• 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

Please explain, in detail, how the situation should have been handled then. Pretend you are the cop and this woman keeps coming at you up in your face, grabbing at your throat. Are you supposed to just let it happen? For how long? Are you just going to walk away and not do your job. They were called for a reason. So please, tell me what should have been done.

I am 6'2" ... 215lbs and athletic so there are no girls other than Rhonda Rousey that worry me. Forgive me if I expect a man to act like a man and not body slam girls on their face.

A trained cop should have no problem dealing with a woman half his weight while drunk. Obviously you feel if you are giving little slappy moves at a man he has the right to knock you the **** out. Great. Equal rights is to be commended.

I personally will just restrain your little self til the backup standing three feet away can assist.
 
She did not have a weapon. She was no threat.Getting a teeny tiny girl to the ground does not require body slamming the **** out of her that could practically kill her. Cop is a ***** and so is any man that supports what he did. Cowardly. *****.

Doesn't seem like an answer to my question. Seems like you know the answer...but for some reason don't want to respond? Now why is that? I'm betting I know the answer. Anyway. Just to repeat myself here and see if you are willing to be honest:

Is it reasonable, assuming she did become violent (throat grabbing) and resisted arrested after interfering with an ongoing police investigation, would you say it is reasonable to get her to the ground and cuff her?

Ps

She wasn't body slammed. ;)
 
Doesn't seem like an answer to my question. Seems like you know the answer...but for some reason don't want to respond? Now why is that? I'm betting I know the answer. Anyway. Just to repeat myself here and see if you are willing to be honest:

Is it reasonable, assuming she did become violent (throat grabbing) and resisted arrested after interfering with an ongoing police investigation, would you say it is reasonable to get her to the ground and cuff her?

Ps

She wasn't body slammed. ;)

I won't answer leading questions like the one you are asking. Assuming she was...??
 
I won't answer leading questions like the one you are asking. Assuming she was...??

Well it is quite clear that you won't answer questions because you know it undermines your machismo tough guy response that ignores the reality of the job law enforcement does. You know damn well it is justified to get her to the ground and cuff her if she throat grabbed, resisted, after interfering with a police investigation.

And yes. Assuming. She is going to trial. There is body camera footage. But she still is innocent until proven guilty. But we are discussing the reasoning as to why she was taken to the ground and cuffed. Well...based on the reports...we would have to assume it was for the reason I listed.
 
Well it is quite clear that you won't answer questions because you know it undermines your machismo tough guy response that ignores the reality of the job law enforcement does. You know damn well it is justified to get her to the ground and cuff her if she throat grabbed, resisted, after interfering with a police investigation.

And yes. Assuming. She is going to trial. There is body camera footage. But she still is innocent until proven guilty. But we are discussing the reasoning as to why she was taken to the ground and cuffed. Well...based on the reports...we would have to assume it was for the reason I listed.

I dont answer leading questions and that is one reason why I have won twice in court while self-representing against lawyers. Assume whatever you want.
 
I dont answer leading questions and that is one reason why I have won twice in court while self-representing against lawyers. Assume whatever you want.

:eye roll:

So yes. You believe the officers decision to take the suspect down and cuff her were reasonable...assuming she had done what she is accused of doing.

Well then. Given that we know a wrist lock takedown was used, not a body slam. And given that we know that the officer was more than justified in the decision to take her down and cuff her (and you agree with me because your certainly don't seem to be voicing an objection). Well it seems then the only factor then is how much resistance and what kind of footwear and intoxication level she was at when SHE decided to get into a grappling match with someone more physically able than her. High heels and too much resistance? Yea. This was justified. Assuming the body camera showed her getting violent with the officers.

Glad to see you agree with me. ;)
 
Maybe but are you suggesting that the three cops standing there could not cuff and arrest a waif of a little woman without body slamming the ****ing hell out of her?

My wife is 4' 10"

She took out a guy my size in Great Yarmouth England by kicking him in the balls as he was spewing some pretty nasty insults at her for marrying a Yank. Then her 5' 2'' aunt got into the act.

LOL.....at your little "waif" business.
 
:eye roll:

So yes. You believe the officers decision to take the suspect down and cuff her were reasonable...assuming she had done what she is accused of doing.

Well then. Given that we know a wrist lock takedown was used, not a body slam. And given that we know that the officer was more than justified in the decision to take her down and cuff her (and you agree with me because your certainly don't seem to be voicing an objection). Well it seems then the only factor then is how much resistance and what kind of footwear and intoxication level she was at when SHE decided to get into a grappling match with someone more physically able than her. High heels and too much resistance? Yea. This was justified. Assuming the body camera showed her getting violent with the officers.

Glad to see you agree with me. ;)

Even if she was resisting that level of force was not justified.
 
My wife is 4' 10"

She took out a guy my size in Great Yarmouth England by kicking him in the balls as he was spewing some pretty nasty insults at her for marrying a Yank. Then her 5' 2'' aunt got into the act.

LOL.....at your little "waif" business.

Ok. Set up a sparring match between me and your wife. See how long she lasts... ;)
 
Even if she was resisting that level of force was not justified.

You mean a normal amount of force for someone who decides to resist and make things worse for themselves by doing so? Sure that level of force is justified. Maybe you don't understand how the shoes work?



The funny thing is...it becomes quite clear that the level of force was normal given that she really doesn't generate any speed until her legs come out from under her (heels) and gravity takes over. Take it from me...I'm a big guy who does Judo...gravity is a bitch.

 
Last edited:
You mean a normal amount of force for someone who decides to resist and make things worse for themselves by doing so? Sure that level of force is justified. Maybe you don't understand how the shoes work?



The funny thing is...it becomes quite clear that the level of force was normal given that she really doesn't generate any speed until her legs come out from under her (heels) and gravity takes over. Take it from me...I'm a big guy who does Judo...gravity is a bitch.



There is literally nothing you can say to get me to agree that force was justified. If I was on a jury where she was suing him I would award her.
 
Trial date set for novermber. She is pleading not guilty. The department cleared the officer. They have body cam footage. They will release it when the trial is over. Interesting. Methinks there is more to this than people were willing to admit based on 9 seconds.

Trial set for woman in viral Old Town arrest video

Well, if she hit that officer then the old adage comes to fruition: never poke a growling Pit bull with a stick.
 
There is literally nothing you can say to get me to agree that force was justified. If I was on a jury where she was suing him I would award her.

Of course not. Cops are bad people and use of force is never justified even when someone becomes violent and assaults an officer and interferes with a police investigation. **** da police. Am I right? Especially if it is a poor innocent little white girl.

:eye roll:

She resisted. She had allegedly gotten violent. She was interfering with a police investigation allegedly. So when she resists arrest after the officer tried to detain her...he used a standard technique...and you obviously cannot dispute that the fact that the officer was more than justified and getting her to the ground and cuffing her. You seem to be upset that she landed hard...after resisting. Seems to me he was more than justified. Next time she won't get into a grappling match in high heels.

So in summation based on the alleged story of course...justified to take her down. You agree. At the very least you can't voice a valid objection to him doing so.

He uses a classic technique and she falls to her face. He didn't use excessive force. Gravity did when she came off her heels. And if you watch the video closely...he isn't even putting force into the downward momentum. That is all her...coming off her heels. Gravity is a bitch.
 
Of course not. Cops are bad people and use of force is never justified even when someone becomes violent and assaults an officer and interferes with a police investigation. **** da police. Am I right? Especially if it is a poor innocent little white girl.

Now you are starting to accuse me of some pretty personal crap.

Was that really your intent?
 
Dear America.

When you are involved with law enforcement...especially in a situation where you know you have been acting like a dick...stop...and do what the officer tells you to do. The time to argue about your guilt or innocence is in a court. And frankly...you dont 'know your rights" near as much as you think you do. Just stop...chill.

Trust me...a lot of you will appreciate this advice if you follow it.

Thanks!
 
There is literally nothing you can say to get me to agree that force was justified. If I was on a jury where she was suing him I would award her.
I think the most convincing testimony comes from the people that were filming the incident and laughing about it because of the womans actions prior to the take down.
 
Now you are starting to accuse me of some pretty personal crap.

Was that really your intent?

