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

[beagle9]

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.

Yes they shouldn't have to second guess their actions to the point of their own safety being compromised, yet they should always be evaluated as to their actions taken afterwards, and this by their superiors in a teaching way. It should be done always just so they are kept to the standards in which is expected of them by their superiors when dealing with the public as they do, and if it is found that their is PTSD involved upon review of each case where force was used by an officer to take down an assailant, then pin-point treatment should be part of the constant training and evaluating of these officers when having to conduct themselves properly in the field as they should. Nothing wrong with investigating a case where an officer uses force to apprehend his or her assailant, and it should be that an investigation appropriate to the level of force used is conducted. This lets the officers know that they are also evaluated for their actions in the field always, even if it only warranted a talking to about an incident, and why they may have done what they had done in order to resolve an incident, where as it is just another part of their continued training that has to be on going in these types of jobs.

 

[martinjlm]

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.

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

 

[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.

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.

She was not fleeing anything, she was walking away from a fight.

 

[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.

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

It wasn't random when the police in LA shot up two women who were not the person they were looking for.

It wasn't random when cops rammed a pickup and shot the guy just a few seconds after they pulled him over, checked his ID, and determined he was not a 250 pound black man named Dorner.

Nonetheless, both incidents happened because you want to let police off as long as they follow procedure, even if the procedure is wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That was funny.

First, the "victim" was winning the fight we saw. Second, even if she had been pummeled beyond recognition, that cop had no proof the person pointed out was responsible for it. Third, cops are supposed to be able to handle things like that, that is why they get so much training. Fourth, if they can't fucking handle the job they should go sell balloons instead of taking their frustrations out on the public.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I did not say anything about making them answer for every arrest, I said every single use of force. They already answer for every arrest, they have to go in front of a judge and justify it every time. That is designed to prevent them from arresting people just because they are black, and works pretty good. It is not perfect, by any means, but you don't here about cops arresting people for no reason, and it is getting better, so I am happy with it. There is no reason whatever not to do the same thing when they are involved in a use of force.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

 

[SteadyMercury]

My point is bigger than this one incident.

But as usual fails to directly relate to the argument you were trying to support with it. You tend just flail away with whatever enters you head thinking it somehow proves you point. It doesn't.

 

[beagle9]

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.

It wasn't random when the police in LA shot up two women who were not the person they were looking for.

It wasn't random when cops rammed a pickup and shot the guy just a few seconds after they pulled him over, checked his ID, and determined he was not a 250 pound black man named Dorner.

Nonetheless, both incidents happened because you want to let police off as long as they follow procedure, even if the procedure is wrong.

Why do you use other cases as if this case is anywhere the same as the others in which you are using, especially when it is not ? The focus and a specific standard to be used, should only be applied to the case at hand in respect to the uniqueness of the individual case, because this as is found with all cases in each of these situations, are always unique in there own right, and have unique circumstances always surrounding them or involved. The usage of other cases like you are attempting to do, is simply muddying the waters in so that you can try and win the argument. This is a classical liberal move, and it is known by all as a liberalist move when see it being used like you are using it. Are you a liberal ? If so then it explains a lot about your stance or your attitude concerning this case.

 

[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?

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?

Please show me where in the video the girl is the aggressor? Tell me the exact time in the video, and please tell me how the girl wasn't being held in a headlock by her mother?
Please also show me when the girl 'flees' the scene of a crime, when there was no evidence at the time that a crime had been committed, and the girl was walking away, not running - which is what 'fleeing' generally means.

 

[beagle9]

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?

Please show me where in the video the girl is the aggressor? Tell me the exact time in the video, and please tell me how the girl wasn't being held in a headlock by her mother?
Please also show me when the girl 'flees' the scene of a crime, when there was no evidence at the time that a crime had been committed, and the girl was walking away, not running - which is what 'fleeing' generally means.

Went back and reviewed the film again myself also, and yes the mom did seem to have the upper hand on the teen when in full view, where as the teen at first appeared to be defending herself maybe in the altercation, and this after seeing this upon my last review, and then when seeing the teen walking away when the officer threw her down in the way that he did, I would say "yes" that it does appear to be excessive force where it may not have been warranted.

