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

[spud_meister]

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

Because handing your child over to armed and aggressive strangers doesn't guarantee its safety.

Because the non violent approach didn't work.

So people deserve violence because of the incompetence of cops.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I would let her sit on the floor

Of if they have that much of a problem with her sitting on the floor, inform her that she will not be seen that day, so sitting on the floor is pointless. She might have pitched a fit over that but eventually, knowing she wasn't going to be seen, she would have most likely gotten up and left.

It wasn't necessary to call police at all.
And the police need better training, this is not how you deal with a situation like this.
She wasn't participating in an armed robbery or anything like that, it was a simple disorderly conduct issue.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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

Why does non-compliance deserve violence?

Actually I never would have gotten into the situation in the first place. :shrug: If I was asked to leave then I would have left. I wouldn't have refused several times like this woman did. You see, I don't get into fights with cops. I do what they say as I know that the time to fight them for any wrongdoing is not in public, but in a court of law. Why is compliance so hard?

 

[Kal'Stang]

I agree, there are times it wont work.

So?

Do we ignore the entirety of the issue because sometimes it may not work?

We just keep allowing the state to tyrannically enact its will through fiat agents?

No, we go through the court system. We do not get into tug of wars with 1 year olds because we don't want to leave when asked to.

 

[Mr Person]

Actually I never would have gotten into the situation in the first place. :shrug: If I was asked to leave then I would have left. I wouldn't have refused several times like this woman did. You see, I don't get into fights with cops. I do what they say as I know that the time to fight them for any wrongdoing is not in public, but in a court of law. Why is compliance so hard?

Don't the videos in the articles start with her already on the ground and the cops already on her?

Is not the prior behavior based on the uploader of the video(s), for example the NYT explains "A Facebook user who uploaded the video said"?



You seem to be ASSUMING that what the person said is true. It's not all on tape. And as you scolded us, we cannot reason about who deserved what without a complete picture.....well...ok...that's only if one isn't automatically defending the cops. Right?

 

[The Mark]

Because the non violent approach didn't work.

I need more information.

At this time I'm not convinced that sufficient attempts to avoid force were made.

 

[Anarchon]

Jackbooted schutzstaffel at their best. Egregious violation of this woman's rights.

I tire of seeing this.

My question is, when will "we the people" stand up to the police in instances of abuse like this? Why remain an onlooker while the state violates and abuses a fellow citizen, extrajudicially and extraconstitutionally?

When you stop supporting the existence of government. You cannot give someone authority over you, then bitch about what they do with it. If you think that's rational behavior, you don't understand what authority means.

 

[spud_meister]

Actually I never would have gotten into the situation in the first place. :shrug: If I was asked to leave then I would have left. I wouldn't have refused several times like this woman did. You see, I don't get into fights with cops. I do what they say as I know that the time to fight them for any wrongdoing is not in public, but in a court of law. Why is compliance so hard?

So because you live your life at the whim of the state means everyone else should? Compliance isn't hard, but that doesn't mean the state should initiate violence.

 

[Anarchon]

Why did the SG and Police escalate. That in itself is a problem. That is something that Police should have received training in.
Now here holding onto the baby was all kinds of wrong.

Now these Officers need training in deescalation skill sets.

Police always escalate during non-compliance. That's a necessary component of their being. Why would you imagine it could be otherwise?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Actually I never would have gotten into the situation in the first place. :shrug: If I was asked to leave then I would have left. I wouldn't have refused several times like this woman did. You see, I don't get into fights with cops. I do what they say as I know that the time to fight them for any wrongdoing is not in public, but in a court of law. Why is compliance so hard?

We're not debating over what that idiot woman should have done, the story is about how law enforcement responded.
They responded as if she was on the FBI Top Ten Most Wanted List.

The office staff shouldn't have even bothered to call if all she was doing was sitting on the floor.
If she wasn't endangering anyone, or her baby, she's just an idiot who would prefer to sit on the floor rather than leave.
Idiocy is not a crime worthy of violent overreaction.

I don't care so much about her, I care about what could have happened to that baby.
Police overreaction in the presence of infants has been known to be a very scary thing, for the baby.

And...it's also goddamn expensive for the taxpayers.
The family of that baby above, who was severely burned, received a three and a half million dollar payout,
which more than covered their million dollars worth of medical bills.

 

[sangha]

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.

I accept your surrender

 

[sangha]

Actually I never would have gotten into the situation in the first place. :shrug: If I was asked to leave then I would have left. I wouldn't have refused several times like this woman did. You see, I don't get into fights with cops. I do what they say as I know that the time to fight them for any wrongdoing is not in public, but in a court of law. Why is compliance so hard?

What situation?

Suddenly, you know everything about the situation, after whining about people commenting because they dont know what the situation was

 

[Kal'Stang]

So because you live your life at the whim of the state means everyone else should? Compliance isn't hard, but that doesn't mean the state should initiate violence.

