• 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!

‘Appalling’ Video Shows the Police Yanking 1-Year-Old From His Mother’s Arms

Mason66 said:
My girlfriends daughter said that to me one time.

I told her "If you want to see abuse, call the number".
Click to expand...


MY kids ever say that to me.....id point to the door..."dont let the door hit your ass on the way out".....Not putting up with threatening BS..... Adopted 3 times..Given up at birth Dont KNOW my Biological family, My 3rd Adopted family gave me an opportunity that I will NEVER squander nor disrespect.

I have respect for leadership and authority regardless if I disagree. The only time is if it violates human rights. thats about it.
 
Obscurity said:
I don't respect laws that are unethical. I do not respect law enforcement that does not understand my rights. I do not respect political enforcement wings that want me to comply with unconstitutional orders.

That's the difference between you and I. You will bite pillow and spread cheek. I will live my life by the constitution and the rights it gives me, and the state can be damned if they want to subvert it with illicit police officers acting outside the confines of our constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

WOW..... So a traffic stop is unconstitutional and unethical? Sure we can BREAK DOWN EVERY single detention and question its constitutionality. Im talking about EVERY single normal day interaction with LEO's

Dont give me the Understand my rights or unethical BS..... IF You COMPLY REGARDLESS if its unethical there are PROPER chains and reporting functions for checks and balances FOR those MINORITY scumbag cops.

MOST COPS are doing the best they can under horrible scrutiny and disrespect. PERIOD.

MOST times if there is an LEO its usually for a specified reason. NOT just for the hella of it. Secondly..... If you are in an area where there is concerns and you are detained or STOPPED. if you DID NOTHING WRONG you should have NOTHING to worry about. An person robs a store, has similar features and descriptions as yourself. YOU ARE stopped by police. You have the option to comply or go on your ranting about your 4th amendment and constitutional rights. OR you could just comply. Sort it out so the LEO do NOT have to waste time on you and spend time trying to catch the ACTUAL criminal.


IF YOU ARE NOT GUILTY OF ANYTHING Just comply? It helps both yourself, the LEO and the community....PERIOD.
 
Obscurity said:
What a farce this entire thought is.

Criminals have rights.

If you dislike it, move to Iran.

All -people- have rights.
Click to expand...

If criminals don't want excessive force used against them the solution is simple - don't be criminals.
 
Obscurity said:
What a farce this entire thought is.

Criminals have rights.

If you dislike it, move to Iran.

All -people- have rights.
Click to expand...

Until you Commit a crime Then your RIGHTS BECOME LIMITED.

If you are detained due to a suspected crime you are then DETAINED against your will. YOU are then JAILED against your WILL For the suspected crime.

You are then separated from your Family. ANY Firearms that you may OWN are taken or limited ACCESS.

Your Freedom of speech is NOT limited BUT can then be used against you in the court of law.

SO You CAN TALK constitution ALL you want. BUT the MOMENT that you are suspected of a crime detained your rights are limited. THEN if you are CONVICTED of a crime you COULD face the extreme penalty of Death if warranted. WHILE that MIGHT be considered a VIOLATION of HUMAN rights to be put to death you COMMITTED A CRIME and was found GUILTY to deserve that punishment.

NOW..... in some instances there where atrocities of wrongfully accused..... But minority in cases at best.


SO IF YOU ARE NOT GUILTY COMPLY and you GENERALLY would NOT have any issue. BUT you would rather careless ABOUT it and only demand YOUR PERSONAL RIGHTS regardless if it makes the situation worse or escalates. Talk about SELFISH

YOU would rather WASTE LEO's time by arguing or NOT complying. Not taking any situation by context and saying ok for the greater good and this scumbag cop is a scumbag YOU WILL DEFINITELY stand up to them.....

You will either needlessly end up in Jail or be shot..... Great move Captain... I really hope you do not spread this nonsense. Becasue you are EXACTLY whom I am talking about, about blatant disrespect....
 
Moderate Right said:
If criminals don't want excessive force used against them the solution is simple - don't be criminals.
Click to expand...

Excessive force being used on anyone is a crime. You don't get to excessively beat people.
 
