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: 12
83
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Oh, you mean someone who is 15 years old, female, and only walking away from you? BTW, who also does not know you are closing in on them at a fast pace? I'd turn around in defense too! Does that mean I have a gun? Does that mean you should ram me into a wall possibly putting me into a coma? I guess that counts as justified in some peoples eyes, not mine.



Age in this case is irrelevant, and I fail to understand why you guys think it matters. A 15 year old can be just as dealy as a 40 year old can be just as deadly as a 95 year old. Assuming that just because she is a minor things will go smooth is just asking for a problem.

The officer yelled at her, and she refused to stop. The blame will fall on her for refusing to stop when told to do so. When the officer closed the gap, the girl half turned, brought her arms up and then back down. The officer does not have xray vision, and cannot see what she was doing when her hands came down. He changed the channel and she went down.

As far as your last comment goes, that is exactly what I am talking about. Some people are reviewing this situation with emotion based on their own percetion and NOT law.

That is a problem.



Is gender/sex irrelevant?

Viewing with emotion? Kind of like the cop acted out of emotion and not restrained professionalism.

Cops are (supposedly) held to a higher standard than common people. He acted recklessly and out of emotion, not out of professionalism.

Regardless of everything, and the point in my initial response, he thrust her (a 15 year old girl) into a concrete wall.

That is uncalled for. There is NO valid justification for his action, not matter what he "thought."

Period.

The justification that a cop can do whatever he or she pleases simply because a person does not "follow commands" is absurd. Should she have also, after turning around and putting her hands up, just taken off her cloths to prove she had nothing hidden?

And we are not viewing it with emotion, we are viewing it with rationality. It was uncalled for, slamming her into a concrete wall.

I said it once, and i'll say it again: you apologists disgusts me.

Total submission to authority or you "had it coming."



I am through with this thread.

Good riddance and good night.




posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesolutionisrevolution
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Why is it that different places, word things loosely? Yet others clearly would of stated it was wrong? Can't we all agree that regardless of resisting arrest or not, smashing her head in a wall is wrong. Like others have said he put his body weight in to it. Just because you have a nice scapegoat to hide behind (not you, I read about you not having any of those problems while on the force) doesn't mean you are justified, maybe by the law, but he's still a major D bag in mostly everyone's eyes. I just get tired of seeing this.

It honestly seems to me these loosely worded definitions of what resisting arrest is defined as, is a joke. I know some will say it was for his protection, well glad he's safe, and in the process of that he could have ended a girls life before it truly even could of started. I don't mean to go off I just don't get why the definitions change so much, it seems like it gives good reason for officers like him to abuse that. I ask you cause I think you would be able to tell me more then other people.

Respectfully

TSIR


U mean like this?:

according to XCathdra, this ok. This is justified. For all we know this man could have had a pink eraser on him that he planned on using to kill a cop. Notice how this guy also reacts in self defense. Just like that 15 year old girl.
But it's ok. This kind of thing is acceptable.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


She didn't have pants on, way to small to be hiding guns like that in. Also you can see in the video her stomach when shes fighting with the other woman, and her shirt although maybe could hide a gun, those shorts or whatever weren't
I agree with you in other situations that can happen, but this one really didn't seem plausible. Don't mean to be a pain I just like a good debate


TSIR
edit on 6-5-2011 by thesolutionisrevolution because: Insomnia and making mistakes




posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I just want to chime in again and say that I knew of a police officer who told me he once got a black eye from a 13 yr old girl. Doesn't matter how old or how small a person is; they can still pose some kind of threat in one way or another. It all comes back down to officer-safety.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by thesolutionisrevolution
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Why is it that different places, word things loosely? Yet others clearly would of stated it was wrong? Can't we all agree that regardless of resisting arrest or not, smashing her head in a wall is wrong. Like others have said he put his body weight in to it. Just because you have a nice scapegoat to hide behind (not you, I read about you not having any of those problems while on the force) doesn't mean you are justified, maybe by the law, but he's still a major D bag in mostly everyone's eyes. I just get tired of seeing this.

It honestly seems to me these loosely worded definitions of what resisting arrest is defined as, is a joke. I know some will say it was for his protection, well glad he's safe, and in the process of that he could have ended a girls life before it truly even could of started. I don't mean to go off I just don't get why the definitions change so much, it seems like it gives good reason for officers like him to abuse that. I ask you cause I think you would be able to tell me more then other people.

Respectfully

TSIR


U mean like this?:

according to XCathdra, this ok. This is justified. For all we know this man could have had a pink eraser on him that he planned on using to kill a cop. Notice how this guy also reacts in self defense. Just like that 15 year old girl.
But it's ok. This kind of thing is acceptable.


