Colorado Police Body Slam Woman

[Absentglare]

More anti cop garbage. It wouldn't matter if she had just stabbed someone and clawed their eyes out. You would still judge this based on the short video, and not the time leading up to it.

It doesn't matter that she struck an officer and was resisting arrest. You just want the cops to be wrong here. You made up your mind evidence be damned. Nevermind that she and her boyfriend were drunk and disorderly (which is what started the incident). Doesn't matter that she was intoxicated, struck an officer, and was resisting arrest.

You would just as soon side with her merely because of the badge. Why even bother with video evidence or a trial? Am I right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Argument by hypothetical is pretty weak.

Have you ever been to Ft Collins? It's a college city; lots of bars, breweries, and a nice downtown area. If having ingested alcohol then walking around there is a crime, basically everyone there is a criminal past 10pm. Yes, public intoxication is bad, but being out drinking isn't necessarily qualifying.

I don't want the cops to be wrong. I want people to not be needlessly thrown into the ground by the paid ambassadors of public justice. Why do YOU have a problem with that?

 

[blackjack50]

There are pictures of her at booking and after being released. She is totally fine. Not a mark on her face. People are making far too much of this.

Because people hate the police. They have let themselves be warped by their political lean, and they don't fully understand the job. They also don't understand the dangers. Had this woman been sober...she probably wouldn't have gotten slammed.

Maybe next time she will let her boyfriend get arrested for his drunk and disorderly behavior?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blackjack50]

Argument by hypothetical is pretty weak.

Have you ever been to Ft Collins? It's a college city; lots of bars, breweries, and a nice downtown area

Bruh. I live in Florida. Spring break? Multiple large universities. I've been to one myself. Plenty of breweries around the state. Does that mean I get to be a drunk and disorderly asshole and hit cops?

NO. Personal responsibility. Stop trying to excuse the sorostitutes belligerence.


. If

having ingested alcohol then walking around there is a crime, basically everyone there is a criminal past 10pm. Yes, public intoxication is bad, but being out drinking isn't necessarily qualifying.

Nobody said being drunk was a crime. Assaulting a bouncer and a cop is. Womp womp.

I don't want the cops to be wrong. I want people to not be needlessly thrown into the ground by the paid ambassadors of public justice. Why do YOU have a problem with that?

Because YOU don't understand the violence and resistance they meet on a daily basis. You can say "well I don't want this," but it seems to me that you don't have to try and arrest these drunken snowflakes when they get out of hand at the bar.

You have already decided the outcome. It is clear what you want. And it is irrelevant to you that she was drunk and disorderly and assaulted him, and then continued to resist. I don't want the people I pay to get assaulted on the job, but that is the risk. And I want them to be able to respond when someone gets out of control. Essentially your position has boiled down to:

(You can ignore the democrat thing...it applies to libertarians and anti police people in general).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VanceMack]

Because people hate the police. They have let themselves be warped by their political lean, and they don't fully understand the job. They also don't understand the dangers. Had this woman been sober...she probably wouldn't have gotten slammed.

Maybe next time she will let her boyfriend get arrested for his drunk and disorderly behavior?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Im all for them jumping into the trenches and showing us how its done.

 

[backpacker]

What matters is what the suspect just did. That is a precedent already... cops can't shoot a person that fired on them 9 seconds ago but has since put down their gun... cops can't body slam a woman basically standing there for something she did 9 seconds ago. Basic stuff.

Cop is in the wrong... should be fired. Should be put in a room with all the girls brothers and uncles.

She isn't just standing there. She is actively resisting, pushing back at the officer which gets her tossed, and should be charged and punished for it.

 

[jamesrage]

The video in the OP news report. It lasts 9 seconds according to the time bat in the video and the cops tosses her 2/3rds through it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

The start if the woman being knocked on the ground started around 1 to 2 seconds into the video clip.

 

[Bodi]

She isn't just standing there. She is actively resisting, pushing back at the officer which gets her tossed, and should be charged and punished for it.

Dude, she is kinda backing up a bit and barely moving her arms and he just ****ing slams her to the ground face first. If you think that is acceptable you have some ****ing problems.

"Resisting" has degrees... it is not code word for "**** up the suspect with the most violent action". There is actually fighting a cop resisting, there is standing there with a sword resisting, there is fighting your arms from being cuffed resisting... and there is a little girl kinda moving her arms sort of backing away resisting. Any person that thinks that all require the same violent response from a cop needs to see a shrink pronto...

 

[Gaius46]

The start if the woman being knocked on the ground started around 1 to 2 seconds into the video clip.

You looking at the video in the OP? I looked at it again and stopped the video just before the cop threw he down. The time bar should 5 second. So it was between 5 and 6 seconds somewhere. Certainly enough time to recognize that she wasn't attacking him before he tossed her.

 

[VanceMack]

You looking at the video in the OP? I looked at it again and stopped the video just before the cop threw he down. The time bar should 5 second. So it was between 5 and 6 seconds somewhere. Certainly enough time to recognize that she wasn't attacking him before he tossed her.

The news report indicates there was activity significant enough for law enforcement to respond...which they did...and apparently significant enough for them to detain her boyfriend...to which she is reported to have physically engaged the officer. You 'see' the part where the officer ends the confrontation. You know nothing about the preliminary activity leading to the event. So of course knowing nothing, you have made a judgement. Seems pretty standard these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gaius46]

The news report indicates there was activity significant enough for law enforcement to respond...which they did...and apparently significant enough for them to detain her boyfriend...to which she is reported to have physically engaged the officer. You 'see' the part where the officer ends the confrontation. You know nothing about the preliminary activity leading to the event. So of course knowing nothing, you have made a judgement. Seems pretty standard these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is enough video to determine that at the point in time where he threw her she did not represent a threat to him. What happened before that is irrelevant to deciding whether she represented a threat that needed to be dealt with violently.

 

[Absentglare]

Bruh. I live in Florida. Spring break? Multiple large universities. I've been to one myself. Plenty of breweries around the state. Does that mean I get to be a drunk and disorderly asshole and hit cops?

NO. Personal responsibility. Stop trying to excuse the sorostitutes belligerence.

. If

Nobody said being drunk was a crime. Assaulting a bouncer and a cop is. Womp womp.

You don't understand my criticism. If someone hits a cop, they should be arrested rather than beaten.

If someone is drunk and disorderly, they should be arrested rather than beaten.

If someone ran a red light, they should be issues a ticket rather than beaten.

If someone is a suspected rapist, they should be arrested rather than beaten.

If someone is a suspected murderer, they should be arrested rather than beaten.

I understand that some people are injured in the course of police duty. The issue is whether the level of force applied is appropriate. In this case, the video gives me the impression that the force used was excessive. I'm not saying the cop is evil or should be thrown in prison. I'm saying the force looks excessive to me.

Because YOU don't understand the violence and resistance they meet on a daily basis. You can say "well I don't want this," but it seems to me that you don't have to try and arrest these drunken snowflakes when they get out of hand at the bar.

You have already decided the outcome. It is clear what you want. And it is irrelevant to you that she was drunk and disorderly and assaulted him, and then continued to resist. I don't want the people I pay to get assaulted on the job, but that is the risk. And I want them to be able to respond when someone gets out of control. Essentially your position has boiled down to:

(You can ignore the democrat thing...it applies to libertarians and anti police people in general).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are not honestly describing my position here. There is a common theme to the above: i don't think police should be unnecessarily or inappropriately beating people up.

 

[VanceMack]

There is enough video to determine that at the point in time where he threw her she did not represent a threat to him. What happened before that is irrelevant to deciding whether she represented a threat that needed to be dealt with violently.

ALL the video reflects is a law enforcement officer using a technique trained across the nation against an individual that hews reports indicate was belligerent and initiated physical contact with the officer and the technique which is MEANT to take people off balance to put them in a position where they are vulnerable to a take down worked to perfection.

 

[Gaius46]

ALL the video reflects is a law enforcement officer using a technique trained across the nation against an individual that hews reports indicate was belligerent and initiated physical contact with the officer and the technique which is MEANT to take people off balance to put them in a position where they are vulnerable to a take down worked to perfection.

"Belligerent and initiated physical contact" So let me guess - that report came from the PD's Public Affairs Officer or perhaps the Chief. Right? They have a vested interest in the outcome and you take them at their word? Did you see her being "belligerent" in the video? Did you see her initiate physical contact? I see someone trying to get away from the cop, which she shouldn't do but is an understandable reaction to being grabbed. Even if she did "initiate physical contact" - the report I read said she "shoulder-checked" the cop whatever the hell that means, it happened before the beginning of the recording and she clearly was no threat when he took her down.

I understand the technique is taught across the nation but that doesn't imply it should have be used in this specific circumstance against this specific individual. And honestly some departments need to start understanding that perception is reality and even if they are legally and procedurally in the right incidents like this look bad for the police and degrade police-public relations further and that can and will have long term consequences.

 

[VanceMack]

"Belligerent and initiated physical contact" So let me guess - that report came from the PD's Public Affairs Officer or perhaps the Chief. Right? They have a vested interest in the outcome and you take them at their word? Did you see her being "belligerent" in the video? Did you see her initiate physical contact? I see someone trying to get away from the cop, which she shouldn't do but is an understandable reaction to being grabbed. Even if she did "initiate physical contact" - the report I read said she "shoulder-checked" the cop whatever the hell that means, it happened before the beginning of the recording and she clearly was no threat when he took her down.

I understand the technique is taught across the nation but that doesn't imply it should have be used in this specific circumstance against this specific individual. And honestly some departments need to start understanding that perception is reality and even if they are legally and procedurally in the right incidents like this look bad for the police and degrade police-public relations further and that can and will have long term consequences.

No...actually, I believe the witlessness accounts in the news story were not from the police. The police statement has been we have bodycam video and wont release anything to be fair to both the cop and the citizen while the investigation is ongoing.

But that seems to be a sticking point with you...and relevant since you brought it up. So...IF it is determined that the woman did in fact physically intervene with the law enforcement officer, do you accept that what was done was appropriate?

 

[blackjack50]

You don't understand my criticism. If someone hits a cop, they should be arrested rather than beaten.

If someone is drunk and disorderly, they should be arrested rather than beaten.

If someone ran a red light, they should be issues a ticket rather than beaten.

If someone is a suspected rapist, they should be arrested rather than beaten.

If someone is a suspected murderer, they should be arrested rather than beaten.

Nobody was beaten in this incident. She was put down after striking an officer.

Further. Sometimes a beating IS warranted on an out control suspect. Why? Because sometimes it is the only way to subdue them. Why do you think they carry batons even in countries that "don't have police brutality problems?"

Because sometimes you need someone with a stick.

I understand that some people are injured in the course of police duty. The issue is whether the level of force applied is appropriate. In this case, the video gives me the impression that the force used was excessive. I'm not saying the cop is evil or should be thrown in prison. I'm saying the force looks excessive to me.

And my position is that you don't have enough info. And we have the reports that she assaulted him.

You are not honestly describing my position here. There is a common theme to the above: i don't think police should be unnecessarily or inappropriately beating people up.

Nobody was beaten (except the officer being slapped). An out of control suspect was put to the ground.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gaius46]

No...actually, I believe the witlessness accounts in the news story were not from the police. The police statement has been we have bodycam video and wont release anything to be fair to both the cop and the citizen while the investigation is ongoing.

But that seems to be a sticking point with you...and relevant since you brought it up. So...IF it is determined that the woman did in fact physically intervene with the law enforcement officer, do you accept that what was done was appropriate?

In my view the level of force needs to be appropriate to the threat the person actually represents at the point in time that the force is being used. She isn't physically attacking him at that point he takes her down. Any attack ended before the video began, at least 5 seconds prior and most probably longer than that. His application of force is not in defense of himself or anyone else. He's merely trying to restrain her to presumably effect an arrest. In that context it seems an inappropriate use of force. There were at least two cops there - a second comes over after he took her down - and if not the one the two combined should have been able to deal with her without resorting to tactics that could have led to serious injury. It frankly appears to be gratuitous.

Honestly he probably has 30-50 pounds on her. If he can't restrain her without body slamming her like that he needs to find a new career.

 

[VanceMack]

In my view the level of force needs to be appropriate to the threat the person actually represents at the point in time that the force is being used. She isn't physically attacking him at that point he takes her down. Any attack ended before the video began, at least 5 seconds prior and most probably longer than that. His application of force is not in defense of himself or anyone else. He's merely trying to restrain her to presumably effect an arrest. In that context it seems an inappropriate use of force. There were at least two cops there - a second comes over after he took her down - and if not the one the two combined should have been able to deal with her without resorting to tactics that could have led to serious injury. It frankly appears to be gratuitous.

Honestly he probably has 30-50 pounds on her. If he can't restrain her without body slamming her like that he needs to find a new career.

So your comment about where the report comes from was just another attack on cops.

Ok.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gaius46]

So your comment about where the report comes from was just another attack on cops.

Ok.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have seen no statements by witnesses or references to statements by witnesses that assert she hit him. They have all come from the police. So no I am not attacking the cops. The cops are the only ones I know of who are making that statement and I am skeptical of them as I would be of anyone who has a vested interest in the outcome. The only the thing I can safely say is that judging from the video the officer was not being hit or attacked by the woman at the point where he took her down or in the 5 seconds leading up to that point. And again as I stated before what happened prior to the video is not relevant, in my view, to the use for force.

 

[VanceMack]

I have seen no statements by witnesses or references to statements by witnesses that assert she hit him. They have all come from the police. So no I am not attacking the cops. The cops are the only ones I know of who are making that statement and I am skeptical of them as I would be of anyone who has a vested interest in the outcome. The only the thing I can safely say is that judging from the video the officer was not being hit or attacked by the woman at the point where he took her down or in the 5 seconds leading up to that point. And again as I stated before what happened prior to the video is not relevant, in my view, to the use for force.

So your entire upset is over the optics. The cop handled the situation. Didn't punch her, kick her, drag her down the hall be her hair...but it 'looked' bad, so...bad cop. When was the last time you were placed in that situation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gaius46]

So your entire upset is over the optics. The cop handled the situation. Didn't punch her, kick her, drag her down the hall be her hair...but it 'looked' bad, so...bad cop. When was the last time you were placed in that situation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Optics? Hardly. The takedown could have easily ended in broken facial bones.

And I'll also note that you've switched arguments and aren't addressing my response.

 

[blackjack50]

Optics? Hardly. The takedown could have easily ended in broken facial bones.

And I'll also note that you've switched arguments and aren't addressing my response.

From the UN manual on handcuffing (and it is safe to assume all officers would follow similar protocol:

Standing Cuffing:

This technique should only be used for compliant suspects. The control officer initially explains to the suspect that an officer will approach to apply handcuffs. The handcuffing officer approaches the suspect from the side, in the active guard position. He takes control of the suspect with his hand on the suspect’s elbow and the officer’s elbow on the back of the suspect by the shoulder blade. This locks the suspects elbow and makes any violent movement toward the officer more difficult. The Handcuffing officer now becomes the Control officer. The handcuffing officer now moves his hand down the arm to the suspect’s wrist keeping his forearm against the elbow to restrict the suspect’s movement.

Ground/kneeling:

Suspects, who are dangerous or potentially dangerous, should be handcuffed in the kneeling or prone position, as they can be more easily controlled. I It is also more difficult for them to resist or attack the officers.

http://dag.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/387389/Handcuffing Suspects.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

How do you put a non compliant suspect into the kneeling or facedown position?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gaius46]

From the UN manual on handcuffing (and it is safe to assume all officers would follow similar protocol:

Standing Cuffing:



Ground/kneeling:



http://dag.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/387389/Handcuffing Suspects.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

How do you put a non compliant suspect into the kneeling or facedown position?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So first you're defining her as at least "potentially dangerous." Why? She has no weapon, she isn't assaulting anyone, she's simply pulling away. If you want to define her as dangerous then pretty much everyone is dangerous and needs to be cuffed facedown.

Is there any indication that he simply told her she was being arrested?

Failing that you're going to seriously tell me there aren't any number of ways a larger man - or worse a pair of larger men - couldn't take control of that situation without tossing her around like a rag-doll?

 

[Absentglare]

Nobody was beaten in this incident. She was put down after striking an officer.

Further. Sometimes a beating IS warranted on an out control suspect. Why? Because sometimes it is the only way to subdue them. Why do you think they carry batons even in countries that "don't have police brutality problems?"

Because sometimes you need someone with a stick.

I did not see her strike him in the video. If she struck him, it was a before the video, so there isn't really a valid excuse "the cop used force in response to being hit." It's more like the cop got pissed and took it out on a citizen.

And my position is that you don't have enough info. And we have the reports that she assaulted him.