Why would that be my intent? I don't know you other than by your statements here. Perhaps if you feel that I'm accusing you of something...you should check what you are saying. In this particular case you are coming to the defense of a poor "innocent" pretty little white girl from the big bad bully policemen.

When you were challenged to discuss whether or not he was justified in getting her to the ground and cuffing her...you couldnt produce a reason as to why he wouldn't have been justified in taking her down and cuffing her (assuming she did what she was accused of). So I'm really forced to assume you agree with me that he was justified. I mean if he wasn't...tell me he wasn't. Until then you really don't seem to have any real objection other than the "hero complex." Not the syndrome of course. Just that machismo attitude that all women need protection.

I mean when we look at the throw...the officer has her by the arm as she continues to resist and when he rotates to get her to the ground in the most basic of wrist lock moves...she comes off the heels right to the ground. Sounds to me like she needs to sue gravity.
 
Dear America.

When you are involved with law enforcement...especially in a situation where you know you have been acting like a dick...stop...and do what the officer tells you to do. The time to argue about your guilt or innocence is in a court. And frankly...you dont 'know your rights" near as much as you think you do. Just stop...chill.

Trust me...a lot of you will appreciate this advice if you follow it.

Thanks!

Rights? Like innocent til proven guilty... due process... where in the Constitution are the police given the power to body slam little females because they are bot complying fast enough?
 
Ending with a female pejorative doesn't help your argument.

Lmao! Talk about a weak argument there. Can win...claim sexism. Why? Because I used a "female pejorative" to refer to the force of ****ing gravity. Lmao! Please tell me this is sarcasm.
 
Rights? Like innocent til proven guilty... due process... where in the Constitution are the police given the power to body slam little females because they are bot complying fast enough?
Again...you really dont know your rights if you are bleating on about those things during a ticketing or arrest process. being given a ticket is not an admission of guilt.

You lose your argument the moment you make this be about gender. Cops dont have different sets of rules based on gender. They follow the same rules. When after talking to an individual for several minutes...an individuals that others have called the police on (they were there for a reason)...that individual attempts on numerous occasions to strike the officer...the officer can and should prevent the aggressive acts of the individual and end the conflict. The fact this chick took a chinner has everything to do with HER choices...not the arresting officers choices.
 
Why would that be my intent? I don't know you other than by your statements here. Perhaps if you feel that I'm accusing you of something...you should check what you are saying. In this particular case you are coming to the defense of a poor "innocent" pretty little white girl from the big bad bully policemen.

When you were challenged to discuss whether or not he was justified in getting her to the ground and cuffing her...you couldnt produce a reason as to why he wouldn't have been justified in taking her down and cuffing her (assuming she did what she was accused of). So I'm really forced to assume you agree with me that he was justified. I mean if he wasn't...tell me he wasn't. Until then you really don't seem to have any real objection other than the "hero complex." Not the syndrome of course. Just that machismo attitude that all women need protection.

I mean when we look at the throw...the officer has her by the arm as she continues to resist and when he rotates to get her to the ground in the most basic of wrist lock moves...she comes off the heels right to the ground. Sounds to me like she needs to sue gravity.

So your intent was to say something truly stupid and offensive. Got it.


Cops are bad people and use of force is never justified even when someone becomes violent and assaults an officer and interferes with a police investigation. **** da police. Am I right? Especially if it is a poor innocent little white girl.

From this single argument your brilliant conclusion is that I feel "force is never justified"... that "cops are bad people" and that my concern is because she is a "innocent white girl"?

****ing brlliant!!

:lol:
 
Rights? Like innocent til proven guilty... due process... where in the Constitution are the police given the power to body slam little females because they are bot complying fast enough?

Police are under no burden to prove someone guilty when they make an arrest. Saying so is just silly. You are claiming the officers had no power to arrest her. You can't even tell us why the officer shouldn't have taken her into custody based on the statements.
 
So your intent was to say something truly stupid and offensive. Got it.




From this single argument your brilliant conclusion is that I feel "force is never justified"... that "cops are bad people" and that my concern is because she is a "innocent white girl"?

****ing brlliant!!

:lol:

Not my fault you can't provide any justification as to why the police shouldn't take her into custody after resisting arrest and becoming violent.
 
Back
Top Bottom