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: 27
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Cybertron
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?


UHP trooper punches woman after car chase

OGDEN, Utah (ABC 4 News) – A Utah Highway Patrol trooper is on paid leave resulting from an incident after a car chase in August.

Police say on August 28th 2010, Darla Jo Wright was driving her car erratically and evaded troopers after they attempted to pull her over.

UHP troopers were able to stop the chase by performing a “pit maneuver” that caused Wright’s silver 2000 Pontiac to lose control.

More info has been released from the Troopers report of the incident.

In his police report Davenport stated:

"I used my window punch to break the front window but the window tint stopped the glass from falling out of the frame. 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. She refused to comply with commands to give us her hands. Due to my close proximity to the suspect and my experience with Taser failure at such close distances I delivered three close hand strikes to her head in an attempt to gain compliance with our commands. 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. The strikes worked and we were able to grab her hands. At this time I observed that Trooper Whitehead has deployed his Taser as sometime during the contact."

Davenport is currently on paid administrative leave as UHP continues an internal investigation into the matter.

This is released from the Troopers report. He accounts for the hits to the window, and why the windw required more force than normal to break. He accounts for his actions once the window was breached, talking about Taser failures at close range.

To those not familiar with how Taser works, the probes transmit on the same frequency as the brain to control motor control. The signal from taser is "stronger" than the brain signal, causing the muscle to involuntarily spasm. The effectiveness of the Taser is dependant on penetration and well as the probe spread.

As with any circuit, the path of travel is the path of least resistance between the 2 contact points. In a close hit with probes, the taser can lose effectiveness. That information is supported by data from Taser as well as from reports by Police Agencies.

According the UHP, their is still an internal ivestigation ongoing.

Utah Highway Patrol Spokesman Brian Hyer said UHP could not comment on this specific case but stated an investigation is ongoing, "“We do have the ability and responsibility to hold people accountable for their actions in any case where there may be issues that are serious and we take that responsibility very seriously.”

The Prosecuting attorney for Weber County reviewed the dash cam footage as well as the Troopers actions and came to the conclusion:

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.

As far as charges against the suspect.

He (Weber County PA) is in the process of prosecuting Wright for her actions that led to the pursuit.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:59 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

Sample v. Bailey

In this case, Ofc. Bailey had claimed "qualified immunity" from a excessive force suit filed by C. Samples. In the lower courts, Bailey had claimed a perceived threat granted him qualified immunity. Bailey claimed he thought Samples was reaching into his jacket for a weapon and fired on him seven times. Samples claimed he was not reaching into his jacket, but instead was reaching for the outside of the cabinet, in which he was hiding, in attempt to climb out as was being ordered by Bailey and his partner.

The lower court denied Bailey's defense and found him liable for damages.

On August 24, 2004, the district court denied Bailey’s motion for summary judgment on the
ground of qualified immunity. The court found that when the facts were taken in the light most
favorable to Sample, he had alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.
Moreover, the court held that there was a genuine factual dispute related to whether Bailey’s actions violated that clearly established right. Accordingly, the court denied the summary judgment motion. Bailey filed this interlocutory appeal shortly thereafter.

The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Cowan ex rel. Estate of Cooper v. Breen 352 F.3d 756 (2nd Cir. 2003),

the Federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) affirmed the denial of Summary Judgment to the Officer at issue, because of a factual discrepancy.

The "factual discrepancy" was that Ofc. Breen claimed qualified immunity, due his "perceived threat" of Cooper attempting to run him over with his vehicle. However, Breen was denied the defense, after experts examined the evidence and found Breen had not fired his two fatal shots from the front of Cooper's car, as he had claimed.

So, since there was a genuine issue of material fact, i.e. where the Officer was standing and whether he was truly under “threat”, had to be resolved by a Jury. The Point? Once again there must be a “threat” to defend the use of lethal force. Here even the “perceived threat” of the Officer was not enough, because of the expert’s testimony.

A couple of important paragraphs from Graham v. Connor

The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.

As in other Fourth Amendment contexts, however, the "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation

The key word in each paragraph is "reasonable", as per the Fourth Amendment. What the Court says, in this decision, is that LE are given the benefit of the doubt, but the "facts and circumstances" must not be in direct conflict with his/her claim of perceived threat.

Another statement, from the same decision, addresses Davenport's claim that he was justified to use punches to her face, to distract her and gain control of her hands.

An officer's evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer's good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional.

And this is from February 2010...

Police Officers Denied Qualified Immunity In Police Brutality Civil Rights Case

Sanchez v. Hialeah Police Dep't, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 27607 (11th Cir. Fla. Dec. 16, 2009)

The position Officer Del Nodal argued was that his reaction was objectively reasonable when he opened the car door, punched Sanchez in the eye, and sprayed him with mace after Sanchez broke the police car window...