I didn't say i have enough info [to determine that the cop should go to jail, or she should sue, or whatever]. I just said the use of force on this video looks excessive to me. Why do you have such a huge problem with that?

Nobody was beaten (except the officer being slapped). An out of control suspect was put to the ground.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay...

 

[blackjack50]

So first you're defining her as at least "potentially dangerous." Why? She has no weapon, she isn't assaulting anyone,

She struck an officer. She was drunk. She was a public nuisance. All of this was in the OP news report, will be shown on body cam, and given that the crowd cheered the officer on? She was obviously a problem. 9 seconds isn't enough context to make the call, but it sure seems like it was her being a drunken idiot that got her in cuffs. And it certainly was enough to deem her a danger to herself and others.

she's simply pulling away.

Which is non compliance.

If you want to define her as dangerous then pretty much everyone is dangerous and needs to be cuffed facedown.

No. Some people are compliant. Her non compliance is what deems her dangerous (nevermind that she did strike the officer).

Is there any indication that he simply told her she was being arrested?

She doesn't have to be told she was under arrest. Not if she was getting physical. That would be one of the ways the officer would be covered under due process. This is one more demonstration that you don't understand arrest policies and procedures.

Failing that you're going to seriously tell me there aren't any number of ways a larger man - or worse a pair of larger men - couldn't take control of that situation without tossing her around like a rag-doll?

Speaking from grappler's experience here (of which I have plenty):

Keep it simple stupid. You can armchair quarterback this all you want. You don't even understand the rules of the confrontation. You do what you are trained to do. These guys aren't UFC grapplers. They aren't Spock. They are cops with a few months of defensive tactics under their belt and then a lot of experience subduing non compliant suspects.

She got out of control. He twisted her arm, turned his hip, and did an almost technical move. She just happened to be in platform heels that aren't exactly standard issue for trained martial artists. She came off her feet. Not really the officers fault that he did the technique pretty much correct and her drunken belligerent ass lost.

Next you are going to demand that they fight fair right? Maybe hand her a gun so she can fight back? Get over it dude. Either you strap on the Kevlar and go experience this or you wait for the body cam footage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gaius46]

She struck an officer. She was drunk. She was a public nuisance. All of this was in the OP news report, will be shown on body cam, and given that the crowd cheered the officer on? She was obviously a problem. 9 seconds isn't enough context to make the call, but it sure seems like it was her being a drunken idiot that got her in cuffs. And it certainly was enough to deem her a danger to herself and others.





Which is non compliance.



No. Some people are compliant. Her non compliance is what deems her dangerous (nevermind that she did strike the officer).



She doesn't have to be told she was under arrest. Not if she was getting physical. That would be one of the ways the officer would be covered under due process. This is one more demonstration that you don't understand arrest policies and procedures.



Speaking from grappler's experience here (of which I have plenty):

Keep it simple stupid. You can armchair quarterback this all you want. You don't even understand the rules of the confrontation. You do what you are trained to do. These guys aren't UFC grapplers. They aren't Spock. They are cops with a few months of defensive tactics under their belt and then a lot of experience subduing non compliant suspects.

She got out of control. He twisted her arm, turned his hip, and did an almost technical move. She just happened to be in platform heels that aren't exactly standard issue for trained martial artists. She came off her feet. Not really the officers fault that he did the technique pretty much correct and her drunken belligerent ass lost.

Next you are going to demand that they fight fair right? Maybe hand her a gun so she can fight back? Get over it dude. Either you strap on the Kevlar and go experience this or you wait for the body cam footage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The OP article does not say she was drunk. The disturbance that the police were responding to involved her boyfriend - not her. The only statements in the OP article are uncorroborated ones from a PD spokesperson who stated she "shoulder checked" the officer and "interfered with and struck" the officer. And being non-compliant should not necessarily mean that he resorts to violence as a first course. She was no threat to him so my statement that he should have try to de-escalate first (i.e tell her she's under arrest) stands.

I have no grappler's experience - I did box, have years of (non grappling) martial arts experience and was a football lineman. I agree with keeping it simple but I have absolutely no doubt that I could have subdued her a **** load more gently than he did and not come away from the encounter with anything more than a couple of scratches. And I expect that you believe the same of yourself. Like it or not the police have a responsibility to those they arrest to not unduly endanger them and the simple fact that they might get hurt does not justify any and all actions on the police's part.