‘Appalling’ Video Shows the Police Yanking 1-Year-Old From His Mother’s Arms

[RetiredUSN]

Only the tail end of the situation is on video and the usual "anti cop league" is out in force again on DP.

 

[Utility Man]

Only the tail end of the situation is on video and the usual "anti cop league" is out in force again on DP.

So what situation would make it alright to yank on a baby like that :screwy



Please elaborate. After you wipe the boot lick spittle from your chin.

 

[RetiredUSN]

So what situation would make it alright to yank on a baby like that :screwy



Please elaborate. After you wipe the boot lick spittle from your chin.

You meant yanking her arm........right?

Ever see a social worker show up with cops to arrest a mom.........I have.

They will yank her arms from a child in a nano second if she's going to jail.

 

[UtahBill]

Why didn't one of the witnesses stand up and give her a seat?

What is so bad about someone sitting on the floor?

If a client at the welfare place gets belligerent, just skip her when her number comes up.

No need to even touch her, IMO.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Over reacting? How do you know that they did? Maybe they were told to address the woman. Maybe the woman was being rude and that her sitting on the floor had nothing to do with what started it all.

...Point is that we don't know the circumstances. All we have is a very one sided story with video that doesn't show anything about the beginning of it all. Just the very tail end of it all. And its because of that that I can't say what I would have done. Not enough information. I know what I would have done if I had been that woman holding onto the child though.....I sure as hell wouldn't be holding the child so hard that the police had to yank like that to attempt to get the kid away. I would have let go so as to ensure that no harm would come to the kid.

Maybe engaging in an angry tug of war with the woman with her infant serving as the rope should not even be on the list of any of the things you would do. That's just ****ing stupid.

 

[The Mark]

How about we TEACH our children how to act and comply more so how to respect the LAW to live in a civil society.

Generations are empowered to disrespect others, Elders, LEOs and those of responsibility.

You remember the days where you got an ass whipping from your parents? YEAH I remember those days. and I have YET seen the inside of a jail cell. Now days its ILL call CPS on you or you see children acting up and causing havoc.

What about days of discipline at school. Hell even Basic training (Cant Swear, Cant touch a trainee etc) We have come to a point where its MORE worse to discipline our people than it is to commit the crime.

Good example, guy breaks into my home and I shoot him. He is guilty of breaking in, but now I am sued civilly and a smart lawyer now gets him a settlement from myself and my insurance company. WTF is that BS..... They broke into my home so you are SAYING you now increase the Reward for the RISK?


The Perfect example for the above is the Mother should have just complied. figured out WTF was going on. if it was a misunderstanding then so be it... But Comply. if it was a detain-able act that SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE IT WITH HER CHILD IN TOW.


We live in a generation where its BETTER to challenge authority than it is to respect it. People DONT respect LEO's. The CHALLENGE them. If you DID NOTHING wrong, comply and it will be cleared. You want your 15minutes of fame and you want to win the support of the public through emotion.. Will only create MORE animosity and more divide.

COMPLY COMPLY COMPLY COMPLY... RESPECT people, RESPECT LAW and RESPECT order.....

I suspect there are many who don't comply because the law enforcement in their area hasn't earned their respect.
And/or it has earned their distrust.

 

[Mr Person]

So what would you two have done? How would you have deescalated things? How long would you have tried to do so before saying "enough is enough"? Mind you, all the while crime in other areas are happening that may need more attention. This is Brooklyn after all.

Man, you've got one hell of a backlog of responsive posts to answer before you poke me with a stick....

Over reacting? How do you know that they did? Maybe they were told to address the woman. Maybe the woman was being rude and that her sitting on the floor had nothing to do with what started it all.

"Being rude" is an excuse to knock a woman holding a baby to the floor, then rip the baby away? This is America, right?

Instead of speculating that she might have somehow done something to deserve it (which would probably have something to do with physical violence, right? Not just being rude? In a "free country"?), you should be asking what the hell she could have done for this to be necessary and you should be asking why it is that we only have footage of what happened after during this rise of the body cam.

