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

reply to post by Xcathdra
Sir, you have not proven me wrong. The old saying "Me thinks thou doth protest too much" is actually what comes to mind.

There is no excuse for the excessive force used and nothing you can say will prove me wrong. They weren't pulling over a 6'4 300 lb. 25 year old guy who was fighting back. They pulled over a 53 year old woman. Are you trying to say that they had no idea she was female and older? No! They let their anger over her refusal to stop to overrule their good sense.

Again you state she was driving drunk. Why do you persist in assuming she was drinking? She was not charged with drinking and driving, driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated. She was ONLY charged with failure to stop!

reply to post by LogicalThinker88


She had already run from the police... She was sitting in place and wouldn't open her door or window.. When they broke the window, she pressed the gas trying to speed off... I do not blame this officer one single bit.


If you run from the police, expect the worst outcome for yourself!... Period!

Maybe her dumb ass will sit put and just take the ticket next time.

Originally posted by Cybertron
What idle threat are you refering to ?

Your if a op ever did that to my wife BS.

Originally posted by Cybertron
And who said she was using the prescribed drugs while driving,

Who said she didnt?

Originally posted by Cybertron
you make stories that suit your need to justify his actions,

No really I dont. As I said my view is based on my education and training as well as experience. I have pointed out how use of force works, and what we are allowed to do under law. If you go back and read my posts, you will see I have consistenyl stated based on the video and the articles. We dont have the entire report, as its still under investigation. We dont have a reason as to why the charges were dropped, although you guys seem to be making a reason up without supporting facts.

Originally posted by Cybertron
The karate boi above aswell is actually amusing, you say 6th grade science,

Can I get a care check on aisle 2 please... Care check on aisle 2.

Originally posted by Cybertron
so his stance was off or yadda yadda yadda typical typical,

Originally posted by Cybertron
Your and idiot.

I have been called worse by better.

Originally posted by Cybertron
This artical was put on here for a good argument on what views the public have,
and you try and decredit me?

You discredit yourself, and the manner you do it in does not require any assistance from me. However, as you pointed out the article was posted for a good argument. You do understand that an argument / debate will include both sides right? Without an opposing view, its not and argument nor debate. I am giving you an argument from a LEO's perspective.

Whether or not you agree with any of it is not my problem. I am telling you how it works. Take what you want from it.

Originally posted by Cybertron
shows you that a bully tries and wins an argument by getting ugly?

Says the person who called me an idiot. Going back to that whole discrediting comment....

Originally posted by Cybertron
I do a fair bit of research on every topic i find interesting, so its not a case of i open my mouth and # comes out like you guys.

Ok, then in this case your research and interpretation of it is wrong. Research the Supreme Court decision on Officers use of force, and how it guides what we can and cannot do.

While you are looking that up, brush up on 42 USC 1983.

Originally posted by Cybertron
So please let it unfold as it should and just simply go back into your deep dark "animal" holes

So what you are saying is my explanations of how the Law Enforcement side works is undermining your argument that all cops are brutal, idiotic thugs on a power trip?

I think you might be confused, since you have already stated this article was posted so people can talk / debate / argue about it. I went back and read the OP, but I did not see anything posted that says the truth is not allowed. Can you please go back and find that in the op for us?

While you look for that I will continue to offer my opinions and thoughts in this forum and any other I choose. I will offer up the laws as well as answer any questions people might have. If you wish to learn, I have no problem answering your questions and providing you supporting documentation.

I have alrady extended that courtesy to you with this:
Flamethrower now an option on S. African cars


Africa Firing on all cylinders

(CNN) -- Crime-obsessed South Africans have a powerful new weapon with which to stop likely criminals: the car flamethrower.

Casting a man-high fireball, reportedly with no damage to the paint, the Blaster has been placed on 25 South African vehicles since its introduction last month.

At 3,900 rand ($655), it offers a cheap, dramatic defense against carjackers. It has yet to be deemed illegal.

South African courts allow killing if convinced that it's in self-defense. The defense is not unheard of. In last year's 13,000 carjackings, criminals often brandished weapons or used them with little provocation.

The Blaster squirts liquefied gas from a bottle in the automobile's trunk through two nozzles, located under the front doors. The gas is then ignited by an electric spark, with fiery consequences.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Sir, you have not proven me wrong. The old saying "Me thinks thou doth protest too much" is actually what comes to mind.

I'll take a "shot" at it then. No pun intended

There is no excuse for the excessive force used and nothing you can say will prove me wrong. They weren't pulling over a 6'4 300 lb. 25 year old guy who was fighting back. They pulled over a 53 year old woman. Are you trying to say that they had no idea she was female and older? No! They let their anger over her refusal to stop to overrule their good sense.

She was fighting back with a 8' 1,000lb weapon -- a motor vehicle.

Again you state she was driving drunk. Why do you persist in assuming she was drinking? She was not charged with drinking and driving, driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated. She was ONLY charged with failure to stop!

Her failure to stop when seeing lights behind her, gives probable cause to suggest that she wasn't sober, or was hiding something. That gives the officers more reason to subdue her and protect the public. For example, her failure to follow the laws of when an emergency vehicle has their lights on behind her put the public at risk. If she had been driving in front of an ambulance for example, and she failed to pull to the side and slow-down/stop, she could have killed the person in the back whom had seconds between life/death because of their (insert life-threatining condition here like, stroke, heart attack, etc) and her failure to move for the emergency vehicle caused them to be 10 seconds late to the hospital.

reply to post by SeenMyShare


And it pretty amazing how they try and justify it, by saying she was drunk ect...... there is no evidence to back it up,
and then they guy whos going on about physics, i dont even know how to repond to karate bois comments,
very ignorant.......
because a jab is not as bad as a full blown shot its fine... What a chop....

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by CitizenAlpha
Those cops would have been within there rights to fire at her once they were out of the car and moving to Arrest her,

Due to the deterioration of the thread, I've opted to stay out. But, this statement is so utterly and completely erroneous that I had to chime in.

From the evidence we have seen (the video), there was absolutely no justification for deadly force. LE are not permitted to use deadly force to stop a fleeing vehicle, much less one that is at a complete stop, as this one was.

And, since I'm already here, let me comment on the notion that there was any justification for the trooper assaulting the woman. It's been mentioned, several times, that the officer didn't know what he was dealing with, therefor was justified in using force until he could determine it. This is completely wrong.

As a matter of fact, had the officers used proper procedures for the stop, in the first place, he would not have been close enough to assault her. They should have remained in a position of safety and verbally ordered her out of the car. Immediately running up to the car, breaking the window and reaching in is not the way it is supposed to be done, even though it is on television.

There is no deadly force used. Deadly force falls within less lethal munition, and firearms.
Face strikes are not deadly force. The fact that she is such and such age is not relevant.
Cops do not know what the person they are interacting with is capable of. They are paid to up hold the law and go home at the end of the day.
The use of force steps, as prescribed by the department shows that he was justified.
Maybe if she had not been driving DUI, tried to evade the police, refused to stop, refused to turn off the car, refused to exit the car then she would not have been placed in the situation.
How about people hold the person who committed the crime as the responsible party.
Or is this just another "F%cking pigs" thread?

reply to post by Evil_Santa


ye and with the car being boxed in theres no time to remove my arm?
Your buddy newton surley knows the time a free car takes to acc compared to a boxed in car.
My friend you pull out all these nice articals and info about physics ect ect ect it actually has nothing to do with this situation. i will bet you $5000 i can pull you out of your car before you take off when theres a few cars boxing you in. Because i dont agree with your pathetic attempt to Sway the opinions, You attack my credibilty...

First of all i wasnt the dumbass to hit a 53 year old lady,
Secondly I am not the one on paid vacation now?
Facts cant get better the a vid.

reply to post by bigrex


Again, a "[SNIP] the pigs" reply.
Nope, she is white.
Yeah, because cops only beat the blacks or browns. Blah Blah Blah.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by CitizenAlpha


Thank you for my morning laugh!

"Stupid people should be treated like stupid animals"?!?! WHAT!? How about this, "STUPID PEOPLE should be treated like STUPID PEOPLE"?! Animals have nothing to do with this video, case, etc...

How, in this case, are animals dumber than humans? In my opinion animals are far brighter than humans! I'd trust my dog before I trusted another person. My dog would never run from the cops, he'd bite them, therefore he's smart for defending herself, humans on the other hand get drunk and think they can run from the cops so they deserve to be punched repeatedly in the head!

HUMANS = MORONS!!!

I apologize if I'm all over with my remarks or if it doesn't make sense, I'm still waking up. My point is that people are stupid and animals are awesome, can't trust a human but you can dam sure trust your family pet!

reply to post by Hefficide
I partially agree Heff, but I see the use of force and the use of excessive force as two different things. I'm not trying to condone this woman's actions. I'm saying that the situation did not warrant being both tazed and punched repeatedly when in reality one or the other would have sufficed.

Edit to clarify - ONE punch would have sufficed given the woman's age and size.

what if the cop had killed her with his punches ? this a 58 yr old woman she could have easily had a seizure . In some of your worlds we might as well not have judges jury lawyers etc YOU are given the cops too much power , in your world rodney king deserves to nearly get killed by FOUR cops , in your world jean charles de menendez deserves to be dead .

reply to post by CJCSuperman


The fact that you and your stepdad got into a brawl with your neighbors says enough for me.
Was the cops show cameras in tote?

You expect cops to walk into a situation and believe you over your neighbor?
Why is that? Are you pure as the wind driven snow?
I again fall back onto the above statement.

The officer did good!

That woman could have kilt somebody if she'd had gotten tat car moving.

Its a no brainer!

If it was a Muslin country or russia or some 3rd world country they'd of done much worse!

I bet she hasd a good breakfast in jail also (and ask her if she'd like a phone call)

CNN is so left ...the way that news woman does her intro...jeeeze! Makes me cringe!!

Bottom line is...If your gonna drive around drunk on your ass and try to run from the USA police -

You should expect a punch in the face and a taze if your caught (trying to get away) COME ON!!

reply to post by apodictic


Nope.
The situation called for immediate action. She was a danger to the community and was dealt with in a manner that stopped her.

reply to post by SeenMyShare

Well seems we have robo cop and karate boi to look after our world.I can sleep better at night.

I agree with the guy about the animals, There not as bad as us humans

Originally posted by Cybertron
I do agree with you on knowlege on American Laws

We agree on something..
/runs outside to see if the world is indeed ending.

Originally posted by Cybertron
but surely the law is there to protect people against abuse aswell?
I find this thread very interesting, On possible outlooks.
My opinion is the cop is a pig for beating the woman,
Your opinion he is a hero for stoping a drunk driver.

Fair enough, then lets go at this from another angle then. Ask question, add your view on what you would do and why, and I will reply with why your actions would or would not work, and explain why using my views.

Originally posted by Cybertron
Nice thing about a non comunist world were are entitled to our own thoughts

Again I agree 100 %

Originally posted by Cybertron
And it is very clear those who cannot put there ideas forward without harrasment are
"animals" ----> i love that theory and bullies.

I would not use the term animals.. I would use the term close minded or even naieve.

Originally posted by Cybertron
You asked what would be my action in that same event?

I sure did.. and thank you for responding.

Originally posted by Cybertron
well police officers should know you cannot just jump into car like he di and start hitting,

Actually it will depend on the circumstances. As I said before, Law Enforcement has whats called a plus 1 advantage. We are allowed to escalate our use of force 1 level higher than what is being used on us.

Originally posted by Cybertron
If there were a gun he would have got shot.

Not neccisarily. I can show you training footage of a traffic stop that has gone down hill that ended in 2 officers and 2 suspects shooting at each other at a distance of about 6 feet, resulting in no hits. Also, there are items available which are guns but look nothing like them. Cell phone guns come to mind. Check youtube and type in cell phon gun and you will see what I am talking about.

Originally posted by Cybertron
The car was in a non momentum state even if the engine was on, and boxed in,

Actually the vehicle was in operation and was moving. The Trooper stated that she had mashed down on the gas, attemtping to break free of the blocking vehicles. Also, in the US a vehicle does not have to be in motion in order to be operating it".

Originally posted by Cybertron
Sure she could have broken free after a couple of tries and by that time the police officers should have had the situation under controll.

And as we see in the video, that is exactly what happened. The officers had her under control before she could break the car free.

Originally posted by Cybertron
They should of read the situation better.

Easier said than done. Your argument here is proof of that. You are answering my question based on the articles and the video. You have the benefiet of 20/20 hindsight, including all the minor details that when put together, creates a potentially deadly encounter.

Originally posted by Cybertron
Again, My outlook not yours, Mine.

And again thats fine.. As I said my intention is to present the LEO side and to explain why we can do what we do. Just because we do something, does not mean its not going to come back and bite us in the ass. I am trying to put some knowledge out there so people can at least have some concept if why this Trooper did what he did.

Ill say it again.. Using force on another person is a foreign concept to civilians. Its not a natural action, and it runs contrary to the views civilians have. Civlians see this incident through civlian eyes, and thats fine.

It would be no different if a person from another country visited the us while she was pregnant. She goes into labor, and when the baby is born, the doctor turns the newborn upside down and gives a fee smacks to the kid to get it breathing. If the mom comes from a culture / country where that technique is not used, the doctors actions could appear as brutal and unneccisary.

Originally posted by Cybertron
And karate boi, Before you laugh at my "Grammer" its actually called spelling, and secondly before you get into a tizzy fit about your lame sport try Fishing its more relaxing.. :p

Now now.. We are all friends here
There is nothing wrong with being lysdexic... err dyslexic. The good news is dyslexia for cure found.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I really really like this flame thrower idea for cars...
gives you the whole mad max feeling...

So what you are saying is my explanations of how the Law Enforcement side works is undermining your argument that all cops are brutal, idiotic thugs on a power trip?

This statement is pathetic , NOONE has categorised ALL the police as such , were talking about the ones that do things like this , so dont dare make us out to be cop haters , We just want people to be tried by judges not police surely that why the justice system was implemented ??