, despite the fact you all say it was the mother assaulting the girl. In that case, why was the mother left on the ground when the girl walked away. She had been identified by the school who reported her and probably gave a description, including her clothing. They knew who the suspect was, and she was told to stop. She didn't, which gives them the right to use the means necessary to take her into custody. She was pushed, that's all, pushed. And fell to the ground, was then tackled and cuffed. Not much different than happens everyday on the practice football field at any high school. She was NOT INJURED. No injuries, so it was not as brutal and violent as people want to make out. It was not the act of a police state. It was reasonable given the circumstances.

You are all completely biased against the police. I think it is hilarious how people in the US like to dislike the police. You'd just love to live in a country without police I bet. If so, then move to Somalia and see how you like anarchy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Our Police (Gestapo), waved bye bye to 'Innocent until proven Guilty' a long long time ago. Such is life in this Police State.

It is interesting how a rising percentage of the population has assumed an authoritarian/submissive response to increasing militarization of domestic police agencies. The number of police-oriented tv programs alone is evidence of the trend toward authority worship -- as is the increasing tendency to accept and approve of examples of unnecessary or excessive use of force by police.

According to Dr. Erich Fromm (Escape From Freedom), this tendency preceded and accompanied the rise of the Third Reich.

When you guys start talking 3rd Reich, authoritarian/totalitarian government, police state, our diminishing freedoms, etc., you prove what nut cases you are. Not one of you has the tiniest, itty bitty idea what it is like to live in a real police state, what it is like to live in a totalitarian government. Your American freedoms are not dinimishing. You have no idea what it would be like if they actually were. You're just a bunch of ranting, intellectual babies. No one with any real intelligence would take you seriously.

The police don't need a photograph of the suspect or a video of the crime to arrest someone. She was identified not by miscellaneous passers by, but by her mother. Who was on the ground after the girl walked away, despite the fact you all say it was the mother assaulting the girl. In that case, why was the mother left on the ground when the girl walked away. She had been identified by the school who reported her and probably gave a description, including her clothing. They knew who the suspect was, and she was told to stop. She didn't, which gives them the right to use the means necessary to take her into custody. She was pushed, that's all, pushed. And fell to the ground, was then tackled and cuffed. Not much different than happens everyday on the practice football field at any high school. She was NOT INJURED. No injuries, so it was not as brutal and violent as people want to make out. It was not the act of a police state. It was reasonable given the circumstances.

You are all completely biased against the police. I think it is hilarious how people in the US like to dislike the police. You'd just love to live in a country without police I bet. If so, then move to Somalia and see how you like anarchy.

Does dismissing people who talk about things you don't want to hear help you sleep at night?

 

[MikeK]

Our Police (Gestapo), waved bye bye to 'Innocent until proven Guilty' a long long time ago. Such is life in this Police State.

It is interesting how a rising percentage of the population has assumed an authoritarian/submissive response to increasing militarization of domestic police agencies. The number of police-oriented tv programs alone is evidence of the trend toward authority worship -- as is the increasing tendency to accept and approve of examples of unnecessary or excessive use of force by police.

According to Dr. Erich Fromm (Escape From Freedom), this tendency preceded and accompanied the rise of the Third Reich.

When you guys start talking 3rd Reich, authoritarian/totalitarian government, police state, our diminishing freedoms, etc., you prove what nut cases you are. Not one of you has the tiniest, itty bitty idea what it is like to live in a real police state, what it is like to live in a totalitarian government. Your American freedoms are not dinimishing. You have no idea what it would be like if they actually were. You're just a bunch of ranting, intellectual babies. No one with any real intelligence would take you seriously.

The police don't need a photograph of the suspect or a video of the crime to arrest someone. She was identified not by miscellaneous passers by, but by her mother. Who was on the ground after the girl walked away, despite the fact you all say it was the mother assaulting the girl. In that case, why was the mother left on the ground when the girl walked away. She had been identified by the school who reported her and probably gave a description, including her clothing. They knew who the suspect was, and she was told to stop. She didn't, which gives them the right to use the means necessary to take her into custody. She was pushed, that's all, pushed. And fell to the ground, was then tackled and cuffed. Not much different than happens everyday on the practice football field at any high school. She was NOT INJURED. No injuries, so it was not as brutal and violent as people want to make out. It was not the act of a police state. It was reasonable given the circumstances.

