Since the Cop-Bashing Threads are so Popular Around Here...

CapnSev · #1 01-25-2011, 07:21 PM

... I thought you guys might like to take a look at this one that happened locally:

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=14090903

It's like Rodney King: the remake (except Rodney King in this case is a white lady in her 50s with driving issues). There's really no way to spin it to justify the cops here.

Dr. Cheese · #2 01-25-2011, 07:32 PM

That's pretty bad. I can see forcing her off the road, but decking her is just way over the top.

CapnSev · #3 01-25-2011, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

That's pretty bad. I can see forcing her off the road, but decking her is just way over the top.

... while getting tazered in the back.

hbarcat · #4 01-25-2011, 07:52 PM

[Hyer] added that troopers are trained in the proper use of force.

"I delivered three close-hand strikes to her head ... to distract and stun her and to stop her from trying to drive off and strike our vehicles or possibly run us over." Sgt. Andrew Davenport (in police report)

I understand the necessity of using force to gain custody of a suspect who is actively resisting, including a suspect who is behind the wheel of a car, but since when is a close-hand strike to the head (or several) considered the proper use of force under these circumstances?

This seems to imply the officer was punching her in the temple. This can be lethal use of force as any blow to the temple hard enough to stun someone also has the potential to kill.

CapnSev · #5 01-25-2011, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hbarcat

[Hyer] added that troopers are trained in the proper use of force.

"I delivered three close-hand strikes to her head ... to distract and stun her and to stop her from trying to drive off and strike our vehicles or possibly run us over." Sgt. Andrew Davenport (in police report)

I understand the necessity of using force to gain custody of a suspect who is actively resisting, including a suspect who is behind the wheel of a car, but since when is a close-hand strike to the head (or several) considered the proper use of force under these circumstances?

This seems to imply the officer was punching her in the temple. This can be lethal use of force as any blow to the temple hard enough to stun someone also has the potential to kill.

.. while getting tazered in the back.

hbarcat · #6 01-25-2011, 07:56 PM

Right, you'd think that would be enough.

254 stringer · #7 01-25-2011, 07:56 PM

I think the cop did right jail, tickets, probation people don't learn from this stuff sometimes people need a good ass-whooping

hbarcat · #8 01-25-2011, 08:36 PM

okay, then . . .

Crass! · #9 01-25-2011, 08:50 PM

I am 100% on board with the cops using the nonlethal forces they used in this case, assuming she really was jamming the accelerator to escape. She was posing an immediate danger to the officers as well as everyone else on the road. If our police are not allowed to subdue a recalcitrant suspect who poses an immediate threat to the public what is their purpose? Damn straight she needed to be punched in the head, especially if the taser didn't do its job.

Silaxian · #10 01-25-2011, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crass!

I am 100% on board with the cops using the nonlethal forces they used in this case, assuming she really was jamming the accelerator to escape. She was posing an immediate danger to the officers as well as everyone else on the road. If our police are not allowed to subdue a recalcitrant suspect who poses an immediate threat to the public what is their purpose? Damn straight she needed to be punched in the head, especially if the taser didn't do its job.

I ask you, what crime did this woman commit in order to be detained in the first place? Or did she merely break the law? There is a difference. To whit: an escaped slave from Mississippi was breaking the law in 1859, but what CRIME did that slave commit?

Think about what actually constitutes a crime before catapulting head-first into a convoluted and illogical dissertation about some alleged necessity to obey "the law".

254 stringer · #11 01-25-2011, 09:20 PM

Well I guess everybody speeding and weaving should just be allowed to drive on down the road and kill someone because they have only broke the law and not committed a crime. I would assume the cops tried to pull her over and she didn't. cops take this serious they start to suspect other things might be going on.

**colcifer** · #12 01-25-2011, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silaxian

I ask you, what crime did this woman commit in order to be detained in the first place? Or did she merely break the law? There is a difference. To whit: an escaped slave from Mississippi was breaking the law in 1859, but what CRIME did that slave commit?

Think about what actually constitutes a crime before catapulting head-first into a convoluted and illogical dissertation about some alleged necessity to obey "the law".

Reckless driving, failiure to respond to an officer, resisting arrest, and possibly attempted motor vehical assault and dui.

And is the distinction between committing a crime and breaking the law pertinant here? The question is whether the amount of force used was justified by her threat to the community.

MIJ-VI · #13 01-25-2011, 09:43 PM

Another a-hole whining about the consequences of their wilful misdeeds.

Next!

Silaxian · #14 01-25-2011, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colcifer

Reckless driving, failiure to respond to an officer, resisting arrest, and possibly attempted motor vehical assault and dui.

And is the distinction between committing a crime and breaking the law pertinant here? The question is whether the amount of force used was justified by her threat to the community.

Yes, it is pertinent. Try posing a solution to my rhetorical question before calling it into question. When you do that then I shall explain why it is pertinent.

Let's take a look at your talking points:

1. Reckless driving

Really? According to whom? One could argue that putting any one person in complete control of 2 tons of rolling steel constitutes recklessness, and argue it successfully. So what constitutes your criterion for "reckless", and how does being reckless constitute a crime unless you actually harm someone while being reckless?

2. Failure to respond to an officer.

You must be kidding. So if some government employee with a uniform, a gun, and a badge orders me to hand over my vehicle, then I must comply? A cop is no more my "officer" than my postman, and I am not in the military. And if you think that anyone must "respond" to an "officer" under any and all circumstances, then I can easily dissuade you of that delusion by citing so many instances of judiciary rulings to the contrary that your head will collapse.

3. Possibly attempted motor vehicular assault?

Now this is really interesting, with "possibly" being the operative adverb. Is this before or after the "suspect" was detained for an alleged crime which you have yet to prove was a crime in the first place?

4. DUI.

Right ... so being "intoxicated" by some arbitrary standard upon which no one can agree except the PC zealots in MADD (and not even them, it turns out) and driving a motor vehicle constitutes a crime. Really?

Tell me, has anyone ever been "intoxicated" and ever driven to their destination without harming anyone? I humbly submit that this happens far more than the opposite and therefore I challenge you to establish how it is that merely violating some arbitrary standard constitutes the commission of a crime. Or are you postulating that you somehow can establish beyond any doubt the "likelihood" that I will harm someone based on a behavior?

I could easily argue (and theoretically prove) that rock music and people who play it pose a greater threat to the community than those who do not and that, because of this, all who do should be arrested. The question remains though, as to what CRIME has been perpetrated?

254 stringer · #15 01-25-2011, 10:02 PM

Good luck with this kind of thinking dude try it in the real world and see what happens

Silaxian · #16 01-25-2011, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MIJ-VI

Another a-hole whining about the consequences of their wilful misdeeds.

Next!

Next indeed. Did you willfully misspell the word? I am sure that is a crime, somewhere in the world. Be glad that we have not gone to that point yet, but be wary that we are almost there.

Silaxian · #17 01-25-2011, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 254 stringer

Good luck with this kind of thinking dude try it in the real world and see what happens

Good luck with allowing government employees with "credentials" to probe you at their own discretion, demand your "papers", detain you without cause, shoot your pet, incinerate your children, round you up and place you into some camp because of your ethnic background, in the name of the "law" and still being a free man (or woman).

The only reason these goose-stepping bungholes get away with it is because there are too many spineless Eloi like you who believe that they are there to "protect and serve" you. Wake up, they are there to protect and serve those who want to control you.

254 stringer · #18 01-25-2011, 10:20 PM

Before we get bent out of shape I am in no way spineless just saying if you act like this if you get pulled over we will be watching you get punched in the head this is where we live and how things work fight the law and the law wins if you want to change things run for office

daystcity · #19 01-25-2011, 10:23 PM

So you're saying that if the police try and pull me over I have every right just to not comply?

Jim Campbell · #20 01-25-2011, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hbarcat

[Hyer] added that troopers are trained in the proper use of force.

"I delivered three close-hand strikes to her head ... to distract and stun her and to stop her from trying to drive off and strike our vehicles or possibly run us over." Sgt. Andrew Davenport (in police report)

I understand the necessity of using force to gain custody of a suspect who is actively resisting, including a suspect who is behind the wheel of a car, but since when is a close-hand strike to the head (or several) considered the proper use of force under these circumstances?

This seems to imply the officer was punching her in the temple. This can be lethal use of force as any blow to the temple hard enough to stun someone also has the potential to kill.

it's on tv all the time....even compliant detainees get tossed on the ground and manhandled....