Now after I said this, but what we don't know is what the by standers saw or heard when the event disappeared behind the vehicles from us, and also by what they may have told the officers in which caused the officers attitude when going to apprehend the person walking away. If they (the bystanders) heard the teen cursing and hitting her mother while behind the vehicle, and they then instructed the officer with a bias against the assailant to get her as she was the perp, then he may have used caution by immobilizing her quickly in order to cuff her, as he has taken the information of the by standards that she was the problem and not the mother whom we saw as the possible problem when they were in our sights. Even though we have no audio to help us hear also what is going on, the officers had the by standards to help them figure out quickly who the problem may have been. I will give you an A for a pretty good analysis on the video by what you had seen, but there are important questions that still remain in which we can't fully understand as of yet, and may never understand unless a follow up is done here in the future.

 

[Esmeralda]

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?

Please show me where in the video the girl is the aggressor? Tell me the exact time in the video, and please tell me how the girl wasn't being held in a headlock by her mother?
Please also show me when the girl 'flees' the scene of a crime, when there was no evidence at the time that a crime had been committed, and the girl was walking away, not running - which is what 'fleeing' generally means.

Went back and reviewed the film again myself also, and yes the mom did seem to have the upper hand on the teen when in full view, where as the teen at first appeared to be defending herself maybe in the altercation, and this after seeing this upon my last review, and then when seeing the teen walking away when the officer threw her down in the way that he did, I would say "yes" that it does appear to be excessive force where it may not have been warranted.

Now after I said this, but what we don't know is what the by standers saw or heard when the event disappeared behind the vehicles from us, and also by what they may have told the officers in which caused the officers attitude when going to apprehend the person walking away. If they (the bystanders) heard the teen cursing and hitting her mother while behind the vehicle, and they then instructed the officer with a bias against the assailant to get her as she was the perp, then he may have used caution by immobilizing her quickly in order to cuff her, as he has taken the information of the by standards that she was the problem and not the mother whom we saw as the possible problem when they were in our sights. Even though we have no audio to help us hear also what is going on, the officers had the by standards to help them figure out quickly who the problem may have been. I will give you an A for a pretty good analysis on the video by what you had seen, but there are important questions that still remain in which we can't fully understand as of yet, and may never understand unless a follow up is done here in the future.

What the cops knew when they arrived, because they had been called by the school to apprehend her, was that she had assaulted (struck) a teacher at the school and had left the school without permission. Instead of waiting for the police at the school, she had left, which is why her mother was trying to restrain her. She had fled the scene of the assault (at school) and was continuing to flee when the officer knocked her down. She is a large, drunk, brutish kid, not some little girl, not a fragile innocent. I've been around kids like this: I know what violence they are capable of. She was permanently expelled at her school, a last chance school for at risk kids, because of what she did there. You don't get kicked out of a place like that for nothing. This is not a nice, gentle, typical 15 year old girl. And she was drunk at the time, which makes her even more unpredictable and out of control. Once again, Noomi has not done her full homework and berates others who have.

 

[beagle9]

Please show me where in the video the girl is the aggressor? Tell me the exact time in the video, and please tell me how the girl wasn't being held in a headlock by her mother?
Please also show me when the girl 'flees' the scene of a crime, when there was no evidence at the time that a crime had been committed, and the girl was walking away, not running - which is what 'fleeing' generally means.

Went back and reviewed the film again myself also, and yes the mom did seem to have the upper hand on the teen when in full view, where as the teen at first appeared to be defending herself maybe in the altercation, and this after seeing this upon my last review, and then when seeing the teen walking away when the officer threw her down in the way that he did, I would say "yes" that it does appear to be excessive force where it may not have been warranted.

Now after I said this, but what we don't know is what the by standers saw or heard when the event disappeared behind the vehicles from us, and also by what they may have told the officers in which caused the officers attitude when going to apprehend the person walking away. If they (the bystanders) heard the teen cursing and hitting her mother while behind the vehicle, and they then instructed the officer with a bias against the assailant to get her as she was the perp, then he may have used caution by immobilizing her quickly in order to cuff her, as he has taken the information of the by standards that she was the problem and not the mother whom we saw as the possible problem when they were in our sights. Even though we have no audio to help us hear also what is going on, the officers had the by standards to help them figure out quickly who the problem may have been. I will give you an A for a pretty good analysis on the video by what you had seen, but there are important questions that still remain in which we can't fully understand as of yet, and may never understand unless a follow up is done here in the future.

What the cops knew when they arrived, because they had been called by the school to apprehend her, was that she had assaulted (struck) a teacher at the school and had left the school without permission. Instead of waiting for the police at the school, she had left, which is why her mother was trying to restrain her. She had fled the scene of the assault (at school) and was continuing to flee when the officer knocked her down. She is a large, drunk, brutish kid, not some little girl, not a fragile innocent. I've been around kids like this: I know what violence they are capable of. She was permanently expelled at her school, a last chance school for at risk kids, because of what she did there. You don't get kicked out of a place like that for nothing. This is not a nice, gentle, typical 15 year old girl. And she was drunk at the time, which makes her even more unpredictable and out of control. Once again, Noomi has not done her full homework and berates others who have.