As you note, we don't know all the circumstances. (Thanks, of course, to the lack of body cams being on before the interaction began). So you have no more reason to dismiss my post than you have to suggest your own alternative (below) than you have to demand that I explain to you what I would have done.....on your own theory that is.

I know what I would have done if I had been that woman holding onto the child though.....I sure as hell wouldn't be holding the child so hard that the police had to yank like that to attempt to get the kid away. I would have let go so as to ensure that no harm would come to the kid.

If knowing all potential circumstances was a requirement you believed in for a poster to make a point, you'd have to dismiss just about every if not every thread on DP for the same reason.

I know what I would have done if I had been that woman holding onto the child though.....I sure as hell wouldn't be holding the child so hard that the police had to yank like that to attempt to get the kid away. I would have let go so as to ensure that no harm would come to the kid.

And now you violate your own alleged principle. No, you most certainly do not know what you would have done in the circumstances for the exact reason you used to dismiss my criticism based on the circumstances I did know about: that "we" don't know all of the circumstances.

Worse, you demanded to know what I do in the limited circumstances despite using a lack of all circumstantial knowledge to dismiss my opening remarks.





Get your story straight, apply your story evenly, and for the love of decency do stick around to defend your argument in other threads if you're going to take potshots in threads like this.

 

[Mr Person]

You can only attempt to deescalate for so long before action has to be taken. Everyone always claims that cops should have tried to deescalate and need training in such. Most of the time its said when only a small part of the story is told and no one knows what actually went on.

You say you don't know all the circumstances, so why do you ASSUME you knew that action did have to be taken (original tense: " action has to be taken")?

As with every single miserable subject on this site, people work with what information is available and base their comments on that. There wouldn't be a site if people - including you - actually followed this notion of yours that they can't utter a reasonable opinion if there might be unknown circumstances.

And really, stop demanding that other people stop talking until all circumstances are known while simultaneously suggesting without evidence that there may have been circumstances that made it necessary ("action has to be taken" .... "rude"...etc).

 

[Exactice]

I suspect there are many who don't comply because the law enforcement in their area hasn't earned their respect.
And/or it has earned their distrust.

So not respecting LEO is Grounds for Not complying? THATS a great answer to getting arrested.

Also Respect is Relative to each. So the only thing that IS constant is the LAW. In which in a civil society we should all be complying with. Regardless if you have respect or NOT fo the LEO.

 

[The Mark]

So not respecting LEO is Grounds for Not complying? THATS a great answer to getting arrested.

Also Respect is Relative to each. So the only thing that IS constant is the LAW. In which in a civil society we should all be complying with. Regardless if you have respect or NOT fo the LEO.

No, I'm saying that police need to earn the respect of those they protect, not enforce it.

People need to learn to trust them as protectors, rather than fear them as enforcers, and the only way that is possible is if efforts are made to work with the people being protected.

 

[Exactice]

No, I'm saying that police need to earn the respect of those they protect, not enforce it.

People need to learn to trust them as protectors, rather than fear them as enforcers, and the only way that is possible is if efforts are made to work with the people being protected.

Fair enough.....

1) Again per my post, A new police officer walking the beat in TODAYS current climate is already treated like an enforcer. And NOT respected... No matter what they DO they wont earn the respect unless the are jumping front of bullets and or rescuing babies from a burning building.

2) They are their to ENFORCE laws from those that choose to break them. THIS is MORE paramount than going in to Protect those citizens. What do I mean. If we were to count what LEO's respond to on a daily basis. Do you think LEO's are going to more "protection type cases" (School Shootings, Domestic abuse cases) or to more "Enforcement" types cases (Burglary/Robbery etc) . And funny (LEO) Law "ENFORCEMENT" officer

3) People WOULD NOT need protection if there were NO ONE willing to break the law. PERIOD.. So LEOs are there to "ENFORCE" Laws on the books.


People Generally Dont respect Policy for 2 reasons.

1) They Dont want to be CAUGHT being wrong.
2) They Dont COMPLY period.


Now with that being said there are CORRUPT cops like anything in life.... there are BAD apples period... But that does NOT give anyone the right to NOT comply with an LEO's request as well as disregard the LAW just because an LEO is corrupt. If you KNOW you are innocent best to NOT GET SHOT.... plead your case in front of someone else other than the Corrupt officer. BUT non compliance is an easy way to get on to YouTube and end up in jail for something worse than a parking ticket......

 

[Maccabee]

They do require training in de-escalation. I am sick and tired of seeing my tax dollars go to pay settlements for aggrieved parties treated rashly by our police force.

One bad apple spoils the bunch.

And who said that they didn't try before the video?

 

[Maccabee]

Therefore, it should not even be attempted

The police have a job to do. If the people who own the facility wanted her put, then it's the officers' job to get her out by any means necessary.

 

[sangha]

If the people who own the facility wanted her put, then it's the officers' job to get her out by any means necessary.

Does that also apply to the White House?

 

[Lovebug]

I'll wait for the story to be complete before raking someone over the coals.

 

[spud_meister]

Over reacting? How do you know that they did? Maybe they were told to address the woman. Maybe the woman was being rude and that her sitting on the floor had nothing to do with what started it all.

...Point is that we don't know the circumstances. All we have is a very one sided story with video that doesn't show anything about the beginning of it all. Just the very tail end of it all. And its because of that that I can't say what I would have done. Not enough information. I know what I would have done if I had been that woman holding onto the child though.....I sure as hell wouldn't be holding the child so hard that the police had to yank like that to attempt to get the kid away. I would have let go so as to ensure that no harm would come to the kid.

You would let a child out of your reach when someone's waving a taser at people?

Why does non-compliance deserve violence?

 

[Serenity]

That's a little one involved there, not a rope in a tug of war. Jesus. That poor kid.

 

[Mr Person]

I'll wait for the story to be complete before raking someone over the coals.

And who decides when it is "complete"? What is "complete"?

Every time I've seen that used on this site, the people who demanded that it be "complete" before judging never seem to show up once it is as complete as it'll get (not that that stops any of them from expressing an opinion in other threads on other subjects without full "complete" evidence).

Do you concede that you (indeed all of us) here post with the information available, while knowing full well that in any case more "complete" evidence might come out? Or do you really hold yourself to this standard - that in all 10,325 posts of yours, the evidence can be objectively proved to be "complete" by the time you posted?




I know, crickets. Anyway, since we're clear that we'll all posting based on evidence-available-to-date and clear that we wouldn't have a debate site if absolute provable "complete" evidence was required before an argument was made......

....before that absurdity....

...What on Earth do you suppose a woman carrying a baby who only seems to want to hold on to it - not attack anyone, but hold on to it - once she's put on the floor deserved that treatment? How likely is it that you think she held the baby in one arm while trying to punch the cops in their faces? What we do have depicts a woman desparately holding onto her child on the ground. We see no injured cops. We see no injured bystanders. We see no broken glass or evidence a struggle other than her being on the ground.

So what set of things might explain this and make it OK?








Bottom line: what we do have is bad. It's a BABY. You know those are pretty breakable, right?

We'd have more if there were bodycams that were turned on before approaching the woman. But we don't seem to have those. We have what we have. If it is absurd to reason from that, then every last one of our comments or arguments on this site is useless.

"We need all the evidence" is a dodge, where there is no attempt to explain what evidence and why.

 

[Lovebug]

I don't know what everyone else is seeing in this video, but it puzzles me to read the following comment in the NYT article

Nearly all of the civilians involved in those incidents have been black or Latino.

What a horrific and disturbing scene. I feel for the child. Again, I'll wait until we have all the facts.

 

[Lovebug]

And who decides when it is "complete"? What is "complete"?

Every time I've seen that used on this site, the people who demanded that it be "complete" before judging never seem to show up once it is as complete as it'll get (not that that stops any of them from expressing an opinion in other threads on other subjects without full "complete" evidence).

Do you concede that you (indeed all of us) here post with the information available, while knowing full well that in any case more "complete" evidence might come out? Or do you really hold yourself to this standard - that in all 10,325 posts of yours, the evidence can be objectively proved to be "complete" by the time you posted?




I know, crickets. Anyway, since we're clear that we'll all posting based on evidence-available-to-date and clear that we wouldn't have a debate site if absolute provable "complete" evidence was required before an argument was made......

....before that absurdity....

...What on Earth do you suppose a woman carrying a baby who only seems to want to hold on to it - not attack anyone, but hold on to it - once she's put on the floor deserved that treatment? How likely is it that you think she held the baby in one arm while trying to punch the cops in their faces? What we do have depicts a woman desparately holding onto her child on the ground. We see no injured cops. We see no injured bystanders. We see no broken glass or evidence a struggle other than her being on the ground.

So what set of things might explain this and make it OK?








Bottom line: what we do have is bad. It's a BABY. You know those are pretty breakable, right?

We'd have more if there were bodycams that were turned on before approaching the woman. But we don't seem to have those. We have what we have. If it is absurd to reason from that, then every last one of our comments or arguments on this site is useless.

"We need all the evidence" is a dodge, where there is no attempt to explain what evidence and why.

I dunno, it is a fair question. I remember when we had to "prop up" and "wrestle" a woman who insisted on sitting on her own child's head upon delivery. Had someone filmed us without knowing what was going on, we'd probably ended up in a video just like this one.
Crickets, the ones we hear from those who are quick to assume that the police did wrong and the ones who assume the woman did something wrong. Goes both ways. If you are well informed and know the circumstances and can render judgment, feel free. I have the right to opine the way I see fit.

 

[DiAnna]

You would let a child out of your reach when someone's waving a taser at people?

Why does non-compliance deserve violence?

Especially if she feared she might never see her child again. I swear, a one-year-old baby being yanked on with full body weight of a grown adult... I mean, the mind boggles. That baby's arm/leg/shoulder could have been dislocated, if gripped on the torso tiny ribs could have been fractured, organs bruised or worse.

I don't know what disturbs me more, the horrific action of those LEOs or the shrug-worthy defense implying that it's okay for a half-dozen adults to rip at a baby as if they were shredding a pork roast for BBQ! I am amazed that child wasn't seriously injured. Even the onlookers were more concerned than those who were supposed to "Protect and Serve". No excuse for that behavior, none at all.

 

[Lovebug]

Especially if she feared she might never see her child again. I swear, a one-year-old baby being yanked on with full body weight of a grown adult... I mean, the mind boggles. That baby's arm/leg/shoulder could have been dislocated, if gripped on the torso tiny ribs could have been fractured, organs bruised or worse.

I don't know what disturbs me more, the horrific action of those LEOs or the shrug-worthy defense implying that it's okay for a half-dozen adults to rip at a baby as if they were shredding a pork roast for BBQ! I am amazed that child wasn't seriously injured. Even the onlookers were more concerned that those who were supposed to "Protect and Serve". No excuse for that behavior, none at all.

Do we know for sure that she was just sitting there? Do we know that she IS the mother? Do we know if she was, in some way, ready to harm the child? Was she squeezing the child so tight that is couldn't breathe? It isn't clear from the article.
But yes, they should have tried talking to her, and if necessary, tried talking her into giving up the child if there was a need.

 

[Maccabee]

Does that also apply to the White House?

Must every thread has to have President Trump, in some form or fashion, mentioned? There's a legal process to get the president out of office and I have nothing against it. Please take your TDS somewhere else.

 

[Maccabee]

You would let a child out of your reach when someone's waving a taser at people?

Would a loving mother endanger her child's safety by refusing to comply?

Why does non-compliance deserve violence?

Because the non violent approach didn't work.

 

[Lovebug]

Would a loving mother endanger her child's safety by refusing to comply?

Because the non violent approach didn't work.

and you know that how?