You are all completely biased against the police. I think it is hilarious how people in the US like to dislike the police. You'd just love to live in a country without police I bet. If so, then move to Somalia and see how you like anarchy.

I am well aware that the U.S. is not at this time a police state. And one does not need to live in a police state to know and to understand what a police state is -- and how they come about.

A police state arises in one of two ways; either subsequent to a political or military coup or via an incremental process during which the various components are gradually and imperceptibly assembled. Then one morning you wake up and there it is.

I've been around long enough to have watched many changes come about in American law-enforcement. Most of these changes are by themselves seemingly small and insignificant, but when viewed as a collective whole they occur as manifest militarization. And when you add the fact that the federal government routinely subsidizes most state and local police agencies with funding to purchase all sorts of equipment which is absolutely redundant for the purpose of domestic policing you can add the term, centralization. The most recent example of this distribution of military equipment to domestic police comes in the form of 2,700 armored vehicles, such as those being used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I can recall when the average police officer was armed with a .38 revolver. Now they carry fifteen shot automatics, the need for which has almost never been demonstrated. Many ordinary police officers carry M-16 assault rifles or H&K machine guns in the trunks of their computer equipped vehicles.

If you believe the sanctity of the home, the so-called "castle" principle, is still in effect, along with the "probable cause" requirement for arrest, I urge you to go here: Botched Paramilitary Police Raids | Cato Institute

and here: SWAT Fever: It's Epidemic (Sorry About The Dogs) - Raw Fisher

and here: No-knock "drug war" warrant = dead dogs, ruined home - Gordon Wagner - Open Salon

and here: More Militarized Than the Military | The Agitator

. . . and educate yourself.

One needn't be paranoid to be concerned with the changes taken place in the character and functional potential of our domestic police agencies. \

As mentioned, it comes about gradually. One vaguely perceptible step at a time. Then one day you wake up and there it is.

Then what do you do?

 

[Esmeralda]

It is interesting how a rising percentage of the population has assumed an authoritarian/submissive response to increasing militarization of domestic police agencies. The number of police-oriented tv programs alone is evidence of the trend toward authority worship -- as is the increasing tendency to accept and approve of examples of unnecessary or excessive use of force by police.

According to Dr. Erich Fromm (Escape From Freedom), this tendency preceded and accompanied the rise of the Third Reich.

When you guys start talking 3rd Reich, authoritarian/totalitarian government, police state, our diminishing freedoms, etc., you prove what nut cases you are. Not one of you has the tiniest, itty bitty idea what it is like to live in a real police state, what it is like to live in a totalitarian government. Your American freedoms are not dinimishing. You have no idea what it would be like if they actually were. You're just a bunch of ranting, intellectual babies. No one with any real intelligence would take you seriously.

The police don't need a photograph of the suspect or a video of the crime to arrest someone. She was identified not by miscellaneous passers by, but by her mother. Who was on the ground after the girl walked away, despite the fact you all say it was the mother assaulting the girl. In that case, why was the mother left on the ground when the girl walked away. She had been identified by the school who reported her and probably gave a description, including her clothing. They knew who the suspect was, and she was told to stop. She didn't, which gives them the right to use the means necessary to take her into custody. She was pushed, that's all, pushed. And fell to the ground, was then tackled and cuffed. Not much different than happens everyday on the practice football field at any high school. She was NOT INJURED. No injuries, so it was not as brutal and violent as people want to make out. It was not the act of a police state. It was reasonable given the circumstances.

You are all completely biased against the police. I think it is hilarious how people in the US like to dislike the police. You'd just love to live in a country without police I bet. If so, then move to Somalia and see how you like anarchy.

Does dismissing people who talk about things you don't want to hear help you sleep at night?

I am not dismissing anything. I am debating and refuting what you are saying. You are the one dismissing things. You also haven't got a clue about debate and refutation.

 

[Esmeralda]

It is interesting how a rising percentage of the population has assumed an authoritarian/submissive response to increasing militarization of domestic police agencies. The number of police-oriented tv programs alone is evidence of the trend toward authority worship -- as is the increasing tendency to accept and approve of examples of unnecessary or excessive use of force by police.

