• 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 Cop Body Slam: Footage will be release after trial

Just keep inventing things... outdebating them... and call yourself the winner.

Lol. I didn't think you could come to the topic with some honesty. All you have to do is show the officer was outside of the use of force guidelines.

I will give you a hint on answering this question...you can't. Not until the body camera footage is released. And IF she did not do what is claimed...only THEN would you be correct based on the use of force continuum. And in that case I would also AGREE that it was excessive.

But as of right now? The story is she interfered, was violent, non compliant, and resisting arrest. I fail to see why a young attractive white woman gets to be exempted from use of force policies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lol. I didn't think you could come to the topic with some honesty. All you have to do is show the officer was outside of the use of force guidelines.

I will give you a hint on answering this question...you can't. Not until the body camera footage is released. And IF she did not do what is claimed...only THEN would you be correct based on the use of force continuum. And in that case I would also AGREE that it was excessive.

But as of right now? The story is she interfered, was violent, non compliant, and resisting arrest. I fail to see why a young attractive white woman gets to be exempted from use of force policies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you declaring victory when I didn't even make an argument? :lol:
 
Gonna split your thing in 2...because my responses are 2 ;)

1) I disagree. Looks like he takes her off her feet. I am actually looking for a slow motion of this video. I might make one myself. From what I'm seeing...he rotates and she comes off her heels. The legs/feet are the primary factor here. And it doesn't look like he puts any force into her landing. Just her rotation past the "point of no return." That breaking of balance point. It seems like gravity does all the work.


Her feet come off due to the excessive force.


2) I agree. They SHOULD. But practically speaking? Do you think most departments can afford it? You are talking about adding in more training hours in the academy...which currently is about 6 months. And hardly enough to make someone an expert.


They can afford all that tacti-cool tactical training.


Or you add in qualifications and inservice training. Which takes time. And just like with a firearm...it is a skill that will rust if not trained weekly minimum. So either these officers training in their off time (you can't mandate that). Or they get regular in service paid training. Which is great. But takes time and money. And departments are already understaffed and overworked in most locations. Not to mention...they really will vary depending on their trainers.


there should be an allotment for training. in order of importance, de-escalation, grappling, then way off in the distance tacti-cool training. right now, it's all #3.


I would love to see more officers training. And I think they should. But I also would love to see 3 shifts a day of Leo's working 8 hour days 1 hour breaks...reducing their stress load and anything everything done to reduce physical/mental exhaustion that causes bad decision making. Most departments just don't have that kind of money. :/

End of day though I agree with you. I just don't think it is realistic. Especially with all the other training we require. Our system needs a ground up overhaul.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



It should be a qualification.
 
So now you are claiming you know more about the law and what is appropriate use of force than the ones who created use of force policies after research into not only the LEGAL side, but the practical application side of use of force? You can dismiss that because those aren't "technical" in your mind...even though these required research and development into multiple fields. And it also had to be practical and tested in the field and reviewed. And then it had to be teachable to a variety of LEOs as well.

This is classic. I don't think I've ever seen a cop hater actually deny the use of force continuum is a valid part of law enforcement. You could attempt to argue that his use of force didn't meet the guideline. I would say you would have a decent case if she had not done what she is alleged (and will likely be shown in the body cam footage). But then...your argument has continued to be centered around the idea that he doesn't have a right to get her to the ground and cuff her.

So. Can you show us based on the legal and use of force standards set forth by experts in the field...that he was out of line? We both know you can't. ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmmmm..... I guess we should let criminals make up our laws... since they are experts in crime. :roll:

Stating that a police force should be who determines what is excessive force by a police officer.... is like stating criminals should set their own laws regarding what constitutes crime.
 
Hmmmm..... I guess we should let criminals make up our laws... since they are experts in crime. :roll:

Stating that a police force should be who determines what is excessive force by a police officer.... is like stating criminals should set their own laws regarding what constitutes crime.

His argument would be, "if the use of force continuum shows that a cop can shoot a person in the face for flipping him off then it is justified". Cops making up the rules on what force they can use? give me a break.
 
Hmmmm..... I guess we should let criminals make up our laws... since they are experts in crime. :roll:

Stating that a police force should be who determines what is excessive force by a police officer.... is like stating criminals should set their own laws regarding what constitutes crime.

So in your mind...police are not subject matter experts in dealing with law enforcement issues like use of force? They don't go to school or train for these things. They don't actually utilize force in the field. They don't have veteran officers and cross train and use lawyers. In your mind police officers have the same credibility as criminals. Maybe you don't understand how they set their policies and standards? And the legal process that goes with it. Maybe you don't understand how they hire the people who set the standards?

I know. You would prefer the lawyers of criminals to write the use of force guideline right? I tell you what...can you find me person who is a better expert on use of force than a decorated field training officer who is in an administrative position or teaches for a police academy? Who would you pick?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Her feet come off due to the excessive force.





They can afford all that tacti-cool tactical training.





there should be an allotment for training. in order of importance, de-escalation, grappling, then way off in the distance tacti-cool training. right now, it's all #3.






It should be a qualification.

So accidents can't happen when an officer goes hands on?

There should be an utmost importance in training an officer in all fields. There isn't. But you can bitch about the tacticool gear. Like Kevlar and rifles equivalent to what any civilian can buy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
His argument would be, "if the use of force continuum shows that a cop can shoot a person in the face for flipping him off then it is justified". Cops making up the rules on what force they can use? give me a break.

Well in that case then your argument is that police are always bad guys and should be tried and executed for touching a suspect without permission even if they are engaged in violent behavior that poses a risk to the officer.

Now that the cry baby argument ad absurdum bull**** is out of the way, who do you think should write use of force policies? Actually this would make a great topic for another thread. Feel free to weigh in there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So accidents can't happen when an officer goes hands on?

There should be an utmost importance in training an officer in all fields. There isn't. But you can bitch about the tacticool gear. Like Kevlar and rifles equivalent to what any civilian can buy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Of course they can. but physics dictate a certain amount of force/leverage needs to be applied in order to create an affect. My son (8 years old), has been trying to hit kata garuma (fireman carry throw), during rolling, for about a week now its been load em up, then pull em off like a shirt. What he was forgetting was to push and wait for the push back. two days ago he hit it, the difference was the other kid sliding off (which works) vs sending the other kid flying ass over teet. The officer applied enough force to lift her off her feet.
 
Of course they can. but physics dictate a certain amount of force/leverage needs to be applied in order to create an affect. My son (8 years old), has been trying to hit kata garuma (fireman carry throw), during rolling, for about a week now its been load em up, then pull em off like a shirt. What he was forgetting was to push and wait for the push back. two days ago he hit it, the difference was the other kid sliding off (which works) vs sending the other kid flying ass over teet. The officer applied enough force to lift her off her feet.

So accidents are allowed to happen. Would you consider it an accident if the subject that required hands on falls? which I'm guessing you don't disagree with (going hands on) assuming the stated case facts of interfering with police investigation, shoulder checking an officer, throat grabbing an officer, and then resisting arrest/attempting to flee...because that all would justify hands on based on the use of force continuum and even warrants taking a suspect to the ground to cuff them as that would be the most effective in an open space.

Digressing. If accidents can happen...would her choice of footwear be a factor in her balance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So accidents are allowed to happen. Would you consider it an accident if the subject that required hands on falls? which I'm guessing you don't disagree with (going hands on) assuming the stated case facts of interfering with police investigation, shoulder checking an officer, throat grabbing an officer, and then resisting arrest/attempting to flee...because that all would justify hands on based on the use of force continuum and even warrants taking a suspect to the ground to cuff them as that would be the most effective in an open space.

Digressing. If accidents can happen...would her choice of footwear be a factor in her balance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Her balance yes, coming off her feet like that, no.


He had plan a through z with z being the harshest, he went for z first. that's my issue. she's walking back back back, then as she changes and pushes forward he slams her.


slam.JPG


look how high up her feet are, even in a jits comp, the ref would call that a slam.


Looking closer at the video this wasn't even that iikyo aikido, he puts his hand under her armpit, (and on her wrist) lifts, leans forward as he throws her. it was so hard her feet fly in the air.
 
Her balance yes, coming off her feet like that, no.


He had plan a through z with z being the harshest, he went for z first. that's my issue. she's walking back back back, then as she changes and pushes forward he slams her.

This isn't true. Well isn't known. We only have 9 seconds. We don't know for sure what happens before. Only what is stated.

View attachment 67224309


look how high up her feet are, even in a jits comp, the ref would call that a slam.


Looking closer at the video this wasn't even that iikyo aikido, he puts his hand under her armpit, (and on her wrist) lifts, leans forward as he throws her. it was so hard her feet fly in the air.

No. A slam would require him to be the driving force and for him to lift her. He didn't. He rotated. Her feet come forward, off shoes, and her head hits. Legs tend to go up when the body comes down close to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This isn't true. Well isn't known. We only have 9 seconds. We don't know for sure what happens before. Only what is stated.



No. A slam would require him to be the driving force and for him to lift her. He didn't. He rotated. Her feet come forward, off shoes, and her head hits. Legs tend to go up when the body comes down close to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nobody cares about your semantics... I took martial arts for years.

Body slam is a general term that is accurate when describing a person getting slammed to the ground.

The body... is slammed. ****ing body slam.

:roll:
 
Well in that case then your argument is that police are always bad guys and should be tried and executed for touching a suspect without permission even if they are engaged in violent behavior that poses a risk to the officer.

Now that the cry baby argument ad absurdum bull**** is out of the way, who do you think should write use of force policies? Actually this would make a great topic for another thread. Feel free to weigh in there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn't you already make this silly argument... execute officers for touching a suspect without permission? Drama Train much?
 
Nobody cares about your semantics... I took martial arts for years.

Body slam is a general term that is accurate when describing a person getting slammed to the ground.

The body... is slammed. ****ing body slam.

:roll:

Except when you are discussing this in a legal setting it DOES matter. Your definition is open to interpretation. Mine is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Didn't you already make this silly argument... execute officers for touching a suspect without permission? Drama Train much?

That is my ****ing point lol! You are hysterical. It wouldn't surprise me if you are borderline crying with rage. You won't even engage legitimate topical points.

Now. Who should write use of force policies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
That is my ****ing point lol! You are hysterical. It wouldn't surprise me if you are borderline crying with rage. You won't even engage legitimate topical points.

Now. Who should write use of force policies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. I am crying with rage. Amazing analytical skills you have there...
 
This isn't true. Well isn't known. We only have 9 seconds. We don't know for sure what happens before. Only what is stated.



No. A slam would require him to be the driving force and for him to lift her. He didn't. He rotated. Her feet come forward, off shoes, and her head hits. Legs tend to go up when the body comes down close to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




my picture shows he is the driving force, peoples feet do not come up like that unless he's applying the driving force. if I come up and push you from behind both your feet will not go into the air.
 
So in your mind...police are not subject matter experts in dealing with law enforcement issues like use of force? They don't go to school or train for these things. They don't actually utilize force in the field. They don't have veteran officers and cross train and use lawyers. In your mind police officers have the same credibility as criminals. Maybe you don't understand how they set their policies and standards? And the legal process that goes with it. Maybe you don't understand how they hire the people who set the standards?

I know. You would prefer the lawyers of criminals to write the use of force guideline right? I tell you what...can you find me person who is a better expert on use of force than a decorated field training officer who is in an administrative position or teaches for a police academy? Who would you pick?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

so in your mind.. criminals are not subject matter experts when dealing with criminal issues? Of course they are.. so why not have criminals decide what laws should be in place?

Or do you think that if criminal was writing laws.. that they might tend to develop laws in such a way that benefits them.. rather than the public at large?

Hmm.. do you think that a police officer.. writing a policy regarding force.. would be MORE likely to develop a policy with the idea of protecting the officer vs the general public? I would suggest that's exactly what would happen and it appears what HAS happened in many instance. Especially when a young lady is being lifted off the ground and then slammed onto it when she presents little threat is considered "appropriate use of force" by the police.

Who would be a better person to develop use of force guidelines? Pretty much any intelligent person who is not in law enforcement.

And how would that intelligent person who is not in law enforcement develop the guidelines? Well.. they would incorporate information from law enforcement experts.. from citizens that have had problems with law enforcement, from martial arts experts, from civil rights lawyers etc.

and they would come up with a force continuum guidline that protects the CITIZENS from overreach from the police as much as it guides the police in effective use of force so that they can protect themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom