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

[there4eyeM]

"Not even the good citizens wanted a piece of the action in order to stop her,..."

Or they saw it was a family fight, into which no one wise wanders.

Or they saw she was young and knew of the consequences of being violent with a minor.

Or they couldn't tell who was attacking whom.

Or...any number of possibilities.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You clearly need to be 'right.' This is about opinions. I don't agree. What he did was not police brutality, it was not excessive force. The three police supervisors agree with me. The board and the police chief have a vested interest in playing to the media; the supervisors don't. This was 2 years ago: she was not injured. Her mother found nothing wrong with what happened. There has been no lawsuit over this claiming injuries. This is not a female soccer player. This is a female thug. A drunken, violent thug who struck a teacher at school. Who blew her last chance at a charter school for at risk kids: she was obviously at risk due to behavior problems. She's a loser in life who needs to get herself together and act like a civilized human being or she will have worse than this to deal with in the future. Charter schools for at-risk kids do not permanently expel students for nothing: you really have to fuck up big time to get kicked out of a place like that.

Actually, you need me to be right. If I am wrong, and you are right, we have a world where police can randomly beat the crap out of people just because they are cops. I can guarantee that, if we ever get that type of world, you will end up wishing you had listened to me.

This is not a debate about opinions, I just used the review board findings to try to provide you with enough evidence that you are wrong for you to be able to wake up. I failed, but I will keep on arguing with you, or anyone else, that thinks cops can use force for no reason.

Wow.... If the bold type is what you got out of that video then you live in a very interesting framework. You are reading waaaay too much into it. What we have here is a police officer who probably had several options for how to apprehend a recalcitrant teenager. He may not have chosen the best one, but he certainly did not choose the worst option. And he chose an EFFECTIVE one. Was it a rough tackle? Yes. Brutality? Heck no. Did her head hit the wall in the course of the tackle? Yup. Did he plan it that way. Doubt it. If so there are some NFL scouts that oughta talk to him, 'cause he got skillz!

There are so many legitimate examples of police brutality that need to be addressed, pointing in "differences in approach" like this incident dilutes people's sensitivity to dealing with REAL incidences of abuse. I don't want to live in a world where police can comfortably abuse their power. I've seen that play. I also DO NOT want to live in a world where police officers have to second guess their every action.

That's right, I base my entire life around that one video.

Let me make this really simple for you, police violence does not have to raise to the level of whatever you think brutality is to be wrong. The standard should be that any time a police officer uses force he is taken off the streets until it is determined that his actions meet the exact same level of justification that would be applied to any other citizen doing the exact same thing. If we are going to apply a different standard to police, the bar should be set higher, not lower. There is no way a civilian, doing the exact same thing that cop did, would not have been charged with a crime. That makes his actions wrong.

Period.

 

[SteadyMercury]

I can be charged even if I cooperate. I can provide countless examples of people being charged with resisting arrest when they were lying on the ground, cuffed, and being beaten by the cops. the mere fact that I can be charged is not proof of anything other than cops have way to much leeway to charge people who are minding their own business.

Hah hah you have serious issues with logic. You are attempting to back up your claims that one cannot be charge for leaving the scene of a crime by saying the laws aren't fair. That tops your previous retardation of comparing it to a civil offense traffic violation, utterly clueless.

Please, keep arguing with me.

No problem, arguing with someone who keeps trying to manufacture information when he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about his hardly challenging. You look more foolish with every post.

 

[SteadyMercury]

There is no way a civilian, doing the exact same thing that cop did, would not have been charged with a crime. That makes his actions wrong.

No it doesn't, police have different a role than civilians for a reason and can take different actions because of that role.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can be charged even if I cooperate. I can provide countless examples of people being charged with resisting arrest when they were lying on the ground, cuffed, and being beaten by the cops. the mere fact that I can be charged is not proof of anything other than cops have way to much leeway to charge people who are minding their own business.

Hah hah you have serious issues with logic. You are attempting to back up your claims that one cannot be charge for leaving the scene of a crime by saying the laws aren't fair. That tops your previous retardation of comparing it to a civil offense traffic violation, utterly clueless.

Please, keep arguing with me.

No problem, arguing with someone who keeps trying to manufacture information when he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about his hardly challenging. You look more foolish with every post.

Excuse me? I said it is not illegal to leave the scene of a crime. That in no way means that you cannot be charged with something if the police decide to do so. They can charge you with murder, armed robbery, or any of thousands of other things. Making those charges stick is, however, another issue.

