It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Video: Cop repeatedly punching a 53 year old woman in the face

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:48 AM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

Based on the video and info provided by Law Enforcement it looks justified. A DWI pursuit, contact with 2 patrol vehicles (based on the linked dash cam video). Engine still running and her failing to stop or follow commands, failure to turn the car off, multiple officers on both sides of the vehicle. The explanation as to the use of force to me sounds justifiable.

I am curious though as to why charges were changed around? If there is sometype of lawsuit pending, I doubt the ladys lkawyer would be ok with her talking / releasing a statement to media. I think there is more to this than whats being reported.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:57 AM

Originally posted by CJCSuperman
Cops are absolutely ridiculous in situations like this. My stepfather and I got in a fight with our neighbors and the police were called. My stepfather was punched in the nose by my neighbor and his face was a bloody mess. When the cops arrived my neighbors claimed that I pulled out a knife on them but I had no knife nor did my stepfather. The cops claimed they couldn't make any arrests because they "didn't see what happened" they said "anything could have happened to my stepfather's face". After they said these things my stepfather was irate and said it was BS. As soon as he swore the police arrested him for "disorderly conduct" and smashed his face (which was already a mess) onto one of their cruisers. They then turned to me and said they were arresting me for "assault with a deadly weapon" (which didn't exist) I told them to search me and everything, but they refused to my surprise. They arrested me with a little bit of resistance (I was NOT getting MY face smashed on the cruiser).

This is one example of the cops getting mad because someone was using swear words and deciding to assault them because of it and make two bogus arrests that they claimed just minutes before that they couldn't make because they "didn't see it happen".

Maybe most cops are good but there are some real jerks too INCLUDING THIS ONE. Punching an old lady in the face multiple times and then tasing her in this situation is absolutely RIDICULOUS!!!

I don't want to put you on the spot sir, but I'm wondering if your stepfather is a minority race while the cops were white as were the neighbors, that isn't necessarily the case, however I think the likelihood of the situation you are describing goes up if they are dealing with minorities. I don't really like attorneys but if I were one I wouldn't mind representing victims in such cases.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:58 AM
Hummmmm I suppose there was a reason he couldn't reach for the key to shut off the engine??? It's possible she bad mouthed him in a personal way and he lost it.

Or maybe it was his X.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:27 AM
In my personal opinion, I think that whenever individuals swear an Oath to become officers of the law; they think that they become God himself and they think that "the result/end would justify the mean" and people would not resent them for that......but guess what we are human....we all make mistakes and when "we the people" snap nobody know what would happen.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:43 AM
The fact of the matter is that on any given day in the U.S. you can find at least a dozen other videos and/or stories in the news where the police go too far. It is a matter of training and the culture. I am currently military and have also worked law enforcement as well. Just about everything is justified when you claim "officer safety". Those two words just about null and void any civil rights you might think you have. The officer's right to safety trumps yours regardless of the situation. With that knowledge at hand you can see what happens. Police are indoctrinated from day 1 at the academy that EVERYONE is a potential threat to thier safety. They teach you how to stand, how far away from somebody you need to keep, and if one officers all shoot. Dead men tell no tales....etc, etc, etc... I can go on all night about the corrupt culture that has produced scenarios like this one. Legally all he has to do is invoke the "safety" line and there is nothing that can be done. Were his actions appropriate? No. Where they legal? Unfortunately yes. The sad thing is that every time one of these guys gets away with it they are prone to let thier actions go farther and farther with each encounter. Pushing the envelope so to speak. When you multiply that with a seemingly immunity from consequences it is a recipe for oppresion and tyranny.
edit on 1/24/2011 by Mark0526 because: syntax

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:15 AM
This will be my first and last immature reply : but God bless the cop that ever dares put his hands on me like that . I cannot watch this kind of sh** . I understand the fact that they uphold the law , and I know for a fact they have their own "code" just like military .."watch after your own" kinda code. And it has pissed me off to no end to see how police brutalize and go after those just home from military duty. It's a dic* measuring contest: they don't like their status to be challenged nor their intelligence to be insulted .
You must stroke the ego of the police , you must be polite and kiss ass if you are to get anywhere with them , and only then do you stand a chance , because they can and will press as many bogus charges as they can knowingly full well , their word will be favored in court , and if one charge doesn't stick , you are too poor to take all their charges to court , so they know you will plea bargain. As I was so eloquently told by someone in law enforcement " they put multiple charges because they don't want to waste court time."
Putting on a uniform doesn't make you any less human , and certainly does not make you incorruptible or any less prone to the weaknesses or ugliest of the human condition. A coc* can put on a uniform , but it won't make them any less of a coc*.....We would like to think that our people in uniform wouldn't do that , but I think it's time that our police were held to civilian standards.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:16 AM
I have seen the videos, in my opinion two wrongs don’t make it right, I think both the driver and the officer should be punished accordingly.

The woman for breaking traffic laws, and the officer for using excessive force; now should the officer be fired, I would say no… suspended and a demotion, plus be made to go through an anger management course along with paying for any medical treatment the woman may a suffered.

I'm sure the city/county could be hit with a lawsuit too...

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:16 AM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

If this cowardly piece of trash pig had time to hit her 5 times, he had time to just grab her hands in the first place.

They dismissed all charges, in hopes of getting her to not sue the **** out of them.

They will threaten her with charges again if she proceeds with lawsuits.

BTW, how would stunning her to stop her from driving more by grabbing her hands, prevent her from using her feet on the accelerator.

It's obvious that this cowardly trash pig got his answers coached from the prosecutors office.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:24 AM
reply to post by CitizenAlpha

She could have just as easily been having a stroke, and that's why she couldn't cooperate.

She could have just been stung by a bee and going into shock, and they'd be punching a woman who needs medical attention.

She could have been pregnant, and losing consciousness from blood loss due to something going wrong, and they'd just be beating the **** out of her.

She could be your mother, I bet you'd call it BS then.

The problem is that the cops don't even try to figure things out, they just go for violence first thing.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:26 AM
reply to post by CitizenAlpha

To true.
I like the way you responded. I like the caps on Uneducated and Hick. In all actuality, it's sometimes quite common for people to have sense "smacked" into them. I remember they did an episode about that on Myth Busters.

As for what I make myself look like, I couldn't care less. It's when people DON'T respond the way you did that I worry.

So, welcome to ATS. What brought you here? Three years ago I was doing some research on ancient civilizations, found myself here and never left.

edit on 24-1-2011 by Divine Strake because: Cops like to beat up on old grannies!

BTW, I know very much about law, and have dealt with them, as I worked as a prisoner's advocate at 4 prisons in our state. Just because I know the law doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
edit on 24-1-2011 by Divine Strake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:32 AM
reply to post by Byteman

Yeah, this guy huh?
Hard to believe actually thinks this okay! To hit a little old lady!? CitizenAlpha is top notch ATS material, I tell ya!

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:34 AM
reply to post by WTFover

I hear ya, pal. This poster's gonna be one to worry about, I tell ya. Your avatar perfectly depicts exactly my thoughts about his/her post!

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:44 AM

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by simples

Umm, no, but IT WAS JUDGED in a court of law, and thrown out.

THAT is my point. And you seem to have a hard time acknowledging this little fact.

So all your references to "drunk driving" don't hold any weight here, despite you repeating it.

She was never charged with it to begin with, which obviously indicates she wasn't drunk. Pretty much common sense. lol.

Not really.

She was in fact "arrested" for suspicion of DUI, eluding police, reckless driving, assault on a police officer and resisting arrest. All misdemeanor crimes except for maybe assault on a PO.. could be a "wobbler".

Then she was CHARGED with failure to stop or respond at the command of police.. a felony... being that she was charged with a felony, the various misdemeanors USUALLY become "lesser and included" charges.

"Lesser" meaning not as serious, "included" meaning still applies as a charge... if DUI was lessor & included she could have gone to trial, had a jury vote "not guilty" on all felony charges.. but still convicted her of DUI..

If a drunk dude suspected of killing his family drives off, gets chased, then arrested by the cops.. police don't arrest and DDAs don't charge misdemeanor DUI, they go for the higher felony charge of murder. Cops will still collect chemical BAC sample, collect DUI evidence, admin per se.. and "ad charge" with DUI.

Now lets say murder suspect dude convinces a jury it was "self defense", they can acquit him of murder.. but convict for DUI.

We would need to see the actual charge sheet in the case file to know for sure which misdemeanors were lessor & included.. DUI charges might not have been included, but I seriously doubt it since it was the PC and foundation of why she allegedly failed to "..stop or respond at the command of police"

There is also a difference between charges being "dropped" Vs "dismissed": a DDA/City attorney can "drop" charges, a judge/commissioner (court) can "dismiss"... but dismissed doesn't mean she-it.

According to the article, the charges were "dismissed":

"Court records show that the case was dismissed Jan. 13, but do not indicate why."

Maybe she took a plea bargain?.. do you know? she could have plead guilty to misdemeanor DUI, meaning her felony charges/case would be "dismissed".. apparently the record is incomplete. Anyone who cares, can check the court records again in a month might see if there is reference to a new case with a lessor charge... or indications of probation.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:47 AM
reply to post by HoldTheBeans

Unless I hit an incorrect "reply to" button, I only remember saying something to CitizenAlpha. Are you saying that what I said to him offends you? As for anarchy, well, it just depends on the year.

