Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[Mr. Sinister]

Twitter is blocked here, only saw the quoted part. Guess I must have seen too many Worlds Scariest Police chases episodes where people have run into cop cars trying to escape, and were not hit by a barrage of gunfire, and instead eventually subdued and taken to jail.

 I don't know anymore. I guess just shooting the hell out of everyone is more efficient

[dfitzo53]

I watched the video.

This is one of those cases where I'm really not sure what to say.  You can hear them opening fire before she actually hits the police car.  (But it may be after she backed into the first one, which isn't clear in the video.)

She appears to be trying to get away, which makes shooting her a less desirable outcome in my mind. (As in, you would hope offers wouldn't shoot someone who is simply running away.) On the other hand, she's about to jump the sidewalk and head into other traffic, risking injuries and/or fatalities to other people.  Does that make shooting reasonable?  I don't know. 

[Popeman38]

They used a PIT maneuver to stop her. They should have run into the back of her car and pinned it to the cruiser in front. Don't give her an option to escape.

But once she struck a cruiser while officers are walking around, she posed a threat to them, and since she was pulled over for suspicion of DUI while driving on the wrong side of the road, she reasonably posed a threat to others by driving away.

Just a horrible situation. I am not saying this is 100% justified, I just need more than 7 seconds of video that doesn't capture enough detail. 

[Kosher Ham]

Are you saying that suspicion of a dui is really enough to shoot? Even with the escape attempt? 

Must be an easier way to stop the driver. 

Seems Mad Max may become a reality. 

[Popeman38]

8 hours ago, Kosher Ham said:

Are you saying that suspicion of a dui is really enough to shoot? Even with the escape attempt? 

Must be an easier way to stop the driver. 

Seems Mad Max may become a reality. 

No, I'm saying once she rammed a cruiser while an officer is walking next to it coupled with the suspicion of DUI could potentially be cause for justification. But since all the video we have right now is 7 seconds after the vehicle has already been PIT'ed and is in motion, how the hell do we know? I even said:

Quote

Just a horrible situation. I am not saying this is 100% justified, I just need more than 7 seconds of video that doesn't capture enough detail. 

I said that because I don't know if it was justified. And neither do you. But we do know she made contact with at least one cruiser, and the courts have ruled that shooting a fleeing suspect can only be authorized if the suspect poses an immediate threat to others, the fact that she was attempted to be stoppped was for driving on the wrong side of the road and suspicion of DUI indicates she was likely an immediate threat to others.

But we need more than 7 seconds of video to know for sure. I even acknowledged that the cops should have prevented her from fleeing by properly blocking her in. Do you even read posts before flying off the handle?

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

 

[Dan T.]

Not a lot of context there, Mr. Pink....

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

1 hour ago, Dan T. said:

Not a lot of context there, Mr. Pink....

I thought just the picture alone spoke volumes. Heres the video:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video-captures-police-officer-punching-woman-face/story?id=43604322

 

A video posted to Facebook captures an Arizona police officer punching a woman in the face while attempting to arrest her.

The video shows a woman repeatedly saying she did not do anything wrong and asking if there is a warrant for her arrest.

"You cannot arrest me until I know that I have a warrant," the woman says, while two Flagstaff police officers continue with the arrest.

Suddenly, one of the officers punches the woman in the face, while her acquaintance shoots the video. Someone is heard on the tape calling her "Marissa," saying, "Hey, you can't hit a girl like that."

After a few seconds, the woman starts crying and the officer continues with the arrest.

"You're going to get tased," he is heard saying. "Get on the ground."

Edited November 18, 2016 by Why am I Mr. Pink?

[Gamebreaker]

1 hour ago, Dan T. said:

Not a lot of context there, Mr. Pink....

Nothing is going to happen to this guy. He didn't turn his bodycam on until after the incident. Ridiculous. What is the point of having bodycams if officers can just turn them on and off at their own discretion? He claims she kicked and knee'd him in the groin and that is why he straight punched her in the face.Of course, there is no proof of this because his bodycam was off. 

