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.

 

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

page: 26
59
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

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.


"we are not animals" is a saying....the fact that you actually bring the "homo sapiens is an animal" into it only paints a clear picture of someone graping at straws




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Actually it meets criteria for the use of several different options of force, including punches to the face.


I've seen several models of the force continuum and I've never seen one that permits punches to the face, when the person is resisting without force. In this case, the woman "gripping" the steering wheel should have been met with pain compliance techniques, i.e. pressure point control tactics, after verbal commands failed.


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 believe you are stretching the limits of the intent of the concept of perceived threat, a bit. An example of a perceived threat issue would be someone concealing a hand behind their back and, through gestures or statements, suggest they are armed. When they then quickly bring that hand out in a threatening fashion or quickly with a harmless object, an officer would be justified in using deadly force, due to "perceived threat".

Just because an officer makes a claim of perceived threat is not sufficient to justify the use of force. What comes into play here is the evidence, in this case the video, must support Davenport's claims that he felt threatened. I submit it does not.


I understand your argument, but it falls outside the established criteria because its based on a 20/20 hindsight view.


Believe me, if I saw anything that supported Davenport's statements, I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, there is nothing. He has just written a report to attempt to justify his actions, after the fact. It is not hindsight. It is an examination of the evidence, which should corroborate the testimony of the officer. And, this time it does not.

Every officer knows, or should know, that every action he makes may be scrutinized by someone, after the fact, possibly by a team of attorneys for weeks and months. That is not to say he/she shouldn't take necessary action for fear of repercussions. Instead, it should be an incentive to ensure he/she is "reasonable and prudent".


The question is, what did the officer perceive at the moment he used force? In this case, the trooper cited refusal of verbal commands,


I'll take his word for that, due to the fact the editing of the video could have removed the segments wherein verbal commands were being given. Unfortunately, if the video contains a timestamp, it has been removed or obscured.


refusal to roll the window down requiring him to break the window,


I'm still with you here...


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.


Okay, now we are not seeing eye to eye. "Still running and in gear" is a long way from "floored" and the engine "revving". Also, since you injected the word "perceived" here again... It would not matter if he did "perceive" the engine "revving" or "floored", since it is plainly not true. I've watched the video several times now and have not seen the car "lurch" forward, after it was trapped between the two patrol cars. If you will provide a time mark, I would be glad to review it and alter my argument to reflect that.

How does the officer's vantage point have anything to do with whether or not the car "lurched forward"? It either moved or it didn't and, if it did, he would have seen it move, unless he had his back turned.


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


There is no point and I didn't claim there was. All of my statements have been based on what was observable and what Davenport stated in his report.


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.


Okay, now we must relate those statements to the case at hand. According to Davenport's statements, the woman's hands were "gripping the steering wheel", indicating they were clearly visible and were not a threat. As a matter of fact, this is exactly where everyone's hands should be, when they are stopped by LE. And, for those who care to know, turn on the interior lights, if you are stopped at night.

And, to restate my previous question... What was he going to do with control of her hands, when the door was still closed? Where were the hands going, with the door closed? Gaining control of her hands wouldn't have prevented her from attempting to drive away. Her foot would have been what needed to be controlled, if that threat existed.


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.


Again, a "perception" of a threat must be corroborated and must be the same as any reasonable and prudent person would perceive. "I perceived a threat" is not a get out of jail free phrase and should never be accepted as such.


Hindsight cannot be used when reviewing a use of force.


Sure it can, when the evidence clearly does support an officer's claims. Referring back to my previous scenario, it would be unacceptable to review a video of the man bringing up his arm, pausing it to show the object was a cell phone instead of a handgun, and claiming the officer should have seen the same thing.


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.


Sure they do.

And, to clarify my position, I have said the officer should be tried for assault, just as anyone else would be and that opinion is based on the available evidence. That is, if the woman chose to make a complaint, it would be incumbent upon the prosecutor to act on the behalf of the "victim" and allow a judge or jury decide guilt or innocence.

"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
edit on 25-1-2011 by WTFover because: corrected punctuation in last paragraph



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by doobydoll
 


police officers are known to beat their wives go figure huh lol



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


I don't want to put up a wall of text, so I am not going to quote all of your responses. By the way I mean no disrespect with any of my responses to you, so hopefully you are not taking them as such.

While I understand what you are saying, and see where you are coming from when it comes to use of force, accountibility of actions to justify that use of force etc. The standard that was set, and I appologize for continually coming back to it, but it is key in this area is:

What the officer perceived at the moment force was used.

In the 10 years ive been doing law enforcement, I can say that camera footage does not always show the entire story. Minor details can be lost, and even the camera angle itself can capture an event that looks completely different from the actions taken. I have posted these videos many times before, so I wont drag them back into this response unless people want to see them.

The reports are completed and submitted. These reports will cover each officers actions from the moment of contact all the way through the pursuit up to the end point. That report will be reviewed, along with the dash cam footage, for coroboration. However, the dashcam footage cannot be taken by itself to explain the events and actions.

An example of that is the dashcam footage of the pursuit, where teh suspect was shot and killed. One dash cam clearly shows an officer shooting an unarmed suspect in the back. The backup officers dashcam caught a different angle, showing the suspect removing an item from his waistband and pointing it at another officer, which is why the first officer fired. Had it not been for the 2nd dash cam, the outcome for the officer could have been very very different.

They had to pit the lady to get her to stop, at which point she was blokced in. The car was swarmed with caution, and the driver continued to refuse verbal commands. The window was broken out, but held together by the window tinting. Several of the punches on cam is the trooper removing that broken window. We do not know if the taser was deployed by the other officer, and if it was whether or not it was effective.

The second dash cam view does show the vehicle learch forward, pushing agasint the patrol vehicle.

Now, with all this being said, the other issue I see that is causing confusion is use of force and what constitutes what. A suspect does not have to be holding a gun or knife to raise their actions to that of deadly force. Any object that can be used in an offensive manner could qualifiy, including a motor vehicle.

In this case deadly force was not used. The lady ignored verbal commands, still had her hand on the wheel, car running and was in gear (second dash cam footage confirms that with the learching motion). The suggestions others have made:

* - Remove the car keys - Cant be done with the car in gear
* - Turn the ignition off - Can be done while in gear, but requires placing yourself in an exposed position across the suspect, who could be armed.
* - Drag the suspect from the car - I posted some videos showing its easier said than done (did the lady have a seat belt on? What type of grip did she have on the wheel? Aside from possibly being drunk / under influence of drugs can also change a persons strenght / resolve / pain thresholds). Car is still in operation and in gear.
* - Shooting the tires out - This will depend on agency policy and state law. Unless its a violent felony, chances are this is not an option. Spike strips would be if the agencys assisting are equipped with them.

Intoxicated / under the influence of drugs causes many problems for the police. Pain threshold is different, if present at all. Lack of fine motor control and rational thought process. I brought up the rodeny king incident before, and I will again. If people actually watch the entire video you will see the other attempts the officers made were not succesful at all.

My point is, and has been, that hindsight cannot be used in incidents like this in the manner people are demanding. It will be reviewed from a law standpoint, policy standpoint and civil rights violation standpoint. The PA for county has already clear the troopers actions as valid under law. The UHP is reviewing for policy violations.

People disgaree with the troopers actions, and thats fin as its your opinion. Anytime something occurs, and those actions are viewed by people who are not familiar with the ins and outs of law, its not going to make sense, and will at times look excessive, when in reality its not and its justified.

Not all people do their jobs as they should, and again all professiona have their fair share of idiots. Before jumping to a conclusion though, people should at least take the time to do some research before condemning actions they are not familiar with. It doesnt mean they have to agree with those actions, but at the very least it might explain why the actions were taken.

To specifically address part part of your response about taking into account the law. You stated you did, and that the officer should be charged with assault. Respectfully, the officer's assault is justifiable due to the circumstances. Under law, anyone can defend themselves or others (some states will require a person to retreat if they can), uncluding the use of force to do that.

As far as the hand comments. A person in that situation, behind the wheel, engine running, in gear, with police trying to stop you, will do what they can to escape, as in this case. The moment the officer has the hands, the suspects focus shifts (changing the channel, same method as punching / hitting / pepper spraying etc).

The new mind set will be to engage the person who has the hands, and not on driving the vehicle. In addition, the added mindset is if the driver does continue the attempts to break the car free, he now runs the risk of injuring himself, and at time self preservation can kick in.

The other point I would like to make is the use of distraction techniques. People who are intoxicated have a very very hard time multi tasking, if they can even do it at all. This is why the field sobriety tests require more than one task at a time (balancing and counting out loud, walking in a straight line, heel to toe, counting the steps out loud). Again, I dont expect people to understand this, but I put it out there anyways.

Thanks for the reply



edit on 25-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
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.
*snip*
Mod Note: Please stay on Topic – Review This Link.
And once again MY view on this whole saga not Yours or Theres, but Mine.
Adios muchachos.........
edit on Wed Jan 26 2011 by Jbird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
This is yet another ridiculous overuse of force within a community! The police are give basic free run to make the streets a war zone and abuse their power. When one of them #s up and then have the audacity to back each other up when the # hits the fan!



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I don't care who you are. Cops shouldn't punch you. Period.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


'The 'officer' said he wanted to stun her, so she couldn't drive off...'

Resourceful woman beater isn't he!

Perhaps someone a little higher in rank than a Sergeant, should tell this idiot that reaching across and removing the car's ignition keys achieves the same result as repeatedly punching a woman twice his age, and half his size...if his motivation really was to stop the car, rather than to vent his anger on a defenceless woman.

Bet this brave bloke beats his wife up too.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by sumthinfishy
 


Let me assure you one thing.. This fat drunk pig will think twice before she stumbles into her car next time.. Maybe she will call a cab instead of risking the lives of others.

When she hit the police vehicle, she is fortunate she wasn't shot. If a motorist rams a police car or attempts to hit a police officer, that officer has the legal right to use lethal force.. She is actually pretty lucky all she got was a swollen face.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
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!



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

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.........


What I love is how the cop haters have changed. First it was they didn't press charges on her so obviously the cops were in the wrong. Now that a link was provided that shows the cop was well within his bounds and charges are pending on the woman yet the cop haters still continue their attacks. Now its why didn't he grab the keys when anybody who's driven a car knows they don't come out while its in drive or he must beat his wife or this one saying he ad a rage fit etc. then run off. I guess reality is hard for some to grasp or they just hate cops no matter the situation. Only conclusion one can come to.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

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!


I agree with the anti-drink drive comments, but that's as far as it goes.

Yes, i do think he should have reached in and removed the keys. Reaching in to remove the keys is no different than reaching in punch heck out of her, either way he has half of his upper torso in the car.

Ignition keys will come out if turned anti-clockwise, past the 'locking' position, at least in my neck of the woods they do.

Isn't the expectation that a police officer, especially one that would be involved with car pursuits, can perform simple car identification and basic operation a reasonable one? Putting a car into neutral (park), and taking the keys out would have taken no time at all...faster than the time it took to punch the woman four or five times.

If the officer thought he was in danger from a concealed weapon or some such, shouldn't the tazer have been enough to assuage his fears?

She was tazered *and* punched repeatedly.

If the officer is too fearful to do his job in a manner becoming an officer of the law, with due diligence to proper procedure and respect for the public he *serves*, he should look for another job...perhaps a boxing gymnasium would be a more appropriate place for him to earn his living...he's got the experience..



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Comprehension brother, comprehension.. Show me where he had more than his arm in the car and I will give you a cookie..

To get those keys out, he would have had to determine location of shifter - Then miraculously pressed the brake down to be able to shift it into park.. Then reach in to get the keys.. really? That is what you think he should have done?

maybe in pre 1990 cars you can take the keys out.. If you turn back past the initial position in an ignition, you CAN NOT take the keys out.. It simply allows you to use your "accessories" in the vehicle..


edit on 1/26/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by HoldTheBeans
 


Spare me the sob story police propaganda mate.

I am not anti police, a cop hater, or any such nonsense. I am against brutal blokes, in positions of responsibility and a certain degree of authority, who think it's an acceptable tactic to repeatedly punch hell out of a female's head, because 'he thought she may run into their cars' or drive away.

OK, your cars obviously have different ignition safety than ours do in the UK, so forget removing the keys...how about puncturing the tyres?...positioning their squad cars front and back of her car? Or any of the *other* methods he had been *TRAINED* to use in similar situations?

Or is repeatedly punching drivers in the head, part of official training regimens in the US now then?

If it is, it's hardly surprising that a growing number of US citizenry are becoming more and more anti-police and disillusioned with law enforcement in general!

When there are myriad, officially sanctioned methods to pacify a drunk driver, and given the circumstances of this particular case, there is no excuse for what this copper did, none.

Again, please do not imagine i am some kind of anarchist or anti police type, i most certainly am not.

I do actually admire police in general, except when they behave inappropriately as this one did. I would not like to live in today's world without a police force keeping the scumbags in check, but it's always the idiot brutes like this guy who give the *whole* service a bad image and reputation.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Your post makes me think you didn't even watch the video.. You suggest that they should have blocked her in.. They did.. But she was hammering down the gas pedal to attempt to get out of the jam..

I am not going to argue it.. You think they should have gone out of their way to the same ending...

I am ecstatic that this "holier than though" middle aged woman, that thought she was above the law by driving drunk, running from the police, refusing police commands once blocked in - was given a tough dose of reality.. It would be safe to assume that this exact scenario, will not happen again with her.

Again, by ramming the police car and attempting to get out of the blockade, she was in violation of using a deadly weapon (the car) and could have been shot! She got lucky!


You said "a womans head" I thought we were equal, we aren't? Girls petitioning to be on High school football and baseball and wrestling because we are equal.... Womens rights!!! Womens rights !!! (unless we need to use being a woman as a defense) right?

All of that political crap aside - Woman or man, once she broke the law, she became a criminal not a gender!
edit on 1/26/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


Ey , so presumably she is a drunk fat pig?
-Snip-. for one who says it was an automatic car, and if it were while she accelerated the car would of moved, i know i have an automatic and a manual car, so your remarks make no sense.
you all presume many things but the there is no video evidance backing up each and everyone of your ideas or theorys, fact is in the video and as they say proof is in the pudding, so if you guys got no pudding why the hell are you commenting on what you think happened. Now if theres evidence besides the crappy cops word of mouth then please lets hear it.

And as for they guy who called her a fat pig? why is she a fat pig? do you know her? does she roll around in the mud? or is it no one cares what your saying so you got upset?
To me it seems your a woman basher yourself.

So this lady never stoped, so this lady was presumably driving under the influense, Did she ride over a kid? did she kill a cop? did she or the car actually assault anything?
Get your own eyes checked he was and had more than enough time while punching her to take the keys for goodness sake could you see her head bobbing back and forth from the shots to the face?

I think people who stick up for dirty cops like this dont know how a situation like that feels like, and i think cops like this give good cops a bad name.

Fire the cop without pension.........

and again MY VIEW not your so i really dont care what negative things you have to say. Read it dont read
your computer and your Small brain....

Mod Note: Courtesy is Mandatory – Please Review Link.
edit on Wed, 26 Jan 2011 23:38:03 -0600 by MemoryShock because: Civility Reminder.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by HoldTheBeans
 


I would like this link that shows the police are continuing the case of drunken driving ect ect ect, and the link that the investigation is over where it shows this woman basher cop is in the right and let off the hook?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

edit on 26-1-2011 by Arista because: done playing with silly people



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I wish Lindsay Lohan was the one getting punched instead of a 53 year old woman. That's all I have left to say. lol



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cybertron
...............you all presume many things...............



This statement right here is exactly why the US Supreme Court set the standard of "what did the officer perceive at the exact moment the force was used."

This thread is proof of that, with many point - countrpoint arguments being brought up. Even the dash cams showed different perspectives because of angles, which reinforces the argument that a video does not always show the entire story.

The only people who know what occured are the Officers present, and the susepct. That is the reason why hindsight 20/20 cannot be used.




top topics



 
59
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join