...The Court of Appeals ruled that a jury, taking the facts in a light most favorable to Sanchez, could reasonably find that Officer Del Nodal violated Sanchez's right to be free from excessive force and that qualified immunity does not apply...

...The Court in this particular case analyzed the claim of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment's 'objective reasonableness' standard." Thus, the question was whether the officer's conduct is objectively reasonable in light of the facts confronting the officer. Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is 'reasonable' under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.

So again, the Courts agree the claim of qualified immunity, via "perceived threat", must be free from "factual discrepancy", in order to be valid.

Unfortunately, too much erroneous info is given to young officers, often times by the more "aggressive" officers. A perceived threat defense is not a given and should never be taught as such. Ultimately, it is up to FTOs to ensure new officers know what is necessary to do their job, safely, effectively and within the confines of the law. The last is the most important, in order to retain the consent of the governed.

I can't tell you how many times I've read reports from officers with the statement "I used the amount of force necessary to effect the arrest." That always sent up a red flag that they might have used excessive force. Some had just been taught to use it every time force was applied, as a sort of catch-all phrase.

Stay safe!

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:23 PM
reply to post by Cybertron

Show ignorance much? I will address you as such.. First of all.. Have you seen the 2nd dash cam? No? Then watch it.. You'll see her car lurch forward. Drunk? Yes, that is what the report is saying! Fat? Did you see the video? She looked like a potato with a head. Now we have determined that my post, was accurate, what exactly do you have to vomit?

lets not beat around the bush... Drunk drivers are like drunk people with a gun firing into a crowd. Then this mental midget decides, she is going to be the 1 woman in a 4 cylinder to escape from the police...

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

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:52 AM
reply to post by Resurrectio

And all your comments or based on what? is there any evidence supporting your claims?
So she is overweight? you telling me like 60 % of americans arent over weight? hahahahahahahaha
you mock her, but in actuall fact she did not kill anyone she did not assualt the cop with her car or her own self
she was a drunk driver presumably which was thrown out of court until certain time according to some....

Again you make claims to suit what you say which shows your an idiot, and with more people like you its a wonder why your country is doing so bad.

I want to see evidence,,,,, and yes i saw the video, "a lurching effect" hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha thats your reason?
Close your mouth and stop stealing our oxygen.......

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:00 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

"Utah Highway Patrol Spokesman Brian Hyer said UHP could not comment on this specific case but stated an investigation is ongoing"

Yup and once again you take what you want to suit your argument...

The case is still being investigated, he is on paid leave??
the courts havent charged her yet, so everything is what you presume..
I thought this site encourages to deny ignorance, you sir seem to put out ignorant comments.

the info you gave is of his testimony which we all no People lie to get out of trouble,
I dont want to hear what that pig has to say, i want hard proof and factuall info on her arrest, that they are charging her for drunken driving and that the cop is not going to be charged,
Not info that says his side of the story, or that she was boxed in for "erratic" driving not "drunken" driving
i want the proof of the pudding....

And yes i have seen the other cam and still a lurch movement of the car doesnt mean she was trying to escape,
Maybe she was nervous? you were not there.
There are numerous factors you can list on whys and what ifs, but what the evidence shows is a "fat" cop as the previous guy explained the woman to be, beat up an old lady behind her steering wheel.....

You dont need to be a rocket scientist to realize theres a huge problem with that.

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:01 AM
I'd chalk that one up to poor training and yes, a bit of temper involved there as well on the part of the cop. Considering that this particular police force has armed officers with tasers, surely they must also have provided them with pepper spray (and if not, then perhaps there's a bigger problem here than just an overly aggressive cop). If I was that cop, I'd bust out the window as he did, but then I'd flood the whole interior of the car (and the lady's face) with pepper spray. It's mighty tough to try and drive when you can't see a damn thing! Then he could have grabbed her hands and subdued her. IMO being temporarily blinded for a short period of time would be better than perhaps suffering a concussion or other head injury.

Another thing to consider is that the side of the head, around the ears, is where the human skull is at it's thinnest, so punches delivered there can be particularly devastating. A canister of pepper spray (if it was available, if not, then that pd might really want to invest in some) would have done the trick and there would be no allegations of brutality.

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by Cybertron

Show ignorance much? I will address you as such.. First of all.. Have you seen the 2nd dash cam? No? Then watch it.. You'll see her car lurch forward. Drunk? Yes, that is what the report is saying! Fat? Did you see the video? She looked like a potato with a head. Now we have determined that my post, was accurate, what exactly do you have to vomit?

lets not beat around the bush... Drunk drivers are like drunk people with a gun firing into a crowd. Then this mental midget decides, she is going to be the 1 woman in a 4 cylinder to escape from the police...

