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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Originally posted by Marked One
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand
She wasn't killed.
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"?
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.