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

Originally posted by 23refugee
So one officer felt that he had to pummel the woman to prevent her moving the vehicle after the window was broken but the other officer was confident enough to leap onto the hood of said vehicle to break that window
What's the protocol? Safety first?

You be a cop and deal with lunatics for a while and I'd bet you would do the same thing. Too bad you can't know what your dealing with until AFTER the cuffs are on.

reply to post by HoldTheBeans
they dont need to run bro as theyve got the good lawyers to get them off
C R E A M cash rules everything around me .

I watched the video without sound, when I saw it was preceded by an anchor's description. I wanted to base my opinion solely on what evidence was available, without a biased play-by-play. I did, however, read the subtitles.

So, based on what I saw, the officer's actions were completely unacceptable.

In first addressing his explanation that he was trying to "stun" her to allow them to grab her arms, let me say there are acceptable stunning techniques. However, they do not include punches to the face. The only one in the head region is the "brachial stun", where a backhanded strike is placed to the brachial nerve on the side of the neck. Using a full on punch to that area, is excessive force.

While it is impossible to see what the woman is doing inside the car, I would have to say the only reason a stun technique should have been implemented is if she were gripping the steering wheel and preventing the officers from handcuffing her. However, even that could not be the case, because they hadn't yet opened the door to enable them to extract her.

So, from the available evidence, I would say this guy should be charged and tried for assault, because there is not a clear justification for his actions. And, I firmly believe in harsher punishments for LE who commit crimes.

On a lighter note, I would like to add... That guy hits like a girl.

She already stopped. The cop lost his temper because she tried to evade the police prior to stopping. Didnt you know that if you cross a cop or try to run away that they can kill you and justify it (felt threatened, etc)? Cops should be forced to take and pass psychological and emotional intelligence tests before being hired.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Cops should be forced to take and pass psychological and emotional intelligence tests before being hired.

Most agencies do require some sort of psychological exam. A lot of them use the MMPI 2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory). In fact, in Texas at least, it is required prior to entering an academy.

Unfortunately, tests cannot weed out all of the bad apples.

ETA: In the case of the Utah Highway Patrol, candidates are required to take an undefined "Psychological Evaluation" and a

Suitability Assessment - The suitability assessment test consists of several instruments to assess cognitive and interpersonal skills. This test is a video-based, multiple choice test that portrays situations that are commonly faced in law enforcement. Candidates are required to analyze situations and make quick judgments.

publicsafety.utah.gov...

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
She already stopped. The cop lost his temper because she tried to evade the police prior to stopping. Didnt you know that if you cross a cop or try to run away that they can kill you and justify it (felt threatened, etc)? Cops should be forced to take and pass psychological and emotional intelligence tests before being hired.

I think people who run from cops and endanger the public should be required too before they get their license back to em.

As for the MMPI that thing is a waste of time.

If you want to run from the Police, that's your choice. You don't have the right to endanger countless other citizens, however. What if she would have ran over a child? YOUR child? Your grandma, or sister, or brother? I don't support police brutality, but if striking a resisting woman in the face to ensure she doesn't floor the gas pedal and run over a Peace officer, I'm fine with that.

Originally posted by Gainsayer
If you want to run from the Police, that's your choice. You don't have the right to endanger countless other citizens, however. What if she would have ran over a child? YOUR child? Your grandma, or sister, or brother? I don't support police brutality, but if striking a resisting woman in the face to ensure she doesn't floor the gas pedal and run over a Peace officer, I'm fine with that.

Well I hope you're okay with me punching you or your wife in the face for speeding in a school zone. Could be putting children at risk. Definitely warrants a punch to the face by a concerned citizen...

But seriously though. The cops also don't have the right to take the law into their own hands and punish criminals. She was stopped and outnumbered. They could have detained her easily at that point, which is their job. The courts would have decided her punishment. That is the way it is supposed to be. You can't tell me you really think he didn't hit her out of anger... She pissed him off and made his job tougher... He got angry and hit her when he had the chance hiding behind the law... If I hit every customer that made my job hard and pissed me off I'd be fired and in jail.

Originally posted by HoldTheBeans

Originally posted by 23refugee
So one officer felt that he had to pummel the woman to prevent her moving the vehicle after the window was broken but the other officer was confident enough to leap onto the hood of said vehicle to break that window
What's the protocol? Safety first?

You be a cop and deal with lunatics for a while and I'd bet you would do the same thing. Too bad you can't know what your dealing with until AFTER the cuffs are on.

There's the problem. I still may have to deal with a lunatic in uniform.

reply to post by HoldTheBeans


Sounds like a justification for "shoot first, (fill in the blank) later."

As to the later post that police do, in fact, undergo psychological testing: I would say that it is a) inadequate and b) needs to be done annually and c) hormones like testosterone and steroids should be banned. The cop had the duty to stop and arrest the woman but not to assault her after she had stopped. He could have a) asked her to hand over her keys and b) step out of the car and then if she didnt comply he could accelerate his actions to fit the situation. POLICE ARE the keepers of the Law but are NOT ABOVE THE LAW.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


"Paid administrative leave"***

Sorry, spell check.

And yes, over the top. Fire his groins.

reply to post by simples


She should of pull over, but it is not right for a man to hit a woman.

Originally posted by 23refugee

Originally posted by HoldTheBeans

Originally posted by 23refugee
So one officer felt that he had to pummel the woman to prevent her moving the vehicle after the window was broken but the other officer was confident enough to leap onto the hood of said vehicle to break that window
What's the protocol? Safety first?

You be a cop and deal with lunatics for a while and I'd bet you would do the same thing. Too bad you can't know what your dealing with until AFTER the cuffs are on.

There's the problem. I still may have to deal with a lunatic in uniform.

Didn't look like a lunatic to me. I guess you would cheer for this woman after she ran you off the road in a high speed chase?? "You go lady" would be your battle cry from the ditch? lol

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by HoldTheBeans

 

Sounds like a justification for "shoot first, (fill in the blank) later."

As to the later post that police do, in fact, undergo psychological testing: I would say that it is a) inadequate and b) needs to be done annually and c) hormones like testosterone and steroids should be banned. The cop had the duty to stop and arrest the woman but not to assault her after she had stopped. He could have a) asked her to hand over her keys and b) step out of the car and then if she didnt comply he could accelerate his actions to fit the situation. POLICE ARE the keepers of the Law but are NOT ABOVE THE LAW.

Police are the law. She didn't follow it and they did what was necessary. Yeah he could have done that or he could have held up a dozen roses and handed her the keys to his car too. No he did what was necessary to subdue the perp. She doesn't like it she shoulda pulled over in the first place. Once you run cops figure your doing it for a reason. I guess if she pulled a weapon and shot him in the face while he was holding the roses that would have been fine with you?

reply to post by HoldTheBeans


That's how we differ. Even if she ran me off the road, I'd still have enough self-restraint to keep me from hitting a 53 year old woman repeatedly in the face.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective
I watched this on the news about 7 am this morning. I wondered if she were diabetic?

Yea, I guess we will just have to start shootin' 'em back eh hoser ? Seriously, I hope she wins the HUGE lawsuit against this idiot. The big strong poleece man throwing those punches at a woman no less. Dear God, what a moron.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


It does matter if all charges were dropped against her. She does not remember the beating...probably because Rambo copper knocked her out!

I don't give cops today the benefit of the doubt anymore. They have been trained as if they are a military occupying force and we are all the enemy combatants. They are not the judge and jury. They are not the punishers of this constitutional Republic. They are cops! They are permitted to arrest and charge people; not punish them in any way nor to any degree. There is no way he had to smash her that many times in the name of his "safety." He was punishing her for not pulling over (if that was even true, which may not be true since they dropped the charges.)

That was assualt.

Originally posted by 23refugee
reply to post by HoldTheBeans

 

That's how we differ. Even if she ran me off the road, I'd still have enough self-restraint to keep me from hitting a 53 year old woman repeatedly in the face.

Well I bet if you or your child were hurt or worse killed after she ran you off the road I'm sure you would have such utter support for this "victim".

Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

 

It does matter if all charges were dropped against her. She does not remember the beating...probably because Rambo copper knocked her out!

I don't give cops today the benefit of the doubt anymore. They have been trained as if they are a military occupying force and we are all the enemy combatants. They are not the judge and jury. They are not the punishers of this constitutional Republic. They are cops! They are permitted to arrest and charge people; not punish them in any way nor to any degree. There is no way he had to smash her that many times in the name of his "safety." He was punishing her for not pulling over (if that was even true, which may not be true since they dropped the charges.)

That was assualt.

She doesn't remember the "beating". All the more reason to do what they did as she was so impaired I doubt she even remembers running from the cops either. I guess you would support her if she "didn't remember" killing a bunch of folks along the way either.