It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
He (Weber County PA) is in the process of prosecuting Wright for her actions that led to the pursuit.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
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.....