Yes and I need to do mine as well, so thanks for the update or additional information as was needed also, so I guess I may have had it right in the beginning then, where as the cops had already been alerted of the details on this person, so once they had arrived on scene they weren't taking any chances. Thanks.

PS. Shoudn't the outcome of her take down, (i.e. injuries sustained), determine whether excessive force had been used or not ? Even so I think the law wasn't taking any chances these days with these types of individuals, and this should be considered in the case these days. A 15 year old can kill you just as dead as an adult can, especially the way they are these days as is found in some of them now.

 

[Esmeralda]

Went back and reviewed the film again myself also, and yes the mom did seem to have the upper hand on the teen when in full view, where as the teen at first appeared to be defending herself maybe in the altercation, and this after seeing this upon my last review, and then when seeing the teen walking away when the officer threw her down in the way that he did, I would say "yes" that it does appear to be excessive force where it may not have been warranted.

Now after I said this, but what we don't know is what the by standers saw or heard when the event disappeared behind the vehicles from us, and also by what they may have told the officers in which caused the officers attitude when going to apprehend the person walking away. If they (the bystanders) heard the teen cursing and hitting her mother while behind the vehicle, and they then instructed the officer with a bias against the assailant to get her as she was the perp, then he may have used caution by immobilizing her quickly in order to cuff her, as he has taken the information of the by standards that she was the problem and not the mother whom we saw as the possible problem when they were in our sights. Even though we have no audio to help us hear also what is going on, the officers had the by standards to help them figure out quickly who the problem may have been. I will give you an A for a pretty good analysis on the video by what you had seen, but there are important questions that still remain in which we can't fully understand as of yet, and may never understand unless a follow up is done here in the future.

What the cops knew when they arrived, because they had been called by the school to apprehend her, was that she had assaulted (struck) a teacher at the school and had left the school without permission. Instead of waiting for the police at the school, she had left, which is why her mother was trying to restrain her. She had fled the scene of the assault (at school) and was continuing to flee when the officer knocked her down. She is a large, drunk, brutish kid, not some little girl, not a fragile innocent. I've been around kids like this: I know what violence they are capable of. She was permanently expelled at her school, a last chance school for at risk kids, because of what she did there. You don't get kicked out of a place like that for nothing. This is not a nice, gentle, typical 15 year old girl. And she was drunk at the time, which makes her even more unpredictable and out of control. Once again, Noomi has not done her full homework and berates others who have.

Yes and I need to do mine as well, so thanks for the update or additional information as was needed also, so I guess I may have had it right in the beginning then, where as the cops had already been alerted of the details on this person, so once they had arrived on scene they weren't taking any chances. Thanks.

PS. Shoudn't the outcome of her take down, (i.e. injuries sustained), determine whether excessive force had been used or not ? Even so I think the law wasn't taking any chances these days with these types of individuals, and this should be considered in the case these days. A 15 year old can kill you just as dead as an adult can, especially the way they are these days as is found in some of them now.

I also read, and posted this earlier in the thread, that she sustained no injuries. No injuries. And the mother agreed with what the cop did. This was 2 years ago. In the meantime, there has been no lawsuit to address any inappropriate force or injury. Lots of kids today are very big. Humans are getting bigger, we are evolving as a larger animal than we used to be, and some of these kids are really big. This girl is as big as her mother and almost as big as the cop. Once, some time ago, I was in an inner city school on business. I was walking down the hall during a passing time between classes. A group of Samoan girls came charging down the hall yelling at each other. One of them ran into me and I was body slammed into a wall. She didn't intend it, but she didn't care either. They were close to brawling with each other, most were very big, including the one who hit me: she out weighed me by at least 50 pounds and was taller and broader than I. It was very scary. They were out of control, imo. These kinds of kids I have witnessed in action on more than one occasion.

 

[Noomi]

The fact that she was drunk doesn't mean she deserved to be handled like she was. She couldn't have been that drunk because she was able to walk away freely. She didn't act like she was drunk. Did she have a blood test at the police station to determine how drunk she was?

 

[there4eyeM]

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.

 

[Noomi]

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

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

 

[Noomi]

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.

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?

 

[there4eyeM]

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.

So, a phone call from a source claiming to be the school is certain evidence of guilt? That simplifies the legal system quite a bit. We will save large amounts of time and money with that standard.