• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you feel this policeman handled this woman withen police guidelines?

Is this policeman being Brutal to this citizen


  • Total voters
    20
What "hyperbole?" Not sure where "put her child in harms way" unless you think being drunk does that, but what relevancy is that? I see NO attempt to "fight" the police officer. Why not just say then she "attempted to murder a police officer who was desperately trying to save the child's life and own against a deadly pscyhotic killer?"

She did not "fight" the officer and whether she had endangered her child is irrelevant. He didn't pull a gun, he threw her into concrete.

The video shows interviews of customers in the salon saying she was acting strangely after entering the shop, and making people I guess, uncomfortable. The cop says to here there have been a bunch of phone calls to the police about her, and he asks her what is going on.

As she creates all this chaos, what do you think her kid is doing? Do you think her kid is looking out for cars in the parking lot, or any other dangers a 6 year old is likely not paying much attention to while the kids mother rages on? Why are you ignoring that fact?

Why deny hyperbole when you double down on it with your attempt at equivalence?

I don't know what video you watched, or even if you watched it, but the fact she started fighting and resisting is well documented by both the video, and witnesses.

Again, I doubt the cop tried to knock her out, but I don't know that for fact, it's just an assumption, like most of what you have been saying.
 
Lots, including a couple of weapons. I'm not a stranger to real life scenarios either. Squeamish indeed. What's the point here...? I'm not terribly interested in your pissing contest.

The point is if you understand how to control a human who doesn't want to be. Especially a dumb drunk one.

You do not take someone down with the intent of a safe arrest by flinging their head into concrete without attempting to have any control over their fall. Unless you're trying to kill them, I suppose. That is just nonsense. Especially given that she's barely even resisting to begin with, and certainly not fighting. As I said, I'm smaller than her and I could have gotten her into handcuffs while upright no problem. Like is mentioned above, just pull her arm up behind her. Problem solved. She's barely standing, much less capable of fighting in any coherent way. If you think so, update your eye prescription, or just take your psychologically blinding bias to someone who cares to waste their time.

He didn't "fling her head into the concrete." How dramatic. He pivoted her put her down. It was fast and rough. She resisted arrest. And the BEST part is how you armchair quarter backed this guy on what he SHOULD have done. Great lesson. Never mind that it may not work and cuffing someone on the ground is much easier.

And my "psychologically blinding bias" does exist. I won't argue. I was almost killed by a drunk driver. He swerved into our lane and swerved back...just in time to miss us. He drove down the road and killed a mother and severely injured a 2 year old child.

This woman was not only drunk driving...she did it with a child in the car. My sympathy is for the kid. If that woman died...I wouldn't have shed a tear for her. It would have been a shame for that kid. But the only thing I can hope for is that she gets treatment and stops drinking and learns her damn lesson.

A drunk driver and people who neglect their kids don't get sympathy from me.
 
The video shows interviews of customers in the salon saying she was acting strangely after entering the shop, and making people I guess, uncomfortable. The cop says to here there have been a bunch of phone calls to the police about her, and he asks her what is going on.

As she creates all this chaos, what do you think her kid is doing? Do you think her kid is looking out for cars in the parking lot, or any other dangers a 6 year old is likely not paying much attention to while the kids mother rages on? Why are you ignoring that fact?

Why deny hyperbole when you double down on it with your attempt at equivalence?

I don't know what video you watched, or even if you watched it, but the fact she started fighting and resisting is well documented by both the video, and witnesses.

Again, I doubt the cop tried to knock her out, but I don't know that for fact, it's just an assumption, like most of what you have been saying.

You Re forgetting that there were reports of her driving erratically, and they found her car with keys in the ignition.
 
The rules and policies of the PD are in place. Your feelings about them matter precisely dick.

Police dont 'work for the citizens'.

In this instance they did. They got a drunk driver off the road. And probably kept something bad from happening to that kid...at least for now.
 
The video shows interviews of customers in the salon saying she was acting strangely after entering the shop, and making people I guess, uncomfortable. The cop says to here there have been a bunch of phone calls to the police about her, and he asks her what is going on.

As she creates all this chaos, what do you think her kid is doing? Do you think her kid is looking out for cars in the parking lot, or any other dangers a 6 year old is likely not paying much attention to while the kids mother rages on? Why are you ignoring that fact?

Why deny hyperbole when you double down on it with your attempt at equivalence?

I don't know what video you watched, or even if you watched it, but the fact she started fighting and resisting is well documented by both the video, and witnesses.

Again, I doubt the cop tried to knock her out, but I don't know that for fact, it's just an assumption, like most of what you have been saying.

Don't know what her kid was doing, but I do understand you believe that police should beat up women who are neglecting their kid.

She did not start fighting and was not resisting in any significant way. I do understand some on the forum do have the opinion that if a person resists any police officer in anyway that is basis to beat the person to death as punishment for that resistance.
 
She put her child in danger by taking the child out in public while drunk. Sorry. That is bad parenting 101

Her conduct towards her child is irrelevant to whether there was basis to throw her into concrete in a way certain her head would hit the concrete.
 
The rules and policies of the PD are in place. Your feelings about them matter precisely dick.

Police dont 'work for the citizens'.

This may come as a total shock to you but "police rules and policyies" aren't law.
 
That's cute. Try that line of rhetoric next time a cop pulls you over. Especially the "I pay your salary...you work for me" schtick. The cop will think it's a hoot. Promise.

Certainly anyone who uses that line should be thrown into concrete and nearly beaten to death by multiple officers to show just how wrong that is.

Unfortunately, some police departments see their existence only for themselves, yes, and decide their policies circumvent law.
 
I do not deny the probability of danger, just saying it looks like the intention was to ensure an arrest. If he *wanted* to hurt her there are dozens of take-downs expressly designed to use the force of the fall against the opponent. As a grappler, you should know that.

To call what that officer did "grappling" shows you have NO clue what grappling is.
 
That was not "a take down" (nor was a "take down" necessary). That was an "I'm tired of messing with this drunk bitch!" throw down.

Does anyone question that I could find videos of people being killed by being thrown down on concrete or knocked down with their head hitting concrete? Quite a few of those have been posted on the forum in the past. His action was a known potentially lethal action.

She escalated to "active resistance" in the use of force continuum. That allows for physical control and soft empty hand OR hard. It is about the middle. This drunk driving, child neglecting moron put herself in that spot. She resisted. He did what was allowed and there was an unintended consequence.
 
She escalated to "active resistance" in the use of force continuum. That allows for physical control and soft empty hand OR hard. It is about the middle. This drunk driving, child neglecting moron put herself in that spot. She resisted. He did what was allowed and there was an unintended consequence.

Why don't you list your opinion of the physical punishments police should dole out for various criminal offenses.

Police groupies often take the position of merely saying "resisted" justifies any level of violence, whether the person is resisting or not, and regardless of the level of resistance.

Not everyone is as instantly and totally submissive and passive towards government demands as your messages indicate is your view. Some people actually believe they have rights and don't instantly gravel at the feet of government.
 
To call what that officer did "grappling" shows you have NO clue what grappling is.

Can't wait to hear your brilliance on the matter...
 
Some of the nail salon customers say that she wasn't in complete control of her faculties, so she must have been pretty drunk. Taking that into consideration, this was probably a combination of the officer trying to subdue her by throwing her on the ground and the woman being too flaccid to brace herself.
 
You Re forgetting that there were reports of her driving erratically, and they found her car with keys in the ignition.

You're correct. I did not catch that. So this drunken woman was most certainly putting her child, and others in grave danger, along with all the other stuff she did.

Good bust. Again, probably didn't plan on causing the face plant, but I have no sympathy for the person.
 
Don't know what her kid was doing, but I do understand you believe that police should beat up women who are neglecting their kid.

She did not start fighting and was not resisting in any significant way. I do understand some on the forum do have the opinion that if a person resists any police officer in anyway that is basis to beat the person to death as punishment for that resistance.

:roll:

Thank you for the rational, relevant and thoughtful reply.
 
:roll:

Thank you for the rational, relevant and thoughtful reply.

Why she was being arrested has no relevancy to the issue of whether throwing her down onto concrete with no way for her to protect her head nor the officer showing any concerns for potential injury. Accordingly, many are claiming that his doing so was a just PUNISHMENT, rather than a necessity for make the arrest.

Disagreeing is not resisting. Throwing her down on concrete in that manner was entirely unnecessary to make the arrest and to cuff her. "Resisting" does not justify assault beyond the minimum necessary to make the arrest.

In fact, there have been literally innocent people including such as doing nothing but just sitting there beaten and crushed to death while being tasered in the face by 5 officers - for which many on the forum claimed this was justified because he had "resisted." "Resisting" is not license to kill, even for police.

Grabbing someone without permission is technically an assault. THEREFORE, in your theory ANY man could have legally thrown that woman into the concrete like that merely for her grabbing his arm without permission. But, in fact, that man would be arrested for felony assault.

A woman angrily grabs at you? Just slam her head into concrete and call it "grappling her in self defense against assault." Not a chance in hell that would fly with the police. But it would if the man is police. ONLY if he is police.

If an officer grabs someone without stating they are being arrested, then that person also could - if possible to do - legally throw that officer's head into concrete like that too, but also that person would be charged with felony assault on a police officer.

Police groupies have the opinion that being a police officer makes that person exempt from criminal laws and that police have 100,000 times more authority to assault people and act in self defense than non-police citizens do.
 
Last edited:
Why she was being arrested has no relevancy to the issue of whether throwing her down onto concrete with no way for her to protect her head nor the officer showing any concerns for potential injury. Accordingly, many are claiming that his doing so was a just PUNISHMENT, rather than a necessity for make the arrest.

Disagreeing is not resisting. Throwing her down on concrete in that manner was entirely unnecessary to make the arrest and to cuff her. "Resisting" does not justify assault beyond the minimum necessary to make the arrest.

In fact, there have been literally innocent people including such as doing nothing but just sitting there beaten and crushed to death while being tasered in the face by 5 officers - for which many on the forum claimed this was justified because he had "resisted." "Resisting" is not license to kill, even for police.

Grabbing someone without permission is technically an assault. THEREFORE, in your theory ANY man could have legally thrown that woman into the concrete like that merely for her grabbing his arm without permission. But, in fact, that man would be arrested for felony assault.

A woman angrily grabs at you? Just slam her head into concrete and call it "grappling her in self defense against assault." Not a chance in hell that would fly with the police. But it would if the man is police. ONLY if he is police.

If an officer grabs someone without stating they are being arrested, then that person also could - if possible to do - legally throw that officer's head into concrete like that too, but also that person would be charged with felony assault on a police officer.

Police groupies have the opinion that being a police officer makes that person exempt from criminal laws and that police have 100,000 times more authority to assault people and act in self defense than non-police citizens do.

All your irrelevant blather aside, claiming I support the beating of women assigns your words as being only worthy of flushing down the toilet.

Have a nice day.
 
I know a woman that was taken down while drunk (and being mouthy) and lost all of her front teeth. This one just seems a little over the top. Drunk people do not have balance control and tend to go down like a sack of potatoes.

The woman was wasted drunk in the afternoon. Being knocked out is not her biggest problem.
 
Ordinarily, I'd say it wasn't excessive, since I don't subscribe to the foolish notion of 'excessive force' during violent confrontation. What I call excessive is whatever the defendant deems to be above and beyond whatever it takes to feel safe. Even then, most times only in retrospect. There's no comfortable, time-abundant 'internet discussion' when someone's attempting to clean your clock.

That said, the officer clearly hesitated before he put her down. That looks to me like spite. Yeah, he's a dick. Her gender and the presence of the child are irrelevant, of course.
 
Don't know what her kid was doing, but I do understand you believe that police should beat up women who are neglecting their kid.

She did not start fighting and was not resisting in any significant way. I do understand some on the forum do have the opinion that if a person resists any police officer in anyway that is basis to beat the person to death as punishment for that resistance.


you apparently have missed your calling

you should be out on the streets patrolling in a car

or at least teaching cops how to react to everything....right?

i mean...you sound like a big expert

where did you get your training?

local? state? feds? military?

how many drunk women have you had run ins with?

please tell us exactly where all this knowledge and expertise comes from
 
you apparently have missed your calling

you should be out on the streets patrolling in a car

or at least teaching cops how to react to everything....right?

i mean...you sound like a big expert

where did you get your training?

local? state? feds? military?

how many drunk women have you had run ins with?

please tell us exactly where all this knowledge and expertise comes from




Given how the cop was unable to not manhandle a 70lb drunk and restrained woman, I can see how some can get defensive in his defense. ;)
 
Given how the cop was unable to not manhandle a 70lb drunk and restrained woman, I can see how some can get defensive in his defense. ;)

I think the cop completely misjudged how hammered she was, and how easily she would fold when nudged even the slightest bit from upright.

BTW - She was not restrained when he pivoted her over his leg.
 
He seemed to have the situation well in hand. Putting her on the ground was probably reasonable given that she was squirming and he was having a hard time cuffing her but he could have been a bit more gentle about it. You don't have break bones to get people to comply.
 
Given how the cop was unable to not manhandle a 70lb drunk and restrained woman, I can see how some can get defensive in his defense. ;)


70 lbs? lol

check your prescription

your answer would be to "please drunk lady, keep your arms and hands still so i can cuff you now?"

she kept struggling....he wanted her restrained....the only sure way to keep everyone safe

was the take down a little hard? maybe

do i think the cop did anything wrong? absolutely not
 
Back
Top Bottom