• 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!

Colorado Police Body Slam Woman

RabidAlpaca said:
Oh and naturally they're "withholding" the body camera footage from the cop allegedly showing the "assault". Thank god our boys in blue are ok, they almost died when she stepped back like that.
Click to expand...

Clearly the guy recording only had those 9 seconds. He didn't capture anything before or after, right?

Because the media never manipulates recorded events, like with the Keith Scott video or George Zimmerman 911 call, right?
 
holbritter said:
Which is why I am all for the body cams. You know, there is a real simple solution: A cop says stop, you stop. A cop tells you to leave the area, you leave. A cop tells you to back away, you back away. A cop tells you to put your hands up, you ****ing do it. If you decide not to do any of the above, it's on you.
Click to expand...

True. And the place to fight is in court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
holbritter said:
Which is why I am all for the body cams. You know, there is a real simple solution: A cop says stop, you stop. A cop tells you to leave the area, you leave. A cop tells you to back away, you back away. A cop tells you to put your hands up, you ****ing do it. If you decide not to do any of the above, it's on you.
Click to expand...
That’s not a solution. However much you wish to push that principle, there will always be people who resist (or appear to resist) in the heat of the moment. They might be intoxicated (possibly legally), mentally ill, deaf, blind, not speak English or simply panic in the stress of the moment. We can’t say that the moment any suspect (which could be anyone, including you) does something the police don’t like (or doesn’t immediately do something they want) that suddenly anything goes as far as the violence, aggression and harm police officers can use in response.

There are no simple solutions or easy answers to this kind of thing. It’s always been an issue and it almost certainly always will. All we can do is be calm and rational in mitigating the problems and finding the best balance to address them all.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I have no law enforcement training, only military, but it doesn't take an expert in our society's justice system to know that the police should not be body slamming unarmed people into the concrete without a good reason to believe they're being threatened. The video was going long enough to show that neither of the officers were in any danger and she wasn't "assaulting" them. Like I said, if something happened off-camera 5 minutes prior, I don't see how that could justify using that level of violence. Can you explain how 2 large armed police officers had no other choice but to slam her on the concrete? You see no less violent ways of dealing with that?

Call me crazy, but in an age where the police have turned themselves into soldiers with tanks, battering rams, and use violence to meet every situation, I tend to believe when dealing with unarmed suspects in public you should do so with a little bit of caution and understanding. When you train to be a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Click to expand...

You are just way off base with your assessment. You think you know better than police officers how to deal with people. You are using a seconds long video and have zero training in law enforcement.
Police officer have ten's of thousands of contacts everyday with citizens that end with no hands on contact. She did not comply with them. Would you want them to punch her or take her to the ground? The police department will have a use of force policy. If they fail to follow that policy then there will be consensus.

Police have not turned themselves into soldiers our politicians who control public policy have move police in a direction so they are able to meet the threats that come to them everyday across the nation.
Just look at the last few years how police across the nation have been under attack. How many ambushes have there been?
 
HonestJoe said:
That’s not a solution. However much you wish to push that principle, there will always be people who resist (or appear to resist) in the heat of the moment. They might be intoxicated (possibly legally), mentally ill, deaf, blind, not speak English or simply panic in the stress of the moment. We can’t say that the moment any suspect (which could be anyone, including you) does something the police don’t like (or doesn’t immediately do something they want) that suddenly anything goes as far as the violence, aggression and harm police officers can use in response.
Click to expand...

Sometimes there will be cases like you describe. But on the whole, you have a society that doesn't think it has to listen or obey the law. The "you can't tell me what to do" mentality of the younger generation is mind blowing, IMO. I understand some of that, because I had a bit of that attitude when I was younger. But that attitude was not given, nor accepted to or by the police.

Being drunk, legally or illegally is not an excuse.
 
Mac77 said:
And if she was holding a gun for her boyfriend?

The cop could have treated her with kid gloves but the drunk belligernt dumbass girl pulling a gun and the cop had to shoot her when he should have immediately ended the confrontation before it went that far
Click to expand...

I don't believe anybody is claiming the woman was holding a gun. For herself or her boyfriend. What if's don't count.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Oh and naturally they're "withholding" the body camera footage from the cop allegedly showing the "assault". Thank god our boys in blue are ok, they almost died when she stepped back like that.
Click to expand...

The police are investigating. As much as you would like it to be so, evidence under investigation is typically not released until the investigation is complete.
 
holbritter said:
Sometimes there will be cases like you describe. But on the whole, you have a society that doesn't think it has to listen or obey the law. The "you can't tell me what to do" mentality of the younger generation is mind blowing, IMO. I understand some of that, because I had a bit of that attitude when I was younger. But that attitude was not given, nor accepted to or by the police.