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

I show Ignorance? You must get your head examined...... What you read on media is obviously not the whole story, and probaly only from one site.... do your home work before i give you a F for Fail................

Indications are that an estimated 66 percent of U.S. adults are either overweight or obese and 16.3% of children are obese --- Well mr potato head, you obviously dont see a problem with your comments on her.....

Everything the cops said was presumed by the cop he actually said eratic driving not drunk driving,

this is like explaining A B C to a 5th grade child........

Are you a Bad cop yourself? cos that would make sense....

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:23 AM
reply to post by WTFover

We are arguing the same point in different ways. What I am saying is the Supreme Court criteria when reviewing use of force justification is what did the officer perceive at the exact moment the force was used. We both agree Officers can be charged for excessive use of force.

My argument in this particular thread when explaining the supreme court standard is because of the arguments that completely disregard those standards IE people are basing their viewpoint / objections off of the information available to them from the media / police report. Since we had the sequence of events and the entire story was put together from start to finish, it skews the objectivity, as we have seen, and people automatically assumed it was an excessive use of force.

My argument in this thread, as well as a few others, is to look at the actions of the Officer in the context it occured in, and not hindsight. The Camera does not always show the whole story.

As far as qualified / civil immunity I completely understand how it works. Most citys these days find it cheaper to just pay out rather than take it to court, which imop is sad. For LEO's to fall under civil immunity we have to be within the limits of the law, within Federal law, and within departmental policy. Any deviation from any one of those can result in immunity being disqualified, The city as well as the department can disassociate the officer, laying the entire focus of a civil law suits right on their doorstep.

We can face criminal charges at the local/state level and also be charged un 42 USC 1983 - Civil Rights Violation. Nothing makes an officer's day better than being summoned into the Majors office with a few detectives, Federal Agents and having your Miranda as well as your Garrity rights read to you. (To those not familiar with Garrity Rights, they apply to sworn Law Enforcement Officers only. Even though we maintain our Constitutional Rights to refuse to answer a question that might incriminate us, we still have a chain of command, and as such we can be ordered to reveal information. The Garrity rights allows the order to be given, and we comply, but any information from that order cannot be used in court during a criminal prosecution).

Anyways, just to recap.. Yes, LEO's can be charged with excessive force, even in the event that what they perceived turned out to be something completely different. My argument is placing the incident into the context it occured in, and not hindsight, which is what people were doing in this thread.
edit on 27-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:25 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

So what there was a midget hiding in the backseat with a ak47?

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:28 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

Wright was booked into the Weber County Jail for investigation of charges that included eluding police, reckless driving, assault on a police officer and driving under the influence. But court records showed Wright was charged with just one count of third-degree felony failure to stop or respond at the command of police.

She said she wants the video of the incident seen so that individuals can decide whether Andrew Davenport's account of the incident is accurate

He added it was not unusual for an internal investigation to remain pending for several months.

"The review process does take time because several pairs of eyes look at it," Hyer said. "That time allows for a very critical review to be done

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:30 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

Oh and im still waiting for the link that says she was guilty of all offences, and that he is not guilty for beating her up........
(real proof) Not his word against hers, and i highly doubt you will find any evidence backing up any of your claims saying she was wrong he was right due to the fact the investigation is still on....
Proof of pudding.....

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:33 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

And i understand you, when you say the cops may use exssessive force when needed i dont disagree, but when you stick up for a cop like this one,
it makes me wonder , is it gangsters running your country? This cop makes good cops look bad.....

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:36 AM
reply to post by Cybertron

Then you need to go back and read the article. You will note at the bottom they interviewed the Prosecuting Attorney, who reviewed all of the reports, as well as the video, and stated the troopers actions did not arise to any criminal offense.

The Utah Highway Patrol is conducting an internal investigation, which is not criminal in nature. Their investigation is to determine whether or not the Troopers actions were within departmental policy.

The suspect, again according to the prosecuting attorney, will have charges filed against her.

Out of curiosity, what more are you wanting in this thread? We have provided Dash cam footage, links to media reports, as well as portions of the Officer's reports.

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:40 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

And once again your ignorant............

The links you provide says one guy doesnt think he did wrong "BUT" the invistigation will continue....
Come on M U S T I S P E L L I T F O R Y O U

the case is not over why are you being ignorant and stubborn?

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:41 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

And if his actions were not part of department policy? then is it criminal?

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:49 AM
reply to post by Schrecken Licht

A few points, with all due respect.

Pepper Spray is not effective on the entire population. There are people who are not affected by it, and that group gets larger when you factor in prison / jail inmates. This is one of the reasons Fox brand (Pepper Spray) SHU (scoville heat units - a jalapeno pepper is about5k SHU) has been issued (its the brand I carry). Most normal Pepper Spray is around 500k up to around 2-2.5 million. Fox is 5.3 million.

