Cop Punches Girl in the Face

[GO-NAD!]

Another case of excessive force resulting in a death, and in a ridiculous absolvement of the thugs who killed the guy. Damn if you beat him with a pulp with your fists, damned if you tase him to death... What's a policeman to do in these hard times? And all this video evidence with all those cell phones... What a pain!

The inquiry just wrapped up a couple of days ago and the RCMP officers involved are not off the hook. There may yet be charges, as a result.

 

[GO-NAD!]

In some ways, I can't dispute that these 2 crazy black chicks had it coming. You can't defend this absolutely unacceptable behavior. But the job of the cop wasn't to punch her in the face. That's an abuse of power. No one has the right to assault another individual like that. There are some cases, self defense and the such, where you would have no choice of doing so, but this wasn't the case. The crazy black chick barely pushed the cop, the cop was never in any real danger and there was really no reason to escalate to using physical violence which might injure badly the chick. Simply no justification to do so.

Well, that's how it works in Canada. Maybe it works differently in the states. And in some states, it definitely does. Maybe it's just different set of values and standards. I think standards being the key word here. Canadians don't want violent thugs as their law enforcement agencies. Maybe Americans simply don't care or don't consider police using violence a problem...

I don't think it's fair, or even remotely accurate, to insinuate that there are different (i.e. lower) standards of conduct expected of American police, vice their Canadian counterparts.

My smell test regarding the acceptability of the officer's actions would hinge on whether the girl was injured in any significant way - cracked teeth, broken jaw or nose, split lip, etc. I haven't seen any statement regarding any injuries she may have suffered, so I'll have to assume that there were none. I would imagine that if she was seriously hurt, that fact would've been brought to light by now.

If she suffered no real injury, I would say police brutality could be dismissed on that basis.

You keep adding "imho" to many of your statements. In my experience, your opinions tend to be less than humble....

 

[GirgleMirt]

You watch too much TV and drank too much kool-aid.

And you eat too much chocolate. Seriously, I might have watched too much TV (I don't...) or drink too much mountain dew (I don't...), but how is is related to anything?

You really have no idea what transpires in these situations in the real world.

So enlighten us oh wise one.

Or you simply want to see cops beat down for protecting themselves.

Yes that's exactly what I want, that any time a cop protects himself, we beat him down... lol

Being Canadian, I don't really understand how this makes any sense.

Strange, everybody around here knows that when you go to the states, you do not f*** with the cops because they're not quite the same as the cops we have here. A lot of stuff which would fly here would get you beat down or locked in the states... Sure it's stereotyping, but that's pretty much how everybody sees things around here.

Girgle, I love ya. I just have to disagree that from what I saw that the punch constituted police brutality. I don't give the police a general pass and I think there are numerous times they exceed the boundaries of acceptability.

I have absolutely no issue with that. But simply answer this, please... "could the cop have defused the situation other than physically assaulting the girl by punching her?" If your answer is yes, then sure it qualifies as police brutality as they use brutality where other, non-violent methods, could have been used. Do you disagree on that?

I may yet change my mind if this matter goes to trial and something else comes to light. Just about every profession attracts people who will look to take advantage of its unique situation and abuse their authority. The priesthood has its pedophiles, politicians have special favors, coaches sexually abuse their players, accountants get creative, and so on.

I wouldn't go as far as saying the cop 'took advantage of the situation', or did anything with bad intentions or the such. Just that punching the girl in the face was unnecessary. I don't see this as a career destroying move where the guy should be jailed for police brutality, just that it was a bad decision on his part, he did not have to punch that girl. The cop is nowhere near your other examples, he might be a bit violent, too quick to jump on the trigger as they say, but that should be correctable. But if he just resorts to violence every time without taking into consideration alternatives, then he's just a plain bad cop and should lose his badge. If it's just a one time thing, then it's not a huge deal, just a one time lapse of judgment, can happen to all of us. No one was seriously hurt... (unlike that other cop which shot the cuffed man lying on the floor in the back of the head by accident)

There are always different ways to have handled a situation.

Exactly, violence should be the last resort. Not a stick to use in any sticky situation.

Hindsight gives us that calm ability to see it more clearly. OTOH, sometimes, hindsight is left to a training video. See what happens after 6 minutes. I'll bet this cop had stopped many a motorist with negligible incident. But then...

Wtf was that, what a dumb cop... So he shoots pepper spray and then turns his back to the passengers and walks back to his car? WTF was that?

Why did he use pepper spray in the place anyhow? Just pull out your gun, tell them to keep their arms and hands where he can see them, have them exit the vehicule, (or call for backup he he can't handle the 2 man by himself, howcome they're not 2 cops i the car?!), and arrest them... Pepper spray looks to be because they weren't that cooperative earlier in the car, so again, WTF does he think he's accomplishing with the pepper spray?

I think that cop was just a bad, violent, dumb, cop who used the pepper spray just to teach the occupants a lesson about stopping the car when pulled over. The dumbass cop didn't even consider that the two man could have been armed. He just thought he'd teach those 2 a lesson and pepper spray the **** out of them. Then dumbass turns his back and gets shot. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned here... Would he have gotten shot if he had done what I said earlier and pulled out his gun instead? Maybe, maybe not... But it's definitely possible that the pepper spray got him shot... "Motherfu**** pepper spray us like that?" "Want to play Motherfu****?". Could really have been what triggered the shooting.

 

[GirgleMirt]

Well...here is my take on it speaking from almost 20 years of LEO experience. The minute she began to interfere with my duties, I would have given her a warning to stop and if she did not, she would have been told she would be arrested for obstructing. If she did it again, I may have even given another warning probably much more louder so everyone could hear. The minute she laid a hand on me, I would have advised her she was now under arrest and given her instructions to submit to the arrest. If she began to pull away or walk away, I would have grabbed ahold of her and assisted her in submitting to the arrest. If she continued to actively resisted, my taser would have been pulled out and pointed directly at her. Verbal commands would continue and I would follow them up by saying that she would be tasered if she continued to resist. If she continued, I would have deployed my taser immediately.

*Claps hands*. Well done. That's how an officer should behave. Except you'd have been a little quick on the taser, but I guess that's another issue. I believe taser is again an escalation of force, if she's just yapping away acting like a crazy chick, yeah sure she's being a pain in the ***, but does that warrant use of the taser? I don't think so. Taser, just like papper spray, a club, or a gun, should only be used if the officer is in any danger. It's not harmless, it's an escalation of violence, if someone resists arrests, acts like a crazy woman, that doesn't warrant use of taser. Unless she's violent, AND physically attacks (or rushes), act in a threatening way to the officer. Then, she was warned, she continued, event tried to assault the officer, then yeah, tase her crazy ***. Just screaming and acting crazy and not endangering anyone? Taser should not be used.

My personal opinion is that this officer did absolutely nothing wrong by punching her. I just would have done things differently like I explained above.

They can't be both right. Either he was right in punching her because he had no other choice, or he was wrong in punching her because he had other, non-violent alternatives...

The levels of force can be skipped depending on what the situation dictates, so again your understanding of police protocol is wrong.

Even if it can, doesn't mean it should... And you're probably talking military. Cops can't escalate on their whim. Gov will probably concur, for a certain level of force be applied, certain specific circumstance must be met. Else it would simply be chaos and cops would have the latitude of using violence when ever they wanted...

The inquiry just wrapped up a couple of days ago and the RCMP officers involved are not off the hook. There may yet be charges, as a result.

Oh jesus no, almost 3 years later, they're still working as cops after killing a man by tasing him repeatedly when he was incapacitated on the ground, (didn't even deserve to be tased in the first place), being caught on video and caught lying on their reports, and you think that's normal? Kill a man with a taser, on film, lie about the events afterward, and see if you can continue working your regular 9 to 5 and walking free... Only if you're a cop my friend.

I don't think it's fair, or even remotely accurate, to insinuate that there are different (i.e. lower) standards of conduct expected of American police, vice their Canadian counterparts.

Another fun example. Yeah, she just fell down, no charges will be brought up... "It was something that needed to be handled interllay. There was not enough evidence to pursue criminal charges". lmao Worst than the mafia...

Countless examples... Is USA much worst than Cdn police? Well, I personally rather would get pulled over by Cdn than Usa cop... Maybe it's not warranted, but like I said, pretty much all people from around here seem to feel the same way...

My smell test regarding the acceptability of the officer's actions would hinge on whether the girl was injured in any significant way - cracked teeth, broken jaw or nose, split lip, etc. I haven't seen any statement regarding any injuries she may have suffered, so I'll have to assume that there were none. I would imagine that if she was seriously hurt, that fact would've been brought to light by now.

It doesn't matter, he clogged her in the face full force. Fact that no serious injury was suffered shouldn't be the criteria for judging if excessive force was used... If he tried to shoot her in the head but missed, then there would be no fractured skull, brain damage, death, cracked teeth, broken jaw or nose, split lip, etc., so your smell test regarding the acceptability of the officer's action would then dictate that the cop's response, shooting subject in the head with his gun, was correct? What if he did hit her in the head and she died? What if the punch he threw landed solidly and put her in a coma? Or broke her neck and paralyzed her from the neck down? What then? Then it would not have been ok? So the action itself doesn't matter? Only the result? Sorry, that's ridiculous...

If she suffered no real injury, I would say police brutality could be dismissed on that basis.

You keep adding "imho" to many of your statements. In my experience, your opinions tend to be less than humble....

Again, ridiculous, you seem to have no idea what police brutality is...

Police brutality is a civil rights violation that occurs when a police officer acts with excessive force by using an amount of force with regards to a civilian that is more than necessary. Excessive force by a law enforcement officers is a violation of a person's rights. Excessive force is not subject to a precise definition, but it is generally beyond the force a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would use under the circumstances.

Force should be used in only the minimum amount needed to achieve a legitimate purpose. Police brutality is a direct violation of the laws within the police force. The use of excessive force is also a direct violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S Constitution regarding cruelty and protection of the laws.

 

[Chu Gai]

I'm bowing out as I've said my piece.

 

[GirgleMirt]

I'm bowing out as I've said my piece.

lol why do nobody ever want to answer simple questions...

But simply answer this, please... "could the cop have defused the situation other than physically assaulting the girl by punching her?" If your answer is yes, then sure it qualifies as police brutality as they use brutality where other, non-violent methods, could have been used. Do you disagree on that?

 

[markw]

So enlighten us oh wise one.

You really want to know? wait...

Strange, everybody around here knows that when you go to the states, you do not f*** with the cops because they're not quite the same as the cops we have here.

It seems you've answered your own question. Things are different "around here" than they are where you are for good reasons. If you chose to explore what goes on outside your little myopic way of thinking, you will realize that there are different demographics and social standards here in the big cities here as opposed to the small, racially pure, towns where you are.

One would think you were intelligent enough to realize that, but I guess not.

In any case, why not come down and spend some time in a crowded, racially mixed environment where weapons are not uncommon. It might open your eyes.

The following is not aimed at any race in particular. It simply shows the propensity towards violence, particularly when in a group situation.

"Previously, Rosenthal (the 17 year-old) was charged in November with second-degree robbery. According to prosecutors, she punched a 15-year-old boy in the face while she and a group of youths were on their way to a rave in South Seattle Aug. 28. The boy told police that his cellphone and $20 were stolen in the incident.

A 14-year-old boy told police that he was punched in the head and his hat was stolen.

Authorities say the case was dismissed when the boys refused to testify."

Linky...

Obviously you're steadfast in your belief in fairy tales of a perfect world where, ironically enough, this situation would never have occurred in the first place.

Anyhow, since you finally admitted that you have no idea what it's like "down here", I'll just leave you to your rants.

 

[JerryLove]

Strange, everybody around here knows that when you go to the states, you do not f*** with the cops because they're not quite the same as the cops we have here. A lot of stuff which would fly here would get you beat down or locked in the states... Sure it's stereotyping, but that's pretty much how everybody sees things around here.

Once everyone *knew* that the Earth was flat. I can't say what is or is not accurate about your perception becuase I lack experience with Canadian Police... and in a coun try of 300million, my experience with US police is limited.

I have absolutely no issue with that. But simply answer this, please... "could the cop have defused the situation other than physically assaulting the girl by punching her?"

Of course. He could have been standaing there with a riot squad to ticket J-walkers.

I'll assume you meant something else. In which case the answer is: I don't know; but as I said before there is a different course I would have suggested.

If your answer is yes, then sure it qualifies as police brutality as they use brutality where other, non-violent methods, could have been used. Do you disagree on that?

I do... completely and unequivocably. "Less than perfect" is not always "brutal".

I wouldn't go as far as saying the cop 'took advantage of the situation', or did anything with bad intentions or the such. Just that punching the girl in the face was unnecessary. I don't see this as a career destroying move where the guy should be jailed for police brutality, just that it was a bad decision on his part, he did not have to punch that girl.

And how should he have known that with absolute certainty? Was she going to come at him again? Was failing to respond going to cost him even more control and would that lack of control have resulted in his death?

Prove your claim.