Like I said, keep arguing with me, it makes me look really intelligent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no way a civilian, doing the exact same thing that cop did, would not have been charged with a crime. That makes his actions wrong.

No it doesn't, police have different a role than civilians for a reason and can take different actions because of that role.

Did I stutter?

We are supposed to be a nation of laws. What that means is that all laws are applied equally to all people. Anytime you set up a class of people that is above the law, for any reason, we cease to be a nation of laws.

 

[martinjlm]

Actually, you need me to be right. If I am wrong, and you are right, we have a world where police can randomly beat the crap out of people just because they are cops. I can guarantee that, if we ever get that type of world, you will end up wishing you had listened to me.

This is not a debate about opinions, I just used the review board findings to try to provide you with enough evidence that you are wrong for you to be able to wake up. I failed, but I will keep on arguing with you, or anyone else, that thinks cops can use force for no reason.

Wow.... If the bold type is what you got out of that video then you live in a very interesting framework. You are reading waaaay too much into it. What we have here is a police officer who probably had several options for how to apprehend a recalcitrant teenager. He may not have chosen the best one, but he certainly did not choose the worst option. And he chose an EFFECTIVE one. Was it a rough tackle? Yes. Brutality? Heck no. Did her head hit the wall in the course of the tackle? Yup. Did he plan it that way. Doubt it. If so there are some NFL scouts that oughta talk to him, 'cause he got skillz!

There are so many legitimate examples of police brutality that need to be addressed, pointing in "differences in approach" like this incident dilutes people's sensitivity to dealing with REAL incidences of abuse. I don't want to live in a world where police can comfortably abuse their power. I've seen that play. I also DO NOT want to live in a world where police officers have to second guess their every action.

That's right, I base my entire life around that one video.

Let me make this really simple for you, police violence does not have to raise to the level of whatever you think brutality is to be wrong. The standard should be that any time a police officer uses force he is taken off the streets until it is determined that his actions meet the exact same level of justification that would be applied to any other citizen doing the exact same thing. If we are going to apply a different standard to police, the bar should be set higher, not lower. There is no way a civilian, doing the exact same thing that cop did, would not have been charged with a crime. That makes his actions wrong.

Period.

For the most part, I agree with the bold print part of what you are saying. The clear exception to this is there are certain actions that are the DUTY of the police officer but beyond the protected actions of a common citizen. Ironically, that is what is central to the point of this video. A police officer has a duty to apprehend those suspected of committing a crime, particularly where injury or intent to injure is concerned. A civilian trying to apprehend that girl very well may have been arrested. An officer of the law is compelled to make that arrest within the boundaries of due force. The argument here is was tackling her due force. I say yes, you say no. Now THAT is making it simple.

 

[Esmeralda]

Wow.... If the bold type is what you got out of that video then you live in a very interesting framework. You are reading waaaay too much into it. What we have here is a police officer who probably had several options for how to apprehend a recalcitrant teenager. He may not have chosen the best one, but he certainly did not choose the worst option. And he chose an EFFECTIVE one. Was it a rough tackle? Yes. Brutality? Heck no. Did her head hit the wall in the course of the tackle? Yup. Did he plan it that way. Doubt it. If so there are some NFL scouts that oughta talk to him, 'cause he got skillz!

There are so many legitimate examples of police brutality that need to be addressed, pointing in "differences in approach" like this incident dilutes people's sensitivity to dealing with REAL incidences of abuse. I don't want to live in a world where police can comfortably abuse their power. I've seen that play. I also DO NOT want to live in a world where police officers have to second guess their every action.

That's right, I base my entire life around that one video.

Let me make this really simple for you, police violence does not have to raise to the level of whatever you think brutality is to be wrong. The standard should be that any time a police officer uses force he is taken off the streets until it is determined that his actions meet the exact same level of justification that would be applied to any other citizen doing the exact same thing. If we are going to apply a different standard to police, the bar should be set higher, not lower. There is no way a civilian, doing the exact same thing that cop did, would not have been charged with a crime. That makes his actions wrong.

Period.

For the most part, I agree with the bold print part of what you are saying. The clear exception to this is there are certain actions that are the DUTY of the police officer but beyond the protected actions of a common citizen. Ironically, that is what is central to the point of this video. A police officer has a duty to apprehend those suspected of committing a crime, particularly where injury or intent to injure is concerned. A civilian trying to apprehend that girl very well may have been arrested. An officer of the law is compelled to make that arrest within the boundaries of due force. The argument here is was tackling her due force. I say yes, you say no. Now THAT is making it simple.

You cannot compare what a civilian does with what an officer needs to do in the course of his duties. Apples and oranges.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wow.... If the bold type is what you got out of that video then you live in a very interesting framework. You are reading waaaay too much into it. What we have here is a police officer who probably had several options for how to apprehend a recalcitrant teenager. He may not have chosen the best one, but he certainly did not choose the worst option. And he chose an EFFECTIVE one. Was it a rough tackle? Yes. Brutality? Heck no. Did her head hit the wall in the course of the tackle? Yup. Did he plan it that way. Doubt it. If so there are some NFL scouts that oughta talk to him, 'cause he got skillz!

There are so many legitimate examples of police brutality that need to be addressed, pointing in "differences in approach" like this incident dilutes people's sensitivity to dealing with REAL incidences of abuse. I don't want to live in a world where police can comfortably abuse their power. I've seen that play. I also DO NOT want to live in a world where police officers have to second guess their every action.

That's right, I base my entire life around that one video.

Let me make this really simple for you, police violence does not have to raise to the level of whatever you think brutality is to be wrong. The standard should be that any time a police officer uses force he is taken off the streets until it is determined that his actions meet the exact same level of justification that would be applied to any other citizen doing the exact same thing. If we are going to apply a different standard to police, the bar should be set higher, not lower. There is no way a civilian, doing the exact same thing that cop did, would not have been charged with a crime. That makes his actions wrong.

Period.

For the most part, I agree with the bold print part of what you are saying. The clear exception to this is there are certain actions that are the DUTY of the police officer but beyond the protected actions of a common citizen. Ironically, that is what is central to the point of this video. A police officer has a duty to apprehend those suspected of committing a crime, particularly where injury or intent to injure is concerned. A civilian trying to apprehend that girl very well may have been arrested. An officer of the law is compelled to make that arrest within the boundaries of due force. The argument here is was tackling her due force. I say yes, you say no. Now THAT is making it simple.

Look up citizen's arrest sometime. For example, in Arizona, anyone witnessing a crime has the power to arrest the person if they witnessed the crime.

 

[martinjlm]

That's right, I base my entire life around that one video.

Let me make this really simple for you, police violence does not have to raise to the level of whatever you think brutality is to be wrong. The standard should be that any time a police officer uses force he is taken off the streets until it is determined that his actions meet the exact same level of justification that would be applied to any other citizen doing the exact same thing. If we are going to apply a different standard to police, the bar should be set higher, not lower. There is no way a civilian, doing the exact same thing that cop did, would not have been charged with a crime. That makes his actions wrong.

Period.

For the most part, I agree with the bold print part of what you are saying. The clear exception to this is there are certain actions that are the DUTY of the police officer but beyond the protected actions of a common citizen. Ironically, that is what is central to the point of this video. A police officer has a duty to apprehend those suspected of committing a crime, particularly where injury or intent to injure is concerned. A civilian trying to apprehend that girl very well may have been arrested. An officer of the law is compelled to make that arrest within the boundaries of due force. The argument here is was tackling her due force. I say yes, you say no. Now THAT is making it simple.

Look up citizen's arrest sometime. For example, in Arizona, anyone witnessing a crime has the power to arrest the person if they witnessed the crime.

POWER (civilian) vs RESPONSIBILTY (officer) = apples vs oranges. Also, what is the appropriate level of force allowed by the civilian? I'm betting that varies from state to state.

 

[MikeK]

For the most part, I agree with the bold print part of what you are saying. The clear exception to this is there are certain actions that are the DUTY of the police officer but beyond the protected actions of a common citizen. Ironically, that is what is central to the point of this video. A police officer has a duty to apprehend those suspected of committing a crime, particularly where injury or intent to injure is concerned. A civilian trying to apprehend that girl very well may have been arrested. An officer of the law is compelled to make that arrest within the boundaries of due force. The argument here is was tackling her due force. I say yes, you say no. Now THAT is making it simple.

Unless I'm mistaken it's been reported that the officer in question has been suspended. If that is so, the question is why?

While I agree with you that an officer has a duty to apprehend someone who has committed a crime, he also has a duty to exercise judgment as to the level of force he uses in effecting apprehension. In this case the subject is a fifteen year-old girl, technically a categorical juvenile delinquent. If the officer had been advised by the dispatcher of her age and the nature of the complaint, which, unless an assault charge was made, is disorderly conduct, a relatively minor misdemeanor offense, the method he used to detain her could, under the circumstances, be considered excessive.

I recently watched an episode of COPS, a police documentary in which an undercover marijuana "buy-and-bust" operation was filmed. A young man approached the undercover cop posing as a pot dealer, purchased and pocketed an item, handed over some cash and proceeded to walk away. Suddenly a uniformed cop ran at him from the side, slammed violently into him, knocking him to the ground. A second uniformed cop ran up and, in spite of the fact the fellow was offering no resistance, jammed his knee forcefully onto his neck, grinding his face on the pavement, as handcuffs were applied.

I don't know if this video, which I am very surprised was cleared for broadcast, resulted in a lawsuit -- but it certainly could. It was a clear example of excessive and unnecessary force. But the police would explain it as occurring within the guidelines of "procedure." Which is like saying because their only tool is a hammer every situation must be treated like a nail.

I believe the same circumstances apply in this case.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the most part, I agree with the bold print part of what you are saying. The clear exception to this is there are certain actions that are the DUTY of the police officer but beyond the protected actions of a common citizen. Ironically, that is what is central to the point of this video. A police officer has a duty to apprehend those suspected of committing a crime, particularly where injury or intent to injure is concerned. A civilian trying to apprehend that girl very well may have been arrested. An officer of the law is compelled to make that arrest within the boundaries of due force. The argument here is was tackling her due force. I say yes, you say no. Now THAT is making it simple.

Look up citizen's arrest sometime. For example, in Arizona, anyone witnessing a crime has the power to arrest the person if they witnessed the crime.

POWER (civilian) vs RESPONSIBILTY (officer) = apples vs oranges. Also, what is the appropriate level of force allowed by the civilian? I'm betting that varies from state to state.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the most part, I agree with the bold print part of what you are saying. The clear exception to this is there are certain actions that are the DUTY of the police officer but beyond the protected actions of a common citizen. Ironically, that is what is central to the point of this video. A police officer has a duty to apprehend those suspected of committing a crime, particularly where injury or intent to injure is concerned. A civilian trying to apprehend that girl very well may have been arrested. An officer of the law is compelled to make that arrest within the boundaries of due force. The argument here is was tackling her due force. I say yes, you say no. Now THAT is making it simple.

Unless I'm mistaken it's been reported that the officer in question has been suspended. If that is so, the question is why?

While I agree with you that an officer has a duty to apprehend someone who has committed a crime, he also has a duty to exercise judgment as to the level of force he uses in effecting apprehension. In this case the subject is a fifteen year-old girl, technically a categorical juvenile delinquent. If the officer had been advised by the dispatcher of her age and the nature of the complaint, which, unless an assault charge was made, is disorderly conduct, a relatively minor misdemeanor offense, the method he used to detain her could, under the circumstances, be considered excessive.

I recently watched an episode of COPS, a police documentary in which an undercover marijuana "buy-and-bust" operation was filmed. A young man approached the undercover cop posing as a pot dealer, purchased and pocketed an item, handed over some cash and proceeded to walk away. Suddenly a uniformed cop ran at him from the side, slammed violently into him, knocking him to the ground. A second uniformed cop ran up and, in spite of the fact the fellow was offering no resistance, jammed his knee forcefully onto his neck, grinding his face on the pavement, as handcuffs were applied.

I don't know if this video, which I am very surprised was cleared for broadcast, resulted in a lawsuit -- but it certainly could. It was a clear example of excessive and unnecessary force. But the police would explain it as occurring within the guidelines of "procedure." Which is like saying because their only tool is a hammer every situation must be treated like a nail.

I believe the same circumstances apply in this case.

Police should only use force when it is necessary to protect others. The only way they will ever learn this is if they have to pay every single time they use force inappropriately. Every use of force should be treated as a potential criminal act, and investigated as one.

 

[Noomi]

Your posts are hilarious. YOU need to look at the video again, and use some critical thinking skills. In the video, the girl is the agressor, not the other way around, that is clear; the other person is trying to get away from her. The other person, if you've read the whole thread, is her mother. The girl was drunk (she's 15 btw), assaulted a teacher and was in the process of assaulting her mother. She was walking away, leaving the scene. When the policeman followed her, he was clearly calling out to her to stop and she ignored him. His job is to apprehend her, not to let her walk away. It is common practice for him to throw the suspect to the ground when the suspect is fleeing the scene. If she got hurt, it's her own fault for trying to flee when the cop told her to stop. She doesn't have a chance to stop? She had a chance when he was calling out to her to stop and she ignored him. What if she breaks into a run? Is he supposed to chase her down through the city streets? Like on TV? You think real life is like television and movies? What a joke. Watch the video again; read the whole thread. Read the news reports. Do your homework this time instead of jumping to conclusions. And don't try to single me out for your BS. That's just petty. You are patently transparent over and over again.

The girl was being held in a headlock. Watch the video because you are BLIND. The girl stood up and the woman pulled her shirt, the girls shirt was up around her neck. Yes, she walked away, but just before the cop slammed her to the ground, she TURNED around, meaning she had HEARD the officer asking her to stop.

It was the CHILD being held in the headlock, trying to get away from the woman, not the other way around, you moron.

How does it feel to support brutality against children?

 

[Esmeralda]

For the most part, I agree with the bold print part of what you are saying. The clear exception to this is there are certain actions that are the DUTY of the police officer but beyond the protected actions of a common citizen. Ironically, that is what is central to the point of this video. A police officer has a duty to apprehend those suspected of committing a crime, particularly where injury or intent to injure is concerned. A civilian trying to apprehend that girl very well may have been arrested. An officer of the law is compelled to make that arrest within the boundaries of due force. The argument here is was tackling her due force. I say yes, you say no. Now THAT is making it simple.

Unless I'm mistaken it's been reported that the officer in question has been suspended. If that is so, the question is why?

While I agree with you that an officer has a duty to apprehend someone who has committed a crime, he also has a duty to exercise judgment as to the level of force he uses in effecting apprehension. In this case the subject is a fifteen year-old girl, technically a categorical juvenile delinquent. If the officer had been advised by the dispatcher of her age and the nature of the complaint, which, unless an assault charge was made, is disorderly conduct, a relatively minor misdemeanor offense, the method he used to detain her could, under the circumstances, be considered excessive.

I recently watched an episode of COPS, a police documentary in which an undercover marijuana "buy-and-bust" operation was filmed. A young man approached the undercover cop posing as a pot dealer, purchased and pocketed an item, handed over some cash and proceeded to walk away. Suddenly a uniformed cop ran at him from the side, slammed violently into him, knocking him to the ground. A second uniformed cop ran up and, in spite of the fact the fellow was offering no resistance, jammed his knee forcefully onto his neck, grinding his face on the pavement, as handcuffs were applied.

I don't know if this video, which I am very surprised was cleared for broadcast, resulted in a lawsuit -- but it certainly could. It was a clear example of excessive and unnecessary force. But the police would explain it as occurring within the guidelines of "procedure." Which is like saying because their only tool is a hammer every situation must be treated like a nail.

I believe the same circumstances apply in this case.

The same circumstances do not apply in this case. She was fleeing the scene. No one "forcefully jammed his knee" into her neck; no one ground her face on the pavement. The force and violence you describe did not occur in this case.

 

[Esmeralda]

Your posts are hilarious. YOU need to look at the video again, and use some critical thinking skills. In the video, the girl is the agressor, not the other way around, that is clear; the other person is trying to get away from her. The other person, if you've read the whole thread, is her mother. The girl was drunk (she's 15 btw), assaulted a teacher and was in the process of assaulting her mother. She was walking away, leaving the scene. When the policeman followed her, he was clearly calling out to her to stop and she ignored him. His job is to apprehend her, not to let her walk away. It is common practice for him to throw the suspect to the ground when the suspect is fleeing the scene. If she got hurt, it's her own fault for trying to flee when the cop told her to stop. She doesn't have a chance to stop? She had a chance when he was calling out to her to stop and she ignored him. What if she breaks into a run? Is he supposed to chase her down through the city streets? Like on TV? You think real life is like television and movies? What a joke. Watch the video again; read the whole thread. Read the news reports. Do your homework this time instead of jumping to conclusions. And don't try to single me out for your BS. That's just petty. You are patently transparent over and over again.

The girl was being held in a headlock. Watch the video because you are BLIND. The girl stood up and the woman pulled her shirt, the girls shirt was up around her neck. Yes, she walked away, but just before the cop slammed her to the ground, she TURNED around, meaning she had HEARD the officer asking her to stop.