I'll simplify it this way. Some people have seizures or blackouts when driving. Some diabetics have issues brought on by low blood sugar, which renders them confused and dangerous.

I don't know what offended you. . .but my stance is clear. . .the cop should NOT have punched her in the face! I never thought I'd find, especially on this site, someone who thinks an oldl lady needs punched in the face! I apologize, as I said before, I don't remember even responding to you. . .but why do you think it's okay to beat up old ladys?

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:07 AM

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Did you guys also pay attention to the fact that ALL CHARGES AGAINST HER WERE DISMISSED?

Or the fact that the video was released by the Utah Highway Patrol themselves?

Maybe someone high up wants this particular cop removed from the force?

I'm sure the police have many videos they don't want the public to see. Why is this one different?

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:09 AM

Originally posted by paleorchid13
...and I know for a fact they have their own "code" just like military .."watch after your own" kinda code.

I'm sure they do.

That's why I think it's suspicious that the police released the video themselves.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:11 AM
reply to post by GovtFlu

Just to add some more info to your post about Felony vs. Misdemeanor harges. We dont know her criminal history, so its entirely possible the DWI could have been a Felony (3 convictions graduates you to felony charges). We dont know much information about the persuit itself. There are a bunch of factors to consider in that area. If it can be shown her ations placed other people in imminent danger, then its possible to get a Felony eluding charge (resisting arrest by fleeing).

In most states any assault on Emergency personell(Police/Fire/EMS/Security) is a felony. This is kind of dependant on the Prosecuting attorney and how they view the statute itself.

As far as a lesser included offenses, you are correct, but a little off. If a person breaks into a house when noone is home, they are charged with burglary. A lesser included offense of that is criminal tresspassing. They can only be charged with one or the other, not both, since criminal tresspassing is a lesser included offense in the burglary (the suspect had to tresspass to gain entry to the residence).

A DWI accident that results in death is the same. The suspect can either be charged with DWI, or manslaughter / murder (depending on state and their terms). If you charge a person with a DWI and they are able to plead guilty to that before they go to court for the murder charge, then its game over for the murder charge.

I can see people scratching their heads with that explanation. There are 2 mains levels of crimes (3 if you live in Michigan).

Felony - More than a year in prison
Misdameanor - Less than a year in jail / prison
(Michigan has whats called a highcourt misdameanor - Maximum of 2 years in jail or prison).

The State Police / Highwy Patrol issue their charges at the State level - Felony and Misdameanor
The County Sheriff issues their charges at the state level - Felony and Misdameanor
Municipal Officers - We enforce city ordinances (they generally will be the exact same as the State statutes, with a few exceptions based on what class city it is - Self rule / homerule etc). - Misdameanors only at city level, Misdameanors and Felony at state level.

If a city officer is involved in a DWI pursuit (like the OP), and during the pursuit the suspect does commit a felony, we cannot charge the suspect at the city level for that felony. All felony violations are State charges.

Municipal Officers technically have more abilities in enforcing the laws because we have the ability to issue a citation / arrest on municipal ordinaces / laws, and we also have the ability to enforce state laws. The other possibility for dismissing the charges is to allow time for an IA investigation to work. If the trooper is cleared, charges can be refiled against the suspect.

Anyways.. not trying to call you out or anything, so no offense. Just wanted to get some more info out there.

edit on 24-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:11 AM
Maybe they released this video to condition people that this is normal behaviour for police.

So if you see it happening in the future, you will automatically presume the victim "deserved it"?

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:16 AM

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
Maybe they released this video to condition people that this is normal behaviour for police.

So if you see it happening in the future, you will automatically presume the victim "deserved it"?

LOL I love it. People bash the cops for not releasing video footage of events because they must be "hiding something". When video is released, its because they are trying to condition the people. If the State police did not release the footage, people would be screaming bloody murder about a coverup.

Please use some common sense.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:07 AM
reply to post by Wyn Hawks

True story: I live in a very small town. The local police were trying to pull over a man who simply wouldn't stop. He wasn't speeding but he was driving erratically. My husband had been called to impound the vehicle once they got it stopped so was on the scene when they finally did at the local 24 hour convenience store. They pulled the man out of the vehicle and he was very incoherent and unsteady on his feet. The assumption was that he was drunk.
My husband walked over and asked the man if he were a diabetic and the man nodded his head. Paramedics were called and when they arrived they confirmed diabetes and he was taken to the hospital.

Now, if our local LEOs had delusions of godhood or suffered from contempt of cop this could have ended much differently. As it was all they did was shut his car off, remove him from the car and cuff him. No injuries. But the point is, they never think beyond drunk driving. Those suffering from Epilepsy, alzheimer's, diabetes.. the list goes on... can all appear to be drunk.

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in