The cop is nowhere near your other examples, he might be a bit violent, too quick to jump on the trigger as they say, but that should be correctable. But if he just resorts to violence every time without taking into consideration alternatives, then he's just a plain bad cop and should lose his badge. If it's just a one time thing, then it's not a huge deal, just a one time lapse of judgment, can happen to all of us. No one was seriously hurt... (unlike that other cop which shot the cuffed man lying on the floor in the back of the head by accident)

He was assaulted. He responded with recpricol force to a felon (battery on a police officer is a felony most everywhere). He actually showed quite a bit of restraint in not taking her to the ground.

Why did he use pepper spray in the place anyhow? Just pull out your gun, tell them to keep their arms and hands where he can see them, have them exit the vehicule, (or call for backup he he can't handle the 2 man by himself, howcome they're not 2 cops i the car?!), and arrest them... Pepper spray looks to be because they weren't that cooperative earlier in the car, so again, WTF does he think he's accomplishing with the pepper spray?

So a minute ago you were upset that a police officer recriprocated by hitting an assalent, and now you want a police officer to escelate to a lethal response for a failure to cooperate?

OK. So the cop in your new example pulls his weapon.. and the guy in the car still does nothing, or puts his hands where they can't be seen, or gets out and acts just like the lady in our earlier video. The officer has removed all non-lethal responses from his option list by drawing his side-arm.

This last quote alone really has me feeling a need to agree with the "you just don't understand the situation" comments you've gotten. You have not been in these situations, and you do not understand what happens and can happen; and your solutions are, as a result, inconsistant and dangerous.

 

[GirgleMirt]

You really want to know? wait...

It seems you've answered your own question. Things are different "around here" than they are where you are. If you chose to explore what goes on outside your little myopic way of thinking, you will realize that there are diferent demographics and social standards in the big cities here as opposed to the small, racially pure, towns where you are.

lmfao, "small, racially pure, towns". You have no idea of wtf you're talking about. Even if it was true, and I lived in a small isolated town populated 99% of happy law abiding white canadians, that would be relevant how? It would be ok for our police not to hit people, but for police where there's more non-white folks, then it's ok to use violence? Please...

One would think you were intelligent enough to realize that, but I guess not.

Oh insulting my intelligence, how classy and oh how highly that speaks of your own intelligence. Get off your high horse and take a good look in the mirror my friend...

In any case, why not come down and spend some time in a crowded, racially mixed environment where weapons are not uncommon. It might open your eyes.

So you assume I never did? You assume much... Besides, we're not talking about street gangs armed to the teeth and with no beef putting bullets in the flange, the case we were arguing was about a 17 year old girl getting punched in the face by a police officer. As far as I know, racially mixed environments where weapons are not uncommon have very little to do with it... We're talking jay walkers here. Yeah sure she was black, but there was no weapons involved besides the officer's fist. And even then, say I went to the worst hoods in the states, what then, that opens my eyes that slugging the black girl in the face was the appropriate response? I don't think so...

 

[Matt34]

lol why do nobody ever want to answer simple questions...

There was no other alternative when multiple suspects are fighting you while surrounded by 15-20 people. The only other alternative would have been to get in his patrol car and leave.

IMO, he was too gentle with them to begin with and it could have very well cost him his life ie. exposing his back and weapon to the one while trying to apprehend the other. A women can shoot you just as easily as a man can.

 

[GirgleMirt]

I'll assume you meant something else. In which case the answer is: I don't know; but as I said before there is a different course I would have suggested.

I do... completely and unequivocably. "Less than perfect" is not always "brutal".

In this case, a punch to the face could well be described as brutal... I think it fits perfectly the definition of 'brutal', wouldn't you agree? Or is now punching someone in the face not brutal? Maybe not as brutal as shooting them in the face, but brutal none the less...

(he did not have to punch that girl)

And how should he have known that with absolute certainty? Was she going to come at him again? Was failing to respond going to cost him even more control and would that lack of control have resulted in his death?

Prove your claim.

He couldn't know it at the time. She might have well came at him again, or she might have not, if she did not, then he did not have to throw the punch, if she did, he could have punched her in the face.

See the difference? One is the officer proactively punching someone in the face to prevent possible future problems, the other is him responding with force to an even which requires a response with force. That's a huge difference.

He was assaulted. He responded with recpricol force to a felon (battery on a police officer is a felony most everywhere). He actually showed quite a bit of restraint in not taking her to the ground.

He was pushed... He wasn't really assaulted, as stated multiple times, the girl was trying to get her friend free, she didn't attack the officer, merely pushed him in the process of attempting to free her friend. That's the big point here.

Could he have thought he was under attack? I doubt so, I'm fairly confident he perceived the 2nd girl as trying to prevent him from arresting the first girl, then he thought that deserved a punch to the face. I seriously doubt he thought he was in danger... Disagree/agree?

So a minute ago you were upset that a police officer recriprocated by hitting an assalent, and now you want a police officer to escelate to a lethal response for a failure to cooperate?

Why did he use pepper spray in the place anyhow? Just pull out your gun, tell them to keep their arms and hands where he can see them, have them exit the vehicule, (or call for backup he he can't handle the 2 man by himself, howcome they're not 2 cops i the car?!), and arrest them... Pepper spray looks to be because they weren't that cooperative earlier in the car, so again, WTF does he think he's accomplishing with the pepper spray?

OK. So the cop in your new example pulls his weapon.. and the guy in the car still does nothing, or puts his hands where they can't be seen, or gets out and acts just like the lady in our earlier video. The officer has removed all non-lethal responses from his option list by drawing his side-arm.

Uh no he can easily put his weapon back in his holster... Exactly like here:

I think the officer did his job perfectly, until he used excessive force in cuffing the woman. But the screaming, the gun, I have absolutely no issue with. If the officer with the pepper spray acted in that fashion, might not have been shot... Or, had he to respond to the car passengers pulling a gun, would have been well within his right to respond by pulling the trigger, and I'd have absolutely NO issue in that case. Would have been perfectly warranted.

This last quote alone really has me feeling a need to agree with the "you just don't understand the situation" comments you've gotten. You have not been in these situations, and you do not understand what happens and can happen; and your solutions are, as a result, inconsistant and dangerous.

Well we can perfectly agree to disagree here. You're looking at the situation from the POV of the officer who has no real clue of wtf is really happening. I'm looking at it mainly from the POV of the video shot. Tell you what, if he had pulled out his gun and shot the girl. Would you say that would have been excessive force?

I could tell you no, it wasn't. Maybe the officer thought he saw a knife or a gun coming out, and really thought he had no choice but to defend himself. Looking at it from the officer's side, he'd have been right, if he saw a gun and think he's about to get shot, he's well within his right to defend himself... But then looking at the video, seeing that no gun was drawn, could be said that he made a mistake in shooting the girl because she was unarmed.

 

[GirgleMirt]

There was no other alternative when multiple suspects are fighting you while surrounded by 15-20 people. The only other alternative would have been to get in his patrol car and leave.

IMO, he was too gentle with them to begin with and it could have very well cost him his life ie. exposing his back and weapon to the one while trying to apprehend the other. A women can shoot you just as easily as a man can.

I don't agree that there was no other alternative... I've given one on a couple of occasions, Gov also gave a great example of a better way of handling the situation.

I also agree he was too gentle to begin with, cuff the first girl faster, with more authority, maybe the situation is resolved from the get go and no punch ever needs to be thrown.

Not sure what he was doing grabbing the girl like he was doing at the start of the video. Some guy just grabbed me like that I'd probably fight also, maybe something wasn't clear, anyhow, hard situation to deal with, he did ok, but he most probably could have definitely better, without having to punch the girl in the face.

 

[markw]

Ha!

lmfao, "small, racially pure, towns". You have no idea of wtf you're talking about. Even if it was true, and I lived in a small isolated town populated 99% of happy law abiding white canadians, that would be relevant how? It would be ok for our police not to hit people, but for police where there's more non-white folks, then it's ok to use violence? Please...

Oh insulting my intelligence, how classy and oh how highly that speaks of your own intelligence. Get off your high horse and take a good look in the mirror my friend...

So you assume I never did? You assume much... Besides, we're not talking about street gangs armed to the teeth and with no beef putting bullets in the flange, the case we were arguing was about a 17 year old girl getting punched in the face by a police officer. As far as I know, racially mixed environments where weapons are not uncommon have very little to do with it... We're talking jay walkers here. Yeah sure she was black, but there was no weapons involved besides the officer's fist. And even then, say I went to the worst hoods in the states, what then, that opens my eyes that slugging the black girl in the face was the appropriate response? I don't think so...

My mirror shows a good looking man who has a healthy world view that includes a lifetime experiences well beyond his current physical location.

Yours, however, shows a provincial person who cannot fathom any dangers outside of whatever he's experienced.

IOW, you think we live in a perfect world filled with perfect situations and perfect people and expect everyone to live up to your perfect expectations.

That's the view of either a very young, very naive, or a very sheltered person. Or any combination thereof.

I do find it hilarious that you could justify his shooting the girl in your response to Jerry, though.

 

[JerryLove]

In this case, a punch to the face could well be described as brutal... I think it fits perfectly the definition of 'brutal', wouldn't you agree? Or is now punching someone in the face not brutal? Maybe not as brutal as shooting them in the face, but brutal none the less...

No, I would not agree... and I believe you are equivocating "brutal".

(he did not have to punch that girl)

No one has to do anything. The question is not "did he have to" but "was it appropriate and correct".

He couldn't know it at the time. She might have well came at him again, or she might have not, if she did not, then he did not have to throw the punch, if she did, he could have punched her in the face.

See the difference? One is the officer proactively punching someone in the face to prevent possible future problems, the other is him responding with force to an even which requires a response with force. That's a huge difference.

He was not proactive. He had already been hit. A woman, bigger than him, charged up to him, freed the person he was attempting to detail, and hit him. He hit back.

He was pushed... He wasn't really assaulted, as stated multiple times, the girl was trying to get her friend free, she didn't attack the officer, merely pushed him in the process of attempting to free her friend. That's the big point here.

It's an absurd point. You might as well argue "she wasn't assaulted: he was just trying to control the sitution. She was merely pushed in the process of an arrest".

You don't know what the definition of "assault" or "battery" is.

Could he have thought he was under attack? I doubt so, I'm fairly confident he perceived the 2nd girl as trying to prevent him from arresting the first girl, then he thought that deserved a punch to the face. I seriously doubt he thought he was in danger... Disagree/agree?

I don't know what he was thinking. I am not a mind reader. Are you?

I know things he could have been thinking.

Uh no he can easily put his weapon back in his holster... Exactly like here:

So pulling the weapon was an entierly hollow threat that required undoing before any escelation? That's a really bad idea.

I think the officer did his job perfectly, until he used excessive force in cuffing the woman. But the screaming, the gun, I have absolutely no issue with.

Really? I think he over-reacted considerably. I find great fault with his action.

If the officer with the pepper spray acted in that fashion, might not have been shot... Or, had he to respond to the car passengers pulling a gun, would have been well within his right to respond by pulling the trigger, and I'd have absolutely NO issue in that case. Would have been perfectly warranted.

And if the woman had been bigger than him, had 10 friends, and had resisted by shoving him and pulling away as happened in our J-walking situation?

Does he shoot people you object to him punching?

If not, then how is the firearm anything but a hinderance and escalation?

Well we can perfectly agree to disagree here. You're looking at the situation from the POV of the officer who has no real clue of wtf is really happening. I'm looking at it mainly from the POV of the video shot. Tell you what, if he had pulled out his gun and shot the girl. Would you say that would have been excessive force?

I would call it a murder. If anything, I hold police to a higher standard of restraint than non-police. It is their job to be at risk.

I could tell you no, it wasn't. Maybe the officer thought he saw a knife or a gun coming out, and really thought he had no choice but to defend himself. Looking at it from the officer's side, he'd have been right, if he saw a gun and think he's about to get shot, he's well within his right to defend himself... But then looking at the video, seeing that no gun was drawn, could be said that he made a mistake in shooting the girl because she was unarmed.

The difference there would be that the officer in the real event was complete correct that he had been assaulted.

But let's discuss your hypothetical and see if you are consistant. If she comes at him with a knife does he have to shoot her? Couldn't he do something less?

Of course he *could*. What the outcome of that would be we would not know unless he tried.

You seem to repeatedly make "if this was done than that would have happened" without any real way of knowing what would have actually happened.

 

[Matt34]

In this case, a punch to the face could well be described as brutal... I think it fits perfectly the definition of 'brutal', wouldn't you agree? Or is now punching someone in the face not brutal? Maybe not as brutal as shooting them in the face, but brutal none the less...

(he did not have to punch that girl)

He couldn't know it at the time. She might have well came at him again, or she might have not, if she did not, then he did not have to throw the punch, if she did, he could have punched her in the face.

See the difference? One is the officer proactively punching someone in the face to prevent possible future problems, the other is him responding with force to an even which requires a response with force. That's a huge difference.

He was pushed... He wasn't really assaulted, as stated multiple times, the girl was trying to get her friend free, she didn't attack the officer, merely pushed him in the process of attempting to free her friend. That's the big point here.

Edit: You don't pull your gun to threaten someone. If you pull it, it means your planning on using it.

Could he have thought he was under attack? I doubt so, I'm fairly confident he perceived the 2nd girl as trying to prevent him from arresting the first girl, then he thought that deserved a punch to the face. I seriously doubt he thought he was in danger... Disagree/agree?

It was assault (simple assault) according to the law regardless if you want to agree with it or not. Quit trying to call it something it's not.

If cops used you line of thinking they would have to get shot first before they can shoot someone with a gun. I can say without any doubt he thought he was being attacked/in a fight with two suspects surrounded by a bunch of people without backup and he had to get the situation under control.

Gov's solution was to tase her, that's above the levels of force this officer used, yet you agree with this?

Edit: You don't pull your sidearm to threaten someone, if you pull it, it means there is justification in using it (which he didn't have).

 

[GirgleMirt]

My mirror shows a good looking man who has a healthy world view that includes a lifetime experiences well beyond his current physical location.

We'd all like to write our own reviews.

Yours, however, shows a provincial person who cannot fathom any dangers outside of whatever he's experienced.

Yawn... You're so wise... You must be right.

IOW, you think we live in a perfect world filled with perfect situations and perfect people and expect everyone to live up to your perfect expectations.

That's the view of either a very young, very naive, or a very sheltered person. Or any combination thereof.

I do find it hilarious that you could justify his shooting the girl in your response to Jerry, though.

A theoretical case where he made a mistake and thought she had drawn a gun and was about to shoot him, of course he'd be right to shoot her first. That would be self defense. But of course, because it would have been his mistake, he'd have been in shooting the girl. It would probably have cost him his career. BUT, he would have done the right thing, if a police officer thinks he's in danger he can react the way he thinks is the appropriate response. Doesn't mean that what he did was correct, because at the time he thought that was the necessary response... Someone so wise should definitely see the nuance here...

 

[markw]

We'd all like to write our own reviews.

No review, simple statement of facts.

Yawn... You're so wise... You must be right.

It's about time you realized that.

A theoretical case where he made a mistake and thought she had drawn a gun and was about to shoot him, of course he'd be right to shoot her first. That would be self defense. But of course, because it would have been his mistake, he'd have been in shooting the girl. It would probably have cost him his career. BUT, he would have done the right thing, if a police officer thinks he's in danger he can react the way he thinks is the appropriate response. Doesn't mean that what he did was correct, because at the time he thought that was the necessary response... Someone so wise should definitely see the nuance here...

Ultimately, that Seattle cop made the right decision for the moment. Since, in real life, the moment changes constantly, I'd say he did a good job.

If you read my link, you would have realize that the 17 year-old did apologize to the cop. If she can see where caused the problem in the first place, I gotta wonder why you can't. Remember, she was 17.

Is it that you just want to see LEOs hurt or killed?

 

[GirgleMirt]

No one has to do anything. The question is not "did he have to" but "was it appropriate and correct".

Again, we go back to the rules of engagement and what is correct and not for an officer to do.

Does lets say resisting arrest give the right to an officer to punch you in the face? What about use mace? Here we have another example:

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2007/oct/04/dramatic-arrest-caught-camera-fort-pierce/

Again, it's absolutely about "did he have to". Did he have to use pepper spray in this case? Yes? No? Why? If it's no because this level of violence was unwarranted in this situation, that's what escalation of violence is all about, if you don't have to punch someone, you don't, if you don't have to shoot someone, you don't. If you decide to use more violence than is appropriate, then it's excessive violence, which is what was the case with the punch. It might as well have come to punching the girl, but then it would have been when that level of violence was necessary. It it was not necessary, but was used none the less, then it cannot be "appropriate and correct"...

He was not proactive. He had already been hit. A woman, bigger than him, charged up to him, freed the person he was attempting to detail, and hit him. He hit back.
It's an absurd point. You might as well argue "she wasn't assaulted: he was just trying to control the sitution. She was merely pushed in the process of an arrest".

Not hit, pushed... Watch the vid again. He could have been eventually hit, possibility is there, but he wasn't...

You might think it's not relevant in which by legal terms it might be deemed assault, but the fact is she didn't hit him, merely pushed, and there's a difference there. You push someone to create a bit of distance, it can result in a fall where possible injury might incur, but it's a lesser level of violence than a hit; a punch. Maybe that's an absurd point for you, but not for me.

You don't know what the definition of "assault" or "battery" is.

Assault: 1 a : a violent physical or verbal attack b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)
2 a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact — compare battery 1b b : rape 2

Battery: 1 a : the act of battering or beating b : an offensive touching or use of force on a person without the person's consent — compare assault 2a

I don't know what he was thinking. I am not a mind reader. Are you? I know things he could have been thinking.