It was the CHILD being held in the headlock, trying to get away from the woman, not the other way around, you moron.

How does it feel to support brutality against children?

How do you feel going after me in this obsessive petty way of yours just because you lost a debate on another thread? How pathetic you are. Don't you fucking call me a moron you stupid pathetic bitch. That 'woman' was her mother. You are an ignorant fucking pathetic bitch who is obessive and stalking me because you lost a debate to me on another thread. And let's not forget yet another thread where you literally cheered the death of two innocent people because you didn't like their religious beliefs and that they were living an orthodox lifestyle. People who were hurting no one. You apparently think that anyone who doesn't live according to your rules is better off dead. So you literally cheer the death of two innocent people killed in a car crash while you get all worked up and outraged over a violent 15 year old getting thrown to the ground. If she was an orthodox Jew, I supposed you'd think it would be cool if the cop just shot her in the back: get rid of those people as you don't like the way they live and raise their children, right? Hypocrite.

How does it feel to be jubilant over the deaths of two innocent people and a young child being orphaned?

 

[Esmeralda]

Let me clear something up for you, I couldn't care less what she did. If you provided absolute proof that she had been roasting babies in her backyard that cop would still be wrong. She had every right to walk away from the teacher who was fighting with her, and she should have been arrested for attacking her.

Another note, the fact that she walked away is not proof she was uninjured. We are finding out that head injuries are a lot more serious than we previously realized, and that current technology often misses the damage unless there is a comprehensive examination. The group that is most at risk right now is teenage females who play soccer, they are much more likely to suffer lasting damage than boys the same age who play football. You can get up on your high horse all day long, you cannot claim with certainty that she was uninjured.

The disciplinary board agrees with me.

You clearly need to be 'right.' This is about opinions. I don't agree. What he did was not police brutality, it was not excessive force. The three police supervisors agree with me. The board and the police chief have a vested interest in playing to the media; the supervisors don't. This was 2 years ago: she was not injured. Her mother found nothing wrong with what happened. There has been no lawsuit over this claiming injuries. This is not a female soccer player. This is a female thug. A drunken, violent thug who struck a teacher at school. Who blew her last chance at a charter school for at risk kids: she was obviously at risk due to behavior problems. She's a loser in life who needs to get herself together and act like a civilized human being or she will have worse than this to deal with in the future. Charter schools for at-risk kids do not permanently expel students for nothing: you really have to fuck up big time to get kicked out of a place like that.

Actually, you need me to be right. If I am wrong, and you are right, we have a world where police can randomly beat the crap out of people just because they are cops. I can guarantee that, if we ever get that type of world, you will end up wishing you had listened to me.

This is not a debate about opinions, I just used the review board findings to try to provide you with enough evidence that you are wrong for you to be able to wake up. I failed, but I will keep on arguing with you, or anyone else, that thinks cops can use force for no reason.

No one beat the crap out of anyone and it certainly wasn't random.

 

[Esmeralda]

You clearly need to be 'right.' This is about opinions. I don't agree. What he did was not police brutality, it was not excessive force. The three police supervisors agree with me. The board and the police chief have a vested interest in playing to the media; the supervisors don't. This was 2 years ago: she was not injured. Her mother found nothing wrong with what happened. There has been no lawsuit over this claiming injuries. This is not a female soccer player. This is a female thug. A drunken, violent thug who struck a teacher at school. Who blew her last chance at a charter school for at risk kids: she was obviously at risk due to behavior problems. She's a loser in life who needs to get herself together and act like a civilized human being or she will have worse than this to deal with in the future. Charter schools for at-risk kids do not permanently expel students for nothing: you really have to fuck up big time to get kicked out of a place like that.

Actually, you need me to be right. If I am wrong, and you are right, we have a world where police can randomly beat the crap out of people just because they are cops. I can guarantee that, if we ever get that type of world, you will end up wishing you had listened to me.

This is not a debate about opinions, I just used the review board findings to try to provide you with enough evidence that you are wrong for you to be able to wake up. I failed, but I will keep on arguing with you, or anyone else, that thinks cops can use force for no reason.

Wow.... If the bold type is what you got out of that video then you live in a very interesting framework. You are reading waaaay too much into it. What we have here is a police officer who probably had several options for how to apprehend a recalcitrant teenager. He may not have chosen the best one, but he certainly did not choose the worst option. And he chose an EFFECTIVE one. Was it a rough tackle? Yes. Brutality? Heck no. Did her head hit the wall in the course of the tackle? Yup. Did he plan it that way. Doubt it. If so there are some NFL scouts that oughta talk to him, 'cause he got skillz!

