• 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

Uhhh, yeah. You haven't addressed the use of force policy by the department.

It was not presented in an honest manner... as I repeatedly stated.

Look... if this is how your posts will be then don't expect much in return.
 
Uhhh... Nope.

Then demonstrate otherwise. You claim that his level of force was excessive. I gave you the department standards. Prove it. Assuming she did what was stated...can you show where he was not to gain control of the subject who was actively resisting after having been violent? Lmao. You can't do it. You can say "uh nope," but you certainly don't seem to be able to demonstrate that what he did was excessive.

Life is a bitch when you are a scumbag who acts like the law doesn't apply to you. Good thing daddy is paying for her lawyer. Maybe if he would have taught her that being drunk and disorderly isn't a good thing to be?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It was not presented in an honest manner... as I repeatedly stated.

Look... if this is how your posts will be then don't expect much in return.

Lmao. Were you or were you not given department policy information? Tell you what...why don't you bring forward a use of force continuum that would show the officer wasn't justified?
 
Then demonstrate otherwise. You claim that his level of force was excessive. I gave you the department standards. Prove it. Assuming she did what was stated...can you show where he was not to gain control of the subject who was actively resisting after having been violent? Lmao. You can't do it. You can say "uh nope," but you certainly don't seem to be able to demonstrate that what he did was excessive.

Life is a bitch when you are a scumbag who acts like the law doesn't apply to you. Good thing daddy is paying for her lawyer. Maybe if he would have taught her that being drunk and disorderly isn't a good thing to be?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just to interject here ont eh "department standards"..

If a two year old child struck out at an officer.. would the department standard be to slam the child to the ground?

Somehow.. I would hope that the "standard" took into account the actual threat involved and the actual force necessary to gain compliance in order to decrease that threat.
 
Just to interject here ont eh "department standards"..

If a two year old child struck out at an officer.. would the department standard be to slam the child to the ground?

Somehow.. I would hope that the "standard" took into account the actual threat involved and the actual force necessary to gain compliance in order to decrease that threat.

Not according to these guys... all a cop has to do is look at the *cough cough* "continuum" and apply force. My whole argument is that she was a small women... no real threat. More than a two year old but not much to a man who already has a hold of her. Their argument is pathetic.
 
Lmao. Were you or were you not given department policy information? Tell you what...why don't you bring forward a use of force continuum that would show the officer wasn't justified?


Appeal to Authority.

Your argument supports Segregation.

It was legal so it was justified.
 
I wouldn't go that far. Depends on the person doing the choking and the type of choke. If she put hands on my throat...I wouldn't consider that deadly force because I have grown men who have a hard time choking me with rear naked chokes and triangles in Jiu Jitsu. But I would be concerned about her doing damage to my vocal cords or trachea. I would certainly put her down and cuff her. Probably would have used a hip toss though because I can do those gently. Or an osoto gari




If you don't tap, it can easily be deadly.




cop used excessive force and if he did know jitsu he would be better able to control the amount of force needed.
 
I CAN tell you what they are capable of if they are 120 pound drunk female on high heels. They are capable of doing pretty significant cosmetic damage as well as minor trauma to me. Not life threatening though...not without a weapon. To be fair...I am pretty well trained in martial arts. And I know that I'm personally very hard to choke. I would be more worried about the type of damage should do by scratching and biting and all that their ****. She had almost 0 chance of doing any life threatening damage.

A quick takedown was plenty. She landed hard. Gravity is a bitch. Next time...try to handle your alcohol and not assault an officer. No sympathy here, assuming she did what she is accused of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




The force was excessive and sloppy.
 
If you don't tap, it can easily be deadly.




cop used excessive force and if he did know jitsu he would be better able to control the amount of force needed.

Absolutely. If I don't tap...but it had to be applied correctly. A small hand grabbing my throat would need to pass my chin for starters. Not an easy move. Plus I'd be resisting. Like I said though...I would be concerned about damage more than lethal force. Which is still a legitimate concern.

Police and private citizens still have a right to stop someone with using greater force in the even that the person has used or is a threat in terms of bodily harm. Police go one step further and can use force to prevent escape on non felonious acts of violence where someone has demonstrated their behavior to be threatening, erradict, and specifically willing to use violence against others.