[Ray-Ban Dan]

1 hour ago, Gamebreaker said:

Nothing is going to happen to this guy. He didn't turn his bodycam on until after the incident. Ridiculous. What is the point of having bodycams if officers can just turn them on and off at their own discretion? He claims she kicked and knee'd him in the groin and that is why he straight punched her in the face.Of course, there is no proof of this because his bodycam was off. 

So, has Marissa's friend denied that she didn't knee or kick him? Why not just wait until all the facts come out, instead of assuming the cop is lying.

I do agree about the bodycams tho.

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by Ray-Ban Dan

[Gamebreaker]

22 minutes ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

So, has Marissa's friend denied that she didn't knee or kick him? Why not just wait until all the facts come out, instead of assuming the cop is lying.

I do agree about the bodycams tho.

 

I didn't assume he was lying, I simply stated we could prove his statement to be true he if he was doing his job correctly by having his bodycam on when attempted to arrest this woman over a warrant they may or may not be active. The fact that it wasn't on, and then was turned on after arresting her makes it suspicious to me. 

I'm glad we can agree that officers shouldn't have the ability to turn their bodycams off. 

Edited November 18, 2016 by Gamebreaker

[Ray-Ban Dan]

14 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

I did assume he was lying, I simply stated we could prove his statement to be true he if he was doing his job correctly by having his bodycam on when attempted to arrest this woman over a warrant they may or may not be active. The fact that it wasn't on, and then was turned on after arresting her makes it suspicious to me. 

Even if it was off, there were still at least two other witnesses there, based on what I've read of the story.

Im just asking, did her friend deny the cop's version? If not, then it's possible that it very well could have gone down the way the cop(s) said. I just don't buy the notion that cops go around punching women in the face for nothing.

As far as the bodycams go: unfortunately, I  feel, while a good idea, they will never be the useful tool that many (myself included) want them to be. The cops can always say they forgot to turn them on or whatnot. I guess the best way to assure you don't end up in a situation like that, is to do the right thing. But that's just me.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Ray-Ban Dan

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

58 minutes ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

So, has Marissa's friend denied that she didn't knee or kick him? Why not just wait until all the facts come out, instead of assuming the cop is lying.

I do agree about the bodycams tho.

 

Watch the video, pretty clear. We can not see the lower portion of their bodies but the officer never says anything to the effect that she kicking or kneeing him. Her upper body never moves in a motion to conclude she is striking with her lower body. Im sure there was contact as he is right up on her. 

Watch the video. There is video .. people lie, videos dont. 

[BornaSkinsFan83]

Here I'll make it easier to see the video...

 

I'll be honest, it's hard for me to get too hyped over that. He shouldn't have punched her in the face. But she was resisting. To me that's just normal ****. And there's just so much worse out there.

Speaking of... This dropped today as well

 

[Gamebreaker]

1 hour ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

Even if it was off, there were still at least two other witnesses there, based on what I've read of the story.

Im just asking, did her friend deny the cop's version? If not, then it's possible that it very well could have gone down the way the cop(s) said. I just don't buy the notion that cops go around punching women in the face for nothing.

As far as the bodycams go: unfortunately, I  feel, while a good idea, they will never be the useful tool that many (myself included) want them to be. The cops can always say they forgot to turn them on or whatnot. I guess the best way to assure you don't end up in a situation like that, is to do the right thing. But that's just me.

The bolded is simply not true. How many times have shown examples in this very thread of people being assaulted by police officers and they were innocent of wrongdoing. I specifically recall a black man walking down the street, being told to get down on the ground because he fit the description of a suspect, and being kicked in the face for no reason while kneeling down. The POS Officer broke his jaw and gave him a concussion, exactly how is "doing the right thing" supposed to resolve that?

Or the famous tennis player Jeff Blake. He fit a description too. Blake was standing outside of an airport waiting for his ride, when another POS officer who'd been accused of excessive force more than a dozen times tackled him to the ground without asking him a single word. Blake, while not knowing who this person is attacking him, sought to defend himself and once realizing his assailant was police, demanded to know what he'd done to deserve this but got no response from the idiot arresting him. 

At no point did either of those people do anything wrong, but they were still treated poorly by overly-aggressive Police who went well above what they were supposed to do in those situations. Maybe you should ask your officers to start doing the right thing and lead by example. 

Now in regards to the above incident, did her friend deny the cops version? I don't know, but I also don't see as how that would help. The positioning of the camera in relation to where the woman and the officer were makes that impossible. They were sandwiched in between the house and a SUV, all anyone but the woman and the two officers can see is from the chest up. 

About the other video from CA, why are you telling someone to stop resisting while you're beating them with night sticks and attacked by a dog? What kind of dumbass training are they getting? 

[Ray-Ban Dan]

Gamebreaker, of course you can cite instances where a rogue cop punched an innocent victim, or whatever. I'm saying 'in general' cops don't go around striking women (or men) in the face for nothing. A handful of instances you cite, doesn't really mean much when you consider the thousands and thousands of interactions police have every day. 

And it usually falls back to the part you bolded: if you do the right thing, you won't have problems. She clearly doesn't follow instructions. The only issue here, is whether or not the cop should have struck her in the face. I personally feel he could have handled the situation differently. But, at the same time, I'm not sure he did anything unlawful.

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by Ray-Ban Dan

[Gamebreaker]

There are far more incidents like the examples I gave, but there just wasn't a camera recording when it happened. Read the DOJ report on Baltimore PD. You really can't call it a rogue cop, when he does it in front of his peers and they don't bat an eye. To be a rogue cop in Baltimore, you'd actually be actively trying not to violate the rights of citizens, and would likely be forced to quit due to threats and harassment. 

[Chew]

Bottom video has me thinking.  Random, mostly rhetorical, question.  Is there a difference between "he's still resisting" and somebody starting to panic because they fear for their life?  

Not saying he didn't have it coming or that he wasn't resisting.  But if I were being beaten and bitten repeatedly like that, I would probably start to "resist" after a while because it might feel like they're going to kill me.  After 20+ seconds of being attacked by a dog and beaten with nightsticks, some people's brains might go into fight or flight mode and start to fight back.  

Guy in the video obviously did something pretty messed up to get a beating like that.  But do cops expect you to just go limp as a dog sinks its teeth into your leg and 3-4 people are beating you with nightsticks over and over?  

[BornaSkinsFan83]

How do you not react with an animal biting you? Is it even possible?

[Chew]

2 hours ago, BornaSkinsFan83 said:

How do you not react with an animal biting you? Is it even possible?

Right

[visionary]

 

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

20 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

Unless you are comfortable watching a guy getting shot in the back and killed as he RAN AWAY and then having his dead lifeless body getting handcuffed for some reason .... do not watch the above video. 

I thought this was the one where the officer shot the person in the back and then blatantly planted the gun but that was a diff one. That one was that old officer with no training who was like a senior volunteer. 

[LadySkinsFan]

Saw this before, just disgusted.

[Chew]

This can't be real life...

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

3 minutes ago, youngchew said:

This can't be real life...

Only plausible assumption I can make is that 11 jurors think Manslaughter and 1 juror thinks Murder. 

What a dilemma that juror had. Do you stand firm with thinking it is Murder knowing that they might not retry the case and if they do, a jury may find him not guilty. Or do you acquiesce, officer is found guilty of Manslaughter, at least there is a serious conviction and no uncertainty re what a future jury might do. 

 

And the person making this decision could be you ... me ... the person in line behind you in 7-11 ... not a humane thing to place on a humans conscience imo.