Obscurity said:
Excessive force being used on anyone is a crime. You don't get to excessively beat people.
Click to expand...

Talk about a hypocrite.... "Excessive Force is a crime" So what about in the event of protecting people....

Gun man is shooting up a place... BUT since excessive force is a crime police cant do anything....


FACT.. DONT BE A CRIMINAL and there will be NO USE For excessive force... COMPLY and there will be NO USE for excessive force...
 
Exactice said:
Talk about a hypocrite.... "Excessive Force is a crime" So what about in the event of protecting people....

Gun man is shooting up a place... BUT since excessive force is a crime police cant do anything....


FACT.. DONT BE A CRIMINAL and there will be NO USE For excessive force... COMPLY and there will be NO USE for excessive force...
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is debating the use of force to subdue an uncooperative suspect who is posing an immediate threat to the public and/or LEO, but excessive force as in the kind where officers use more than the force to subdue the suspect is questionable. There have been plenty of cases where police dish out force once a suspect has been subdued; it's not the role of officers to deal out corporeal punishment because they're mad.
 
Kal'Stang said:
As it stands, its not a huge potato either. If the cops had done that right off the bat then THAT would be a huge potato.
Click to expand...

So we're running a stopwatch on this nonsense?
Where does one put the line, ten seconds, sixty seconds?
How about not escalating the situation in the first place because it was a simple disorderly in the first place.

I'm going to assume that you're old enough to remember when cops used to be skilled at that sort of thing, and also skilled at subterfuge as well. This woman clearly wasn't very smart to begin with, so it's tough for me to believe that there was no way of tricking her instead of doing what they did, which was most likely bursting in with the volume turned up the 11 from the very git go.

It's a big enough potato that the Chief of Police thought it was troubling.
That's a pretty big potato.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You point at a few incidents and act like its happening all the time. It doesn't. There are double digit millions of police interactions every single year. How many do you think end up like this instance? Or like the Castile incident? Or the Corley incident? (which btw is hyperbole to call it rape) While many like to holler about police abuse, actual incidents of real police abuse is actually very rare. The vast majority of police interactions do not involve "jack-booted thuggery". Less than 1% easily. Granted, it shouldn't happen at all. But it IS going to happen. Nothing can be done to stop that. Because police officers are human beings who make mistakes. And yes, sometimes that can cost a life. Such is highly regrettable and sucks ass balls. But it is a fact of life. It is a part of living in a society.
Click to expand...

My point isn't police don't make mistakes, my point is that when police do they're not held accountable. If I shot someone because I was scared they might be reaching for a gun they just peacefully told me they possessed, I'd be charged with murder. If I forcibly penetrated someone (which is the definition of rape in Texas law) because I think they're hiding drugs, I'd be charged with rape.
The system protects police from legal consequences of their criminal behaviour, and holds them to a lower standard of behaviour than untrained citizens. In every incident of police violence, there's always people like yourself that believe citizens should respond calmly and rationally to armed individuals threatening them with violence, but excuse police for panicking and behaving irrationally in the same situation. The lady in the OP had been sitting for 4 hours waiting for a service, is she allowed to be violent because she doesn't want to sit there all day?


Police cannot sit there all day talking to someone to get them to comply with their orders. It's ridiculous to think that they should. Sometimes force is necessary whether you agree with it or not.
Click to expand...

If it takes police all day, they need better training. It's ridiculous to think police are justified in potentially harming a child because a person is being stubborn.
 
ElChupacabra said:
I don't think anyone is debating the use of force to subdue an uncooperative suspect who is posing an immediate threat to the public and/or LEO, but excessive force as in the kind where officers use more than the force to subdue the suspect is questionable. There have been plenty of cases where police dish out force once a suspect has been subdued; it's not the role of officers to deal out corporeal punishment because they're mad.
Click to expand...

ALL this is CONTEXT of interpretation of FORCE. the hard part is that it takes a HUMAN to interpret it.

You want to KNOW the REAL simple answer? DONT resist NOR commit a crime that requires a use of force continuum.

The Lady when she is SQUEEZING here child screaming does NOT indicate a compliant individual and MORE so could put the child IN GREATER danger.

This all goes BACK to the factual intial point period.