You've answered your own question.

So pulling the weapon was an entierly hollow threat that required undoing before any escelation? That's a really bad idea.

Are you referring to the officer who pulled out his weapon when finally the woman in the vehicle finally stopped after 8 miles? Who says it was an entirely hollow threat? Or the one where the other car refused to stop and the officer pepper sprayed them for no apparent reason? In all cases, it's definitely not a hollow threat, if a cop pulls out a weapon, it's not a hollow threat...

(referring to the officer who pulled out his weapon when finally the woman in the vehicle finally stopped after 8 miles)
Really? I think he over-reacted considerably. I find great fault with his action.

Great fault how? She failed to stop when he pulled behind her, she rode for 8 damn miles before stopping. He definitely had justification to pull out his gun because he had no idea who he was dealing with. She gave him justification when she didn't pull over right away and forced him to chase her for 8 miles... Had she stopped immediately like she should have, he'd not have been so upset and would not have had his firearm drawn. Funny you think he was wrong in screaming and pulling out his gun... Normal people stop immediately, those who don't usually have good reason to and are often more of a threat than a usual traffic violation... that's ample justification for drawing his gun right away...

And if the woman had been bigger than him, had 10 friends, and had resisted by shoving him and pulling away as happened in our J-walking situation? Does he shoot people you object to him punching?If not, then how is the firearm anything but a hinderance and escalation?

if and if and if and... If she turned into a bird and flew away, what then? You can go far with ifs. She had 4 friends, you see one holding the crazy black woman in pink at the start... I never said anything about shooting her (well seriously at least, I did sarcastically), as I said, after he took a step back, he would have been well within his right to punch her if she came at him. The punch imho was premature.

I would call it a murder. If anything, I hold police to a higher standard of restraint than non-police. It is their job to be at risk.

Then you don't know what murder means. Let me help you: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought". If he shot her by mistake, thinking she was about to shoot him, it would not have been murder.

The difference there would be that the officer in the real event was complete correct that he had been assaulted.

But let's discuss your hypothetical and see if you are consistant. If she comes at him with a knife does he have to shoot her? Couldn't he do something less?

If she comes at him with a knife, his life is in danger and he's well within his right to draw his firearm and shoot her. If he thinks he can karate chop her or control her any other way, then he's well welcome to do so, but in no way is he obligated to do so. Drawing a knife and coming at an officer in all cases allows any officer or any man alive to use deadly force to defend himself.

Of course he *could*. What the outcome of that would be we would not know unless he tried.

Right, it's his life on the line, if he wants to take the risk, I believe he can, unless some regulation forces officers to defend themselves by shooting when came at with a knife...

You seem to repeatedly make "if this was done than that would have happened" without any real way of knowing what would have actually happened.

Not really. For an officer to use physical violence on someone I believe certain conditions must be met. No one specified those exact circumstances so far... Gov maybe can clarify? I don't think those conditions were met.

I don't think that the filmed scene warrants an officer to punch someone in the face. I don't think it was necessary, and so I think the level of force used by the officer was excessive.

 

[GirgleMirt]

If you read my link, you would have realize that the 17 year-old did apologize to the cop. If she can see where caused the problem in the first place, I gotta wonder why you can't. Remember, she was 17.

Is it that you just want to see LEOs hurt or killed?

No arguing the crazy black chicks were in the wrong. No arguing there was an apology. That doesn't prove that the officer didn't use excessive force. You and your long experience and worldly insight should see that clearly. You strawman argument can't even stand on its own... Seriously, insults and strawman arguments, you don't strike me as so wise my friend...

 

[markw]

No arguing the crazy black chicks were in the wrong. No arguing there was an apology. That doesn't prove that the officer didn't use excessive force. You and your long experience and worldly insight should see that clearly. You strawman argument barely stands on its own...

Strawman my arse.

My long experiences include seeing a friend who was (retired) a LEO get stabbed by an onlooker by ignoring people gathering around him as he was making an arrest. Something the LEO in Seattle wasn't going to let happen.

But, you'll probably say was his fault because he DIDN'T react quicky or decisively enough to outside forces or use enough force, won't you?

Since you've got all the answers, you should to be a cop in a big American city. Show 'em how it should be done. Then get back to us.

But that takes courage, doesn't it?

Making life and death decisions for others is easy while sitting in your comfy chair in your living room with 20/20 hindsight, isn't it?