There is a time and place for everything under the sun. A time to dance, a time to laugh, a time to do what you're told, and a time to fight. Sitting on the floor with your 1yr old disobeying a cops directive is NOT the time to fight. You do that in the court room.

There is a reason that they say things like "police FORCE" or "law enFORCEment". A cops job is to make sure that laws are followed...with force if necessary. The very word "force" implies that violence will be initiated if you do not comply. We can debate on the type of force used and whether it was excessive or not. But to argue that they should sit there for hours talking to someone that is refusing to leave when asked is to deny that cops have never, and never will, do just that. At some point in time force is going to be used. It is up to the individual to decide if that force is simply the force of voice, or the force of a physical altercation.

 

[Kal'Stang]

What situation?

Suddenly, you know everything about the situation, after whining about people commenting because they dont know what the situation was

I never would have got into a physical altercation. I would have left when originally asked to do so. Whether I agreed or not. It's not my property after all.

 

[sangha]

I never would have got into a physical altercation. I would have left when originally asked to do so. Whether I agreed or not. It's not my property after all.

Again, since you do not know what the situation is, you do not know what you would have done

 

[Kal'Stang]

We're not debating over what that idiot woman should have done, the story is about how law enforcement responded.
They responded as if she was on the FBI Top Ten Most Wanted List.

No they didn't. That's hyperbole. According to the police department they asked her several times to leave. If they responded like she was on the FBI Top Ten Most Wanted List they would have responded with guns drawn and a swat team.

The office staff shouldn't have even bothered to call if all she was doing was sitting on the floor.

According to the article the police were responding to a harassment call. What happened beyond that we don't know beyond she was asked to leave and refused to do so..

If she wasn't endangering anyone, or her baby, she's just an idiot who would prefer to sit on the floor rather than leave.
Idiocy is not a crime worthy of violent overreaction.

Actually refusing to leave is considered trespassing. Which is a crime. Whether she was endangering anyone or not is irrelevant to that particular fact.

I don't care so much about her, I care about what could have happened to that baby.

You should care about her actions. If she had simply left when first asked to do so that baby never would have been put in danger to begin with.

And yes, cops **** up. They're human after all. But cops are not always the ones to blame. The VAST majority of police interactions every single day end up with no violence what so ever.

Now, I do agree that yanking on the child like that was wrong. But while everyone is being outraged over that they are overlooking the fact that it never would have gotten that far if the woman had simply left when asked to do so.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Again, since you do not know what the situation is, you do not know what you would have done

I know that she was asked to leave. I know she didn't. I know I would have left. It's not like this was a hospital or police station where it was a possible life or death situation.

 

[sangha]

I know that she was asked to leave. I know she didn't. I know I would have left.

No, you do not.

For example, what if someone had knocked you in the head, altering your conciousness? How can you be certain how you would behave in an altered concious? What if some unknown medical condition had altered your thinking?

It's not like this was a hospital or police station where it was a possible life or death situation.

Every encounter with the police is a potentially life threatening situation

 

[Kal'Stang]

No, you do not.

For example, what if someone had knocked you in the head, altering your conciousness? How can you be certain how you would behave in an altered concious? What if some unknown medical condition had altered your thinking?

Oh look! The What If? Game! Where anyone can bring up any possibility what so ever and apply it as if everyone knew of that possibility at the time that is being discussed! Can I play too?

*ahem*
*clears throat*

What if she...*gasps* had a BOMB!

/s

We can do all sorts of "what ifs" going round and round. They're meaningless.

Every encounter with the police is a potentially life threatening situation

I've had many encounters with police. I have yet to feel any danger from those encounters. Know why? Because I actually listened to them.

 

[sangha]

I know that she was asked to leave. I know she didn't. I know I would have left. It's not like this was a hospital or police station where it was a possible life or death situation.

Now you are just repeating your original Nuh-uhs

 

[sangha]

Oh look! The What If? Game! Where anyone can bring up any possibility what so ever and apply it as if everyone knew of that possibility at the time that is being discussed! Can I play too?

You already are with your I would have listened t the cops

*ahem*

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Now, I do agree that yanking on the child like that was wrong.

That's pretty much the meat of the matter, the rest of it is just garden variety cops roughing up a recalcitrant trespasser, which is generally small potatoes, until an infant becomes part of the tussle.
Then it's not small potatoes anymore, is it?

 

[Manc Skipper]

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.

How do you de-escalate a lady with a child sitting on the floor when there are not enough chairs for the line? What action other than finding another chair might be appropriate?

 

[Logician Man]

Yanking on a one year old like that is totally irresponsible and dangerous. Protect the safety of the baby first, deal the rest later. That is one big human yanking way too hard on a child that small. That child could very easily have been severely injured, and there is no defending it based on what the video shows. The woman was not an imminent threat to herself, the baby, or anyone else.

 

[Maccabee]

and you know that how?

Because I work closely with law enforcement. I've been through police training. Cops aren't going to come up and taze you with a baby in your arms without giving just about every chance in the world for you to comply peacefully or the suspect escalates the situation that endangers the child and immediate action needs to be taken.