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.

 

Smackdown: Police officer 'takes out drunk girl, 15, outside school in violent attack'

page: 10
83
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Pity, stop showing pity for this obviously foul officer.


She is not reaching in her shirt, her hands look as if they are reaching in to the collar of her shirt, but why should a police officer assume that a 15 year old girl, or anyone for that matter, is capable of pulling out a pistol from their collar.. oh yeah, it must of been holstered in her bra!


he let his ego get to him, plain and simple.




posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by BastianCain
Pity, stop showing pity for this obviously foul officer.


She is not reaching in her shirt, her hands look as if they are reaching in to the collar of her shirt, but why should a police officer assume that a 15 year old girl, or anyone for that matter, is capable of pulling out a pistol from their collar.. oh yeah, it must of been holstered in her bra!


he let his ego get to him, plain and simple.



Well I'm not showing him pity. We are seeing the video from the SIDE, we do not have his view from BEHIND - which could be completely different with a different judgment call. The brain usually focuses on movements and familiar actions before zooming into the details.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by BastianCain
Pity, stop showing pity for this obviously foul officer.


She is not reaching in her shirt, her hands look as if they are reaching in to the collar of her shirt, but why should a police officer assume that a 15 year old girl, or anyone for that matter, is capable of pulling out a pistol from their collar.. oh yeah, it must of been holstered in her bra!


he let his ego get to him, plain and simple.


Precisely!



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by BastianCain
Pity, stop showing pity for this obviously foul officer.


She is not reaching in her shirt, her hands look as if they are reaching in to the collar of her shirt, but why should a police officer assume that a 15 year old girl, or anyone for that matter, is capable of pulling out a pistol from their collar.. oh yeah, it must of been holstered in her bra!


he let his ego get to him, plain and simple.


Precisely!



Once again your looking at it from a SIDE view, NOT from BEHIND. Angles can make a huge difference on how things are perceived...



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I noticed that after the cop cuffs the girl, she seems to have a huge baseball-sized gash on her head... Wondering if thats from her hitting the wall when the cop shoved her or from earlier that day??

Hmmmm..



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Man that was wrong! a cops job is to suspect, investigate a little, adn detain you for due process* he is not allowed by law, too touch you in any harmful or lethal maner. thats how its suposed to go. she had no weapon, she was obviiously non threatening, and the ofice just ran n bum rushed her agaisnt the wall. that is assault, or its supposed ot be, by common public law* notice they both have shaved heads..is it jsut me or does every shaved head cop resemeble a neo nazi or over alter ego son of a b*&ch? legaly, the jugde is suposed to throw the case out, at least, over the manner ..she is perfectly entitled to sue as well...that cop eithe got some real bad training, or he has alot of anger about something built up, n took it out on her...he should be suspended at least. this is what happens, when legal loppholes open doors, for the law* humans being humans at best with eachother* at least the powers to be.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Originally posted by BastianCain
Pity, stop showing pity for this obviously foul officer.


She is not reaching in her shirt, her hands look as if they are reaching in to the collar of her shirt, but why should a police officer assume that a 15 year old girl, or anyone for that matter, is capable of pulling out a pistol from their collar.. oh yeah, it must of been holstered in her bra!


he let his ego get to him, plain and simple.



Well I'm not showing him pity. We are seeing the video from the SIDE, we do not have his view from BEHIND - which could be completely different with a different judgment call. The brain usually focuses on movements and familiar actions before zooming into the details.


His view does not matter. His actions are not justified. He broke all sorts of protocols and rules by not commanding her to stop, by not identifying himself as an officer and by using excessive force without due process. But somehow, that's ok with you because it's apparently normal for cops to assume guilt before innocence.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
what would happen, say she is not proven to be drunk yet, and assaulted by the cop then? its assault* thast why the cop is supposed to hold you till due process. it wasnt clear to him yet, she was drunk at all, from a non drunk person walking.. its assault* cop got some REAL bad training thier



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Shaved head = one less thing a person can latch onto during an ecounter. Shaved head = one less area that can contain foreign stubstance (blood, spit, urine, feces, bugs, etc) from people we deal with. If you think we walk away form all situations clean, then you do not understand what law enforcement deals with at times.

Its not a neo nazi look in the least, although based on simple interpretations without adding thought as to the why, I can see how some could come to that conclusion.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Originally posted by BastianCain
Pity, stop showing pity for this obviously foul officer.


She is not reaching in her shirt, her hands look as if they are reaching in to the collar of her shirt, but why should a police officer assume that a 15 year old girl, or anyone for that matter, is capable of pulling out a pistol from their collar.. oh yeah, it must of been holstered in her bra!


he let his ego get to him, plain and simple.



Well I'm not showing him pity. We are seeing the video from the SIDE, we do not have his view from BEHIND - which could be completely different with a different judgment call. The brain usually focuses on movements and familiar actions before zooming into the details.


His view does not matter. His actions are not justified. He broke all sorts of protocols and rules by not commanding her to stop, by not identifying himself as an officer and by using excessive force without due process. But somehow, that's ok with you because it's apparently normal for cops to assume guilt before innocence.



...and you know all that how? Were you there?
edit on Sat May 7 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by BastianCain
Pity, stop showing pity for this obviously foul officer.


She is not reaching in her shirt, her hands look as if they are reaching in to the collar of her shirt, but why should a police officer assume that a 15 year old girl, or anyone for that matter, is capable of pulling out a pistol from their collar.. oh yeah, it must of been holstered in her bra!


he let his ego get to him, plain and simple.


Precisely!



Once again your looking at it from a SIDE view, NOT from BEHIND. Angles can make a huge difference on how things are perceived...


This is common sense and protocol:

If an officer assumes that a person has a gun, they DO NOT rush them. Instead they pull out their firearms and command them to drop their weapon.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Originally posted by Liquesence

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Originally posted by Liquesence

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand
 

You have the video. Have at it. I've watched it no less than 45 times now. You're free to do the same and look for the indicators as I was.


edit on 5/6/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)


The "indicators," whatever they may or may not be, do not justify the action.

Period.



So if you were in that situation and did not know if she had a weapon, but realized that she was violent, would yo uhave acted any differently? What happens to you if she did have a weapon?


Yes. If i were a cop i would not have thrust a high school girl head first into a concrete, unless i was absolutely sure there was an immediate and justifiable danger or threat to my person or those around me.

I would have been trained to handle the situation in an appropriate manner. And that manner was completely inappropriate.



At what point do you determine that there is immediate or justifiable danger? When you see the weapon, or when its being pulled on you? Since no audio exists, perhaps someone said that she had a weapon, but did not specify?


So cops should be justified in whatever actions they take against an individual simply because it was not 100% clear?
"Oh, i 'thought' he had a weapon, so i shot him. How was i to know?!?!?" Puuleeze.

That is precisely why we have the problems we do with many of their actions.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by myeyeshavseen
 

i noticed the big chunk of skin missing too!!! lol she hit her head pretty hard on that stucco wall and that craps abrasive as hell, and notice how the mother or whoever and the teachers just stand there like it was nothing, she must have been a really rotten person for them to be calm about that,they prolly enjoyed seeing that



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Originally posted by BastianCain
Pity, stop showing pity for this obviously foul officer.


She is not reaching in her shirt, her hands look as if they are reaching in to the collar of her shirt, but why should a police officer assume that a 15 year old girl, or anyone for that matter, is capable of pulling out a pistol from their collar.. oh yeah, it must of been holstered in her bra!


he let his ego get to him, plain and simple.



Well I'm not showing him pity. We are seeing the video from the SIDE, we do not have his view from BEHIND - which could be completely different with a different judgment call. The brain usually focuses on movements and familiar actions before zooming into the details.


His view does not matter. His actions are not justified. He broke all sorts of protocols and rules by not commanding her to stop, by not identifying himself as an officer and by using excessive force without due process. But somehow, that's ok with you because it's apparently normal for cops to assume guilt before innocence.



...and you know all that how? Were you there?


Ok, I am now arguing with a brick wall here. I know because I saw the video. I know what cops can and cannot do. Your straw man is rapidly losing straw.

...derpy derp.
edit on 5/6/2011 by CastleMadeOfSand because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
********** ATTENTION**********

Use of the invective "pig" as applied to a law-enforcement officer is a derogatory term, and will be treated no differently than any other derogatory term used to minimalize or malign a group of people. You are free to express your opinion, your anger, your disgust, your approval. Use of derogatory terms are a violation of the ATS Terms and Conditions of Use.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by BastianCain
Pity, stop showing pity for this obviously foul officer.


She is not reaching in her shirt, her hands look as if they are reaching in to the collar of her shirt, but why should a police officer assume that a 15 year old girl, or anyone for that matter, is capable of pulling out a pistol from their collar.. oh yeah, it must of been holstered in her bra!


he let his ego get to him, plain and simple.


Precisely!



Once again your looking at it from a SIDE view, NOT from BEHIND. Angles can make a huge difference on how things are perceived...


This is common sense and protocol:

If an officer assumes that a person has a gun, they DO NOT rush them. Instead they pull out their firearms and command them to drop their weapon.



They will from behind if they can safely contain you before you pull it out. So your a cop, someone in front of you has been suspected of a crime. You tell them to halt, Police, they keep walking. You run up behind them to detain them because you believe they are fleeing. As you get closer you notice that they quickly reach into their jacket or front chest area (remember you are coming up from behind). What do you do? You either pull your gun, or if you believe that you can get to them before they completely pull a weapon, turn and fire, you take the chance. You know why the late is always on the cops mind? Because no one wants to kill a kid, especially since these type of situations are dynamic and your eyes could be "fooling you". Most cops error on the side of caution and usually get shot.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Originally posted by BastianCain
Pity, stop showing pity for this obviously foul officer.


She is not reaching in her shirt, her hands look as if they are reaching in to the collar of her shirt, but why should a police officer assume that a 15 year old girl, or anyone for that matter, is capable of pulling out a pistol from their collar.. oh yeah, it must of been holstered in her bra!


he let his ego get to him, plain and simple.



Well I'm not showing him pity. We are seeing the video from the SIDE, we do not have his view from BEHIND - which could be completely different with a different judgment call. The brain usually focuses on movements and familiar actions before zooming into the details.


His view does not matter. His actions are not justified. He broke all sorts of protocols and rules by not commanding her to stop, by not identifying himself as an officer and by using excessive force without due process. But somehow, that's ok with you because it's apparently normal for cops to assume guilt before innocence.



...and you know all that how? Were you there?


Ok, I am now arguing with a brick wall here. I know because I saw the video. I know what cops can and cannot do. Your straw man is rapidly losing straw.

...derpy derp.
edit on 5/6/2011 by CastleMadeOfSand because: (no reason given)



You know what they can and cannot do? He told her to stop, she refused. She made a quick movement to her side while he was behind her, he more than likely assumed a weapon of some sort.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by BastianCain
Pity, stop showing pity for this obviously foul officer.


She is not reaching in her shirt, her hands look as if they are reaching in to the collar of her shirt, but why should a police officer assume that a 15 year old girl, or anyone for that matter, is capable of pulling out a pistol from their collar.. oh yeah, it must of been holstered in her bra!


he let his ego get to him, plain and simple.


Precisely!



Once again your looking at it from a SIDE view, NOT from BEHIND. Angles can make a huge difference on how things are perceived...


This is common sense and protocol:

If an officer assumes that a person has a gun, they DO NOT rush them. Instead they pull out their firearms and command them to drop their weapon.



They will from behind if they can safely contain you before you pull it out. So your a cop, someone in front of you has been suspected of a crime. You tell them to halt, Police, they keep walking. You run up behind them to detain them because you believe they are fleeing. As you get closer you notice that they quickly reach into their jacket or front chest area (remember you are coming up from behind). What do you do? You either pull your gun, or if you believe that you can get to them before they completely pull a weapon, turn and fire, you take the chance. You know why the late is always on the cops mind? Because no one wants to kill a kid, especially since these type of situations are dynamic and your eyes could be "fooling you". Most cops error on the side of caution and usually get shot.


Another contradiction. Your first line "They will from behind if they can safely contain you before you pull it out" How would he know she had a gun if he can't see one? Didn't bother to read the rest of your post cause it's irrelevant.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I condone the behavior of the cop, in fact i would have tried to slap her spoiled ass as she went down from me ramming her.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Cryptonomicon
 


Being I do this for a liviing, I dont think I am wrong in the least bit. Your assumption that the officer would have drawn his weapon if he thought she had one is just that, and ignores training. The Supreme Court ruled we cant shoot a fleeing felon in the back unless we can for sure say they are posing an immediate / imminent danger to the community as a whole.

This leaves us with waiting for the girl to pull a weapon and then to turn around. Why risk it, when its safer to change the channel" by taking her to the ground. Based on the legalities involved, my "theory" does ont go out the window, but comes front and center in terms of use of force and a term called totality of circumstances, in addition to Supreme Court rulings dealing with officer perception at the time force was used.

As far as your comment about perception being a catch all excuse, I refer you to the Supreme Court rulings that guide an officers use of force and how its perceived, which is from a reasonableness standard and not a due proicess standard. What you fail to take into account after the officer uses of force and what he perceived, is the following investigations, if any are waranted.

In this case, the only reason he is being investigated is because another Police employee found the youtube footage and turned it in. No other complaints were filed by any party, including 3rd parties who witness what occured.

As to your assertation the officers actions are a form of dominance behavior, please support that with evidence. The officer himself has never had a use of force in the 5 years he has been with the department.

He gave her a command to stop, she refused. The officer had to close the distance to catch up to her, and during this she half turned, exposed her hands, then bropught them back down. We see the incident from a side view, which allows us to see the actions of both, the oficer and student. Those 2 people saw the incident for there own personal point of view, which means what we saw is not neccisarily what the officer saw, or thought.

Ive already posted the Phoenix law on obstruction / resisting arrest that applies to this case that will guide the officers actions. As I stated before I can post all of the court cases and fEderal law that guides people who are operating under color of law and what we can and cannot do if you guys want.

All I am saying is some of you guys are viewing this incident from the view of being uninformed about how the law works in this case for the officers actions. Let the IA investigation takes it course and see what comes of it.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join