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: 30
59
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by Cybertron
 


Cybertron, you really should learn how to discuss topics without calling names and flipping out. You having an adult temper tantrum DOES NOT help your cause. I despise drunk driving, and think there should be a mandatory 5 year sentence for even first time offenders. My opinion aside... you keep saying that her charges were dropped or minimized... You have not been providing a reason or source, implying they were dropped due to some misdeed from the police. If you say it wasn't because of the misdeed by the police, then tell me why you think they were dismissed or minimized?

What if this woman was mentally unstable?



But the two mental health
professionals who examined her said her mental state Aug. 28 "made it impossible to proceed with the case," Smith said. At the time of the pursuit and the confrontation with the troopers, Smith said Wright was off her mental health medications and was "unable to form the intent necessary to commit a crime."
Smith said privacy laws preclude him revealing Wright's diagnosed mental condition.


www.standard.net...

I understand your side of this...kind of....
I have a few questions for you.
1) Did she risk others lives?
2) Did she resist?
3) Should an officer change his tactics based on age and gender of the criminal?

I really hope your intelligent enough to process this without saying the police should have been more compassionate, due to the fact that she was mentally unstable. One day these officers could under estimate the wrong mentally ill person, and be killed for that miscalculation.



Do i show any signs that im throwing a temper tantrum?
Whos life did she risk? was there children playing in the street by her car that time of night?
Im pretty sure the officer does a risk assesment before doing anything? if not, he is an idiot... and not trained well..
My friend dont question my intelligence, your the one being ignorant, and im pretty sure like 75% agree with me on the topic of the cop is in the wrong to have punched her, he could of easily used minamal force... if he did a risk assesment he would have noticed her hands were not off the wheel, so she wasnt reaching for a weapon,
He even said he struggled to break the tint so surely he could see her close up, Really? your telling me he thought he would get his ass kicked by the granny?

You try and try to find reasons and to change peoples minds on this subject and the problem with that is your not accepting that we are entitled to our own thoughts, And yes friend WE believe he handled the situation wrong.




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


Your presume many things once again, what if is a chance......
You keep telling us your friend was taken by a 15 year old we dont dispute that sux,
but surely the 15 year old is an entirely different person,
What if she pulled over at the next gas station,
what if she only had 2 blocks to get home,
what if she thought the cops where the bad guy in that circumstance
what if the car had a malfunction
what if she was having an epileptic fit
so many what ifs and we can carry on the whole day stating possibilities,
What we saw on the video is hard proof of what was not what if.

So try and have an intellectual conversation with me without pressing your thoughts on me, esp when i think there ignorant..



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Cybertron
 


I am not trying to change your mind.. I am pointing out the flaws in your logic is all. I dont agree~! Period!
Aren't we all just stating our opinions? Why is me telling you mine, different than you telling me yours? Why is it held to a different standard.

What you are failing to realize is this.... You feel my logic is flawed on this.. And me yours... Whats the problem? Should we just shut up? Or should I continue to answer your questions and add my opinion? That is exactly what you are doing!

Comprehension must be lacking on some level, for you NOT to see this.

Your arrogance is sickening! Because I don't agree with you, I am now ignorant? Yes.. In the true sense of the word, I am ignorant of your logic.. Point for you.

But your logic is not a meter of intelligence nor will it be. That could be proven by folks much smarter than you or I. In fact you prove it consistantly in each and every one of your posts.

You can't take your hate for Govt. and authority out of the equation.. Like wise I can't separate my emotions stemming from a personal loss. It is not my fault that you are too ignorant to see this.

edit on 1/27/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/27/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 





You are ignorant!


You failed to address any of my questions I presented to you, and I'm the ignorant one?



She had been drinking (allegedly)


If she had been drinking as they claim, and fact has proven that Alcohol impairs all thought capacity, then stopping or the lack there of, or doing anything an officer tells you, my not be completely " understood " since again, alcohol impairs ones thought process.

FACT:

When alcohol reaches the brain, it interferes with communication between nerve cells, by interacting with the receptors on some cells. The alcohol suppresses excitatory nerve pathway activity and increases inhibitory nerve pathway activity. Among other actions, alcohol enhances the effects of the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA. Enhancing an inhibitor has the effect of making a person sluggish. Also, alcohol weakens the excitatory neurotransmitter glutamine, which enhances the sluggishness even farther.