According to Dr. Erich Fromm (Escape From Freedom), this tendency preceded and accompanied the rise of the Third Reich.

When you guys start talking 3rd Reich, authoritarian/totalitarian government, police state, our diminishing freedoms, etc., you prove what nut cases you are. Not one of you has the tiniest, itty bitty idea what it is like to live in a real police state, what it is like to live in a totalitarian government. Your American freedoms are not dinimishing. You have no idea what it would be like if they actually were. You're just a bunch of ranting, intellectual babies. No one with any real intelligence would take you seriously.

The police don't need a photograph of the suspect or a video of the crime to arrest someone. She was identified not by miscellaneous passers by, but by her mother. Who was on the ground after the girl walked away, despite the fact you all say it was the mother assaulting the girl. In that case, why was the mother left on the ground when the girl walked away. She had been identified by the school who reported her and probably gave a description, including her clothing. They knew who the suspect was, and she was told to stop. She didn't, which gives them the right to use the means necessary to take her into custody. She was pushed, that's all, pushed. And fell to the ground, was then tackled and cuffed. Not much different than happens everyday on the practice football field at any high school. She was NOT INJURED. No injuries, so it was not as brutal and violent as people want to make out. It was not the act of a police state. It was reasonable given the circumstances.

You are all completely biased against the police. I think it is hilarious how people in the US like to dislike the police. You'd just love to live in a country without police I bet. If so, then move to Somalia and see how you like anarchy.

I am well aware that the U.S. is not at this time a police state. And one does not need to live in a police state to know and to understand what a police state is -- and how they come about.

A police state arises in one of two ways; either subsequent to a political or military coup or via an incremental process during which the various components are gradually and imperceptibly assembled. Then one morning you wake up and there it is.

I've been around long enough to have watched many changes come about in American law-enforcement. Most of these changes are by themselves seemingly small and insignificant, but when viewed as a collective whole they occur as manifest militarization. And when you add the fact that the federal government routinely subsidizes most state and local police agencies with funding to purchase all sorts of equipment which is absolutely redundant for the purpose of domestic policing you can add the term, centralization. The most recent example of this distribution of military equipment to domestic police comes in the form of 2,700 armored vehicles, such as those being used in Iraq and Afghanistan. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMCKefg0zmw]2700 Armored Vehicles Purchased for Police Departments by DHS - YouTube[/ame]

I can recall when the average police officer was armed with a .38 revolver. Now they carry fifteen shot automatics, the need for which has almost never been demonstrated. Many ordinary police officers carry M-16 assault rifles or H&K machine guns in the trunks of their computer equipped vehicles.

If you believe the sanctity of the home, the so-called "castle" principle, is still in effect, along with the "probable cause" requirement for arrest, I urge you to go here: Botched Paramilitary Police Raids | Cato Institute

and here: SWAT Fever: It's Epidemic (Sorry About The Dogs) - Raw Fisher

and here: No-knock "drug war" warrant = dead dogs, ruined home - Gordon Wagner - Open Salon

and here: More Militarized Than the Military | The Agitator

. . . and educate yourself.

One needn't be paranoid to be concerned with the changes taken place in the character and functional potential of our domestic police agencies. \

As mentioned, it comes about gradually. One vaguely perceptible step at a time. Then one day you wake up and there it is.

Then what do you do?

MikeK: Whatever weaponry the cops have now that they didn't have before? It is simple: so they are not out-armed and out-gunned by the people they have to confront. If they have riot gear, it is because people riot and are dangerous. Should the polic, trying to control something like the LA riots only have small pistols? No body armor? That's ludicrous. If they have automatic rifles now it is because the criminals have them. You are not even dealing with reality. Even UK cops, who used to only carry batons, now carry guns and automatic weapons and have everything else the US cops have because society has become more violent and high tech. They are only keeping up with what they have to confront in the modern world.

As far as American leaning toward some kind of totalitarian police state: absolutely ludicrous. Nothing of the sort is happening. In fact, it is more of the reverse. Things are much better for the average law abiding citizen then they were in the 50s, for example. Much better.