There are so many legitimate examples of police brutality that need to be addressed, pointing in "differences in approach" like this incident dilutes people's sensitivity to dealing with REAL incidences of abuse. I don't want to live in a world where police can comfortably abuse their power. I've seen that play. I also DO NOT want to live in a world where police officers have to second guess their every action.

This is an excellent, excellent post. There are so many examples of LEGITIMATE police brutality to deal with; this is not one of them. If we make the police answer for every single arrest, for every officer who has to use force to apprehend someone to be put on suspension and have the whole thing examined each and every time, we would completely hamper any kind of sensible police work from being done. I also do not want to live in a world where the police have to constanly second guess every single action.

 

[Esmeralda]

She committed a crime and then left the scene. (And she at least saw the cop car approaching.) Anyone playing that game anywhere will get knocked down or tackled.

Absolutely right!

 

[beagle9]

Wow.... If the bold type is what you got out of that video then you live in a very interesting framework. You are reading waaaay too much into it. What we have here is a police officer who probably had several options for how to apprehend a recalcitrant teenager. He may not have chosen the best one, but he certainly did not choose the worst option. And he chose an EFFECTIVE one. Was it a rough tackle? Yes. Brutality? Heck no. Did her head hit the wall in the course of the tackle? Yup. Did he plan it that way. Doubt it. If so there are some NFL scouts that oughta talk to him, 'cause he got skillz!

There are so many legitimate examples of police brutality that need to be addressed, pointing in "differences in approach" like this incident dilutes people's sensitivity to dealing with REAL incidences of abuse. I don't want to live in a world where police can comfortably abuse their power. I've seen that play. I also DO NOT want to live in a world where police officers have to second guess their every action.

That's right, I base my entire life around that one video.

Let me make this really simple for you, police violence does not have to raise to the level of whatever you think brutality is to be wrong. The standard should be that any time a police officer uses force he is taken off the streets until it is determined that his actions meet the exact same level of justification that would be applied to any other citizen doing the exact same thing. If we are going to apply a different standard to police, the bar should be set higher, not lower. There is no way a civilian, doing the exact same thing that cop did, would not have been charged with a crime. That makes his actions wrong.

Period.

For the most part, I agree with the bold print part of what you are saying. The clear exception to this is there are certain actions that are the DUTY of the police officer but beyond the protected actions of a common citizen. Ironically, that is what is central to the point of this video. A police officer has a duty to apprehend those suspected of committing a crime, particularly where injury or intent to injure is concerned. A civilian trying to apprehend that girl very well may have been arrested. An officer of the law is compelled to make that arrest within the boundaries of due force. The argument here is was tackling her due force. I say yes, you say no. Now THAT is making it simple.

Another part that has to be considered, in which is also the human nature side of it, is where this officer had to pass by the victim who was lying on the ground after being pummeled by this assailant, where as in this passing by his actions may have had a little bit of vengeance/retaliation involved, and this in regards to the victim's condition while still lying on the ground as he passed her by in route to apprehend her assailant. Now with the height and size of the assailant who was fleeing, the officer may have mistaken her for an adult easily, in which is another honest mistake that can happen in such a situation, so the best thing or information to have I guess, is to not get oneself into such a situation as that to begin with, and this in which I'm suggesting to avoid as the assailant did not when decided to attack her victim like she did. You don't want to get up on the wrong side of the law like the assailant did, otherwise if avoided then these mistakes wouldn't be happening to people like they do, but people can't stand it, and they just have to put themselves in harms way like this, and especially so by doing things that are harmful to others like they love to do. I say she played a dangerous game, and was lucky all depending on what area she was operating in, and also upon how desensitized the law is in the area or not, to have come out as good as it did. Crime and PTSD found within officers in certain areas of the nation, can cause some officers to do some not so dignified acts when apprehending yet another street thug in their area like this may have been, and all depending on how much they have been subjected to some bad things happening within their areas, it could easily determine as to whether or not criminals should make a note of this when thinking about taking on the law within a certain area when committing crimes within certain areas. Maybe a talking to and an evaluation of his mental stability in concerns of PTSD could be conducted, but no more than that should occur as a result of this take down, and as to why it was conducted in the way that it was maybe.