Secondly Pepper Spray could have been used, however when in a close contact situation, its going to affect everyone in the area. Even more so since you are spraying it into a confined space. The other thing to keep in mind is if the interior was flooded, and the suspect managed to get free of the patrol cars blocking her in, now you have an intoxicated person, who already demonstrated they are willing to place others at risk by fleeing from the police, that has yet another factor on top of the drunk driving.

Unless you found a different article or report, I did not see it say anything about punching her on the side of the head, in the temple region. I could have missed it though, so not trying to dismiss that.

t any given point during our jobs, you will encounter people who do not react as expected to our tools. This is where distraction, or change the channel, techniques come in. Even if we spray a person, there is no gaurantee it will work. Since time is of the essence in these encounters, you immediately move to a different tool if the first has shown no signs of being effective, up to and including hard impact (closed fists, baton etc).

Its always easy to say a cop should have done this or that, but in the end, until you are in that situation and are forced to make snap decisions that literally fall into the realm of life and death, it truely is easier said than done. Dont get me wrong I understand what you are saying.. Just offering up the rest of the "why didnt they" argument.

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:55 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

For every other possibility that seems substansual, of her not being beatin like that you come up with an excuse of why the cop could not use another force,
Where you there? do you have the exact pepper spray he uses?
Your facts and your findings mean absolutely nothing,
This is a big guy beating up a small old lady, and for some reason all his training went out the door and the only thing he could grip was get in and beat her down...

Im truley hoping that when you patrol as a police officer you dont have the same outlook as this idiot...
If you do your in the wrong profession, (Have you tried Merc work) that seems more in the line for thugs like this.

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:56 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

Oh and i garentee you, if i spray ANY pepper spray in your face there will be an effect....

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:06 AM
reply to post by Cybertron

I am going to clarfy some things for you since we seem to keep going back to personal attacks. I am not sure if you are from the States or elsewhere, but you have a unique sense of perception.

When we are patrolling, we dont drive by a car and go - "Hey, its a drunk driver".

Why? Because the next question is going to be, how do you know they are drunk.

What we do is observe the driving.
* - Is the speed of the suspect vehicle inconsistent? (slowing down, speeding up, slowing down, speeding up).
* - Is the driver able to maintain lane control? (crossing centerline / fogline many times).
* - Is the vehicle travelling below the minimum posted speed limit (if on highway / controlled road) and if so is it consistent.
* - When at intersections, does the vehicle make wide right turns (crossing over centerline and correcting to be back in the lane during the turn).
* - What time is it? Bar closing time? Are there special events going on? Pub Crawl? Music Venue in town?
* - When the traffic stop is initiated, does the driver pull over right away? slam on their brakes? take a long time to pull over (while passing up acceptable stop areas.
* - Did the person pull their car onto the shoulder, or is it half in the road, half out.
* - Did the driver pull off to the side and kept going (Ive had this happen, where they drove off the shoulder and down a hill).
* - Are their headlights on?

Some things to keep in mind -
Time of day - If its middle of the night, other possibilities exist (tired/drunk/medical/lost)
Contact - Is there any intoxicating odor coming from the vehicle? If so where? From the interior itself, or the driver?
When you asked for license and insurance, did they hand you those items, or parts of those items? (Its common for intoxicated people to hand credit cards nd insurance cards, and I have had this occur a lot).
What do their eyes look like? - Glassy, thousand mile stare, watering, redness, etc etc etc?

I can go on and on, but what I described is the detection of a potential law violation, observation of that vehicle to see if the vehicle behavior is isolated, or repeat violations. We have to build our case, going from observaton, to reasonable suspicion, to PC arrest for driving while intoxicated / under the influence of drugs.

If we make those same observations and initiate a traffic stop, and the person flees (in our line of work we call this a clue) the red flags start going off that there is an issue.

In this case, from the media report and the released officer reports, The Trooper did not violate any criminal statutes.

Contrary to your diatribe, not all cops are bad or evil.

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:10 AM

Originally posted by Cybertron
reply to post by Xcathdra

Oh and im still waiting for the link that says she was guilty of all offences, and that he is not guilty for beating her up........
(real proof) Not his word against hers, and i highly doubt you will find any evidence backing up any of your claims saying she was wrong he was right due to the fact the investigation is still on....
Proof of pudding.....

You really need to come down off your high horse, take a step back, and actually read the posts instead of glancing them over. I never said she pleaded guilty to the charges. What I did say is the Prosecuting Attorney was going to charge her for her actions.

I did not say the TRooper was not guilty. What I did say was the Prosecuting Attorney reviewed all the officer reports as well as the dashcam footage and found no law violatins.

The continuing investigation is by the Utah State Police, and is done to see if the Trooper violated any policies or procedures. That investigation is not criminal, its an internal disciplinary review.

new topics

<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in