COMPLY or DONT break the law? Yes or NO.

I have been detained twice in my life. BOTH times I committed NO crimes but because I was in the "RIGHT" place at the wrong time I was stopped detained, questioned and then guess what I was compliant so I was let go... The officer even bought us a SODA after the questioning. So if you are Compliant there is NO NEED for escalation of force.
 
spud_meister said:
My point isn't police don't make mistakes, my point is that when police do they're not held accountable. If I shot someone because I was scared they might be reaching for a gun they just peacefully told me they possessed, I'd be charged with murder. If I forcibly penetrated someone (which is the definition of rape in Texas law) because I think they're hiding drugs, I'd be charged with rape.
The system protects police from legal consequences of their criminal behaviour, and holds them to a lower standard of behaviour than untrained citizens. In every incident of police violence, there's always people like yourself that believe citizens should respond calmly and rationally to armed individuals threatening them with violence, but excuse police for panicking and behaving irrationally in the same situation. The lady in the OP had been sitting for 4 hours waiting for a service, is she allowed to be violent because she doesn't want to sit there all day?




If it takes police all day, they need better training. It's ridiculous to think police are justified in potentially harming a child because a person is being stubborn.
Click to expand...
You've come a long way as a poster.

Very good post, spud.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Lovebug said:
I'll wait for the story to be complete before raking someone over the coals.
Click to expand...

Mr Person said:
And who decides when it is "complete"? What is "complete"?

Every time I've seen that used on this site, the people who demanded that it be "complete" before judging never seem to show up once it is as complete as it'll get (not that that stops any of them from expressing an opinion in other threads on other subjects without full "complete" evidence).

Do you concede that you (indeed all of us) here post with the information available, while knowing full well that in any case more "complete" evidence might come out? Or do you really hold yourself to this standard - that in all 10,325 posts of yours, the evidence can be objectively proved to be "complete" by the time you posted?



I know, crickets. Anyway, since we're clear that we'll all posting based on evidence-available-to-date and clear that we wouldn't have a debate site if absolute provable "complete" evidence was required before an argument was made......

....before that absurdity....

...What on Earth do you suppose a woman carrying a baby who only seems to want to hold on to it - not attack anyone, but hold on to it - once she's put on the floor deserved that treatment? How likely is it that you think she held the baby in one arm while trying to punch the cops in their faces? What we do have depicts a woman desparately holding onto her child on the ground. We see no injured cops. We see no injured bystanders. We see no broken glass or evidence a struggle other than her being on the ground.

So what set of things might explain this and make it OK?



Bottom line: what we do have is bad. It's a BABY. You know those are pretty breakable, right?

We'd have more if there were bodycams that were turned on before approaching the woman. But we don't seem to have those. We have what we have. If it is absurd to reason from that, then every last one of our comments or arguments on this site is useless.

"We need all the evidence" is a dodge, where there is no attempt to explain what evidence and why.
Click to expand...

Lovebug said:
I dunno, it is a fair question. I remember when we had to "prop up" and "wrestle" a woman who insisted on sitting on her own child's head upon delivery. Had someone filmed us without knowing what was going on, we'd probably ended up in a video just like this one.
Click to expand...

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the present situation.

Lovebug said:
Crickets, the ones we hear from those who are quick to assume that the police did wrong and the ones who assume the woman did something wrong. Goes both ways. If you are well informed and know the circumstances and can render judgment, feel free. I have the right to opine the way I see fit.
Click to expand...

Because if I search your post history I will only find posts expressing opinions after it can be objectively proven that there is no more to know, where anyone can say "yeah, but we don't know X,Y,Z"?

Right. Of course not, because that's pure BS. It's the BS used to simultaneously not address the situation as known and try to look above the people actually discussing things. It's used on any and every debate board.



At any right, I already addressed your "concern" about having all the facts. You had my whole post but you don't seem to have read it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So what would you two have done? How would you have deescalated things? How long would you have tried to do so before saying "enough is enough"? Mind you, all the while crime in other areas are happening that may need more attention. This is Brooklyn after all.
Click to expand...

Man, you've got one hell of a backlog of responsive posts to answer before you poke me with a stick....

Kal'Stang said:
Over reacting? How do you know that they did? Maybe they were told to address the woman. Maybe the woman was being rude and that her sitting on the floor had nothing to do with what started it all.
Click to expand...

"Being rude" is an excuse to knock a woman holding a baby to the floor, then rip the baby away? This is America, right?

Instead of speculating that she might have somehow done something to deserve it (which would probably have something to do with physical violence, right? Not just being rude? In a "free country"?), you should be asking what the hell she could have done for this to be necessary and you should be asking why it is that we only have footage of what happened after during this rise of the body cam.

As you note, we don't know all the circumstances. (Thanks, of course, to the lack of body cams being on before the interaction began). So you have no more reason to dismiss my post than you have to suggest your own alternative (below) than you have to demand that I explain to you what I would have done.....on your own theory that is.

Kal'Stang said:
...Point is that we don't know the circumstances. All we have is a very one sided story with video that doesn't show anything about the beginning of it all. Just the very tail end of it all. And its because of that that I can't say what I would have done. Not enough information. I know what I would have done if I had been that woman holding onto the child though.....I sure as hell wouldn't be holding the child so hard that the police had to yank like that to attempt to get the kid away. I would have let go so as to ensure that no harm would come to the kid.
Click to expand...

A. If knowing all potential circumstances was a requirement you believed in for a poster to make a point, you'd have to dismiss just about every if not every thread on DP for the same reason.

B. And now you violate your own alleged principle. No, you most certainly do not know what you would have done in the circumstances for the exact reason you used to dismiss my criticism based on the circumstances I did know about: that "we" don't know all of the circumstances. Worse, you demanded to know what I do in the limited circumstances despite using a lack of all circumstantial knowledge to dismiss my opening remarks.

Hit and run...



But wait, there's been more since.

Kal'Stang said:
Oh look! The What If? Game! Where anyone can bring up any possibility what so ever and apply it as if everyone knew of that possibility at the time that is being discussed! Can I play too?
Click to expand...


Oh that's a bad game, is it? Then what are you doing accusing others of speaking without knowing all the circumstances while yourself declaring exactly what you would have done if you were a mother with a baby in the circumstances that, again, you say we don't know?

Oh right, and then there was this reeking BS in which you "ASSUME" the cops are telling the truth about the stuff not caught on video and which are thus part of the unknown circumstances: [/COLOR]

Kal'Stang said:
Actually I never would have gotten into the situation in the first place. :shrug: If I was asked to leave then I would have left. I wouldn't have refused several times like this woman did. You see, I don't get into fights with cops. I do what they say as I know that the time to fight them for any wrongdoing is not in public, but in a court of law. Why is compliance so hard?
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
https://journalistsresource.org/stu...l-justice/deaths-police-custody-united-states
Click to expand...

That doesn't prove that police have blatant disregard. Stuff happens, that's just life. You have to remember that the police often deal with the less than upright and healthy part of the population all the time. A lot of the deaths are due to excited delirium due to drugs.

Was the Hollywood shootout a nonviolent situation?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I misread your post. But to address your original point, the suspect is just as responsible of de-escalating the situation as the police. If you're about to go into custody, don't passive resist to where you give the police no choice but to yank the baby out of your arms.
 
Exactice said:
Talk about a hypocrite.... "Excessive Force is a crime" So what about in the event of protecting people....

Gun man is shooting up a place... BUT since excessive force is a crime police cant do anything....


FACT.. DONT BE A CRIMINAL and there will be NO USE For excessive force... COMPLY and there will be NO USE for excessive force...
Click to expand...

A gunman shooting at people being shot by police is not excessive force. You clearly don't understand what you're talking about. Excessive force is when force is escalated above and beyond the "threat" posed. A woman sitting on the floor is not a threat. A gunman armed and shooting is.

You fail.
 
Obscurity said:
A gunman shooting at people being shot by police is not excessive force. You clearly don't understand what you're talking about. Excessive force is when force is escalated above and beyond the "threat" posed. A woman sitting on the floor is not a threat. A gunman armed and shooting is.

You fail.
Click to expand...

AND YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND the responsibilities of an LEO. The LEO must always be one step Higher in the force continuum to be able to enforce the law

Are you an LEO? Have you gone through a force continuum class or training. Have you been in a situation where you had to make the judgement?


NOW Take the Video in exact context of what we watched regardless of justification. The Use of "excessive force" what was it that quantifies your statement?


Was the accused Compliant? Yes or NO?
Was verbal commands used? YES OR NO?
Was a Child Present that required by Governing standards of "Child Safeguard" Yes or NO? https://www.theiacp.org/model-polic...Children-of-Arrested-Parents-Final_Web_v3.pdf
Did the accuse RESIST arrest? Yes or NO?
Did the ACCUSE increase resistance to escalate the force continuum. YEs or NO
DID the LEO exceed the next level of force by going 2 or 3 levels above the appropriate? YES or NO


WHO judges Excessive force? The actual depart policy force continuum. A firearm was not brandished, but a NON lethal Taser, Was it Deployed or used? NO, was Pepper spay brandished or a baton or any OTHER non LETHAL tool used in excess? NO

So quantify Excessive force.

Next again BY department standards LEO to enforce LAWS are to be 1 force continuum above the threat.


AGAIN you are COMPLETELY ignoring the SIMPLE answer comply and there should be NO issue of excessive force unless it is a truly scumbag LEO and in hopes that hey are found and removed from position of authority.
 
TO all those in relation to the BABY justification.

I have an HONEST serious debate.

1) Does the General public understand the Double edge sword that LEO have in relation to children? Meaning Damned if you do damned if you dont?
1a) By LEO standards https://www.theiacp.org/model-polic...Children-of-Arrested-Parents-Final_Web_v3.pdf . There is a LEO safeguard condition in when a parent is detained. the LEO must safeguard the child for the childs protection.

1b) If the LEO does NOT safeguard the child the Parent can accuse the LEO/Department of endangering the child putting the LEO and Department in a civil case

2) This is WHY there is a Department Standard of Safeguarding a child when ANY ADULT is detained, be it a women in line belligerent or an Illegal Immigrant at the border

3) As LEO we may need to take EMOTION OUT the justification as the primary is safeguarding when a CHILD is present.

4) Watching the video can be interpreted in 2 ways. LEO ripping a child out of the hands of a mother. or LEO by department standards safeguarding a child from a suspect that is to be detained for X reason. If both scenarios go to court WHO would win?


So while EMOTIONS scream scumbag cops and ripping children or separating children from parents. THE FACT remains it is DOJ Policy to safe guard a child when a Parent/Adult is detained or suspected of a crime With that being detained does NOT indicate guilt but is the ability to sort corrective actions out while protecting both the LEO and the Detained........
 
Exactice said:
AND YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND the responsibilities of an LEO. The LEO must always be one step Higher in the force continuum to be able to enforce the law

Are you an LEO? Have you gone through a force continuum class or training. Have you been in a situation where you had to make the judgement?


NOW Take the Video in exact context of what we watched regardless of justification. The Use of "excessive force" what was it that quantifies your statement?


Was the accused Compliant? Yes or NO?
Was verbal commands used? YES OR NO?
Was a Child Present that required by Governing standards of "Child Safeguard" Yes or NO? https://www.theiacp.org/model-polic...Children-of-Arrested-Parents-Final_Web_v3.pdf
Did the accuse RESIST arrest? Yes or NO?
Did the ACCUSE increase resistance to escalate the force continuum. YEs or NO
DID the LEO exceed the next level of force by going 2 or 3 levels above the appropriate? YES or NO


WHO judges Excessive force? The actual depart policy force continuum. A firearm was not brandished, but a NON lethal Taser, Was it Deployed or used? NO, was Pepper spay brandished or a baton or any OTHER non LETHAL tool used in excess? NO

So quantify Excessive force.

Next again BY department standards LEO to enforce LAWS are to be 1 force continuum above the threat.


AGAIN you are COMPLETELY ignoring the SIMPLE answer comply and there should be NO issue of excessive force unless it is a truly scumbag LEO and in hopes that hey are found and removed from position of authority.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but comply with unlawful orders? Allow my rights to be violated and then sue? No, I won't accept that proposition.

It's precisely these department protobols that are the issue, sir.

No need to rip children from their parents for sitting in the wrong place. Arrests do not always need to be effected. That's the primary issue here. If what she did was not illegal in the first place, then everything the police do -afterwards- IS ILLEGAL.

Hence why charges against her were DROPPED.
 
Obscurity said:
I'm sorry, but comply with unlawful orders? Allow my rights to be violated and then sue? No, I won't accept that proposition.

It's precisely these department protocols that are the issue, sir.

No need to rip children from their parents for sitting in the wrong place. Arrests do not always need to be effected. That's the primary issue here. If what she did was not illegal in the first place, then everything the police do -afterwards- IS ILLEGAL.

Hence why charges against her were DROPPED.
Click to expand...

First off can I clarify.... Ill all fairness, YOU are right and have a point. I have to respect that. So to be fair I will concede to parts of your point. Is that ok?

NOW with respect to my point, putting on my prior LEO hat.

1) Detaining someone does NOT indicate guilt, but the intent is to protect the LEO and the Accused.
2) Safeguarding a Child is a DEPARTMENT standard. By removing the potential threat to the Child. The ADULT can comply with detaining officer and sort things out while the child is safeguarded.


Comply with unlawful orders? Is that really SO hard to do like in this situation? Under what circumstances is it justified to disobey an order given by an LEO?


Finally in-regards to MORE information today compared to yesterdays assumptions.

1) She was initially accused "Obstructing Governmental Admin & Trespassing" As she was sitting on the floor and was asked to stand. She refused (while morally fair, she did NOT comply with the request)
2) The Follow on charges were in reference to the ACTUAL situation , Resisting Arrest, acting in a manner injurious to a child.


So First off. PER the release of new info, they have dropped all charges, IT has been state that the department is reviewing as they conceded it WAS NOT in the best interest and the HRA did escalate. SO they are placing fault on the LEO. WHICH IS DUE. IF the LEO is GUILTY of escalation then they SHOULD be held accountable.

*Side note* Ms. Headley REMAINS in jail for unrelated warrants...... So this was NOT her first encounter with the Police. (Why this is relevant to me is the indication of resistance) WHILE the HRA was found to be at fault for escalating the real question is if Ms Headley has a common thread of resisting LEO's to begin with. (I do NOT know)


Finally that being said. THIS case highlights some what of an ABUSE Of power by an LEO sure.... I concede, BUT could this abuse by the LEO's been uncovered without the RISK of putting her child at risk by resisting?

In all fairness multiple parties have already stated that the LEO's there have been abusive, the long lines and inability to provide adequate seating arrangements. This could not have been address to HIGHER authorities above the HRA Officer and remedial training or investigation could not have been taken?


So Again. THIS could have ALL been avoided if she complied with the request. ASKING to stand is NOT unlawful or UNCONSTITUTIONAL it is Immoral, but violated NO rights or Human rights. Once she refused to comply then escalated by resisting arrest is where the situation really went out of control for BOTH parties. LEO and Headley


Comply and you wont have to deal with excessive force... wrong or right...
 
Exactice said:
First off can I clarify.... Ill all fairness, YOU are right and have a point. I have to respect that. So to be fair I will concede to parts of your point. Is that ok?

NOW with respect to my point, putting on my prior LEO hat.

1) Detaining someone does NOT indicate guilt, but the intent is to protect the LEO and the Accused.
2) Safeguarding a Child is a DEPARTMENT standard. By removing the potential threat to the Child. The ADULT can comply with detaining officer and sort things out while the child is safeguarded.


Comply with unlawful orders? Is that really SO hard to do like in this situation? Under what circumstances is it justified to disobey an order given by an LEO?


Finally in-regards to MORE information today compared to yesterdays assumptions.

1) She was initially accused "Obstructing Governmental Admin & Trespassing" As she was sitting on the floor and was asked to stand. She refused (while morally fair, she did NOT comply with the request)
2) The Follow on charges were in reference to the ACTUAL situation , Resisting Arrest, acting in a manner injurious to a child.


So First off. PER the release of new info, they have dropped all charges, IT has been state that the department is reviewing as they conceded it WAS NOT in the best interest and the HRA did escalate. SO they are placing fault on the LEO. WHICH IS DUE. IF the LEO is GUILTY of escalation then they SHOULD be held accountable.

*Side note* Ms. Headley REMAINS in jail for unrelated warrants...... So this was NOT her first encounter with the Police. (Why this is relevant to me is the indication of resistance) WHILE the HRA was found to be at fault for escalating the real question is if Ms Headley has a common thread of resisting LEO's to begin with. (I do NOT know)


Finally that being said. THIS case highlights some what of an ABUSE Of power by an LEO sure.... I concede, BUT could this abuse by the LEO's been uncovered without the RISK of putting her child at risk by resisting?

In all fairness multiple parties have already stated that the LEO's there have been abusive, the long lines and inability to provide adequate seating arrangements. This could not have been address to HIGHER authorities above the HRA Officer and remedial training or investigation could not have been taken?


So Again. THIS could have ALL been avoided if she complied with the request. ASKING to stand is NOT unlawful or UNCONSTITUTIONAL it is Immoral, but violated NO rights or Human rights. Once she refused to comply then escalated by resisting arrest is where the situation really went out of control for BOTH parties. LEO and Headley


Comply and you wont have to deal with excessive force... wrong or right...
Click to expand...

If the reasons for the call were illicit to begin with, the police have no right to ask for ID, to detain, etc. In order to detain they must have a valid reason. Safety isn't one when someone is not A) Breaking the Law or B) Armed.

"All could have been avoided" - yes, it could have. My point is, it never should have happened. If nothing illicit or illegal was happening, the police should not be involved - period. The second the police use force on someone who is A) not breaking a law and B) was never breaking a law, then they themselves are acting criminally.

I agree that had she complied nothing would have happened. However, as has been demonstrated in case law, she doesn't -have- to comply with their orders when they have no legal justification for detaining her. Her prior warrants aren't meaningful in this discussion, because she wasn't doing anything illegal to require the intervention of the police. I do not accept the premise that it's OK for agents of the state to break your rights and your only avenue of reprisal is suing for money.

The police are wrong here, and I for one would not comply either. They have no authority to ask me to comply, and if they do as they did here, they will be justly sued.

At the end of the day, you tolerate it because you think everyone should listen to the police. I agree with you. I simply disagee at what point folks are legally obliged to adhere with the orders of an LEO. And for me, the orders of an LEO aren't valid unless they have a legal reason for giving them. The police need to be trained how to appropriately interact with an increasingly wary public, and they need to be trained on what rights the public has, or else we will continue to see illicit state sanctioned behavior from our big government overlords.
 
Obscurity said:
If the reasons for the call were illicit to begin with, the police have no right to ask for ID, to detain, etc. In order to detain they must have a valid reason. Safety isn't one when someone is not A) Breaking the Law or B) Armed.

"All could have been avoided" - yes, it could have. My point is, it never should have happened. If nothing illicit or illegal was happening, the police should not be involved - period. The second the police use force on someone who is A) not breaking a law and B) was never breaking a law, then they themselves are acting criminally.

I agree that had she complied nothing would have happened. However, as has been demonstrated in case law, she doesn't -have- to comply with their orders when they have no legal justification for detaining her. Her prior warrants aren't meaningful in this discussion, because she wasn't doing anything illegal to require the intervention of the police. I do not accept the premise that it's OK for agents of the state to break your rights and your only avenue of reprisal is suing for money.

The police are wrong here, and I for one would not comply either. They have no authority to ask me to comply, and if they do as they did here, they will be justly sued.

At the end of the day, you tolerate it because you think everyone should listen to the police. I agree with you. I simply disagee at what point folks are legally obliged to adhere with the orders of an LEO. And for me, the orders of an LEO aren't valid unless they have a legal reason for giving them. The police need to be trained how to appropriately interact with an increasingly wary public, and they need to be trained on what rights the public has, or else we will continue to see illicit state sanctioned behavior from our big government overlords.
Click to expand...


So I am not sure how you have come to some conclusions.

1) As I stated being detained does NOT indicate Guilt. BEING arrested IS indicating Guilt.
2) A person can be detained for the officers safety as well as the individual. Let me try it this way. A child is detained during a Safeguard situation when the parent has been suspected of committing a crime. THE child in NO way committed a criminal act nor is being arrested BUT is being detained for their safety.

SAFETY is ABSOLUTELY one of the reason for an individual to be detained. I am sorry this is one of the training 101s we got through. If a CALL goes out that a man has a gun and a random description (BOLO-be on the look out) goes out.... a person that matches that description can be detained even though they are JUST walking down the street 100% innocently. During the detainment they are questioned and verified. IF they are clear they are released PERIOD NOT arrested, NOT Charged NOTHING illegal.

DETAINING does NOT require a law to be broken it is the care custody and control of the LEO.

"it should never happened" WELL by justification, while I DONT buy it and I stated I agree this was seemingly a case of going over board, it was stated she refuse to stand, there must be a specified reason i.e. Fire code, access concern etc as it was stated in the report. The Follow on charges were DROPPED, but the initial reason for the request of compliance was legitimate. They asked her to stand. SHE REFUSED. They asked her to move, she refused. They detained her for "trespassing and disorderly" thats when it went haywire.....


I tolerate? Well to be honest I have been in the shoes. SO I have First hand experience. I would say 10 to 1 that an officer acts within the limit and the suspected individual INTENTIONALLY baits the LEO....(My opinion and experience) OUT side of that I would AGREE there are some power trip officers, BUT there are MANY checks and balances now days considering the heat officers catch.

Again You are trying to use "LEGAL Reasons" WHILE I will admit its obscure. Care Custody and Control is that of BOTH the Officer and Individuals safety. When being questions or Detained. YOU are NOT accused of a crime, But the intent is to clarify during this process to find out if you are IN FACT in violation of the law. IF you are YOU ARE THEN ARRESTED. Until that point you are free on your accord but if you do NOT comply or threaten and officer, someone else or yourself, you can be Arrested.
 
Last edited:
Exactice said:
So I am not sure how you have come to some conclusions.

1) As I stated being detained does NOT indicate Guilt. BEING arrested IS indicating Guilt.
2) A person can be detained for the officers safety as well as the individual. Let me try it this way. A child is detained during a Safeguard situation when the parent has been suspected of committing a crime. THE child in NO way committed a criminal act nor is being arrested BUT is being detained for their safety.

SAFETY is ABSOLUTELY one of the reason for an individual to be detained. I am sorry this is one of the training 101s we got through. If a CALL goes out that a man has a gun and a random description (BOLO-be on the look out) goes out.... a person that matches that description can be detained even though they are JUST walking down the street 100% innocently. During the detainment they are questioned and verified. IF they are clear they are released PERIOD NOT arrested, NOT Charged NOTHING illegal.

DETAINING does NOT require a law to be broken it is the care custody and control of the LEO.

"it should never happened" WELL by justification, while I DONT buy it and I stated I agree this was seemingly a case of going over board, it was stated she refuse to stand, there must be a specified reason i.e. Fire code, access concern etc as it was stated in the report. The Follow on charges were DROPPED, but the initial reason for the request of compliance was legitimate. They asked her to stand. SHE REFUSED. They asked her to move, she refused. They detained her for "trespassing and disorderly" thats when it went haywire.....


I tolerate? Well to be honest I have been in the shoes. SO I have First hand experience. I would say 10 to 1 that an officer acts within the limit and the suspected individual INTENTIONALLY baits the LEO....(My opinion and experience) OUT side of that I would AGREE there are some power trip officers, BUT there are MANY checks and balances now days considering the heat officers catch.

Again You are trying to use "LEGAL Reasons" WHILE I will admit its obscure. Care Custody and Control is that of BOTH the Officer and Individuals safety. When being questions or Detained. YOU are NOT accused of a crime, But the intent is to clarify during this process to find out if you are IN FACT in violation of the law. IF you are YOU ARE THEN ARRESTED. Until that point you are free on your accord but if you do NOT comply or threaten and officer, someone else or yourself, you can be Arrested.
Click to expand...


Did you really just invoke fire code?

They apologized to her. They dropped all charges.

Why are you continuing to defend this odious abuse of state power?

It's delusional. And yes, I stopped reading the second you mentioned fire code. Fire code is not a justification for this egregious abuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom