It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: boymonkey74
So they beat her because she was a prostitute?
So that is the punishment now for prostitution? beating them?.
originally posted by: Soloprotocol
The Father should have come out blasting. Not asking for a explanation. 3 strange men in your front lawn trying to drag your 12 year old daughter into a van?...Yeah, Boom, Boom, Boom. i'll take my chances in front of a Jury.
originally posted by: Jakal26
a reply to: Shamrock6
What's there to justify? They (the officers) made some piss poor decisions. There's really not a whole lot else to say about it: they done #'d up.
Calling their actions "piss poor decisions" is downplaying it....
...Let's call it what it is, a kidnapping attempt gone wrong. Because, THAT is EXACTLY what happened here. Doesn't take genius to figure that out.
I say, a bullet to the dome of all those involved. F em! Get rid of some of this scum. If these guys don't qualify, I don't know who does!
originally posted by: Battleline
a reply to: roadgravel
In your OP you say "police violence against minority's " as if that's the only people there is any "police violence " against which would be BS, and if your just posting about police violence, there is plenty on a weekly bases right now.
No need to go back 8 years, but then again your article is purity "SENSATIONAL".
originally posted by: itswhatev
a reply to: NthOther
I agree 100%... While i believe racism is alive and thriving in the good ole U. S of A... And that it probably fuels a lot of these incidents in some way... The real problem is not Racist cops. The problem is Police Brutality as a whole against the general population.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Granting 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment.(Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt) Parties notified.(lusmith, )
The plaintiffs contend that the GPD’s officers conduct on the occasion violated the constitutional rights of Dymond Milburn in that she was seized, assaulted, and was the victim of the use of excessive force and was illegally arrested and detained without reasonable and/or probable cause in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988. The defendants deny that they violated the plaintiff’s civil rights in any respect. They assert that they are entitled to qualified and official immunity and that, in fact, officer Roark was assaulted by the plaintiff. In this regard, the defendants contend that probable cause existed to arrest the plaintiff, they were authorized to use reasonable force to detain the plaintiff, they were permitted to handcuff the plaintiff, the force used was not excessive to that needed but was objectively reasonable, and, the plaintiff was not deprived of a clearly established right, but the defendants at all times acted in an objectively reasonable manner.
There is no evidence that the force used was unnecessary or excessive and, therefore, exceeded that necessary to remove the plaintiff. And, because it is undisputed that the plaintiff became hysterical, temporarily handcuffing her was also reasonable. The Court is of the opinion that the injuries suffered, although more than de minimus, do not support a finding that excessive force was exercised in removing the plaintiff from the hedge. See Freeman, 483 F.3d at 416. Therefore, the plaintiff’s excessive force claim fails. Likewise, the plaintiff’s assault and battery contention fails. The status of the law permits harmful contact by an officer in a circumstance where he is acting in good faith and within the course and scope of his authority.