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

[Esmeralda]

I also wonder at all those who sympathize with such a degree of violence that was not necessary. There are so many things he did not know. Was she even at the scene? If she was, was she aggressor or aggressee? Did she hear him call to her? She could have a hearing deficiency. The police must allow for all possibilities of innocence, not make conclusions of guilt. Certainly, they can be mistaken, but approving that as 'policy' doesn't go with the concept of Anglo-Saxon Common Law nor the 'letter and spirit' of the constitution.

There were people at the scene who stopped when they saw the fight in the street. They were aiding the mother. They pointed out the girl to the cops when the cops arrived. So, yes, they knew she was at the scene and that she was the one to be apprehended. It doesn't matter if she was the agressor or not; she was fleeing the scene and when they told her to stop, she failed to do so. What are they supposed to do, just let her walk away?

And how is he supposed to stop a suspect if not to throw her down, to tackle her? How is he supposed to stop her? Do you have an answer for that? Or is he just supposed to let her walk away? If he continues to follow her, how does he know she won't start running? How is he supposed to know if she has a weapon or not?

When you are a police officer in that position, then you can say what to do. But you aren't, and have no right to judge. This was not brutality. He did not brutalize her.

 

[there4eyeM]

To repeat, did the cop see what happened? If not, all he has is hearsay, not evidence.

Walking is not fleeing.

What if she didn't or couldn't hear him?

Passing her and standing in front of here would stop her, or taking her by the arm, etc. The force he used was, in the opinion of a man, excessive to be used on a small woman. I have no male respect for this.

P.S. I very much like your Miller citation.

 

[Esmeralda]

To repeat, did the cop see what happened? If not, all he has is hearsay, not evidence.

Walking is not fleeing.

What if she didn't or couldn't hear him?

Passing her and standing in front of here would stop her, or taking her by the arm, etc. The force he used was, in the opinion of a man, excessive to be used on a small woman. I have no male respect for this.

P.S. I very much like your Miller citation.

She was fleeing the scene: she kept walking when he told her to stop.

He doesn't have to have absolute evidence she was involved; i.e., he doesn't need to have witnessed the event. He has reports from 3 witnesses, people who stopped to help, apparently people not involved, therefore not biased. She did hear him calling her, that's why she turned to see how close he was when he was pursuing her. What if he passed her and stood in front of her? What then? Maybe she would have a weapon; he doesn't know that she doesn't. Maybe she wouldn't even stop then; there is no reason to believe she would, and then he would be involved in an altercation with her. She is not a 'small' woman. She is a large woman. She is only a couple of inches shorter than the cop, and she is thick, a big girl. Do you see the size of her, the size of her legs? She is a big girl. I've been around teenagers like this. They are big, bigger than the average person one or two generations ago. And they are brutish. Frightening and unpredictable. His actions were completely appropriate. You don't do anything different because the suspect is a female. Females can be just as dangerous as males: look at the Jodi Arias trial.

 

[chikenwing]

What I see is the girl turning in response to his calling her. The cop didn't give her a chance to stop after recognizing who he was. He just hit her and knocked her down.

Unnecessary use of force,he didn't NEED to do what he did ,the sad part is the approval of his handlers.

They lack the savey needed to handle each and every incidence with maturity and reason.Instead the default action is more violence.

For all he knew or us she was the victim of two assaults.

 

[there4eyeM]

"...apparently people not involved..."

'Apparent' to whom? He could only have ASSUMED they were objective and correct, or perhaps suspected. So, the young person was merely a suspect. I insist upon the crucial point that he was not a witness, did not have first-hand knowledge, was not justified to act as he did.

And I certainly have the right to judge what I see myself. If I do not have that as a 'right', I reserve it to myself to do it anyway.

 

[Esmeralda]

"...apparently people not involved..."

'Apparent' to whom? He could only have ASSUMED they were objective and correct, or perhaps suspected. So, the young person was merely a suspect. I insist upon the crucial point that he was not a witness, did not have first-hand knowledge, was not justified to act as he did.

And I certainly have the right to judge what I see myself. If I do not have that as a 'right', I reserve it to myself to do it anyway.

She had been in a 'fight' with a teacher at her school. Then she'd walked out before the police came. The school called the police. The cops were looking for her. He didn't need evidence of the street fight to take her into custody: the school had reported her; that is why the police were there, to take her into custody. Though three supervisors of the police force agreed what he did was within policy, he was disciplined, a 40 hour suspension, by a new police chief. It looks like the police chief wanted to make an example of this guy because the new chief is afraid of the media claiming officers use excessive force. I don't see anything wrong in what he did. You don't treat them differently because they are female or only 15: as I've said several times in this thread, I've been around kids like this. They are big, they are rough and brutish, they don't care who they hurt, they are frightening and dangerous. This kid had had a physical atercation with a teacher and was in a physical altercation with her mother in the street. She is a physically violent person, and she is not small and fragile by any means. I have no problem with what he did. I agree with the 3 supervisors who said he acted appropriately. I think the police chief is pandering to the media.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, this cop had certified the identity of the person walking down the street and knew as a matter of fact that it was the person being sought and that she presented a clear danger to his person? Is that the absurd claim here? If the Chief is pandering to anything, it's to proper procedure by public servants!

 

[Esmeralda]

So, this cop had certified the identity of the person walking down the street and knew as a matter of fact that it was the person being sought and that she presented a clear danger to his person? Is that the absurd claim here? If the Chief is pandering to anything, it's to proper procedure by public servants!

Your objections are becoming idiotic. When the police are called, they are given a description of the person that is the problem. She was also pointed out to him by witnesses at the scene. What else is he supposed to do? You're being ridiculous.

I've had a few jobs where a new boss comes in and wants to make him/herself look big and make a name for him/herself by trying to discredit people who have been working successfully at the firm for years. The new guy starts trying to tear down others to make it look like he/she is going to 'fix' everything. What that person does is destructive. He/she is trying to fix something that isn't broken and in the process destroys morale and trust and just makes everything worse. The new police chief and what he did reminds me of that type of new boss.

 

[there4eyeM]

I've had first hand, close-up-and-personal experience with police and procedures.

This guy was off the mark.

 

[Esmeralda]

I've had first hand, close-up-and-personal experience with police and procedures.

This guy was off the mark.

So have I; no he wasn't. Three police supervisors agree with me.

 

[paulitician]

On the bright side, the roided-up mongoloid didn't shoot and kill her. Surprising these days.

 

[Esmeralda]

On the bright side, the roided-up mongoloid didn't shoot and kill her. Surprising these days.

I wonder if people would think this was police brutality if this was a 15 year old black male as opposed to a 15 year old white female.

 

[there4eyeM]

On the bright side, the roided-up mongoloid didn't shoot and kill her. Surprising these days.

I wonder if people would think this was police brutality if this was a 15 year old black male as opposed to a 15 year old white female.

This person would. The cop did not have sufficient knowledge of the facts to act as he did.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I also wonder at all those who sympathize with such a degree of violence that was not necessary. There are so many things he did not know. Was she even at the scene? If she was, was she aggressor or aggressee? Did she hear him call to her? She could have a hearing deficiency. The police must allow for all possibilities of innocence, not make conclusions of guilt. Certainly, they can be mistaken, but approving that as 'policy' doesn't go with the concept of Anglo-Saxon Common Law nor the 'letter and spirit' of the constitution.

There were people at the scene who stopped when they saw the fight in the street. They were aiding the mother. They pointed out the girl to the cops when the cops arrived. So, yes, they knew she was at the scene and that she was the one to be apprehended. It doesn't matter if she was the agressor or not; she was fleeing the scene and when they told her to stop, she failed to do so. What are they supposed to do, just let her walk away?

And how is he supposed to stop a suspect if not to throw her down, to tackle her? How is he supposed to stop her? Do you have an answer for that? Or is he just supposed to let her walk away? If he continues to follow her, how does he know she won't start running? How is he supposed to know if she has a weapon or not?

When you are a police officer in that position, then you can say what to do. But you aren't, and have no right to judge. This was not brutality. He did not brutalize her.

It is not illegal to walk away from a crime scene, even if you are the fracking person who caused the crime. I can prove that quite simply by pointing out the fact that they actually had to make a law that leaving the scene of an accident is a crime. And I will point out that all it takes to remove that as a crime is for the people involved to talk to each other and exchange any information they need.

No need to involve the police, no need to sit around with your thumbs up your ass waiting for the police. In fact, if you have an accident, and someone else calls the police, and both drivers are satisfied, you are still not obligated to wait for the police.

This is not Russia, we are not children. We are under no obligation to clear our movements with the police. You really need to get over your delusions that cops are in charge of the fucking planet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To repeat, did the cop see what happened? If not, all he has is hearsay, not evidence.

Walking is not fleeing.

What if she didn't or couldn't hear him?

Passing her and standing in front of here would stop her, or taking her by the arm, etc. The force he used was, in the opinion of a man, excessive to be used on a small woman. I have no male respect for this.

P.S. I very much like your Miller citation.

She was fleeing the scene: she kept walking when he told her to stop.

He doesn't have to have absolute evidence she was involved; i.e., he doesn't need to have witnessed the event. He has reports from 3 witnesses, people who stopped to help, apparently people not involved, therefore not biased. She did hear him calling her, that's why she turned to see how close he was when he was pursuing her. What if he passed her and stood in front of her? What then? Maybe she would have a weapon; he doesn't know that she doesn't. Maybe she wouldn't even stop then; there is no reason to believe she would, and then he would be involved in an altercation with her. She is not a 'small' woman. She is a large woman. She is only a couple of inches shorter than the cop, and she is thick, a big girl. Do you see the size of her, the size of her legs? She is a big girl. I've been around teenagers like this. They are big, bigger than the average person one or two generations ago. And they are brutish. Frightening and unpredictable. His actions were completely appropriate. You don't do anything different because the suspect is a female. Females can be just as dangerous as males: look at the Jodi Arias trial.

She was not fleeing anything. Even if she had been fleeing, the cop was wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...apparently people not involved..."

'Apparent' to whom? He could only have ASSUMED they were objective and correct, or perhaps suspected. So, the young person was merely a suspect. I insist upon the crucial point that he was not a witness, did not have first-hand knowledge, was not justified to act as he did.

And I certainly have the right to judge what I see myself. If I do not have that as a 'right', I reserve it to myself to do it anyway.

She had been in a 'fight' with a teacher at her school. Then she'd walked out before the police came. The school called the police. The cops were looking for her. He didn't need evidence of the street fight to take her into custody: the school had reported her; that is why the police were there, to take her into custody. Though three supervisors of the police force agreed what he did was within policy, he was disciplined, a 40 hour suspension, by a new police chief. It looks like the police chief wanted to make an example of this guy because the new chief is afraid of the media claiming officers use excessive force. I don't see anything wrong in what he did. You don't treat them differently because they are female or only 15: as I've said several times in this thread, I've been around kids like this. They are big, they are rough and brutish, they don't care who they hurt, they are frightening and dangerous. This kid had had a physical atercation with a teacher and was in a physical altercation with her mother in the street. She is a physically violent person, and she is not small and fragile by any means. I have no problem with what he did. I agree with the 3 supervisors who said he acted appropriately. I think the police chief is pandering to the media.

Tell me something, if you are right why was he suspended for 5 days after his supervisors saw the video?

Phoenix officer calls 5-day suspension too harsh

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, this cop had certified the identity of the person walking down the street and knew as a matter of fact that it was the person being sought and that she presented a clear danger to his person? Is that the absurd claim here? If the Chief is pandering to anything, it's to proper procedure by public servants!

Your objections are becoming idiotic. When the police are called, they are given a description of the person that is the problem. She was also pointed out to him by witnesses at the scene. What else is he supposed to do? You're being ridiculous.

I've had a few jobs where a new boss comes in and wants to make him/herself look big and make a name for him/herself by trying to discredit people who have been working successfully at the firm for years. The new guy starts trying to tear down others to make it look like he/she is going to 'fix' everything. What that person does is destructive. He/she is trying to fix something that isn't broken and in the process destroys morale and trust and just makes everything worse. The new police chief and what he did reminds me of that type of new boss.

And, since they were looking for a 250 pound black man, they were perfectly justified in shooting at two Hispanic women. After all, they had a description.

See if you can stretch your brain around the concept that you excusing them when they, apparently, get the right person leads them to treating the wrong person the same way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've had first hand, close-up-and-personal experience with police and procedures.

This guy was off the mark.

So have I; no he wasn't. Three police supervisors agree with me.

If that were true they would not have suspended him. It took a fracking year, but a disciplinary board recommended that he get some time off to think about why he was wrong.

Amazing that my gut reaction was right, and your considered reaction is wrong.

 

[Zona]

Why Policeman don't shoot her?

Here in Arizona, I am surprised he didnt actually.

 

[Esmeralda]

"...apparently people not involved..."

'Apparent' to whom? He could only have ASSUMED they were objective and correct, or perhaps suspected. So, the young person was merely a suspect. I insist upon the crucial point that he was not a witness, did not have first-hand knowledge, was not justified to act as he did.

And I certainly have the right to judge what I see myself. If I do not have that as a 'right', I reserve it to myself to do it anyway.

She had been in a 'fight' with a teacher at her school. Then she'd walked out before the police came. The school called the police. The cops were looking for her. He didn't need evidence of the street fight to take her into custody: the school had reported her; that is why the police were there, to take her into custody. Though three supervisors of the police force agreed what he did was within policy, he was disciplined, a 40 hour suspension, by a new police chief. It looks like the police chief wanted to make an example of this guy because the new chief is afraid of the media claiming officers use excessive force. I don't see anything wrong in what he did. You don't treat them differently because they are female or only 15: as I've said several times in this thread, I've been around kids like this. They are big, they are rough and brutish, they don't care who they hurt, they are frightening and dangerous. This kid had had a physical atercation with a teacher and was in a physical altercation with her mother in the street. She is a physically violent person, and she is not small and fragile by any means. I have no problem with what he did. I agree with the 3 supervisors who said he acted appropriately. I think the police chief is pandering to the media.

Tell me something, if you are right why was he suspended for 5 days after his supervisors saw the video?

Phoenix officer calls 5-day suspension too harsh

I explained that. The new police chief making a name for himself. Using this guy to make an example of how tough the new chief will be on officers using excessive force. Basically, pandering to the media. Using the officers below himself to build himself up. He's not going to be a popular police chief when he goes against, overules, the opinion of 3 superivisors. Nope.