That is exactly the incident to which i was referring in a previous post, when i said this is not an isolated incident.

Thanks for finding and posting it.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by thesolutionisrevolution
 


Because the review of an officers use of force is not as simple as you guys are making it out to be.

If 2 people are fighting, both civilians, it falls under a clear cut law.

If an officer is one of those paties, the standards change for reviewing the incident. In addition to being inside State Law, the officer also has to be within departmental policy for his use of force, as well as e within 42 USC 1983, which is the FEderal Law that covers people acting under color of law and civil rights violations of that person by an officer.

The Supreme Court has been clear when reviewing an offices use of force. Hindsight 20/20 (which we are using to review this incident) cannot be used. The standard is what did the officer perceive at the exact moment he used force.

Another example would be doing a traffic stop at 2 am, and the driver gets out of the car and starts walking towards the cop. The officer gets out, draws his gun and gives verbal commands for the guy to stop. The guy doesnbt stop and has what appears to be a dark object in his hands -

This is a standard scenario used to get people to understand that standard.

If the guy does not stop and the officer shoots, and it turns out the guy had his wallett in his hands, that fact cannot be taken into account when determining if the officrs actions were justified or not. If the officer does not shoot, and it turns out the guy did have a gun, then the other lesson is applied.

What we can review over minutes, like the op video, only occured once for the officer, and then it was a few second window from getting out of his vehicle to making contact with the girl.

Some other things to keep in mind. Her age is irrelevant. Information suggest she is intoxicated, and also that she has been involved in 1 fight already.

Unkown factors -
is she armed with any type of weapon? (some girls this age carry pepper spray on their person)
is she drunk, or is she on drugs (some drugs will not register pain complaines)
is she mentally stable (some mentally unstable persons will not register pain complaince)
is she suicidal - somee people will go for whats called suicide by cop, which means they take an action they know will result in a deadly use of force response.
Does the girl know any type of martial arts / fighting skills (sometimes they telegraph this by comment, or by stance).

Does the officer know how the person is? Is there any type of past that is known to law enforcement with regards to the 15 year old. Have they had run ins with her before? Does she have a juvenile criminal record / history?

All I am saying is its not as black and white as some people think this is. There are a lot of factors to consider, and sometimes there are only a few seconds to make those considerations before being required to act.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand
 


Ive watched the vdeo from start to finish a few times, and am giving you my thoughts based on my experince and training. I have explained the legalities involved, and how people who view the incident are basing their intepretation off of personal experience and emotion, and not what the law requires.

My opinion from wha tI saw is the office clsoing the gap, the girl half turning and bring her hands up, then bringing them back down to where they could not be seen be the officer. All the officer knows, according to the article, was an intoxicated minor had attacked a teacher.

Attacked with what? When we use the term weapon, we arent neccissarily refering to a gun. Anything that can cause personal injury or harm can be considered a weapon. A pencil can be considered a weapon if used in the right manner.

Ever see what a pen can do to a person if jammed into a persons eye? Ever see what a set of keys can do when placed into the palm of your hand with the keys hutting out near your knuckles (think wolverine). Even loose handcuffs can be considered a deadly weapon if unlatch and swung at a persons head.

As I said, im not condoning the officers actions. I am offering a differeing view as to why the officer may have taken the action he did based off of established law governing use of force.The fact the girl is 15 has no bearing at all on officer actions.


It most certainly does. A 15 year old girl is gonna fly farther than an average person. Her bones are gonna be weaker than an average persons. She's gonna hit the wall harder than an average person. So it's ok to kill her over a "hunch"?



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


There's really no way to tell if she was attempting to escape or not without hearing the audio or knowing the back story. The cop could've told her to stop. That's not the point, though. He shouldn't have tackled her like that when she posed no threat to anyone.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia


Jump To 1:53


I think both the girl and the cop were drunk
The police force needs to condemn publicly police brutality and because of how far widespread police brutality has come the president also needs to publicly condemn this action and provide a plan to reduce police brutality.

At the very least if not that then presidential candidates should shed some spotlight on this and that could also help them during the campaign trial.

www.dailymail.co. uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


Quote me some nice kung fu moves. That cop seems he had a nice round shiny head.



edit on 6-5-2011 by spacebot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by thesolutionisrevolution
 


Actually the first thing the officer does is give her verbal commands, which she refused. The officer then closed the gap, and she half turned. She could have easily stopped at that point, knowing the officer is there. Instead she continuede, raising her hands, then lowering them where the officer could not see them.