Being drunk, legally or illegally is not an excuse.
Click to expand...
You’re shifting away from your “solution” and acknowledging that with all the good intentions in the world, some suspects aren’t going to concede and many will intend to but will make mistakes or be misinterpreted by the officers. So, we still have the question of what officers should do in those situations (especially given they won’t know which it is). The implication from your initial post is that anything goes for the police and the outcome will entirely be on the suspect, regardless of the circumstances. I don’t think that is viable and I don’t think it’s what you really believe, you’re just reacting rather than thinking (which is the root cause of all of this in the first place :) ).
 
Common Sense 1 said:
You are just way off base with your assessment. You think you know better than police officers how to deal with people. You are using a seconds long video and have zero training in law enforcement.
Police officer have ten's of thousands of contacts everyday with citizens that end with no hands on contact. She did not comply with them. Would you want them to punch her or take her to the ground? The police department will have a use of force policy. If they fail to follow that policy then there will be consensus.
Police have not turned themselves into soldiers our politicians who control public policy have move police in a direction so they are able to meet the threats that come to them everyday across the nation.
Just look at the last few years how police across the nation have been under attack. How many ambushes have there been?
Click to expand...

Translation: if you ever, under any circumstances question a cop's use of force, you "think you know more than cops". It's our responsibility to hold our police force responsible for their actions, and using extreme force against an unarmed person is not part of their job description.

holbritter said:
What exactly do you think they should have done?
Click to expand...

Literally anything else, there are hundreds of ways to subdue an unarmed and mildly belligerent suspect without body slamming them onto the concrete. They were in zero danger and the person was completely unarmed.

holbritter said:
That attitude is exactly why we have people doing what she was doing. Having no respect at all for authority and think you can just get up in someones face and push on them. Female or male, they got what they deserved.
Click to expand...

Oh look, an expert on what happened. It was a cop therefore the cop was right, right?

blackjack50 said:
I am actually stopping here before I go further. The reason? I'm a trained grappler. I have been doing Brazilian Jiu Jitsu/Judo (my instructor is a black belt in both and has a heavy emphasis on winning the standup to finish on the ground) since January 2010. I'm not going to claim to be the greatest or even an expert grappler either. I've had my injuries and so on. But what I can tell you...right now...from personal experience on the reviving and giving end...is that a slight error in technique can result in a drastically different result.
.
.
.
Random **** happens and cameras are always on. What if this guy did the technique completely correct and she lost her balance? Like I said, this looked like a simple and basic akido movement. Her resistance (technique) and heels (balance) probably didn't help. Would it change your mind if this guy was top of his class in defensive tactics? Or if the individual had previously assaulted the officer? The fact is that **** does happen and in a scuffle..."perfect technique" is more like great improv jazz. Not a math problem. It is about timing. Not "he does x and she does y." Facts are important. She was under arrest. From what was stated she has actually assaulted him prior to the camera going on. I'm curious. Have you done martial arts? Sparred? Any kind of formal training in hand to hand/defensive tactics?
Click to expand...

I took multiple years of ninjutsu as a teenager and a couple of jiu-jitsu courses in the army, I am certainly not a martial arts expert and never claimed to be. The point that I'm trying to make is that our police are systemically not held accountable for their actions. Sure, we can't say for certain yet whether this cop was in the wrong or not, but there's very little she could've done prior to this video starting to warrant that violent of a delayed reaction. It's a natural reflex to push someone away if they're grabbing you and pulling you towards them, especially when you're inebriated. Was she being read her rights and informed she was under arrest when it happened?

Not every situation a cop encounters is a gang filled meth lab, they were in a city among civilians and they were two large cops vs a small woman. Cops should be able to temper their reactions to the situation, and this reaction was wildly overpowered.

phattonez said:
Clearly the guy recording only had those 9 seconds. He didn't capture anything before or after, right?
Because the media never manipulates recorded events, like with the Keith Scott video or George Zimmerman 911 call, right?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I really want to get involved talking to the white supremacist who thinks minorities are the source of all of our problems, that can only lead to a rational discussion.
 
It's funny that video's like this are always only a few seconds long.. I would imagine that this encounter took several ( if not many) minutes to unfold. And yet we only have a few seconds in which to judge..

I took a few self defense classes a while back and the instructor emphasized being able to take down an aggressor simply by grasping the hand and twisting it a certain way, this caused the arm to twist around behind the back ( because of the pain ) and the aggressor to have to lean over thus allowing me to take them to the ground.

If she struck the officer minutes prior to the take down she should have immediately been placed in cuffs.. 2 cops should be able to do that effectively and without violence..

I have seen instances where cops have a lot more patience with people and put up with a lot more crap before reacting.

It probably could have been handled better but in the end the cop will probably get off lightly.

By the way, if you gonna take a video of this stuff.. hold the phone still.. and film the whole thing so we can pass judgment right away

djl
 
americanwoman said:
Just from this video I'd say it was excessive but there are reports she was assaulting the officer prior to the couple of seconds where we see her slammed into the concrete. Still, it could have been handled better.

Anyways, I love how some of the comments are about how "well women want equal treatment like men" like if this happened to a man of the same size, nobody would say it was excessive. Police should be better trained to be able to restrain someone without having to body slam them.
Click to expand...

I read an interesting article that I wanted to post in it's own thread for discussion but can't find the damned thing. It's written by a former cop who now trains new police officers in use of force. He's also a former combat verteran. His basic theory is that most new cops have never learned to defend themselves, have not been in the military or had combat experience, and they overreact because they are scared. His belief is that if we had more cops who've actually seen combat the incidence of cops inappropriately using force would go way down because they've been there before, know what to expect and would know how to handle the situation.


I'd always thought having ex-military as police was a bad idea because the military mission is fundamentally different from that of police but I have to admit the man made a load of sense and I'm thinking I may have been wrong.
 
HonestJoe said:
That’s not a solution. However much you wish to push that principle, there will always be people who resist (or appear to resist) in the heat of the moment. They might be intoxicated (possibly legally), mentally ill, deaf, blind, not speak English or simply panic in the stress of the moment. We can’t say that the moment any suspect (which could be anyone, including you) does something the police don’t like (or doesn’t immediately do something they want) that suddenly anything goes as far as the violence, aggression and harm police officers can use in response.

There are no simple solutions or easy answers to this kind of thing. It’s always been an issue and it almost certainly always will. All we can do is be calm and rational in mitigating the problems and finding the best balance to address them all.
Click to expand...

Which means teaching people that fighting is done in court and not in the street. Showing little sympathy for people who do fight back, and understanding how to properly subdue a resisting suspect. And WHY it must be done "aggressively."

People do not understand violence/confrontation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Jesus... Some cops are such incredible scumbags. The video shows no assault on an officer, she was completely unarmed, and I think you'd have to stretch the truth quite a bit to consider that "resisting arrest". I guess she's lucky she's a white female, if it were a black man he would've been shot 16 times or choked to death on the pavement. Some cops are so bored with their lives they instantly reach to violence for absolutely every situation, even when their own safety is in zero danger.
Click to expand...

I don't see you taking up the cause and signing up to do their job. Imagine all the good you could do.
 
Fishking said:
I don't see you taking up the cause and signing up to do their job. Imagine all the good you could do.
Click to expand...

Why would I want to harass people for a living? I don't have tiny-dick syndrome where I have to get in a position of power to beat unarmed people.
 
HonestJoe said:
You’re shifting away from your “solution” and acknowledging that with all the good intentions in the world, some suspects aren’t going to concede and many will intend to but will make mistakes or be misinterpreted by the officers. So, we still have the question of what officers should do in those situations (especially given they won’t know which it is). The implication from your initial post is that anything goes for the police and the outcome will entirely be on the suspect, regardless of the circumstances. I don’t think that is viable and I don’t think it’s what you really believe, you’re just reacting rather than thinking (which is the root cause of all of this in the first place :) ).
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply that anything goes for the police. It's entirely situational, so the circumstances would matter very much. I was not thinking about the situations you brought up (mentally ill, deaf, blind). Although, except for the mentally ill, deafness and blindness could easily be dealt with as I don't think there would be many situations of someone who was deaf or blind would be mixing it up with the police.

I don't know a solution for the mentally ill. The solution for not speaking English is to learn it, but not knowing English doesn't mean you won't recognize a police officer and know what is expected of you. Again, situational for that.

What would be the solution for a mentally ill person? They can be just as dangerous, perhaps even more so. The right training on how to handle that type of situation would be good. I think they do that already, but I don't know for sure.

I think all those situations are not the majority of police encounters. My other post stands on the solution for the majority of the encounters.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Why would I want to harass people for a living? I don't have tiny-dick syndrome where I have to get in a position of power to beat unarmed people.
Click to expand...

Yeah, imagine a country without any police.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I took multiple years of ninjutsu as a teenager and a couple of jiu-jitsu courses in the army, I am certainly not a martial arts expert and never claimed to be. The point that I'm trying to make is that our police are systemically not held accountable for their actions. Sure, we can't say for certain yet whether this cop was in the wrong or not, but there's very little she could've done prior to this video starting to warrant that violent of a delayed reaction. It's a natural reflex to push someone away if they're grabbing you and pulling you towards them, especially when you're inebriated. Was she being read her rights and informed she was under arrest when it happened?

Not every situation a cop encounters is a gang filled meth lab, they were in a city among civilians and they were two large cops vs a small woman. Cops should be able to temper their reactions to the situation, and this reaction was wildly overpowered.
.
Click to expand...

1) If you took those, then you should be aware of what happen with a misstep. A slight difference of application and technique. And you can't really fault someone for a random act of chance. Especially when their job requires going hands on. **** happens. And you know that.

2) Correct. We cannot. And thus "calls for reform" and all that? A bit premature. Especially if she scratched the hell out of him or swung at him. If she was being defiant and he tried to come back calm...and she maintained her resistance? What he did was warranted. Especially if the outcome was incidental.

3) Fact is it doesn't matter how "compliant" she was. He can't risk his safety or hers. Especially if she demonstrated unpredictability. So if she resisted while being placed under arrest? Control is warranted. And cuffing her is fine. Her rights do not need to be read to her while she is getting cuffed. Even if she is cuffed. She only needs to be read her rights when she is being officially arrested. Cuffing does not equal arrest (I had to look that up to confirm it, but I was fairly positive as it was explained to me on a ride along).

4) I agree. But they also can't go into a situation making assumptions. Another poster brought up the possibility of a gun. Personally? I would be more worried about disease and her freaking out. Maybe she is high on meth? I actually was in the car with a suspect on my first ride along...woman who beat the ever loving hell out of her husband. She was 100 pounds probably. Maybe 110. Blood was everywhere and she didn't have a scratch. Anyway. She slipped her hand out of the cuff. She apologized and told the officer right away. He got pretty paranoid from there. I did too. Kept watching her in the mirror. Crazy **** happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Why would I want to harass people for a living? I don't have tiny-dick syndrome where I have to get in a position of power to beat unarmed people.
Click to expand...

Cool. Then you can bring your classy and more reasonable actions to the table and influence things in a positive manner. Sign up and make things better, brother.
 
No, a cop does not need to slam a skinny girl on her face on concrete.

That's bullying, not police work.

He should get five days off without pay.

She will get a nice cash settlement.......no doubt.

:2usflag:
 
Vox said:
No, a cop does not need to slam a skinny girl on her face on concrete.

That's bullying, not police work.

He should get five days off without pay.

She will get a nice cash settlement.......no doubt.

:2usflag:
Click to expand...

The girl is a moron

She will probably use the money kill herself with a drug or alcohol overdose
 
jimbo said:
I don't believe anybody is claiming the woman was holding a gun. For herself or her boyfriend. What if's don't count.
Click to expand...

They do in police work

Thats why cops put the body armor on before rather than after they are shot
 
Mac77 said:
They do in police work

Thats why cops put the body armor on before rather than after they are shot
Click to expand...

A bad analogy. Cops and others also use seat belts. Some of us carry and use seat belts, and lock our doors. It doesn't mean we and them are expecting trouble. It means we and them are prepared for it.

She wasn't carrying a gun. Her dress makes that obvious.
 
jimbo said:
A bad analogy. Cops and others also use seat belts. Some of us carry and use seat belts, and lock our doors. It doesn't mean we and them are expecting trouble. It means we and them are prepared for it.

She wasn't carrying a gun. Her dress makes that obvious.
Click to expand...

I know she had no gun

But anyone who is crazy enough to fight with the cops is capable of the unexpected

The police job is to taked control; of any situation as quickly as possible
 
holbritter said:
The woman, Michaella Surat, assaulted the Fort Collins officer before he subdued her, the spokeswoman, Kate Kimble, said in a statement. A nine-second video of the incident, which occurred Thursday at a bar, according to NBC affiliate KUSA, shows the unidentified officer seemingly trying to restrain Surat. As she takes a few steps back, he flips her face-first onto the brick ground.

Some say excessive. I say it is not. What say you?

Colorado Police Body Slam Woman in '''Standard Arrest Technique''' - NBC News
Click to expand...

Authoritarians will agree with the unrestrained use of violent force on citizens.

Those of us who value freedom are likely to disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom