- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 51,768
- Reaction score
- 14,180
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
: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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
: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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Change the policy...quit whining about the 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."
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?