If she knew an officer was behind her, why did she complete those actions?



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquesence

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by thesolutionisrevolution
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Why is it that different places, word things loosely? Yet others clearly would of stated it was wrong? Can't we all agree that regardless of resisting arrest or not, smashing her head in a wall is wrong. Like others have said he put his body weight in to it. Just because you have a nice scapegoat to hide behind (not you, I read about you not having any of those problems while on the force) doesn't mean you are justified, maybe by the law, but he's still a major D bag in mostly everyone's eyes. I just get tired of seeing this.

It honestly seems to me these loosely worded definitions of what resisting arrest is defined as, is a joke. I know some will say it was for his protection, well glad he's safe, and in the process of that he could have ended a girls life before it truly even could of started. I don't mean to go off I just don't get why the definitions change so much, it seems like it gives good reason for officers like him to abuse that. I ask you cause I think you would be able to tell me more then other people.

Respectfully

TSIR


U mean like this?:

according to XCathdra, this ok. This is justified. For all we know this man could have had a pink eraser on him that he planned on using to kill a cop. Notice how this guy also reacts in self defense. Just like that 15 year old girl.
But it's ok. This kind of thing is acceptable.


That is exactly the incident to which i was referring in a previous post, when i said this is not an isolated incident.

Thanks for finding and posting it.


It's the second time I've posted it in this thread. How convienient the apologists neglect to mention it.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
what a dog, hope he cops it sweet.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand
 


She wasn't killed.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
notice how the cop takes her top, thats to humiliate her i've seen this done 3 times over here in england its sickening how low the police will go to gain the upperhand. thay are basicly just thugs with gov backing. its bad for the real good police who ya never hear about



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




This is a standard scenario used to get people to understand that standard. If the guy does not stop and the officer shoots, and it turns out the guy had his wallett in his hands, that fact cannot be taken into account when determining if the officrs actions were justified or not. If the officer does not shoot, and it turns out the guy did have a gun, then the other lesson is applied.


That is understandable, I get it. But the guy who got pulled over KNEW he was getting pulled over. This girl didn't even know what hit her.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marked One
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand
 


She wasn't killed.


She COULD HAVE BEEN. That's the point of this whole thread.
edit on 5/6/2011 by CastleMadeOfSand because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 


Actually sex is taken into account, but not in the manner you are siggesting. If a female officer who is 5'1 120 pounds is confronted by a male who is 6'2 240 muscle, the female officr will be justified in using a different level of force than what a male would be.

in this case, the 15 year old girl, according to the information the officer has, is that she was intoxicated, had been involved in a fight. We dont know exactly what info was relayed, and all of the other unknowns that I poiinted out a few posts back.

She was walking away, she refused verbal commands to stop. Even when the officer closed the gap, and she half turned and saw him, she still continued by turning away and continuing moving forward.

The fact she is 15 is irrelevant since any person of any age can kill someone else. The officer came into the situation while it was till fluid, which means the top priority is going to secure all the parties and ensure their safety. That is hard to do when your prime suspect is attempting to leave the scene.

IA is reviewing his use of force. What I have been trying to explain to people is how that process works. This situation is not as black and white as people re making it out to be. There are factors to consider that people are not familiar with.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

It most certainly does. A 15 year old girl is gonna fly farther than an average person. Her bones are gonna be weaker than an average persons. She's gonna hit the wall harder than an average person. So it's ok to kill her over a "hunch"?


No, it most certainly does not. Also, she did not die and as far as we know, did not suffer any adverse injuries. You cant base your opinion off of hypotheticals or hindsight. This is what I am trying to explain to you. Its what the officer perceived at the exact moment the force was used.

Nothing else can be ontroduced into the review that explores what could have happened to the female. The question asked will be, based on what the officer perceived, was his use of force, his shoveing the girl from behind, allowable under the reasonableness standard? Was his use of that force within departmental policy based on the situation at hand. Was that use of force a violation of her constitutional rights in terms of excessive use of force.

Those questions are asked, and are then answered within the box the officer was in.

That is the standard.. That is what I am trying to get across to people.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




The fact she is 15 is irrelevant since any person of any age can kill someone else. The officer came into the situation while it was till fluid, which means the top priority is going to secure all the parties and ensure their safety. That is hard to do when your prime suspect is attempting to leave the scene.


Ok, so that's how you secure the parties involved. How do you get her side of the story? Do you knock her out? Seems reasonable to me?



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
While it would be hard to defend this officer against his actions as i see excessive force under any context seen in this video.
I recently found this video that helps explain something i understand to be true.sheep ranch
Watch or don't, it is still a good story.

Hope it helps.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join