As for the officer...sure. He probably WOULD have needed less force if he trained more. That is absolutely fair. I'm of the personal opinion that law enforcement should be a 4 year degree where hand to hand techniques are drilled weekly at least 3 times minimum as a class every year. Currently you can expect an officer to have a minimum of 6 months of training in defensive tactics and regular inservices that are substandard for teaching someone to handle the hundreds of variations on a single situation. Let alone the plethora of other situations. They would need a personal interest and participation outside the force. :/
 
The force was excessive and sloppy.

Sloppy. By law? Not excessive. She had grabbed his throat and was actively resisting arrest. He had every bit of the authority needed (assuming she did grab his throat) to get her to the ground and cuff her. He did use a sloppy takedown. But I don't think anyone considered platform heels as grappling attire. As you can see...once he started the throw...she came off her feet. The takedown would normally just drag them to the ground with a sliding motion like an airplane...maybe. This move is more aikido than Jiu Jitsu though. :)
 
Appeal to Authority.

Your argument supports Segregation.

It was legal so it was justified.

Lmao. Pulling the race card because you can't win. Remind me...wasn't she white? Lol.

Anyway. As stated...use of force guidelines and legal standards show the officer was justified. The standards have been reviewed hundreds of times in many cases. Can you tell me why an officer cannot use force to detain an unruly suspect?
 
Lmao. Pulling the race card because you can't win. Remind me...wasn't she white? Lol.

Anyway. As stated...use of force guidelines and legal standards show the officer was justified. The standards have been reviewed hundreds of times in many cases. Can you tell me why an officer cannot use force to detain an unruly suspect?

Race card? Umm... no.

The logic behind your argument would be to also have supported segragation while it was legal. That is the Appeal. That is the Fail.
 
Race card? Umm... no.

The logic behind your argument would be to also have supported segragation while it was legal. That is the Appeal. That is the Fail.

And that is your appeal to race. Kind of like calling someone A Nazi. Just one more fallacious argument. This IS an appeal to an authority that has studied the law and developed techniques and a use of force continuum as a result. I'm appealing to THE authority on the matter. Tell me. Who do you think should be considered an expert on this? You? Lmao. Her defense attorney?

Still waiting on you to demonstrate why the officer shouldn't have taken an unruly suspect in to custody
 
And that is your appeal to race. Kind of like calling someone A Nazi. Just one more fallacious argument. This IS an appeal to an authority that has studied the law and developed techniques and a use of force continuum as a result. I'm appealing to THE authority on the matter. Tell me. Who do you think should be considered an expert on this? You? Lmao. Her defense attorney?

You literally have no idea what an Appeal to Authority means... do you?

Also... there is no Appeal to Race. That doesnt even make sense.
 
Absolutely. If I don't tap...but it had to be applied correctly. A small hand grabbing my throat would need to pass my chin for starters. Not an easy move. Plus I'd be resisting. Like I said though...I would be concerned about damage more than lethal force. Which is still a legitimate concern.


I didn't see this part. That's a problem. in the 9 second video she was stammering before he excessively slammed her. she was drunk and not mentally in control of her facilities, the officer should have enough training to recognize and de-escalate, and then only if needed, detain her without slamming her like that.



Police and private citizens still have a right to stop someone with using greater force in the even that the person has used or is a threat in terms of bodily harm. Police go one step further and can use force to prevent escape on non felonious acts of violence where someone has demonstrated their behavior to be threatening, erradict, and specifically willing to use violence against others.

If you were in your bar and she grabbed your neck, sure you could kata garuma her ass, but legal or not, you'll be the bigger ass here doing that to a drunk girl.

As for the officer...sure. He probably WOULD have needed less force if he trained more. That is absolutely fair. I'm of the personal opinion that law enforcement should be a 4 year degree where hand to hand techniques are drilled weekly at least 3 times minimum as a class every year. Currently you can expect an officer to have a minimum of 6 months of training in defensive tactics and regular inservices that are substandard for teaching someone to handle the hundreds of variations on a single situation. Let alone the plethora of other situations. They would need a personal interest and participation outside the force. :/


Police should hold a minimum of a blue belt in jiu-jitsu or other grappling art with a focus on harm reduction, control and de-escalation. it should be a requirement for the job. For thier own safety as well as the public.
 
You literally have no idea what an Appeal to Authority means... do you?

Also... there is no Appeal to Race. That doesnt even make sense.

Lmao. You clearly don't know what it means either. You seem to think my argument is that it is right because the police said so. I didn't. My argument is that it is legal and acceptable because as far as can be seen...the legal system (lawyers and judges) have upheld that the action is an acceptable use of force based on the use of force continuum...which in and of itself would be the determining factor as to whether he was justified. The Use of Force continuum being used as the guideline in use of force encounters. The use of force being reviewed and analyzed and discussed and upheld multiple times by a variety of experts in the field.

It is not an appeal to authority in that "the authority says it is right so it is." That would be a falcious argument. Just like your argument stating that I believe in segregation because at one point someone said it was ok would be a falcious argument. The fact is you have not ONE TIME presented a single SHRED of evidence as to the use of force being outside the scope of what is legal. Your issue is that she landed hard. You can't seem to show how the officer was NOT allowed to get her into custody and physical detain her. You also can't show us how or why the officer was not allowed to use a physcal takedown move to get her to the ground and cuff her as part of that detainment for arrest.

Now I'm sure you will come back with some form of "yes I did," but that isn't the case. And if you THINK his actions are outside the law or the use of force guidelines...I am issuing you the challenge now...prove it. I gave you use of force guidelines for the department and state of Colorado law on the subject. If your only argument is that it was wrong because you disagree with the law...then your argument is DOA because the fact is...he was justified based on the story. Then your argument must devolve to the concept that it shouldn't be legal for him to physically take her down for her actions.

Actions that are defined as...physically resisting arrest after committing an act of violence against an officer and interfering with an ongoing police investigation. I can see why you are trying to avoid really getting into the nuts and bolts of this particular topic. It boils down to the fact that you are just too sensitive to watch videos about police matters. ;)
 
Last edited:
I didn't see this part. That's a problem. in the 9 second video she was stammering before he excessively slammed her. she was drunk and not mentally in control of her facilities, the officer should have enough training to recognize and de-escalate, and then only if needed, detain her without slamming her like that.





If you were in your bar and she grabbed your neck, sure you could kata garuma her ass, but legal or not, you'll be the bigger ass here doing that to a drunk girl.




Police should hold a minimum of a blue belt in jiu-jitsu or other grappling art with a focus on harm reduction, control and de-escalation. it should be a requirement for the job. For thier own safety as well as the public.

Hey as long as you understand I'm in complete argeement on the techniques. Unfortunately that is not the case. Heck. In reality? I have grappled with combat veterans who were dog **** on the mat. A lot of times the consistent training is just as important. If we reduced the hours officers worked and gave more training time...it might work. But right now? We are facing a decline in officers. So it isn't really a realistic demand. Improved training costs money and time. And we are getting to the point where departments take what they get. Sucks huh? Maybe we as a society should consider the value we place in quality officers?

As for the video...the big problem is that it is 9 seconds. But like I said...she was on heels and resisting after having allegedly being violent. The wrist lock takedown was excessive. Gravity is a bitch when you are in heels (or at least it seems). He isn't accelerating her to the ground. It isn't a body slam. That is all gravity. And yes...not the best move to use. But that isn't the guideline for use of force. It isn't about being viewed as an ass. Nobody likes cops.
 
Sloppy. By law? Not excessive. She had grabbed his throat and was actively resisting arrest. He had every bit of the authority needed (assuming she did grab his throat) to get her to the ground and cuff her. He did use a sloppy takedown. But I don't think anyone considered platform heels as grappling attire. As you can see...once he started the throw...she came off her feet. The takedown would normally just drag them to the ground with a sliding motion like an airplane...maybe. This move is more aikido than Jiu Jitsu though. :)




Sure it was. She wasn't grappling. the slamming was excessive. True on the aikido part, that's called "Ikkyo"..... is this the first case of Aikido's efficacy? ;)
 
Last edited:
Hey as long as you understand I'm in complete argeement on the techniques. Unfortunately that is not the case. Heck. In reality? I have grappled with combat veterans who were dog **** on the mat. A lot of times the consistent training is just as important. If we reduced the hours officers worked and gave more training time...it might work. But right now? We are facing a decline in officers. So it isn't really a realistic demand. Improved training costs money and time. And we are getting to the point where departments take what they get. Sucks huh? Maybe we as a society should consider the value we place in quality officers?

As for the video...the big problem is that it is 9 seconds. But like I said...she was on heels and resisting after having allegedly being violent. The wrist lock takedown was excessive. Gravity is a bitch when you are in heels (or at least it seems). He isn't accelerating her to the ground. It isn't a body slam. That is all gravity. And yes...not the best move to use. But that isn't the guideline for use of force. It isn't about being viewed as an ass. Nobody likes cops.


He completely accelerated her on the way down. Police have to qualify with a firearm, many of them take tactical courses as well. Should they not have true grappling as a requirement as well?
 
Lmao. You clearly don't know what it means either. You seem to think my argument is that it is right because the police said so. I didn't. My argument is that it is legal and acceptable because as far as can be seen...the legal system (lawyers and judges) have upheld that the action is an acceptable use of force based on the use of force continuum...which in and of itself would be the determining factor as to whether he was justified. The Use of Force continuum being used as the guideline in use of force encounters. The use of force being reviewed and analyzed and discussed and upheld multiple times by a variety of experts in the field.

It is not an appeal to authority in that "the authority says it is right so it is." That would be a falcious argument. Just like your argument stating that I believe in segregation because at one point someone said it was ok would be a falcious argument. The fact is you have not ONE TIME presented a single SHRED of evidence as to the use of force being outside the scope of what is legal. Your issue is that she landed hard. You can't seem to show how the officer was NOT allowed to get her into custody and physical detain her. You also can't show us how or why the officer was not allowed to use a physcal takedown move to get her to the ground and cuff her as part of that detainment for arrest.

Now I'm sure you will come back with some form of "yes I did," but that isn't the case. And if you THINK his actions are outside the law or the use of force guidelines...I am issuing you the challenge now...prove it. I gave you use of force guidelines for the department and state of Colorado law on the subject. If your only argument is that it was wrong because you disagree with the law...then your argument is DOA because the fact is...he was justified based on the story. Then your argument must devolve to the concept that it shouldn't be legal for him to physically take her down for her actions.

Actions that are defined as...physically resisting arrest after committing an act of violence against an officer and interfering with an ongoing police investigation. I can see why you are trying to avoid really getting into the nuts and bolts of this particular topic. It boils down to the fact that you are just too sensitive to watch videos about police matters. ;)

With this post you literally just argued an Appeal to Authority...

Substitute Segregation for the following:

My argument is that it is legal and acceptable because as far as can be seen...the legal system (lawyers and judges) have upheld that Segregation is an acceptable policy based on the current law...which in and of itself would be the determining factor as to whether Segregation is justified.

So... pre-Brown v Board you would have agreed that Segregation was justified. That was my point. Appeal to Authority because even the Authority can be wrong. Making your entire case based on the continuum only means that the continuum is what is currectly used by some law enforcement... not that it is in fact the correct way to deal with the situation. They used to shoot horse thieves... they found that was later immoral. The used to Segregate little black children... they later found that to be immoral. They currently think granting a male cop the force to smash a small woman onto her face OK... I think most of us find that immoral and maybe we can hope that the law will one day change.



Appeal to Authority
Explanation

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.


Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Authority

Learn it.
 
With this post you literally just argued an Appeal to Authority...

Substitute Segregation for the following:

My argument is that it is legal and acceptable because as far as can be seen...the legal system (lawyers and judges) have upheld that Segregation is an acceptable policy based on the current law...which in and of itself would be the determining factor as to whether Segregation is justified.

So... pre-Brown v Board you would have agreed that Segregation was justified. That was my point. Appeal to Authority because even the Authority can be wrong. Making your entire case based on the continuum only means that the continuum is what is currectly used by some law enforcement... not that it is in fact the correct way to deal with the situation. They used to shoot horse thieves... they found that was later immoral. The used to Segregate little black children... they later found that to be immoral. They currently think granting a male cop the force to smash a small woman onto her face OK... I think most of us find that immoral and maybe we can hope that the law will one day change.



Appeal to Authority
Explanation

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.


Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Authority

Learn it.

Would you go to a rocket scientist to ask questions about rockets?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Would you go to a rocket scientist to ask questions about rockets?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes but that is a technical issue.

Rocket fuel burns at such and such temperature... orbits require this velocity. Those are facts.

Saying when it is OK to body slam girls that are a little drunk is nothing like that.
 
Yes but that is a technical issue.

Rocket fuel burns at such and such temperature... orbits require this velocity. Those are facts.

Saying when it is OK to body slam girls that are a little drunk is nothing like that.

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
 
1)He completely accelerated her on the way down.

2)Police have to qualify with a firearm, many of them take tactical courses as well. Should they not have true grappling as a requirement as well?

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.

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.

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.

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
 
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

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