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

reply to post by apodictic


Anytime.. I do understand why there is anger by people when seeing incidents like this. To me the big issue is a lack of knowledge about the law, being able to see an encounter like this after it has already occured with the knowledge of what occured from start to finish.

Its almost like reading the first page of a book, and then skipping to the very last page of the book, ignoring everything in between that would place the story into proper context with explanations, background, history etc etc etc.

With all of that info I see how people arrive at their conclusions, and can say the police used excessive force. Its one of the reasons I like to ask people what they would do in a similar situation. If you watch the answers, you will see their actions are taking into account all of the information present in the article. They are unable to give their actions outside of that information.

Innocent until proven guilty... This is required for the driver of the car
Innocent until proven guilty... This is required for the Trooper whose actions were called into question.

People make the argument Cops feel we are above the law, and that is farthest from the truth. A private Citizen has more ability to act than what law enforcement does. If someone breaks down your front door, holds you hostage and searches your house, they are guilty of a few felony charges. If cops do it, we have violated your civil rights, which carry a much stronger / harsher sentence.

People say laws are applied differently when it comes to cops and citizens, and again this is not true either.

If a homeowner shhots and kills a guy coming into their house - Its still murder / homicide. The end result though is classified as a justifiable homicide.

If a cop pulls a guy over, and the guy pulls a gun and the scop shoots and kills the driver - Its still murder / homicide - The end result is classified as a justifiable homicide.

If a murderer is convicted and sentenced to death, and is executed in prison - Its still a murder / homicide. The end result is classified as a justifiable homicide.

Going back to the homeowner, the investigation looks at the shoot itself. Under state law, did the homeowner defend himself in a manner that is covered under law (castle doctrine in some states).

If we look at the Cop scenario, not only is it viewed as being within the law, we also face a few other conditions. Was our actions from start of the incident to the end of the incident within law (Local / State).

Were our actions within Departmental Policy? (its possible to be justified under law, but in violation of departmental policy).

Did our actions violate the individuals civil rights? (An officer who kills a suspect is violating the 4th Amendement - Search and Seizure - Since he was shot and killed, he was "seized" under the 4th amendment.).

I welcome questions and debate on these topics, since it serves as an open forum of communications, ideas and opposing viewpoints. I try to listen and take what I can from these debates since it helps me do my job better. I have had a few instances where debate on this forum has assisted me on calls and dealing with others.

Anyways, thanks for the civil chat.. I appriciate it.

reply to post by Demoncreeper


When people are drunk. They don't feel anything. That's a known fact.

Originally posted by WTFover
And, conversely, when the level of resistance is decreased, so should the level of force.

Correct.. The Supreme Court says we must deescalate the situation as quickly and safely as possible. It also says we must use the least amount of force neccisary to control the situation.

The debatable question then becomes - was the situation in the OP stablalized, and if so, when did that occur? And under what circumstances do you consider stable?

Originally posted by WTFover
In this case, the woman gripping the steering wheel does not justify repeated punches to the face.

Actually it meets criteria for the use of several different options of force, including punches to the face. Again the criteria used for looking at an officers use of force is what the officer perceieved at the exact moment force was used. I understand your argument, but it falls outside the established criteria because its based on a 20/20 hindsight view.

Originally posted by WTFover
The rest of your post, which you have now re-posted four times to prevent your point from being ignored, ignores some important points, itself.

Ok, lets take a look.

Originally posted by WTFover

I pushed the window in and observed that the suspect was still gripping the wheel with both hands and trying to push our vehicles out of the way.

The video evidence clearly refutes this statement.

Actually it does not. Again the argument you are applying is a 20/20 hindsight. The question is, what did the officer perceive at the moment he used force? In this case, the trooper cited refusal of verbal commands, refusal to roll the window down requiring him to break the window, and his perception that the car was still running, and was still in gear. Even if you look at the second dash cam video, which does show her car learch forward, it still would be an irrelevant point (even though it supports his version of events) because the Officer was not at that vantage point.

Also, can you point out in the video where we see the inside of the suspect vehicle?

Originally posted by WTFover

She refused to comply with commands to give us her hands.

Exactly what was he going to do with her hands, since the door was still closed, preventing him from extracting her from the vehicle? Surely he wasn't going to attempt to cuff her, through the window?

The most dangerous part of a person we are dealing with are their hands. Thre is a reason we tell people to show us their hands, to remove them from their pockets, etc. If you control the hand / arm, you can control the person. Where the hand goes, the body follows. Gaining control of her hands is 90 percent of the battle.

Originally posted by WTFover

I did this to distract and stun her and to stop her from trying to drive off and strike our vehicles or possibly run us over.

Again, the video tells a different story.

And again it does not. You are making your argument based off of a 20/20 hindsight instead of what is required. The officers perception at the moment the use of force occured.

Originally posted by WTFover

He accounts for his actions once the window was breached, talking about Taser failures at close range.

But, wait, didn't he just say he didn't notice a Taser had been deployed until after he had punched her and gained control of her hands?

What he said was he saw another officer using his taser, and based on his experience with close taser deployment being non effective at times, continued to his course of action.

Originally posted by WTFover

The Weber County Attorney’s office looked at the video along with other evidence. The county attorney told ABC 4 he did not see any actions from the trooper that warranted a Class A misdemeanor or felony for him to prosecute.

Well, maybe the prosecutor needs to take a closer look, because just like Davenport, he got this one wrong.

Again he does not. The Prosecuting attorney is viewing the situation as the law requires. What did the officer perceive at the exact moment force was used. Hindsight cannot be used when reviewing a use of force.

Originally posted by WTFover
In case you missed it in this busy thread, here is my evaluation of the video www.abovetopsecret.com...

I read your response. While I respect your opinion, the entire critique is based off of the video and what you read. The officer actions you are critiquing is with the benefiet of hindsight. Some of your conclusions, and again with all due respect, do not take into account the Law, policy of the department, nor the Supreme Court standard.

While his actions were justified under law, its entirely possible he could be outside of departmental policy. We will have to wait for that investigation to be done.

Thanks for replying and the debate.

reply to post by Xcathdra


No problem.

I guess it depends on where you live, but I have had a few encounters with big-headed cops who constantly find loopholes to violate rights, because when it comes down to it they know it's their word against the suspect and usually the officer's actions end up being justified. Just a week or so ago I was reading a thread here on ATS where the OP had an encounter with such a cop. The OP had said something that pissed the cop off, so the cop pulls out a bullet, says he found it on the suspect, and used that as a means to justify an illegal search for his "weapon."

There are good officers (my uncle being one of them) and there are bad ones as well who abuse the powers they swear to use to protect and serve. The problems usually arise in a corrupt judicial system, though, if anything ever goes to trial. More often than not, officers get let off the hook with little or no investigation at all. Weeding out the good from the bad is where the problems arise

reply to post by apodictic


I see your point. As I said, all professions have their share of idiots who make others look bad, with their sole purpose in life serving as warnings to others.

The scenario you gave about the bullet.. Question.. Did that occur in the states? Was the driver on any type of parole or probation? What was the reason for the contact?

I understand the point was to show the cop was abusing his authority. The reason I ask is, for the states anyways, the presence of a bullet is not enough to warrant a search of a vehicle in most cases. Even if the guy had a warrant for his arrest, we are no longer allowed to search the vehicle based soley on that (search incident to arrest - Arizona vs. Gant - exception is plain view / dwi/dui).

Law Enforcement in the United States is not part of the Judicial system (We are part of the Executive).

We do the best we can and we will make mistakes along the way.

reply to post by Xcathdra


you guys dont know the law your not lawyers and do you know what Lawyers think of you?

Laws are very easy to understand


look at our heros we arent smart to know the law and they are doing customer police service to protect the lady

heros??? yeah right

being a cop isnt hard hardly dangerous but being a Cop is a tough Job to do Right, many most cant do the job right they are not elite nor great trained nor superhuman nor more ethical or moral they are people.

being a good officer very tough job the rest a joke.

now delta force guys are trained funny how the cops think they are all so bad ha ha

reply to post by Xcathdra


Yes, it occurred in Manhattan. I managed to search and dig up the thread for you

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm aware police are not part of the Judicial system, I meant that the judicial system is corrupt because they tend to favor LEOs over the average Joe. Not always, but a lot of the time.

Originally posted by HoldTheBeans
reply to post by badw0lf

 

So you would go beat up the "pigs" family because of this? Yeah that makes so much sense.

The man who responded to you is musing about joining your jungle justice.

Our country is a constitutional republic. Americans agree to the rule of law for all - equality before the law. When cops decide this or that military strategy is more important than the rule of law and place themselves above the rights of the citizens and the justice system, they have broken the most basic agreement of our society. We do the rule of law or the law of the jungle.

We will be seeing a lot of more jungle and a lot less law if we keep it up! The man who responded to you is musing about joining your jungle justice. That is why I said to you earlier that the current police practice of excessive force tatics are putting our American cops in more danger - not making them safer.

If you think cops can take justice into their own hands and dish out guilt and punishment in the streets, guess what will happen. You will be meeting what you created - people who will do the same to you and your loved ones because you live in the society you created. You are the public face of justice. The constitutional republic's rule of law is much safer and far superior to the jungle for everybody. Current police tatics and mentalities are nuts.

One punch in the face would have been enough. Since cop number two decided to use his tazer, both must have been in fear for their lives???? Charges are not dropped against drunk drivers. There has to be way more to this story. Why not just open the car door, pull her out and cuff her??? It's a sad story for all involved and one the public needed to see. Im glad to see no one is pulling the dreaded race card, so I can only guess that she was white.

reply to post by macman


Why did he not break the window and take her keys? If he had the time to stand there and punch her face like a baboon on a blitz, he had the time to reach in and grab her keys like a human being with a brain.

If this is what is passing off for normal police practice now, we are going to see a lot of people, who normally trust cops and cooperate, stop doing that out of disrespect, anger and fear. You are going to see cops lose the benefit of the doubt among juries. You are going to see the law of the jungle goes all ways and what you see now in social break down will get worse. This cop broke the social agreement of the rule of law. If it does not apply to cops, it does not apply to anyone.

The stupid military war tatics have to stop. This is not a battle field and you are not an occupying force. You are peace officers operating in a constitutional republic.

reply to post by bigrex


Go for the race bait! We all know whitey's rights are never violated by the cops. And who cares if they are? Whitey deserves it. And minorities are never racist, either.

reply to post by sara123123


If you read the article you would see she refused to roll the window down. The trooper did break out the window.

reply to post by sara123123


Wow i love how the race card is getting played... This actually had nothing to do with race or colour or language..
I think all the racist people must rather go live in Zimbabwe with the ZanuPF..

You didnt think this thread would be so popular?

Good read...
Gave you all stars..

reply to post by Arista


Um no the vid shows as soon as she is boxed in she gets abused by four cops..
I really dont understand how useless these cops are, I MEAN COME ON....
One cop cant break the car window so he leans in the passanger window with a stun gun? while the other hits her in the face on and on and on, these is really embarassing for the american police, whats next? Executing a guy for being in posestion of a weapon? Unbelieavable...

reply to post by Wademus


Please refer to my previous post, If he was worried she had a weapon why WHY did all the cops try and get in the car like that? Either they are complete idiots and are lucky they are still alive today? or they KNew she had no gun or knife.....
And you say a jab is a sissy punch? What is the purpose of a jab? To displace the person your hitting right? so Surely a Jab will have a effect on a 53 year old woman wouldnt it?
Your disturbing to believe cops can carry on like this, and what is worst is the fact that you believe woman can be punched like men cos of equal rights? And by the way it is no way near the same as the race card...

reply to post by Wademus


And also when you use a jab or a full puch, Its not the distance that your hand travels that messaures the strentgh behind the hand, you can just as easily break a persons noes from a few centemeters away from there face using a JAB.

reply to post by surfnow2


So you have punched a 53 year old Continuasly in the face?

reply to post by Xcathdra


She wawnt doubting he broke the window merely stating that instead of " breaking the window" Then pumeling her face in, He could of "Broke the window" and just as easily took the keys out the car

reply to post by Flighty


Driving erratic? She had just fled from the cops... An initial evaluation of her and her actions could have ruled out medical problems.. I love it.. In the 60's we had the hippies - Now we have the "Everything is a conspiracy" and the "say anything to discredit the cops" folks.

reply to post by WTFover

But, wait, didn't he just say he didn't notice a Taser had been deployed until after he had punched her and gained control of her hands?

I think comprehension skills come into play here... let me help you...

When the officer spoke of failing tazers at close range.. He was describing why he chose to punch her instead of taze her himself. He was not speaking about the other officer tazing her... I hope that clears up the blatantly obvious for you.

If you read everything with an open mind, you might be able to comprehend the information a little easier.