It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Evil_Santa
Originally posted by Cybertron
reply to post by simples
WE the PEOPLE are not animals
How delusional you might be, to believe that homo sapiens are not another form of animal -- an animal with a vast amount of intelligence, understanding and imagination, but an animal none-the-less.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.
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?
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.
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.
Hindsight cannot be used when reviewing a use of force.
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.
Originally posted by Cybertron
reply to post by Xcathdra
I love how this story evolved from him punching her to him punching mostly the tinting. Useless cop in a situation he COULD NOT controll without His little rage fit, and yes i agree three videos tells a better story than one, Only thing is, the one video was good enough to have mostly all visibility of the cop to the Surrounded car.
Oh and btw for the Ops who delete my post cos of not being on topic? Where are you when these idiots highjack this thread with there little personel arguments on "dick size" get a job.......
And once again MY view on this whole saga not Yours or Theres, but Mine.
Adios muchachos.........
Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by spikey
So you think he should have reached in and grabbed the keys? Are cars engineered different in your neck of the woods? The keys WILL NOT come out if the car is in drive... Let me assume you think he should have put the car in park for her? He should have leaned inside (not knowing where the shifter was) and opened his entire right side up to a possible attack?? really?
Many police have lost their lives making less dangerous assumptions.
If you have been drinking - Don't drive!
If a cop pulls you over you do not run!
Just because you don't want to go to jail, does not give you the right to jeopardize the lives of others on the road ways!
If a cop blocks you in after chasing you - stop resisting!
Originally posted by Cybertron
...............you all presume many things...............