Did you read my earlier post? 15 year old pulled over - Cop gets out, and 15 yr old flees - cop chases - 15 yr old gets up to 70 and kills my best friend..All this damage and pain, simply because this waste of life, didn't want to go to jail or get a ticket.



This above quote of yours solidifies your bias. You obviously, ( because of your above comment ), feel wronged, by this alleged tragedy. And your bitterness has blinded your ability to face reality. As I stated previously, anything a person does in life has risks. Why can't you address that, or at the bitter least, conjure up a constructive thought that would prove on the contrary? Simply put, you can't. Because of the loss of a friend, your bitterness will blind you from reality.

So I present this question, which you probably won't answer, but who's the ignorant one?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by CitizenAlpha
As i dont agree with the actions of the Officers in this case, We all know what flashing lights & sirens mean right? PULL OVER DUHHH!!!, so if are not smart enough to do that you deserve to get what you get, Im sorry but stupid people should get treated like stupid animals.......


so, basically you are saying this woman got what she deserved? she deserved to get her face beat in for not stopping immediately?

you my friend, have a skewed perception of this life



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


You seem very bitter....

Tell me where is my logic flawed?
And my intelligence?

Proof is in the pudding, And your just showing your ignorance.

I do how ever believe ive made a pretty good argument up until now, and for some reason the stars i got on my post make me think theres someone else who agrees with my "logic"

As i said before what ifs and but dont make a case...
as for evidence to back up your theories there is none.

So please instead of trying to discourage my thought and belief examine your own,
and i never said stop believing what you are believing as you can move a horse to water but you cant make it drink....

I was just sticking up for that poor woman that you people so called branded a death trap drunk that was going to kill everything and everyone...


As i said before you presume many things ........
Now if you have anything to add to your mutter please lets hear it,



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Please STOP the personal sniping.

Stick to the topic and leave out the snide comments and insults.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheGhostViking
Nobody acted honorably here
yes mate as i just posted
if xcathdra had just said what you have , that both parties are in the wrong I dont think there would be so much discussion here !
NONE of us ever have defended drink driving OR running from cops .
Thanks for your post ressurection im glad we have come to a similar conclusion .


Thats my point btw. I am not saying the troopers actions were wrong, what I was saying is based on Supreme Court decisions and Law, his actions were allowed and in the troopers view justified based on what was going on.. Justification (right or wrong) of those actions is determined by the the criminal investigation as well as Utahs IA investigation into any potential policy violations.

People who find the Troopers actions excessive or not needed are basing your opinions on your own sense of morals (right vs. wrong, male vs. female, age vs. age, build vs build, etc) while ignoring law. We have had threads before discussing topics like this, and as we can see in those threads, and what I have been tying to explain here, is just because someone witnesses an action like the OP posted, does not mean the Trooper is wrong / guilty based solely on a personal opinion.

I would rather fight with a drunk 6'2 250 male than a drunk 5'4 110 pound female. One of the hardest issues people hve, and its based on how our parents raised us, is men do not hit women, period. In the world of Law Enforcement, that mindset can be dangerous, and in some cases deadly. All he suggestions people have made, turning off the car, pulling keys from the ignition etc are based on a lack of understanding of how things work in Law Enforcement.

I understand I am not going to change peoples minds, at thats fine. The job LEO's do falls into a bubble that at times, when viewed by people who are not familiar with it, runs counter to typical expectations - IE Men dont hit women.

Until you are placed into a situation like above, you are not going to understand that the suggested alternate actions made are not as easy as people might think.
edit on 27-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I didn't hear the audio of what the cops said to her before the incident.In fact you can only glean a little from the video.I think this is a edited for T.V. tape and the complete one would make the cops look criminal,And yes if you can't knock out a drunk lady with one punch you are a weak sniveling worm.If they did that to my mama there wouldn't be any of them alive.The D.P.spokesman really creeps me out,like something out of a movie.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JulianAlien
 


Its not edited and that question is addressed in the srtivcles. The sirens drowned out the audio.

@ Cybertron and a few others - The point you guys are falining to understand is the the law and what you think should have occured based on your beliefs. Just because your beliefs say you should not do this or that, does not mean the law shares that view.

I have seen people use the what if game, trying to dimiss it. The what if game is critical in the sense "if the driver was not stopped, what if she did plow into a car, or people". How do I know that line of thought was being used? Because a pit maneiver was authorized to stop this lady.

A Pit maneuver is utilized when other options to stop a vehicle pursuit fail. As I have said before in this thread and others use of force for law enforcement is a 1+ advantage the courts ahve granted. I have seen people make the commens that she should not have been punched in the face.. OK... How do you get her to focus on you and to stop focusing on trying to break her car free of the blockade?

People have suggested taser, pepper spray, trying to turn the car off, etc etc etc.

All possibilities, but in a split second decision the trooper chose to bust the window and then used force on the driver in order to stop her actions.

It really does not matter if you agree with his actions or not. What I have been saying is the officer was within the legal confines of the law for his actions. We can continue the debate but in the end its only going to revolve around what people think and not what the la allows.

@ Cybertron - Yes you appeared to be throwing a temper tantrum. I answered your questions while you continued to call me ignorant and an idiot. You wanted me to provide a link where it said the investigation was done, and I did which you apparently did not read. I reposted the info with bolded/underlined/italicised so you could more easily find it, and again you ignored the info, telling me it was my opinion, when in fact it was the complete opposite.

The criminal investigation into the Trooper is done per the Prosecuting Attorney.
The criminal investigation and charges into the suspect has been reinstated.
The UHP is continuing an INTERNAL REVIEW of the troopers actions to ensure he was WITHIN AGENCY POLCIY AND PROCEDURE.

Sorry for the caps, but you seem to not be understanding those main points.


For a person who does not do law enforcement in the US, you made yourself out to be ignorant. As I said before you called me a crybaby, ignorant, and idiot. If you have legitimate questions, ask and I will answer them. If you have nothing constructive to say, then save it as I can get the same attitude from people I deal with on a daily basis.

In this case, the law worked exactly as its supposed to. Nothing will change my mind on that for the simple reason I know what I am talking about - from training, education and personal experiences of doing this job to understanding civil rights and Federal law and how they shape the manner in which we do our job. I also understand how local and state law affects my job and the manner in which I perform it. I have been trained in use of force, and how its applied.

I have absolutely no problems with people challenging what I am saying, but to call me ignorant, and idiot and a crybaby really does not portray you as taking this thread seriously, or show any intrest in actually learning and understanding practices in a foreign country.

If you or anyone else has questions - ask
If you have nothing but a smartass comment to make - save it.

Thanks



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
If she had been drinking as they claim, and fact has proven that Alcohol impairs all thought capacity, then stopping or the lack there of, or doing anything an officer tells you, my not be completely " understood " since again, alcohol impairs ones thought process.


Which is not a valid excuse / affirmative defense in a court of law in the United States. This is the reason Law Enforcement will give loud clear repetitive verbal commands to people. Using your perception of her not understanding what she is being told would open the doors to any person involved in a crime to say they did not understand the directions be given because they were under the influence of whatever.

Using alcohol or drugs and then driving a vehicle is a result in poor poor judgment. It does show that there is no regard for the lives of other people on the roads. Law Enforcement is not responsible when a person decideds, on their own, to flee from the police. They are in control of themselves, as well as the vehicle, and can, at any point, pull over and stop.

Absent that, if it gets bad enough then we can be authorized to initiate a pit maneuver to stop the suspect. If it turns outthe suspect is intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, not only does it NOT create an affirmative defense to their actions vs. charges, it can actually demonstrate a depraved indifference, creating an exigent circumstance under the law for a higher charge...

Its simple.. If you are pulled over, pull over. Dont flee / run from the cops. Dont fight with the cops.
edit on 27-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Until you are placed into a situation like above, you are not going to understand that the suggested alternate actions made are not as easy as people might think


I have been there, numerous times in fifteen years of LE, and I believe he was not justified in the force used.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Until you are placed into a situation like above, you are not going to understand that the suggested alternate actions made are not as easy as people might think


I have been there, numerous times in fifteen years of LE, and I believe he was not justified in the force used.


I respect your viewpoint on this. You have 5 years on me so far...



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by JulianAlien
 


Its not edited and that question is addressed in the srtivcles. The sirens drowned out the audio.

@ Cybertron and a few others - The point you guys are falining to understand is the the law and what you think should have occured based on your beliefs. Just because your beliefs say you should not do this or that, does not mean the law shares that view.

I have seen people use the what if game, trying to dimiss it. The what if game is critical in the sense "if the driver was not stopped, what if she did plow into a car, or people". How do I know that line of thought was being used? Because a pit maneiver was authorized to stop this lady.

A Pit maneuver is utilized when other options to stop a vehicle pursuit fail. As I have said before in this thread and others use of force for law enforcement is a 1+ advantage the courts ahve granted. I have seen people make the commens that she should not have been punched in the face.. OK... How do you get her to focus on you and to stop focusing on trying to break her car free of the blockade?

People have suggested taser, pepper spray, trying to turn the car off, etc etc etc.

All possibilities, but in a split second decision the trooper chose to bust the window and then used force on the driver in order to stop her actions.

It really does not matter if you agree with his actions or not. What I have been saying is the officer was within the legal confines of the law for his actions. We can continue the debate but in the end its only going to revolve around what people think and not what the la allows.

@ Cybertron - Yes you appeared to be throwing a temper tantrum. I answered your questions while you continued to call me ignorant and an idiot. You wanted me to provide a link where it said the investigation was done, and I did which you apparently did not read. I reposted the info with bolded/underlined/italicised so you could more easily find it, and again you ignored the info, telling me it was my opinion, when in fact it was the complete opposite.

The criminal investigation into the Trooper is done per the Prosecuting Attorney.
The criminal investigation and charges into the suspect has been reinstated.
The UHP is continuing an INTERNAL REVIEW of the troopers actions to ensure he was WITHIN AGENCY POLCIY AND PROCEDURE.

Sorry for the caps, but you seem to not be understanding those main points.


For a person who does not do law enforcement in the US, you made yourself out to be ignorant. As I said before you called me a crybaby, ignorant, and idiot. If you have legitimate questions, ask and I will answer them. If you have nothing constructive to say, then save it as I can get the same attitude from people I deal with on a daily basis.

In this case, the law worked exactly as its supposed to. Nothing will change my mind on that for the simple reason I know what I am talking about - from training, education and personal experiences of doing this job to understanding civil rights and Federal law and how they shape the manner in which we do our job. I also understand how local and state law affects my job and the manner in which I perform it. I have been trained in use of force, and how its applied.

I have absolutely no problems with people challenging what I am saying, but to call me ignorant, and idiot and a crybaby really does not portray you as taking this thread seriously, or show any intrest in actually learning and understanding practices in a foreign country.

If you or anyone else has questions - ask
If you have nothing but a smartass comment to make - save it.

Thanks


I see you like putting words in my mouth,
And if you dont understand basic structure of a sentence then you would understand, i wasnt saying your ignorant i was merly saying your being ignorant "IF" you believe that he was right.
Now who is the idiot?
Your quick to throw judgment out but hesitate to take critisism back,
What should i learn from this thread? That infact your a bad cop yourself who seems to me would of puched the lady out yourself,

Weve been over this so many times, How long would you say the cop stood there bashing the tinted windows the the cop by the passenger window ect... I dont understand why you cant see there could have been a better solution to this problem? Why are you so arrogent yourself:?
You believe you the COP does nothing wrong?

If thats your police force then friend its a joke...
I do believe aswell as where your law comes in, there still a thing called human rights!
I never called you a cry baby so please show me in one post where i did that...
What you mutter out the whole time just proves a point.

You justify his actions to the full extent without listening to reason, And you believe people only decide due to feeliengs?
Come on really? How old are you?......
Show me aswell in which post i have thrown a temper tantrum?
You presume way to much.....
Aswell as the name calling friend please show me where i have called you any names? besides being ignorant and acting like an idiot?

Dont put words in my mouth to try and discourage my thought or belief, That is so typical Law enforcment........
Should we go back and copy and paiste???? And yes i know my spelling is off but im pretty sure my morals and beliefs are not...

And im happy you think my comments are smartass... Atleast something of mine is working ey...

You say you have provided me with a link to say the invistigation is over?
YOU HAVE NOT,
all you have given was the ones we all read, where it says the invistigation is still continuing and can take up to 7 months cos its a sensitive case and alot of people have to view the tape,
The case is not over, the COP is not let of the hook yet..........

Tell me ?
what if they decide it was not under is policy in the way he acted?
what would happen then?

Seems to me Bullies stick with Bullies,

And so many of My "Police friends" have watched the vid and laughed at how untrained and unqaulified that cop was acting, - Oh and one important thing my "POLICE' friend mentioned was that in america the abuse from police officers is common......

In fact you dont care about the public and quick to explain terms of law, when infact your not a lawyer so to copy and paiste for your arguments is not very clever...

Where its the public like this woman who pay your salaries......

All over the world people are starting to have enough of the abuse from you people in power,
and are starting to revolt.


Was that smartass enough for you?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Until you are placed into a situation like above, you are not going to understand that the suggested alternate actions made are not as easy as people might think


I have been there, numerous times in fifteen years of LE, and I believe he was not justified in the force used.


I respect your viewpoint on this. You have 5 years on me so far...


A COP in your country agrees with me and you respect his viewpoint?

Hahaha hahahahahaha and then you say im Ignorant?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Commenting before I read the rest of the comments. From the video, I would say we don't have enough information, but it's very possible this was appropriate action on the part of the cops. Possible it wasn't, too. What I want to see is the rest of the video - the chase, her actions that were on tape before this final scene (that the news report seemed determined to show over and over, in a clear attempt to bias people against the police...). Did she attack someone? We are told she faced assault charges, that she was driving drunk, and resisting arrest. Driving drunk, and endangering lives, would be enough that I might want to punch her myself, and would, if that was required to get her keys, and keep her from potentially running over me or a partner. The car wasn't that boxed in; she could have done harm. If she's already attempted such a thing, that would explain the actions of the officers.

All in all, we can't know without all of the information, and the MSM isn't going to share that.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Agree with above comments on the surface, HOWEVER...

Did you guys also pay attention to the fact that ALL CHARGES AGAINST HER WERE DISMISSED?

THIS, to me, indicates that perhaps all was not as it seemed to be! If she WAS guilty of this, then why would they throw the entire case out?

IF she was under the influence and evading, then I will be the first to agree the use of even deadly force may be warranted. BUT-all charges were dropped here...Indicating that there is more to this story than initial accounts might suggest.


Politics, and public image. She' over 50, and female, so they want to keep a good face on things. Stupid move, IMO. They should throw the book at her, if she's guilty. Being female and over 50 doesn't excuse the behavior, or mean she should get special treatment. Maybe the cops were out of line, and maybe they weren't. I want to see ALL the video, not just that little clip. Bet the news stations have more of it, that they aren't showing. They did that with the Rodney King video, I know - I saw the WHOLE thing once. One station showed it, one evening. The guy was beating on the cops, over and over, and they did only what was needed to subdue a very violent, and very large, suspect.

I think maybe the media is playing similar games here. Maybe the charges were dropped, as part of a deal. You stop trying to make us look bad, and we won't smear your rear all over the place for being drunk and endangering lives. As stated above, stupid move, id that's what they did.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheGhostViking
once the stop is made you don’t get to beat up the suspect. The ONLY time an officer has the right to hit a suspect is in his own protection
BRO you nailed it , its similar to rodney king incident , a rape for example is a terrible crime but it doesnt give the cops the right to beat people up , their job is to round perps up and LET THE JUSTISCE SYSTEM TRY THEM
IM sorry thats the way it is . If as a cop you do this (not in self defence ) you are as bad as a criminal in my opinion


Rodney King was beating on the cops. I saw the entire video, once, at the time. Not the edited down clip they showed over and over, but the whole thing, with him attacking the cops, several at a time, and them having to defend themselves. That's why they were acquitted of criminal charges. They didn't hit him any more than was necessary to subdue him. Even after he was down, he got up, several times, and attacked them again. That's why he got hit. Self defense, on their part.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cybertron
I see you like putting words in my mouth, And if you dont understand basic structure of a sentence then you would understand, i wasnt saying your ignorant i was merly saying your being ignorant "IF" you believe that he was right.


Then respectfully you need to learn your sentence structure and word use.
Your post

Originally posted by Cybertron
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?




Originally posted by Cybertron
Now who is the idiot?


Hmmm.. you tell me.


Originally posted by Cybertron
Your quick to throw judgment out but hesitate to take critisism back,


I didnt throw judgments out, and again if you read my posts you would understand that. I have no issues taking criticism and other people in these forums can vouch for that. If I am wrong, I admit it, appologize in the thread and move on. In this case, I felt the Troopers actions were justifiable, and the Prosecuting Attorney came to the same conclusion.


Originally posted by Cybertron
What should i learn from this thread?


What you can take away from this thread is an insight and perspectives on how Law Enforcement and laws work with a situation like this one.


Originally posted by Cybertron
That infact your a bad cop yourself who seems to me would of puched the lady out yourself


I will refer you back to what you stated in your response a few sentences above.


Originally posted by Cybertron
Your quick to throw judgment out


I will refer you back to what you stated in your response a few sentences above.


Originally posted by Cybertron
Weve been over this so many times,


Yes, you have.....


Originally posted by Cybertron
How long would you say the cop stood there bashing the tinted windows the the cop by the passenger window ect... I dont understand why you cant see there could have been a better solution to this problem?


Because I was not on scene and neither were you.. What part of this is confusing you? Again, going back to my first post in this thread, I said based on the video and the reports, I felt the officers actions were justified. Also, in this line of work second guessing cant get people killed. I never said their was no other solution - There were other ways for this situation to end, and the other officer on scene attempted those.

. To name a few:

* The lady should not have consumed alcohol to an intoxicating level and decide it would be a good idea to drive a car.
* When the Police initiated a traffic stop, she should have pulled over.
* When she was pitted and blocked in, she should have given up and surrendered to the Police.
* When the cop gave her verbal commands to stop her actions and roll down the window she should have complied.
* When the officer started his attempt to break the window out, she should have surrendeder.
* When the window was broken out and was given commands to stop her actions she should have complied.
* When the officer approached from the opposite side of the vehicle and drew his Taser, she should have complied.
* When the officer hit her in the face she should have surrendered.

*An officer was attemtping to open the dirvers door.
*An officer attempted to deploy his Taser
*An officer was yelling for her to stop her actions


Originally posted by Cybertron
Why are you so arrogent yourself:?


I think you are mistaking arrogance for knowledge and experience in this area.


Originally posted by Cybertron
You believe you the COP does nothing wrong?


At no point did I ever say I do no wrong. I am human, and as such I make mistakes.


Originally posted by Cybertron
If thats your police force then friend its a joke...


Riiiggghhtt.. Back to that judgment comment you made a few answers up....


Originally posted by Cybertron
I do believe aswell as where your law comes in, there still a thing called human rights!


Sure.. However a persons "human rights" dont trump any other persons "human rights". Which means this lady has no right to place anyone else in danger by drinking, driving and running from the police under the guise of Human Rights.


Originally posted by Cybertron
I never called you a cry baby so please show me in one post where i did that...


Uhm, ok....
Your post

Originally posted by Cybertron

Shame the baby needs a nap?



Originally posted by Cybertron
You justify his actions to the full extent without listening to reason, And you believe people only decide due to feeliengs?


I justify his actions based on current law, federal law and supreme court rulings and the suspects actions. Which, by the way, is where he justified his actions as well.


Originally posted by Cybertron
Come on really? How old are you?......


33 - Why does my age matter?


Originally posted by Cybertron
Show me aswell in which post i have thrown a temper tantrum?


ok

Cybertrons post - Page 24 through 30


Originally posted by Cybertron
You presume way to much.....


Knowing how the law works is not presuming anything.


Originally posted by Cybertron
Aswell as the name calling friend please show me where i have called you any names? besides being ignorant and acting like an idiot?


You really need to either pay attention to what you type, or actually take a minute to see if the word you are using is in fact the word you wanted.

Post on Page 26 - Mods had to remove part of your post for off topic comment
Post on Page 27 - Ignorant as well as calling me a liar by omission.
Post on Page 27 - Accusation I posted an ilegitimate source of information
Post on Page 27 - Ignorant and Stubborn
Post on Page 27 - Thug
Post on Page 28 - Useless
Post on Page 28 - Badcop
Post on Page 28 - Stupid
Post on Page 28 - Baby
Post on Page 30 - Bully
Post on Pag 30 - Accused me of Abuse of Authority


Originally posted by Cybertron
Dont put words in my mouth to try and discourage my thought or belief, That is so typical Law enforcment........


See list above


Originally posted by Cybertron
Should we go back and copy and paiste???? And yes i know my spelling is off but im pretty sure my morals and beliefs are not...


Could care less about spelling as it has nothing to do with the thread or the debate. Your moral and your beliefs are just that yours. Our laws are not based on your morals or beliefs.


Originally posted by Cybertron
And im happy you think my comments are smartass... Atleast something of mine is working ey...


Communication disconnect apparently. Calling a person a smartass is done when the person speaking makes a comment that does not have anything to do with the conversation.


Originally posted by Cybertron
You say you have provided me with a link to say the invistigation is over?
YOU HAVE NOT,


You really are attempting to split hairs on this one arent you? Lets try again:
UHP trooper punches woman after car chase

Reference to any criminal wrong doing on the part of the Troopers by his actions.

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.


Translation - There is no criminal investigation into the Troopers actions.

Was the suspect charged?

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


Translation - Yes, charges are being filed, which means the criminal investigation is overwith on her end. We know this because the investigation is the process to determine if a crime has been commited. That report is sent to the PAs office for review, and if approved (as in this case) the charges are filed and the suspect is arrested. It then moves from Law Enforcement over to the Judicial branch for the trial portions, which Law Enforcement has nothing to do with.

Are the Troopers actions justified under Departmental Policies and Procedures?

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.”


Translation - The internal review process is ongoing and no new info has been released. The IA investigation has absolutely nothing to do with determining / investigating any criminal wrongdoing.


Originally posted by Cybertron
all you have given was the ones we all read, where it says the invistigation is still continuing and can take up to 7 months cos its a sensitive case and alot of people have to view the tape,


The criminal case against the driving suspect is going forward - Investigation over
The possible criminal case against the Trooper has been declined by the prosecuting attorney because, in his statement to the media, the Troopers actions did not violate law.
The IA investigation, which is policy and procedure, is continuing with no new info that Ihave found yet.


Originally posted by Cybertron
The case is not over, the COP is not let of the hook yet..........


ok


Originally posted by Cybertron
Tell me ?
what if they decide it was not under is policy in the way he acted?
what would happen then?


If the Troopers actions were in violation of Departmental Policy and Procedure then the Trooper can be disciplined. Which goes from a verbal warning all the way up to termination and dissasociation of his actions by the Police Agency and the State. If a civil suit is filed, then the trooper personally would be held responsbile for his actions, instead of the trooper and the agency / employer.


Originally posted by Cybertron
Seems to me Bullies stick with Bullies,


I see we are judging again.. See my answers towards the top of this response.


Originally posted by Cybertron
And so many of My "Police friends" have watched the vid and laughed at how untrained and unqaulified that cop was acting, - Oh and one important thing my "POLICE' friend mentioned was that in america the abuse from police officers is common......


Well, Police abuse is not common. However it is placed on the news when it occurs, while the good we do is not shown. Why? Because good news is not good ratings. Since Police agencis require different training depending on State your "POLICE" friend does not know what he is talking about, which I notice seems to be a reoccuring theme of yours anyways....


Originally posted by Cybertron
In fact you dont care about the public and quick to explain terms of law, when infact your not a lawyer so to copy and paiste for your arguments is not very clever...


Yeah, going back to putting words in my mouth and judging...

Quick government lesson for you. Law Enforcement in the US is not part of the Judicial system, we are part of the Executive branch. Our responsibility is to the citizens we serve, to enforce the laws of our city and state, to conduct investigations into criminal behavior to determine if a crime has indeed occured. Our reports go to the Prosecuting Attorney for review and charges, or not.

If you did a little research in this area you might have already known and understand how it works, unless you are taking advice from your "POLICE" friend. The actions of Officers when investigating a crime is as much about ruling people out as suspects and it is to identify the suspect.


Originally posted by Cybertron
Where its the public like this woman who pay your salaries......


Lol I love this line... You have watched to many tv shows. I pay taxes, which means I pay my own salary. However, if we want to go by your incorrect statement, then the lady who pays my salary needs to give me a raise for dealing with people like her, and you.


Originally posted by Cybertron
All over the world people are starting to have enough of the abuse from you people in power,and are starting to revolt.


I agree.. If we look at the news reports you will see Tunisha, Egypt, Sudan, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan. All countries facing upset citizens because of the action of their government.


Originally posted by Cybertron
Was that smartass enough for you?


Not really.. It was enjoyable though. Deny Ignorance is this sites motto, which is to say people should become educated on the facts surrounding situations and make an informed decision or argument to support / defend their view.

EDIT to add: I will give you one. I appologize for saying the criminal investigation into the Troopers actions were done. The county PA sent his report over to the Prosecuting Attorneys office for the City for them to review to see if the TRooper violated any municipal ordinances.

Report forwarded to the Ogden City PA for review


The Weber County Sheriff's Office investigated Davenport's behavior at the request of UHP. Sheriff's spokesman Capt. Klint Anderson said Tuesday that, just last week, investigators had learned the Weber County Attorney's Office had declined to file charges against Davenport.

Anderson said the case would be forwarded to the Ogden City Attorney's Office this week for consideration of possible misdemeanor assault charges against Davenport.


This enough info for you?




edit on 28-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
59
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join