• 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!

Do you feel this policeman handled this woman withen police guidelines?

Is this policeman being Brutal to this citizen


  • Total voters
    20
:roll: Seriously?

Your response is an implicit, "But it's so haaard to handcuff a 120-pound woman who's barely on her feet"?

Good lord, I haven't the patience...

Well maybe you should take a break from the web if it drains your patience
.

Regardless of how you feel it should be done, the takedown was 100% legal. No question about it. Sometimes it's nessecary to gain immediate compliance
 
Clearly she was black so...
 
Sure. The woman was drunk in public, had put her 6 year old daughter in extreme danger, and was moving towards violence with the police officer. He took action to end such an opportunity immediately.

Probably didn't mean to knock her out.

Good bust. Grandma will probably be forced to provide full time care for the granddaughter a lot sooner than she expected.

Yeah, she was within half a second of killing the officer.

The conduct of the officer throwing her to the ground was completely unacceptable. He could have killed her doing that.
 
It does not matter how you FEEEEEL about the level to which the officer followed the protocal. Thats between the officer and the department and the department has stated in fact he DID follow protocol. FEEEEELINGS about it are irrelevant.

The department saying that was correct protocol neither makes it right or legal. Throwing drunk women's head into concrete may be a real power-trip thrill and allow officers to work off frustrations, but it is in my opinion it was a felony assault.
 
Sorry dude but when you're making an arrest the LAST thing you want to do is make an all day affair of it.

You're the cop. You are in control. NEVER give the suspect control. You tend to live longer that way.

Claiming that officer's life was in imminent danger is truly absurd. People who are terrified of even possibly ever getting hurt absolutely should NEVER be police officers.
 
Oh hell no!

If I was that cop I'd have sung lullabies to her and braided her hair until she fell asleep THEN would have taken her into custody.:roll:

I've dented the hoods of a few cars with the foreheads of drunks. Sometimes you have to take a more assertive approach to get the idiot to shut up and start paying attention.

And apparently you got away with it and likely there was no dash cam. Hopefully that isn't your profession anymore.

Slamming people's head into steel or concrete is a known potential lethal action.

Some people understand the different between being assertive and taking control, and taking an potentially lethal action against someone calling that being assertive, when really it is willing to retaliate by killing that person for their defiance.
 
The alternative the officer had was to twist her arm higher on her back, which would cause her to lean forward as he cuffed her other wrist.

He threw her into the concrete because he was pissed off at him. His was an outburst of personal rage. It is that simple.
 
The department saying that was correct protocol neither makes it right or legal. Throwing drunk women's head into concrete may be a real power-trip thrill and allow officers to work off frustrations, but it is in my opinion it was a felony assault.
See...thats why 'opinions' stink. They are based on feelings, emotions, and your wants...not the actual law. The person responsible for interpreting policy and action disagrees with you.
 
:roll: Seriously?

Your response is an implicit, "But it's so haaard to handcuff a 120-pound woman who's barely on her feet"?

Good lord, I haven't the patience...

How much experience do you have grappling?
 
How much experience do you have grappling?

A bit, actually -- my dad was a big man with a little daughter and didn't want me buying into the social notion that women are helpless.

And at any rate, you don't need to have any whatsoever to see that what this guy did was wrong. Even an episode of Cops has better examples of how police should do take-downs. I just can't believe there are people defending a cop tossing a woman head-first into concrete while holding her arms back so she can't even catch herself and protect her skull. What is wrong with you?
 
A bit, actually -- my dad was a big man with a little daughter and didn't want me buying into the social notion that women are helpless.

Good. So did you get anything more than just that? 3 times a week for me. With opponents from 6'5 to 5'4 (a small 120 lb female actually...who can win when she is fast enough).

And at any rate, you don't need to have any whatsoever to see that what this guy did was wrong. Even an episode of Cops has better examples of how police should do take-downs. I just can't believe there are people defending a cop tossing a woman head-first into concrete while holding her arms back so she can't even catch herself and protect her skull. What is wrong with you?

A) His takedown was a classic DT move to put someone down. She was resisting. That was pretty clear, and consistent with witness reports.

B) Yea I am going to stick up for the cop. He was trying to cuff a drunk who was not only a public nuisance, but also doing a wonderful job neglecting her child. What scares the hell out of me was: how did she get there. Did she drive?

You clearly don't have any real knowledge of grappling. If you did, you would understand how takedowns are not always pretty. Especially if someone is not compliant. This woman was being arrested. She resisted. What do you want the cop to do? Let her stagger off and get hit by a car? This crazy bitch wasn't even in cuffs yet. It seems to me that you are squeamish because it was violent. Sadly...it sometimes that happens. Your rose colored hindsight glasses shouldn't be what you view this through.

This woman should be treated like a 300 lb man would be. No special treatment.
 
The alternative the officer had was to twist her arm higher on her back, which would cause her to lean forward as he cuffed her other wrist.

He threw her into the concrete because he was pissed off at him. His was an outburst of personal rage. It is that simple.

That was pretty much my take on it. The officer lost it for a second.
 
Good. So did you get anything more than just that? 3 times a week for me. With opponents from 6'5 to 5'4 (a small 120 lb female actually...who can win when she is fast enough).

A) His takedown was a classic DT move to put someone down. She was resisting. That was pretty clear, and consistent with witness reports.

B) Yea I am going to stick up for the cop. He was trying to cuff a drunk who was not only a public nuisance, but also doing a wonderful job neglecting her child. What scares the hell out of me was: how did she get there. Did she drive?

You clearly don't have any real knowledge of grappling. If you did, you would understand how takedowns are not always pretty. Especially if someone is not compliant. This woman was being arrested. She resisted. What do you want the cop to do? Let her stagger off and get hit by a car? This crazy bitch wasn't even in cuffs yet. It seems to me that you are squeamish because it was violent. Sadly...it sometimes that happens. Your rose colored hindsight glasses shouldn't be what you view this through.

This woman should be treated like a 300 lb man would be. No special treatment.

Lots, including a couple of weapons. I'm not a stranger to real life scenarios either. Squeamish indeed. What's the point here...? I'm not terribly interested in your pissing contest.

You do not take someone down with the intent of a safe arrest by flinging their head into concrete without attempting to have any control over their fall. Unless you're trying to kill them, I suppose. That is just nonsense. Especially given that she's barely even resisting to begin with, and certainly not fighting. As I said, I'm smaller than her and I could have gotten her into handcuffs while upright no problem. Like is mentioned above, just pull her arm up behind her. Problem solved. She's barely standing, much less capable of fighting in any coherent way. If you think so, update your eye prescription, or just take your psychologically blinding bias to someone who cares to waste their time.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, she was within half a second of killing the officer.

The conduct of the officer throwing her to the ground was completely unacceptable. He could have killed her doing that.

Thank you for your opinion. I see it differently. She put her child in harms way, attempted to fight a police officer, and he put a stop to an escalating situation. He didn't pull a gun, so your hyperbole doesn't have much place here.
 
Surprisingly, I think I may side with the officer on this one. Disagreeing with the officer is not cause to resist arrest, odds are it will only elevate the situation. Like what happened in this case. The dash cam clearly shows the officer tried to get her to comply with minimal force, she continued to try to pull out of it, and I'm not surprised she was eventually put on the ground to give the officer a better condition to secure the arrest. Her being knocked out does not look like the intention.

"PUT on the ground.":roll:
 
Thank you for your opinion. I see it differently. She put her child in harms way, attempted to fight a police officer, and he put a stop to an escalating situation. He didn't pull a gun, so your hyperbole doesn't have much place here.

What "hyperbole?" Not sure where "put her child in harms way" unless you think being drunk does that, but what relevancy is that? I see NO attempt to "fight" the police officer. Why not just say then she "attempted to murder a police officer who was desperately trying to save the child's life and own against a deadly pscyhotic killer?"

She did not "fight" the officer and whether she had endangered her child is irrelevant. He didn't pull a gun, he threw her into concrete.
 
Good. So did you get anything more than just that? 3 times a week for me. With opponents from 6'5 to 5'4 (a small 120 lb female actually...who can win when she is fast enough).



A) His takedown was a classic DT move to put someone down. She was resisting. That was pretty clear, and consistent with witness reports.

B) Yea I am going to stick up for the cop. He was trying to cuff a drunk who was not only a public nuisance, but also doing a wonderful job neglecting her child. What scares the hell out of me was: how did she get there. Did she drive?

You clearly don't have any real knowledge of grappling. If you did, you would understand how takedowns are not always pretty. Especially if someone is not compliant. This woman was being arrested. She resisted. What do you want the cop to do? Let her stagger off and get hit by a car? This crazy bitch wasn't even in cuffs yet. It seems to me that you are squeamish because it was violent. Sadly...it sometimes that happens. Your rose colored hindsight glasses shouldn't be what you view this through.

This woman should be treated like a 300 lb man would be. No special treatment.

A. He was a punk and a bully who threw that drunk woman into concrete.
B. Being a nuisance and neglecting her child is not justification to throw her into concrete.
I have great knowledge of "grappling" and much, much more - and a great deal of personal experience including with drunks for many, many years. All the officer needed to do was lift her right arm higher, which would have caused her to lean forward for the pain whereupon he could have cuffed it. Instead he got pissed off and threw her into the concrete.
No, he should not have treated her like she was a 300 pound man - because she wasn't a 300 lb man.

Yes, generally a person can do just about any injuries to a drunk causing problems and get away with. Only bullies and people with psychological problems do so and only a pure asshole would do it to a woman.

If a bouncer in a bar or just anyone on the street has done that exact thing on video to that woman he'd be in jail charged with felony assault and the club would being sued for a million dollars.

Just because someone is being defiant and acting like some drunks do - and you have the ability to violently take out that person - particularly a man trained in fighting (all police are to at least some degree) against a drunk woman - doesn't mean you do so. If the officer had to resort to that level of violence against her, then he is 100% totally incompetent to handle any man with any fighting experience or weight training whatsoever.

Let me ask you, since you said this was "classic" for your training. Do you spar on rough concrete or on mats?
 
Last edited:
That was not "a take down" (nor was a "take down" necessary). That was an "I'm tired of messing with this drunk bitch!" throw down.

Does anyone question that I could find videos of people being killed by being thrown down on concrete or knocked down with their head hitting concrete? Quite a few of those have been posted on the forum in the past. His action was a known potentially lethal action.
 
See...thats why 'opinions' stink. They are based on feelings, emotions, and your wants...not the actual law. The person responsible for interpreting policy and action disagrees with you.

The person who disagrees with me has a million ($$) reasons to. "It is police policy" does not make anything legitimate, legal or ethical. The "policy" of dealing with people being obstinate is to throw their head into concrete is not an acceptable "policy."
 
The person who disagrees with me has a million ($$) reasons to. "It is police policy" does not make anything legitimate, legal or ethical. The "policy" of dealing with people being obstinate is to throw their head into concrete is not an acceptable "policy."
Change the policy...quit whining about the policy.
 
It does not matter how you FEEEEEL about the level to which the officer followed the protocal. Thats between the officer and the department and the department has stated in fact he DID follow protocol. FEEEEELINGS about it are irrelevant.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

There are laws. Laws that apply to he police as well as non-police. Plus, police work for the citizens. They are not some wholly independent super-secret organization that gets to exist in a bubble with no accountability whatsoever.
 
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

There are laws. Laws that apply to he police as well as non-police. Plus, police work for the citizens. They are not some wholly independent super-secret organization that gets to exist in a bubble with no accountability whatsoever.

That's cute. Try that line of rhetoric next time a cop pulls you over. Especially the "I pay your salary...you work for me" schtick. The cop will think it's a hoot. Promise.
 
That's cute. Try that line of rhetoric next time a cop pulls you over. Especially the "I pay your salary...you work for me" schtick. The cop will think it's a hoot. Promise.
Your obtuseness is ineffective. My post had absolutely nothing to do with "I pay your salary...", and I bet you know that. You would have fared better to just silently concede the point by not responding.
 
What "hyperbole?" Not sure where "put her child in harms way" unless you think being drunk does that, but what relevancy is that? I see NO attempt to "fight" the police officer. Why not just say then she "attempted to murder a police officer who was desperately trying to save the child's life and own against a deadly pscyhotic killer?"

She did not "fight" the officer and whether she had endangered her child is irrelevant. He didn't pull a gun, he threw her into concrete.

She put her child in danger by taking the child out in public while drunk. Sorry. That is bad parenting 101
 
Your obtuseness is ineffective. My post had absolutely nothing to do with "I pay your salary...", and I bet you know that. You would have fared better to just silently concede the point by not responding.

The rules and policies of the PD are in place. Your feelings about them matter precisely dick.

Police dont 'work for the citizens'.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom