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: 17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:04 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:05 AM

Originally posted by lestweforget
Icant believe this thread has gained so much attention, its not even news worthy!
He only punched her a few times, drunk drivers deserve much worse than that!
Thrown out into oncoming traffic at least!

She wasnt drunk,because if she was,they wouldn't have thrown out the case. My question is WHY throw out the whole case? If she was this menace to society,then the charges would have stuck,IMO Something is a miss. Police officers get a bad rap,but that doesn't justify excessive force. 3 on 1,the odds favor the Officers.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:07 AM
reply to post by lestweforget

I really dont understand why people degrade other people for having a differnet opinion,
And if you look at all my posts i only chirp a chirper :p

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:09 AM
And on a happier note

On this day in 1935 the first canned beer was sold? "Krueger Cream Ale" by Krueger Brewing Co. of Richmond. An invention that changed bellies forever.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:10 AM

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by macman

All you need is too cars to block both ends
They could of electuted (zapped) her or threatened with a gun

Why do something the easy way when you can it the hard way.

Again, sounds like you have never been in that situation.
Cops don't have magic. They can't tell if someone is reaching in their pocket for a gun or gum.
The fact is she would not comply to lawful requests. She would not release her foot from the accelerator. More often then not, several strikes are better then a tazer as tazers have been linked to deaths.

Actually, I never want to get into that situation

But having seen several police vids over the Years, they appeared to use more force than dealing with armed drug runners.

Maybe granny was pack'n a boot load of Heat being a Cop Killer and head of a Drug Cartel.
Guilty until proven Innocent. Rack up another one for the FBI terrorist watch list.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:12 AM
reply to post by skeptic_al

Hahahahaha at granny with boot of Stuff

hehehehe you made me laugh out loud...

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:26 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

This is a hard video to decipher. First off, i'm not even sure what has started the conflict, nor why the woman is being arrested. The officer handled it as best as he could in that situation. He was in an escalating conflict with a woman, and another individual came and put their hands on him -- he reacted by throwing a punch to place a distance between himself and the new party to the conflict. In addition to this he had a growing number of sympathizers and every second the situation became more dangerous to him. If the mob had chosen to attack, he would have been dead meat.

Thankfully, as you stated, civilians have become docile to perceived dangers and in addition display lower levels of aggression (for the most part). Ironically 100+ years ago this wasn't the case, and only in the last 30 - 40 years, through the protection of law enforcement and modernization of the world, have people been able to become relaxed in public venues here in America, and other countries of the world. Pre-WW1 was a very, very, dangerous world to live in. We should be so fortunate to not live in that world (or some of the middle-america countries) and be able to sleep soundly at night, and live our most of our daily lives free from the fear of being knifed in an alley for the change in our pockets.

That is some interesting information about the Rodney King case that i was unaware of. Arigato gozaimasu.

PCP is a helluv' a drug, as they say.

On a similar note, the Mathew Sheppard case from here in Laramie, Wyo from a few years ago, has a remarkably similar twist of events that the mainstream media never brought to light. That is, Mr. Sheppard owed the offenders a large sum of money for drugs ($5,000+). It was never a hate crime because Mr. Sheppard was "gay", just another statistic on the ever-growing number of violent crimes attributed to illegal drug trade. (this ties into my convictions on the legality of substances)

To TheGhostViking: Before you go off on a tangent about the drugs of America, and their uses i would like to make two points to you.

1.) Being treated for ADD with amphetamines, has done more for removing addictive behaviors from my life, than any form of therapy over a 5 year period. It's a good thing though, because drinking a 5th of jagermeister 3 - 5x a week, and partaking in 1g+ of mdma in a night (when i could get my lil' hands on it), was killing me.
2.) I highly recommend a BBC documentary called "The Century of the Self". It's an excellent look at how Sigmund Freud's nephew took propaganda to a new level through psychoanalysis, and how the resulting "target marketing" to the inner-narcissism of people has progressively produced a more psychotic, and selfish, world, by telling everyone "its ok not to care about anything but yourself".

Cybertron - Welcome to ATS. One thing that has sprung to my mind during this conversation.

Rational action, is a three-step process.
1.) Have a feeling
2.) Form thoughts about the feeling
3.) Act

Irrational actions are a two-step process
1.) Have a feeling
2.) Act

SeenMyShare -- See the above.

Heff -- Took the words out of my mouth. You're just a tad more cordial about it, and I suppose that is why you're a moderator, and I'm an uncouth bastid.

Back to the lurkin' shadows i go.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:31 AM

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
reply to post by Xcathdra

I may be country but that doesn't make me ignorant. I know what statute of limitations is. You are trying to excuse and justify behavior that the majority of us find inexcusable. I suspect you are defending these abusive LEOs for more than the obvious reason of being law enforcement yourself. Toes hurt much?

Statute of limitations pertains to the amount of time that is allowed to pass between crime, discovery and prosecution.
Statute of limitations has nothing to do with this.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:34 AM
reply to post by SeenMyShare

Actually you can. In both videos, you have a female resisting an arrest during a tense situation in addition to assault on an officer. Below is a Use of Force Continuum example. Keep in mind that we do not have to start at step one and work up. Our use of force will depend on what is being used against us.

National Institute of Justice - The Use-of-Force Continuum

An example of a use-of-force continuum follows:

Officer Presence — No force is used. Considered the best way to resolve a situation.
The mere presence of a law enforcement officer works to deter crime or diffuse a situation.
Officers' attitudes are professional and nonthreatening.

Verbalization — Force is not-physical.
Officers issue calm, nonthreatening commands, such as "Let me see your identification and registration."
Officers may increase their volume and shorten commands in an attempt to gain compliance. Short commands might include "Stop," or "Don't move."

Empty-Hand Control — Officers use bodily force to gain control of a situation.

Soft technique. Officers use grabs, holds and joint locks to restrain an individual.

Hard technique. Officers use punches and kicks to restrain an individual.

Less-Lethal Methods — Officers use less-lethal technologies to gain control of a situation.
(See Deciding When and How to Use Less-Lethal Devices. )

Blunt impact. Officers may use a baton or projectile to immobilize a combative person.
Chemical. Officers may use chemical sprays or projectiles embedded with chemicals to restrain an individual (e.g., pepper spray).

Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs). Officers may use CEDs to immobilize an individual. CEDs discharge a high-voltage, low-amperage jolt of electricity at a distance.

Lethal Force — Officers use lethal weapons to gain control of a situation. Should only be used if a suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or another individual.
Officers use deadly weapons such as firearms to stop an individual's actions.

What you view as excessive force (and again, thats your opinion and thats cool) is a distraction technique.

Distractions and aggressive subjects — what a new study and past experience tell us

Researchers from the University of Kentucky confirmed recently what skillful cops have known for years: well-timed, well-crafted distractions can derail difficult suspects from violent intentions.

The researchers tested this theory with drunks, but according to behavioral scientist Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center, their findings are relevant to a wide variety of tough-to-handle subjects, including the drug addled, the mentally ill, and the emotionally distraught or irate. Lewinski teaches distraction techniques in the law enforcement program at Minnesota State University-Mankato.

“Distraction works well if you can pitch it right,” he says. And in an interview with Force Science News, he offers some practical guidelines for doing so.

Females fighting with Police:

Female (non drunk) runs from police, forcefully removed from her car.

Drunk female resisting arrest for DWI

For some reason the embed code is not working, so here is the link.
Drunk female goes crazy on cops

So, no its not as easy to arrest a drunk female than people might think. Keep in mind only one of these videos has a female who had to be extracted from the vehicle.
edit on 24-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

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

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

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:38 AM
reply to post by Evil_Santa

Ageed. Thanks evil...

You know here in S.A the mob justice still runs deep, and luckily that guy was not here, It doesnt matter to the Mobs why you did what you did they just go crazy.... Ive seen how they pull people out there houses and set them alight in the streets.. The south african Population over all is pretty much aggressive, Check out Xenophobia attacks in Johannesburg.

Crazy stuff i tell you..

Once again First thread ive been on and actually replied to, Amazing site.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:42 AM
reply to post by skeptic_al

Police vids huh?
Ok, so you are the arm chair expert here I guess.
Again, the police responded to a DUI driver (She was on prescription meds) and tried to pull her over. She resisted all attempts and the situation was ended by striking her.
Most situations where a person is behind a vehicle and trying to plow through cops, they get shot and rightfully so.
She was in the wrong in so many ways and on so many different levels.
The fact that the charges were dropped shows only the wussification of America and the police department. It is an attempt to quell her civil law suit.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:43 AM
Ok.. Ill try this one more time with reference to charges and statute of limitations. Just because the charge was dropped does not mean thats the end of it. Charges can be refiled at a later date. I brought up statute of limitations because people are apprently under the impression that charges must be present at the exact moment the police are on scene.

As an example, again, I worked a DWI where I had to do a blood draw. Since we send the blood to the crime lab, we wont get results for 30-90 days, depending on back log of evidence being processed. When the blood results come back, say 65 days after the incident, charges can be filed against the driver for DWI/DUI.

If I stop a car, and the end result of that stop is the driver is charged / issued a citation for DUI, it then goes to our municipal prosecutor. The municipal prosecutor can dismiss the charges, and tell me to refile the charge in Circuit court.

Absence of a charge does not mean absence of a crime. In my state a first time DWI is a misdemeanor. I have up to 1 year to file charges against the driver.
edit on 24-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:44 AM
reply to post by Evil_Santa

im glad certain things are working for you ,Im not trying to say that manmade drugs have No good uses , im just saying in the long run your gna die or go crazy if you keep on taking manmades . like dave chapelle said i dont do drugs i only smoke weed .
On topic the Police have lot of pressure on them I comprehend totally . Alll Im saying is self defence is ok but to dose out your own retribution ? uhhh thats ilegal Im sorry .

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:44 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

Yes, you are correct. Charges can be re-filed.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:47 AM

Originally posted by badgerprints

If I was a cop I'd have shot the drunken idiot.

She was still trying to drive off and would have run people over if necessary.

In my opinion ....which is a bit jaded after watching the criminals get set up as the victim over and over and over.

Middle aged drunk woman drives around recklessly endangering the populace.....oohh.

Poor little drunk lady.

Yeah, a couple of socks to the jaw instead of a couple of .45 cal rounds to the torso. She got off light.

You were there to verify that she was attempting to drive off right.. Point out where they said she wanted to drive off.. the cop said she might.. not that she would.. again.. more idiots who put out false bs so as to feel justified.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:48 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

Hahahaha that lady in the white seemed so nice while drunk
but wow she has a dirty mouth... Cops were very nice aswell.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:48 AM
reply to post by Evil_Santa

That seems to be where the argument is coming from. People are taking my argument, which deals with the cops actions and why they could be justifiable under law, as an absolute argument that the cop is innocent and his actions were valid.

People are always going to see these situations and judge it based on their own personal / moral belief of what is right and wrong, while ignoring all other information present.

The best I can do is play devils advocate and explain the enforcement side of things. What people want to do with that info is completely up to them.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:50 AM
reply to post by badgerprints

Bah its not even worth arguing ,people have there beliefs and until they are pushed down and spit on by our protectors they will always take there side .
edit on 24-1-2011 by essanance because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:52 AM
I would have thought with your budget technology and resources it would take less time than what you claim below

As an example, again, I worked a DWI where I had to do a blood draw. Since we send the blood to the crime lab, we wont get results for 30-90 days,

sound like a bunch of amateurs , 90 days? wow nothing like an quick slick efficient system is there ? my sheep friend
i had blood tests that came back in 2 weeks but i guess the Rochdale health centre is a better outfit than your big american crime fighting force LMAO

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:53 AM
reply to post by macman

The charges droped to clear cop? bogus!!! i think a Video posted on the story to the media cancels out the opertunity to hide it from the public.

And news flash if they got it on camera the victim doesnt have to lay a case.

top topics

<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in