Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
83
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I disagree with half of the police brutality posts on this site, but this one...I don't have an ounce of disagreement in me. She wasn't even running, she was walking away. He could easily have caught up with her and put her in cuffs. If she resisted at that point than put her to the ground..not body slam her. This is definitely far too much force.

Michelle




posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Expat888
 


The difference between a police and law officer is a key soveriegn citizen argument, which is why I stated that.

excessive use of force is a possibility for sure, but as with any argument I see, the cop is innocent until proven guilty. It was the police department who discovered the video, and it was the police department who initiated the interal review of the officers actions.

To me that is not indicative of a department trying to hide anything. The officer himself has no record of use of force issues, which is not to say he in not capable of using excessive force. All I am saying is we are seeing a unique view from the video that shows simultanious actions of both the officer and the female. We are not seeing the situation from either persons persepective.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by hillsmith
 


From what I see from that other video, there was something wrong with the guy as it was shot. His failure to move was secondary to his medical condition. Even if he didn't realize consciously his own impending death his brain knew it was imminent. Maybe it's because I have been in medicine for 19 years now, but it's clear to me this man has some issue going on BEFORE he is shoved to the ground.

Again...it's still contempt of cop. They didn't care why he didn't comply. Even though he was walking away and presented NO threat to the officers or stability of the situation at all. He didn't comply and was "dealt with."



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Could it be that she was putting her hands up in the air? Like you see in movies as a sign of giving up or to show her hands had no weapons in them?
We have no idea, I just can't imagine why the family didn't press charges I would have.


Sure.. anything is possible.. What I was referring to was where her hands went when they came down. They went to the front of her stomach, whivch moved her hands from being seen by the officer, to not being seen by the officer.

Even when we are talking to people, we ask people to take their hands out of their pockets and keep them where we can see them.

The family could certainly request charges be filed.. Not sure if it would go anywhere or not, and I say that not because of the system being corrupt and in favor of the police (as some will most lkikely state) but because of the law works in situations like that.

As with other arguments, the female is innocent until proven guilty, which is the same standard that applies to the officer as well.

Try to see it from the officers point of view -
You are dispatched to a school for a minor who is possibly intoxicated who had just been involved in a fight. When you arrive, the student is now outside, and people present were stating the student was then fighting with another person.You look up and see the student walking away from you.

You giver verbal commands for her to stop, and they dont comply. You close the distance, and you see here half turn, bring her hands up. She then turns forward agains, refuses to stop and brings her hands down where you cant see them. Its not out of the realm of possibility that she is potentially armed.

People percevie the phrase being armed as having a gun, when in reality it can be any item that can be used in such a manner as to hurt, harm, main, kill, etc etc.

As I said, im not conding his actions, but merely pointing out another view point as to why the officer may have acted in that manner.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Ahh.. No worries.. Think its a difference in generations - am old enough to remember the days when they were peace officers as opposed to todays law officers.. I forget at times the younger generations aren't familiar with some of the references I make.. Or maybe its my rusty english.. Either way no harm done or meant..



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I'm sure he "feared for his life."

They are a timid people dontcha know.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 


I just got a chance to see the video. He definitely feared for his life. You could see the terror in his eyes as he charges forward and cocks his arm back for the tackle.

What a brave man. America's finest.
edit on 6-5-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


What part of not defending his actions are you and some others not getting. As I said, I am pointing out another view point of the incident that comes from a legal standpoint, and not civilian standpoint.

We have the entire story because of the video and the articles.

At the time, the officer did not. All I am saying is what may appear as blatantly obvious to us, was most likely not present at the time of the incident.

Also, she did assault some people. That will change the "attitude" the officer has towards the person. She has already demonstrated, twice if I understand the video and articles correctly, that she will fight. She was intoxicated, and I can say that I would rahter fight with a 6'5 250 drunk guy, than a 100 pound drunk female, because least the guy will fight fair.

Wiht that in mind, she is walking away and refusing to comply to stop.

Should she have been tased? Pepper sprayed?

Obviously simple verbal commands were not effective, because if they were she would have stopped.

Could the officer have chosen a diffeent method to take her into custody? Possibly, but in the end, she is still going to be on the ground being handcuffed. I draw that conclusion by her refusal to stop when told to do so.
edit on 6-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


That depends on their procedural handbook. If he followed the handbook or training, other police officers would not be opening the case. Simple as that. That's my Point of View.
Obviously other officers were disturbed by the situation and have turned it over, there must be a logical reason they are doing this.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
The LEO apologists here are a scary bunch. They would gladly wear the brown shirt when asked.

The constant state of war is producing a generation of increasingly brutal officers.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Excuse me for interrupting but I have something to say.
I Thought we here at ATS attempted to look at the bigger picture and base our opinions on facts I guess I was wrong.

How many of you thought for yourself and watched the video from the beginning instead of following directions and just going to 1:50 in your hurry to blast the cop?

How many of you watched and deducted your opinion from the entire video?

How many of you have never been drunk and those of you that have, how was your balance, and did you take this into consideration?

Here's how I see it (this specific case),

The girl was drunk and as ShadowAngel85 points out(obviously missed) she hit a teacher. This causes the call to the police. From the beginning she is shown as combatant.

The beginning of the video shows the drunk girl being held in a citizens arrest and is combatant.

This is what the police know.

The Girl is drunk and just finished a 1:12+(as we don't know how long it was before video starts) wrestling match. She is now drunk, exhausted, and her muscles are drained and relaxed, and she probably has ringing in her ears.

The officer begins walking toward her and is evaluating the suspect as trained, sees she is not a small girl, knows her to be combatant and decides the action to take.

He tells her to stop she turns and turns back quickly causing her limp body to be off balance.

The officer contacts her with the force, he deems necessary, to push her against the wall, in order to hand cuff her and take her into custody.

This force was enough to push a limp, off balanced, mentally void little girl into motion beyond the officers control.

The only mistake here is the officers over estimation of the suspects condition.

If you want to fight police brutality don't take cases like this or you hurt the cause. Police brutality is a problem as well as the possibility of martial law and drawing attention to cases like this that can be seen as well within the officers job description will cause people to disbelieve and/or ignore the real ones. you must remove emotions and look at the facts or it remains a conspiracy and not a problem.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Personal attack? Sorry if you mistook that. I was being serious. I've seen you defending LEO's in multiple threads on the site and saying you are a cop. That would kinda mean that you are giving your expert opinion. However I've always had my doubts about that and that sentence stuck out as something a real cop wouldn't probably say. I'm of course just speculating. In this video how you pointed interests towards who filmed this and then raised possibilities of doubts in the LEO's mind about wheter the girl was armed or not just smelled fishy to me. Since we're not investigating what the 15-year old did or didn't do but are commenting on the method of her arrest and that part is clearly visible too.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Actually that is somewhat incorrect. Any use of force by an officer is reviewed by their chain of command. Any complaint of excessive use of force by a civilian is turned over to IA and investigated.

Just because an investigation has been opened to look into the matter, doesnt mean the cop broke any policies or laws.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I am going to defend the cop a little. Look at his face after he hits her. He obviously used too much strength and was sorry he did.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I heard her get all kinds of wind knocked out of her

"HUUUAAAHHH!"


And what is it with the shaved head Neo Nazi look???



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Attacking me by commenting if I am real or not, is a personal attack.

As I have said before, I am not defending the officers actions. I am pointing out to you guys the opposing view and mindset.

The theme is to deny ignorance here, not embrace it because of a sterotypical hatred of all cops. People view the incident from their level of education, and the problem with that is in fact, their level of education on the subject matter. People have stated other officers think the force was excessive, and thats fine also. I am pointing out how that use of force is going to be viewed, which is to say its going to be reviewed in a manner that is not going to be acceptable to the bulk of the people in the thread, who have done what pisses them off in other threads -

Considering the officer as innocent until proven guilty, and not guilty based on what you saw, with that conclusion drawing on your personal experiences as anything but a police officer.

I can go into the court cases if you guys want to learn how some of this works, specifically use of force and supreme court rulings on reviewing use of force.

As far as the cell phone person goes, they are a material witness to what occured. They witnessed the incdent from a position of non involvement and non bias as a 3rd party. The person would have no loyalties to either side if questioned about what they saw, giving an independant account. Ignoring that, then its possible either the cop, OR the student could be charged and go to jail. As I said, the purpose of an investigation is to seek the truth, regardless of which party that affects.

We have enough people on the forums who go after the cops. Why is it so wrong for a person to represent the opposing argument? Apparently it doesnt matter how many times I say I am not defending the cop, because you guys just gloss over that fact.

Providing detailed information as to how law enforcement works does not mean support. Its provided for people to see both sides of the argument.

nothing more, nothing less.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Interesting video.

What I seen was a drunk girl who was rolling around in the parking lot with another girl... a woman getting upset, leaving and returning... some people pulling over to check out the scuffle... cops show up... drunk girl who was just rolling around on the ground is walking away... cop says "stop" or w/e... drunk girl doesn't... cop goes after her... pushes her into the wall in an attempt to detain... but because she can't handle her alcohol yet she ricocheted off the wall (because she has no balance) and face plants the ground.

I am against police brutality but I don't see brutality here. Yes what happened was very unfortunate (she could of have been seriously injured), but that's what happens when a 15 year old drinks. They can't handle it, thus resulting in poor decision making and balance. The cop might of over estimated his push, but that doesn't mean his intention was malice.
edit on 6/5/2011 by InnerTruths because: grammar



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Im not an appologist, and people can vouch for that. I have come down on law enforcement actions in many threads.

You think the officers actions are excessive. In an effort to make that argument, you are going to need to know the law that surrounds Officers and use of force. Refusing to accept those rulings means you are not looking for any truth in the matter, nor are you willing to extend innocent until proven guilty.

As with people, we are different and will see things different based on our education, training, experinces.

As I said with this case, I have provided another angle for people to consider that is based on the other side of the fence so to speak. You are free to accept whatever view you want, but to discount the opposing view is a sign of ignorance, not intelligence.

The Phoenix PD has begun an internal investigation into the officer and his actions. The officer has no history of use of force problems, which leads me back to what the officer perceived when he pushed her.

If you have something to add to the debate, then by all means add it.

Please stop the personal attacks on me.
edit on 6-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join