# Video Shows Cop Punching 15-year-old girl During Arrest [Archive]

The SR

06-10-2007, 14:26

the way I see it, she was a f*king idiot. A cop pulls you over and tells you you're under arrest, you shut your mouth and comply. The last thing you do is run or try to fight, not only is the cop in better shape than you are, he also has a gun, a taser and pepperspray. And most cops, judges and jurries see running as a sign of guilt.
She should have just let hersrlf be arrested, they can't hold you for more than 24 hours without filing charges, and if they do, just use your right to a speedy trial. You should be out in a week or two if they file charges, and the next day if they're not going to.

she was arrested with no resonable grounds. thats an abuse of police power. the bacon is clearly overreacting and created the aggressive situation.

im not sure whats more worrying. a 6 ft + pigger punching and spraying a clearly upset and frightned girl or the fact that there is a chorus of people stating that this is acceptible and indeed good policework.

dont even get me started on the curfew bit....

Kalmurstan

06-10-2007, 14:38

she was arrested with no resonable grounds. thats an abuse of police power. the bacon is clearly overreacting and created the aggressive situation.

A 15 year old with a bin-bag of brand-new clothes gets my brain ticking over. If I'd been a cop and seen her, I'd stop her, ask to see a receipt and nick her if she didn't have one.

im not sure whats more worrying. a 6 ft + pigger punching and spraying a clearly upset and frightned girl or the fact that there is a chorus of people stating that this is acceptible and indeed good policework.

Acceptable? Good police work? Maybe not the best in the work, but I know when someone bites you, instict is you make sure they're not going to do it again, and pepper spray is actually a very "friendly" way of subduing someone. Sure, it hurts like hell for a while, but batons and even tasers are a lot more dangerous.

dont even get me started on the curfew bit....

Curfews are a strange thing. Being in the UK, I'm not 100% sure how things work in the USA, but a blanket "no-one under 16/18/21 is allowed out after whatever time" is wrong. We have some laws over here that prevent large groups of youths congregating at anytime, although it's usually only enforced if the group gets a little out of hand. There are also curfews that are set on certain people, along with restrictions on where they can go, as part of the ASBO system.

As for the OP's point about the police punching the girls. Was there any lasting damage done? Were teeth removed or bones broken? If not, it's probably reasonable force to restain someone who's resisting and biting.

OceanDrive2

06-10-2007, 14:54

A 15 year old with a bin-bag of brand-new clothes gets my brain ticking over. If I'd been a cop and seen her, I'd stop her, ask to see a receipt and nick her if she didn't have one.She was "arrested" for the curfew.

The "carrying new clothes with tags still attached" is marked as an allegation which means "someone at the Police department anonymously leaked this bit of info, and it could be true.. or not"

The_pantless_hero

06-10-2007, 14:58

It dosen't matter if you are arrested without reason, if a cop tells you to get into the backseat of his car, you get in. THey can't hold you for more than 24 hours without filing charges, and generally release you sooner than that.

That is so comforting I think I will think about it every time I go to sleep. :rolleyes:

Nefundland

06-10-2007, 14:59

she was arrested with no resonable grounds. thats an abuse of police power. the bacon is clearly overreacting and created the aggressive situation.

im not sure whats more worrying. a 6 ft + pigger punching and spraying a clearly upset and frightned girl or the fact that there is a chorus of people stating that this is acceptible and indeed good policework.

dont even get me started on the curfew bit....

It dosen't matter if you are arrested without reason, if a cop tells you to get into the backseat of his car, you get in. THey can't hold you for more than 24 hours without filing charges, and generally release you sooner than that.

As for the 6ft+ cop punching and spraying a "upset and frightened little girl"
SHE FIRGGING BIT HIM!
If somebody bites me and I have pepperspray, I'm using it.

Johnny B Goode

06-10-2007, 15:03

I haven't seen the link, I haven't seen the video, I bet the video doesn't tell the whole story, I bet this thread devolves into one of those police brutality threads where people draw unsupported conclusions about pretty much anything.

Sorry, I'm feeling negative for some reason.

I'm willing to agree with that.

The SR

06-10-2007, 15:08

It dosen't matter if you are arrested without reason, if a cop tells you to get into the backseat of his car, you get in.
not where i come from.

THey can't hold you for more than 24 hours without filing charges, and generally release you sooner than that.

so that justifies false arrest?

As for the 6ft+ cop punching and spraying a "upset and frightened little girl"
SHE FIRGGING BIT HIM!
If somebody bites me and I have pepperspray, I'm using it.

he created the situation, there was no need to deal with that child in that manner. he was hurting her, she reacted.

She was "arrested" for the curfew.

The "carrying new clothes with tags still attached" is marked as an allegation which means "someone at the Police department anonymously leaked this bit of info, and it could be true.. or not"

there is no way the bacons could see, at night, what was in that bag. they realised this after the arrest and are trying to imply she is a criminal to justify their caveman tactics.

Katganistan

06-10-2007, 15:15

The complete article vs. what was presented:

Video Shows Cop Punching Teen During Arrest
Fri Oct 5, 5:39 PM ET

A controversy is brewing in South Florida over a dash-camera video showing a Fort Pierce police officer punching a 15-year-old girl while she is resisting arrest, WPBF News 25 reported.

The tape indicates Fort Pierce police Officer Daniel Gilroy turned on his dash-camera and recorded the arrest of 15-year-old Shelwand Riley, who police said was violating curfew and acting suspiciously. She was allegedly carrying a garbage bag full of new clothes with tags still attached, WPBF reported.

Riley's aunt, Gloria Smith, said the tape shows police brutality and excessive force, even though her niece bit the arresting officer on the arm.so allegedly she stole clothes from a store.. or so the police say..
at what time is the curfew at Fort Pierce?.. is it when the stores are still open ??

The article:
Video Shows Cop Punching Teen During Arrest

WPBF-TV
5:25 p.m. EDT October 5, 2007

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - A controversy is brewing in South Florida over a dash-camera video showing a Fort Pierce police officer punching a 15-year-old girl while she is resisting arrest, WPBF News 25 reported. The tape indicates Fort Pierce police Officer Daniel Gilroy turned on his dash-camera and recorded the arrest of 15-year-old Shelwand Riley, who police said was violating curfew and acting suspiciously. She was allegedly carrying a garbage bag full of new clothes with tags still attached, WPBF reported.

Riley's aunt, Gloria Smith, said the tape shows police brutality and excessive force, even though her niece bit the arresting officer on the arm.

"Well, she did that after his aggressive behavior. He never stated why he was appending her. Her rights were never read to her; she was violated all the way," Smith said.

The videotape shows Gilroy punching Riley with his fist and spraying her with pepper spray after she bit him, WPBF reported.

The tape indicates that Riley was placed into the back seat of an officer's patrol vehicle and officers attempted to wash off the pepper spray using a bottle of water.

Riley appeared in court this week represented by a public defender, who refused to comment on the case, WPBF reported. The teen pleaded not guilty to a resisting-arrest charge.

According to court documents, the case is expected to go to trial in November, where a judge will decide whether the officer used excessive force in the arrest.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21154864/

Katganistan

06-10-2007, 15:17

you have curfews in america? wtf?

In some small towns, yes. Usually because of criminal mischief.

United human countries

06-10-2007, 15:19

so allegedly she stole clothes from a store.. or so the police say..
at what time is the curfew at Fort Pierce?.. is it when the stores are still open ??

There pretty much is no curfew or its loosely inforced, this isn't a police state. Besides, if the victim resists the officer has the right to apply enough force to arrest her. (Excessive force would be tazing her repeatedly, believe me, my dad is a cop.)

Nefundland

06-10-2007, 15:20

not where i come from.
Well, thats how it works most places, cops have power of arrest, you listen to them and fight charges in court.

so that justifies false arrest?

Cops have power of arrest, and it looks like she was out past curfew. regardless of how idotic the curfew is, it's the law, and she broke it.

he created the situation, there was no need to deal with that child in that manner. he was hurting her, she reacted.

He was arresting her, she resisted by biting him. End of story, he was justified.

EchoVect

06-10-2007, 15:24

Some little 15 year old punk bites me, they'll be gumming their wheaties for the rest of their life, and their parents will be broke by the time my lawyer is through with them.

Little snot nosed punks have no respect for anything these days, most need a good ass whipping, and their parents a good swift kick as well.

While I'm not saying you should have to kiss a cop's arse, physical acts against them are right out.

What did the little tart THINK he was going to do?

"Sorry miss, my bad, on your way then......"

Of course, the liberal media and the anarchists will be all over this........

sigh.

OceanDrive2

06-10-2007, 15:24

He was arresting her, she resisted by biting him. End of story, he was justified.If a 11 years old girl bit him, is he justified to Punch her in the face?

a 9 years old?
a 5 years old?
(I borrowed this argumentation technique from the AoC debate crowd :D )

I been bitten once by a 5 years old, and I can swear, it is just as painful.

OceanDrive2

06-10-2007, 15:27

Of course, the liberal media will be all over this........

sigh.you are... made in America.. right?

just a guess :D

Nefundland

06-10-2007, 15:33

OceanDrive2

06-10-2007, 15:33

There pretty much is no curfew or its loosely inforced, this isn't a police state. Besides, if the victim resists the officer has the right to apply enough force to arrest her. (Excessive force would be tazing her repeatedly, believe me, my dad is a cop.)if I understand, you are from Fort Pierce. and your Dad is a cop.

As the OP I have to issue -for you- the following disclaimer: You will read things here about "the Cops over there"... what we actually mean is the "bad Cops" the bad apples.. not all-and-everyone of the Cops, so dont take things personally. Its just going to make you upset, and its NOT going to stop us from speaking-up our minds.

Yes this is a PG-13 Forum.. and if you seen the most popular Hollywood PG-13 movies.. it can get graphic any given sunday.

Katganistan

06-10-2007, 15:38

If a 11 years old girl bit him, is he justified to Punch her in the face?

a 9 years old?
a 5 years old?
(I learned this argumentation technique from the AoC debate crowd :D )

I been bitten once by a 5 years old, and I can swear, it is just as painful.

1) A fifteen year old is more mature and more able to understand BITING IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. She made a choice to fight the cop. You make that choice, you choose the consequences.

2) Resisting arrest is a crime. Assaulting an officer is a crime. Now that WILL be on her record, regardless of whether the original charges would have been thrown out.

Kalmurstan

06-10-2007, 15:40

My knowledge of police "punches" is by no means complete, but in my experience they're are miles away from those you'd get in a brawl. They're targeted at specific points to numb that part of the body, like giving someone a dead-leg or whatever. It looks violent, and believe me it can hurt, but it's not a case of "I'm gonna punch your teeth out" it's simply to help get a suspect under control.

If a 11 years old girl bit him, is he justified to Punch her in the face?

a 9 years old?
a 5 years old?
(I learned this argumentation technique from the AoC debate crowd :D )

I been bitten once by a 5 years old, and I can swear, it is just as painful.

First off, I'd never say yes to that question, since police shouldn't punch anyone in the face, nor was it implied in the news story that they did. As for punches as described above, my fence-sitting responce is "it depends". I doubt a kid that old would put up as much of a struggle, seeing as how their height and weight is considerably less than that of a 15 year old, but if they were difficult to subdue, and risked injuring themselves or the arresting officer with their struggles, then yeah. Maybe you punch them once or twice but get them under control, rather than having them break something when they twist it too far trying to get away.

OceanDrive2

06-10-2007, 15:48

She's not five, shes fifteen! completly different situation than what happened.A fifteen year old is more mature and... some 15 years old girls are as mature as a 9 years old.. specially that one exgirlf.. nevermind:D

OceanDrive2

06-10-2007, 15:50

My knowledge of police "punches" is by no means complete, but in my experience they're are miles away from those you'd get in a brawl. Dont give me that Bullshit. (Smilie givin' bird)

Andaluciae

06-10-2007, 15:51

Valuable life lesson #2765:

Don't bite people, especially if they are packin' heat.

OceanDrive2

06-10-2007, 15:54

Valuable life lesson #2765:

Don't bite people, especially if they are packin' heat.seconded.

Kalmurstan

06-10-2007, 15:56

Dont give me that Bullshit.

I've been on the receiving end of both here in the UK, and I can swear that, at least here, the police have a habit of punching your upper arms and thighs repeatedly, and not particually hard either, to stun your limbs. Sure it does still hurt a bit, especially if you really put up a fight, but it's nothing like the drunken fighters who always seem to go for the face, full force.

Rome and Italian alies

06-10-2007, 15:58

First off, I'd never say yes to that question, since police shouldn't punch anyone in the face, nor was it implied in the news story that they did. As for punches as described above, my fence-sitting responce is "it depends". I doubt a kid that old would put up as much of a struggle, seeing as how their height and weight is considerably less than that of a 15 year old, but if they were difficult to subdue, and risked injuring themselves or the arresting officer with their struggles, then yeah. Maybe you punch them once or twice but get them under control, rather than having them break something when they twist it too far trying to get away.

You said you think they should punch them in this quote 'Maybe you punch them once or twice but get them under control', yet before that you said 'since police shouldn't punch anyone in the face'. I think you are contradicting yourself there.

Rome and Italian alies

06-10-2007, 16:04

you have curfews in america? wtf?

Are these curfews enforced on everyone or just the people with tags on them, cause in Britain where I'm from, we have a system were certain people are not allowed to go out past a certain time for a while untill they get better.

If it's on the whole time for everyone, then to a foreigner like me looking in on America, it's another thing to go in 'Why this country is shit' column.

Kalmurstan

06-10-2007, 16:06

You said you think they should punch them in this quote 'Maybe you punch them once or twice but get them under control', yet before that you said 'since police shouldn't punch anyone in the face'. I think you are contradicting yourself there.

Should've worded that better, sorry.

As I've said before, here in the UK the police punch arms and legs to stun them, a dead-arm/leg is easier to manipulate into cuffs than a flailing one, yes? In this case, the punches serve to help control and subdue with little damage.

A punch to the face, on the otherhand does nothing but cause pain. You're not going to cuff someone's head, nor is it that big a danger compaired to the other limbs. In this case, the punch does nothing but wound the suspect.

So, simply put, arms/legs to stun = limited punching, face = no punching

OceanDrive2

06-10-2007, 16:07

... police "punches"...
They're targeted at specific points to numb that part of the body, like giving someone a dead-leg or whatever. It looks violent, and believe me it can hurt...
...it's simply to help get a suspect under control...hmm..

Lookie, this video clearly show the Punches clearly helped get the suspect under control.. I am just wondering what part of the body he is trying to "numb"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiNvWyR8eRk

;)

OceanDrive2

06-10-2007, 16:13

A punch to the face, on the otherhand does nothing but cause pain. You're not going to cuff someone's head, nor is it that big a danger compaired to the other limbs. A punch in the face can damage one of the eyes..

and the scared suspect can turn his face at the last second, a punch to the head can be very dangerous too.

Kalmurstan

06-10-2007, 16:20

hmm..

Lookie, this video clearly show the Punches clearly helped get the suspect under control.. I am just wondering what part of the body he is trying to "numb"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiNvWyR8eRk

;)

Different vid, different situation. That looks a little overkill, I admit, there's better ways to get someone into a police car than that, but I don't see the relevance to this topic. I could try and defend the copper in that video, but to be honest, they were a tad heavy handed getting him into the car, that I'll admit.

If what you're trying to do is prove my point about punching to subdue wrong, fine. I also admit, in some cases other than that one a cop will just throw a punch for throwing a punches sake. However, the vast majority of the time, police will only throw a punch to stun, not to injure

Kalmurstan

06-10-2007, 16:22

A punch in the face can damage one of the eyes..

and the scared suspect can turn his face at the last second, a punch to the head can be very dangerous too.

Which was exactly my (again, badly worded) point. A punch to the face is inexcusable as it serves no purpose other than to wound, unlike a punch to the arm, which can be used to control the arm.

OceanDrive2

06-10-2007, 16:25

I could try and defend the copper in that video..go ahead, be my guest... make my day.

Kalmurstan

06-10-2007, 16:37

go ahead, be my guest... make my day.

It'll be so thin it's non-existant, and before I begin, I have to repeat I feel he was in the wrong, but I'll have a shot at it.

First off, the video itself. We jump in after the arrest has been made, so we don't know how much the suspect struggled, if at all. Secondly, there's no audio, so we don't know what was said in those few seconds walk, or again in the time prior to that.

We also don't know if it's the suspects first, second, third or whatever offence, if it was a one-off burglary or part of a series. We don't know the circumstances surrounding the crime, which again makes it hard to quantify if he used reasonable force or not.

As for the punches, the first one is directed to the solar plexus, which will generally wind someone, making them easier to control, whilst not risking excessive damage. The second blow looks to push the suspect onto the back seat, although the location in which it land (upper chest) is a questionable target region.

Obviously, like I said at the start, I think the officer was wrong, if only because there are other, less violent ways to get a refusing suspect into the back of a squad car, but the above could be used to defend his actions, although it's a weak argument at best.

OceanDrive2

06-10-2007, 16:51

It'll be so thin it's non-existant, and before I begin, I have to repeat I feel he was in the wrong, but I'll have a shot at it.

First off, the video itself. We jump in after the arrest has been made, so we don't know how much the suspect struggled, if at all. Secondly, there's no audio, so we don't know what was said in those few seconds walk, or again in the time prior to that.

We also don't know if it's the suspects first, second, third or whatever offence, if it was a one-off burglary or part of a series. We don't know the circumstances surrounding the crime, which again makes it hard to quantify if he used reasonable force or not.

As for the punches, the first one is directed to the solar plexus, which will generally wind someone, making them easier to control, whilst not risking excessive damage. The second blow looks to push the suspect onto the back seat, although the location in which it land (upper chest) is a questionable target region.

Obviously, like I said at the start, I think the officer was wrong, if only because there are other, less violent ways to get a refusing suspect into the back of a squad car, but the above could be used to defend his actions, although it's a weak argument at best.thank you...

Sometimes I say: "some peps here will use any outrageous excuse to defend some bad things the men-in-uniform do"...

Now I can quote this as a perfect example. Like I said thank you.

Kalmurstan

06-10-2007, 16:59

thank you...

Sometimes I say: "some peps here will defend anything the Cops do"...

Now I can quote this as a perfect example. Like I said thank you.

You put a request out there, I mearly responded. I was always the one who would speak up in defence of anything (within reason) whenever we debated at high-school and college. I look at things from the "We only see x% of the picture, sure, what we see is wrong, but what if...", I guess my mind just like that, question everything and what-not.

As for the cop in the video you linked, personally I believe he was wrong (as I said in reply to your post "That looks a little overkill"), but dangle the "defend him" carrot infront of me, and I'll take a shot at it.

New Tacoma

06-10-2007, 17:01

1984 here we come. :rolleyes:

The SR

06-10-2007, 17:02

thank you...

Sometimes I say: "some peps here will use any outrageous excuse to defend some bad things the men-in-uniform do"...

Now I can quote this as a perfect example. Like I said thank you.

I will never understand that unswerving loyalty to the police.

video evidence of what appears to be an illegal arrest of a girl and her getting punched in the teeth and pepper sprayed and it is defended and justified.

New Tacoma

06-10-2007, 17:05

I will never understand that unswerving loyalty to the police.

video evidence of what appears to be an illegal arrest of a girl and her getting punched in the teeth and pepper sprayed and it is defended and justified.

The tragedy is that there are those who think that a police uniform gives you carte blanche to do anything thay see fit. And we see the results of those attitudes in the form of cases like these and the one about that college student.

*waits for Neo Art to defend the actions of the police officer*

Kalmurstan

06-10-2007, 17:07

I will never understand that unswerving loyalty to the police.

video evidence of what appears to be an illegal arrest of a girl and her getting punched in the teeth and pepper sprayed and it is defended and justified.

My feelings, tainted as they undoutably are by the fact I've been mugged, assaulted and robbed in the past, and generally feel that even when the suspects are caught, charged and sent down they get off too lightly (look into UK law and some recent sentences, you'll find examples of people getting six months in jail for killing a child in a hit and run, and people driving whilst banned getting another ban etc.), tell me that if you run from the police or resist arrest, you should expect a harsh take-down.

Being on the receiving end of UK law, I see no problems with getting a dead-arm when I'd had one too many and didn't want to wear the police issue bracelets. Obviously, the force given has to match that received, and never once have I said "police should be able to kick ass and split heads to get justice", that'd be crazy, but I see nothing wrong with the use of acceptable force to restain, control and subdue.

OceanDrive2

06-10-2007, 17:29

... but dangle the carrot infront of me, and I'll take a shot at it.Dude.. are you really only 19 posts old? you are not a puppet or a re-birth?

If thats the case, allow me to welcome you to NSG with my 2 cents of advice..

In the interwebs lots of peoples are going to dangle their "carrots" infront of you.. If you keep trying to grab those carrots.. you are going to get raped.. over and over again. ;)

Kalmurstan

06-10-2007, 17:46

Dude.. are you really only 19 posts old? you are not a puppet or a re-birth?

Then let me give welcome you with my 2 cents of advice..

In the interwebs lots of peoples are going to dangle their "carrots" infront of you.. If you keep trying to grab those carrots.. you are going to get raped.. over and over again. ;)

New here, not a puppet, not a re-birth, just carrot-biting me ;)

I'm not new to the whole intarweb forum bit, but it seems that folks round these parts are of a slightly higher debating-calibre than I'm used to. Might need to work on my skills a little bit more.

Thanks for the advice, I'll probably keep it in mind a bit more, less rape=good :D.

Andaluciae

06-10-2007, 19:39

you have curfews in america? wtf?

Generally in small towns, and specifically in those small towns, only for minors. Something about keeping our own kids safe, or something.

Nodinia

06-10-2007, 20:10

Your link doesn't work. Also, what was the cop to do hmm? Let her go? Politely ask that she come along?

Hitting police officers, much less biting them, is asking for immediate takedown. I don't agree with excessive police brutality, especially when its unprovoked, but once you strike first, the gloves come off.

Wonderful. So if I react to a bite from a 15 year old female as I would an adult male, its ok?

Nodinia

06-10-2007, 20:12

New here, not a puppet, not a re-birth, just carrot-biting me ;)

Thanks for the advice, I'll probably keep it in mind a bit more, less rape=good :D.

Yes, theres one lad here who has an artifical anus and lower bowel. Don't be like him and learn the hard way in the big house. It ain't purty.....

Araraukar

06-10-2007, 20:57

police officer punching a 15-year-old girl while she is resisting arrest, WPBF News 25 reported.

Good. The teenagers :sniper: these days need a good spanking or trashing to show any respect at other people.

Araraukar

06-10-2007, 20:58

Something about keeping our own kids safe, or something.

Who's going to keep the rest of the population safe from the kids? :confused:

Grave_n_idle

06-10-2007, 21:03

so allegedly she stole clothes from a store.. or so the police say..
at what time is the curfew at Fort Pierce?.. is it when the stores are still open ??

The clothes are irrelevent.

Here's a link to a fuller version with better sound... from what I can tell, a transcript would sound something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10VKwULQbb8

Cop (bringing girl to front of car): Put your hands behind your back.

Cop (as she turns towards him): Put your hands behind your back.

Girl (still turning towards cop): Sorry. Why are you doing this to me?

Cop (while she is talking, as she is now two-thirds turned towards him): Put your hands behind your back.

Girl (still turning, and stopping him restraining her arms): I didn't do anything!

Cop (as he tries to put her across the hood): Put your hands behind your back.

(Girl - can't hear this one... sounds like she says something about a sale?)

Cop: Miss - I don't want to force you, cause you're small. But, you need to listen to what I'm going to say. Put your hands behind your back.

Girl (wriggling off the hood): No.

Cop: Put your hands behind your back. Put your other hand behind your back.

Cop (trying to bring her back to centre of hood - and, one assumes - videoed area): Don't resist me. Put your...

Girl: I don't wanna go to jail, I wanna go home.

Cop (still trying to get the second hand) Put your hands behind your back. Miss. You can't resist me, miss.

Girl moves across hood, bumping sound recorder.

(The video replays the same part three times here... once in slow-motion... one assumes this is editing by the 'abuse-of-power.org' people, rather than time repeating itself in reality)

Cop (applying leverage to the arm he has) : Put your... Okay. Put your hand behind your back. Put your hands behind your back.

Girl: Mamma. Mamma. Leave me alone.

Cop: Put your hands behind your back.

Girl (apparently now trying to get down in front of the car): No. No.

Cop: Listen. You're gonna get hurt. Okay... cause I'm not using a lot of force.

Girl: Yes. You are. You're hurting my arm.

Cop: I will use force on you. Put your hands behind your back.

Girl - (can't make it out - I think it's "I'm sorry. Leave me alone")

(Again - either time repeats itself, or the cop proceeds to move her across the car five times, three of them reaaaally slowly - it sounds like the girl calls for 'mom' again.)

Cop: Stop.

Girl: Oh - I'm not doing anything. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, sir. I'm not doing anything.

(Can't make it out - looks and sounds like the cop says "stop.... you're resisting... stop)

Girl: I'm sorry. Aaaah.

Girl lunges for his arm and bites him.

Cop: Don't bite me!

(The 'punch'. Again - multiple repetitions. The blow is obscured. It might hit her head, or her shoulder. It might not contact at all. To be honest - it looks like it hits her shoulder - since her head barely moves).

Cop draws pepperspray and sprays her.

Girl: I'm sorry, sir. I didn't do anything. Aaah, my eyes.

Girl - can't make this bit out - sounds like she says "ah. I've got my eyes closed?)

Girl: Ah. I can't breathe. I can't breathe.

Cop (finally cuffing both hands): There you go.

Girl (as cop leads her off to the right): I can't breathe.

Girl - can't quite hear - sounds like she says "I need my clothes and stuff".

Girl (heading off-camera): I can't breathe. I can't breathe.

A few things occured to me watching this:

1) For someone who can't breathe... some people seem to sure be able to talk a lot.

2) Contrary to some people's opinion, you 'are doing something' if you resist arrest.

3) The cop has to tell her 8 times to put her hands behind her back before he gets her left hand behind her). He has to tell her another seven times (?) and pepper-spray her before he gets the other arm.

4) In this day and age, you can't take risks with spilled blood, or bodily fluids. She tried to bite him... which could have resulted in broken skin. I doubt that they will rule his response excessive.

5) When a cop tells you to put your hands behind your back, you do. Mamma ain't gonna help you.

Ifreann

06-10-2007, 21:06

Being out after curfew and biting police officers is a bad idea *nods*

Araraukar

06-10-2007, 21:11

5) When a cop tells you to put your hands behind your back, you do. Mamma ain't gonna help you.

Ahh, I can't tell how much I agree with you... :D
And LOL at that last bit - made my day. ;)

Andaluciae

06-10-2007, 21:28

Who's going to keep the rest of the population safe from the kids? :confused:

The Super-Prophet Friends: Ezekiel, Muhammed, Buddha, Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard.

Gun Manufacturers

06-10-2007, 21:40

I will never understand that unswerving loyalty to the police.

video evidence of what appears to be an illegal arrest of a girl and her getting punched in the teeth and pepper sprayed and it is defended and justified.

If she was breaking curfew and acting suspiciously, then it wasn't an illegal arrest. Also, she was resisting arrest and bit the officer (which adds more charges to the ones she was already facing). Thirdly, it didn't look like he hit her in the face, it looked to be in the ribcage under her arm.

ETA: After watching the video again on Youtube, it looks like the officer struck her shoulder/upper arm, probably in order to deaden it so he could cuff her easier.

Katganistan

06-10-2007, 21:53

IL Ruffino

06-10-2007, 22:04

That officer did nothing wrong.

Ifreann

06-10-2007, 22:06

That officer did nothing wrong.

I think getting bitten was a bad idea on his part.

Grave_n_idle

06-10-2007, 22:07

I'm sorry, but he looked awfully restrained, he was not angered until she tried to bite him and even then, it was a restrained response. I'm not sure I would have sprayed her because he looked like he was nearly in control at that point, but he didn't slam her around, and he repeatedly told what to do and asked her not force him to do it the hard way.

She should have put her hands behind her back and let her parents and lawyer sort it. Resisting arrest and assaulting an officer are a definite on this.

He didn't go for the pepperspray till after she bit him. I count at least a dozen instances of telling her to put her hands behind her back before he did it... to which she responded by doing everything but putting her hands behind her back.

In the end, she bit him. I guess he got bored with that game pretty quick about then. I notice she was a lot more agreeable after that.

It's strange the way this story is being presented... the news media seems to be showing tiny snippets, rather than tell the whole story, and the nearest I've found to a 'full version' is that 'edited' version for the agenda site.

Grave_n_idle

06-10-2007, 22:10

I think getting bitten was a bad idea on his part.

Getting bitten was a bad idea on his part?

It looked like his arm!

No wonder he smacked her! :o

Nefundland

06-10-2007, 22:11

It's strange the way this story is being presented... the news media seems to be showing tiny snippets, rather than tell the whole story, and the nearest I've found to a 'full version' is that 'edited' version for the agenda site.

welcome to the media. which sounds better; "cop arrests 15 year old girl after she bites him" or "15 year old girl peppersprayed by cop" ?

Yea, it sucks

Ifreann

06-10-2007, 22:12

Getting bitten was a bad idea on his part?

It looked like his arm!

No wonder he smacked her! :o

I'd blame the girl, but then the 'zomg police brutality' people might eat me ;)

Nodinia

06-10-2007, 22:13

I think getting bitten was a bad idea on his part.

Especially when he begins to 'change'....

Grave_n_idle

06-10-2007, 22:15

I'd blame the girl, but then the 'zomg police brutality' people might eat me ;)

Bah, let 'em.

You show me how many people would let someone sink their teeth into their flesh with a harsh remonstration as reward. I'm not surprised the cop was a lil bit miffed.

JuNii

06-10-2007, 22:16

[snipped] Nice breakdown Grave.

I like the threepeats that the editor did. really shows the restraint the cop used in dealing with the girl.

Ifreann

06-10-2007, 22:22

Especially when he begins to 'change'....

Oh snap, now he's a were-teenager!

Grave_n_idle

06-10-2007, 22:24

Nice breakdown Grave.

I like the threepeats that the editor did. really shows the restraint the cop used in dealing with the girl.

I actually tried to be fairly objective with my attempt to transcribe, despite the fact that the repetition quickly started annoying the hell out of me.

Seriously, how stupid are we supposed to be that we can't figure out that 'this bit where it looks like he punches her' is the 'bad bit'...?

JuNii

06-10-2007, 22:32

I actually tried to be fairly objective with my attempt to transcribe, despite the fact that the repetition quickly started annoying the hell out of me.

Seriously, how stupid are we supposed to be that we can't figure out that 'this bit where it looks like he punches her' is the 'bad bit'...?

I took those repeats as to being...

"Is that where he punches her?"
"Dunno... but it looks like it..."
"hmmm... maybe if we repeat it several times others will realize he's punching her."
"maybe they'll think he's punching her several times"
"oooh good thinking. where else can we do this to make it look like he's really beating her up?"
"howabout when he puts the wrist lock on her?"
"when was that?"
"when she screams... *rewinds tape* there!"
"was that what he did? I didn't notice that... ok, we repeat that also. anywhere else?"
"..."
"hmm..."
"we could repeat that scene where he pulls her back into the center of the camera... make it look like he's bodyslamming her on the hood."
"... sounds good. but let's not go overboard with repeating those scenes, ok?"

Nodinia

06-10-2007, 22:37

Oh snap, now he's a were-teenager!

Yeah, though in a few years he could be a were-Hot momma. This would doubtless cause create emotiomal turmoil and gender/orientation re-evaluation on full moons with his work colleagues in the bar. Of course if they're all pissed, they will anyway, and just never talk about it sober.....

Ifreann

06-10-2007, 22:38

Yeah, though in a few years he could be a were-Hot momma. This would doubtless cause create emotiomal turmoil and gender/orientation re-evaluation on full moons with his work colleagues in the bar. Of course if they're all pissed, they will anyway, and just never talk about it sober.....

Sounds like the makings of a porno.

Ifreann

06-10-2007, 22:44

Through in a few midgets for the German edition and I think we're on the pigs back with the "plot" certainly.

I'll start holding auditions.

Nodinia

06-10-2007, 22:46

Sounds like the makings of a porno.

Through in a few midgets for the German edition and I think we're on the pigs back with the "plot" certainly.

OceanDrive2

06-10-2007, 22:57

If she was breaking curfew.. then it wasn't an illegal arrest. not illegal. If the Curfew is legal then the arrest cant be illegal.

I thinks is discrimination, people of a certain age in some US small tows dont have the rights to go outside. Its legal discrimination.

OceanDrive2

06-10-2007, 22:59

It's strange the way this story is being presented... the news media seems to be showing tiny snippets, rather than tell the whole story, and the nearest I've found to a 'full version' is that 'edited' version for the agenda site.I hate it when that happens.

and if you look closely it happens quite often. We have 24 hours-News TV networks (FOX/CNN), they are going to loop dozens of times these tiny snippets.

They have the full video.. why the f*ck dont they show it the first time?

Grave_n_idle

06-10-2007, 23:15

I hate it when that happens.

and if you look closely it happens quite often. We have 24 hours-News TV networks (FOX/CNN), they are going to loop dozens of times these tiny snippets.

They have the full video.. why the f*ck they don show it the first time?

Heh. Sometimes they do. Then they show the edited version ever after, once they realise their 'mistake'.

Grave_n_idle

06-10-2007, 23:18

I took those repeats as to being...

"Is that where he punches her?"
"Dunno... but it looks like it..."
"hmmm... maybe if we repeat it several times others will realize he's punching her."
"maybe they'll think he's punching her several times"
"oooh good thinking. where else can we do this to make it look like he's really beating her up?"
"howabout when he puts the wrist lock on her?"
"when was that?"
"when she screams... *rewinds tape* there!"
"was that what he did? I didn't notice that... ok, we repeat that also. anywhere else?"
"..."
"hmm..."
"we could repeat that scene where he pulls her back into the center of the camera... make it look like he's bodyslamming her on the hood."
"... sounds good. but let's not go overboard with repeating those scenes, ok?"

And the slowing down.. .that was my fave....

Oh no, not only is he repeatedly punching her, he's doing it REAAAALLLY slowly. The bastard!

JuNii

06-10-2007, 23:21

And the slowing down.. .that was my fave....

Oh no, not only is he repeatedly punching her, he's doing it REAAAALLLY slowly. The bastard!

I almost expected the cheesy six-million dollar man sound effect.

chchchchchchchch.... :p

Grave_n_idle

06-10-2007, 23:24

I almost expected the cheesy six-million dollar man sound effect.

chchchchchchchch.... :p

:D

Maybe that's it.. .it's hard to judge the power behind the blow when it's slowed down.

Of course... hamming it up that much, her head should have just popped right off....

Katganistan

07-10-2007, 00:57

I almost expected the cheesy six-million dollar man sound effect.

chchchchchchchch.... :p

Ok, JuNii, now I have to clean my lappy's screen -- and root beer burns nasal cavities.

:D

Deus Malum

07-10-2007, 01:33

Ok, JuNii, now I have to clean my lappy's screen -- and root beer burns nasal cavities.

:D

Someone needs to start keeping a tally of these "I sprayed stuff out my nose onto my screen" posts. Because seriously, this has to happen like once a week. :D

JuNii

07-10-2007, 01:58

Someone needs to start keeping a tally of these "I sprayed stuff out my nose onto my screen" posts. Because seriously, this has to happen like once a week. :D

*checks TSToS (Top Secret Terms of Service)*

Hmmm... we're supposed to have stuff like that happen at least once a day. We gotta do better folks!

Non Aligned States

07-10-2007, 04:37

so that justifies false arrest?

False arrest? What the heck? Are you the kind of intellectually deficient person who takes marijuana into Singapore and fully expect not to get executed by law?

Breaking curfew is breaking curfew. The law's clear on that.

Non Aligned States

07-10-2007, 04:44

seconded.

Yet somehow the police officer here is in the wrong. Despite the girl being an early tryout for a Darwin award.

Wilgrove

07-10-2007, 04:45

The girl broke curfew, Strike One.

The girl resisted arrest, Strike Two.

The girl assaulted a police officer, Strike three and she is outta there!

She'll be lucky if she isn't charge with a felony for assaulting a police officer.

Non Aligned States

07-10-2007, 04:54

Wonderful. So if I react to a bite from a 15 year old female as I would an adult male, its ok?

You have to be a police officer and be making an arrest she is resisting.

Police officers are granted by law, to utilize force in the carrying out of their duties. One of the incidents where force is allowed is when the suspect resists arrests.

Abuse of power does happen, I'm not disputing that. But here, the facts are clear. The girl is breaking curfew, thereby breaking the law. The police officer arrested her. She resisted. Not only that, she attacked him. He is granted by law to utilize non lethal force (since she does not represent lethal danger) to subdue her. He used said force.

It's pretty clear cut.

But it seems the only opposition to that is from the other side of the police state spectrum. The kind that want police to be non existent or at least be completely toothless, not even able to carry out an arrest.

Non Aligned States

07-10-2007, 05:09

I thinks is discrimination, people of a certain age in some US small tows dont have the rights to go outside. Its legal discrimination.

And you magically know this because?

Wilgrove

07-10-2007, 09:10

I found a much better video of this.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=6414

Apparently him, keeping saying to put your hand behind your back didn't work and does count as resisting arrest.

Khermi

07-10-2007, 09:21

It's my understanding that the cop was bending this girls arm back so far when he was first arresting her, that she bit him in response to that. I know that if I was being arrested and the cop was being overly aggressive in pulling my arms and wrist back to the point of breaking it, I'd, more than likely, instinctively strike the officer(s) in an attempt to stop them from breaking my limb.

If indeed that is that case, the biting was a response to the cop being to aggressive, then the use of pepper spray and hitting was uncalled for, just like the over-extending of this girls arm.

As for pulling her over for being out past curfew, resisting that is just dumb, just like the curfew law is in some cities/towns/whatever. When you turn 18, that record is cleared and you start off with a clean slate. As a matter of fact, any crime you commit before 18 that doesn't result in a punishment extending past your 18th birthday, is forgiven and errased and you recieve a clean start.

And as for the people who cry that you sumbit to a cop no matter what, well I disagree. If a cop is harrasing me and wrongfully arrest me, I shall not give him or her a legit. reason (IE: resisting arrest) to do it, but I will raise all holy hell as they do do it. Just because cops are given the legal authority to question, accost, detain and arrest people does not give them the ability to abuse that power and get away with it. The media and other social outlets, however, have done a stunning job in creating a society of civilians who refuse to acknowledge when rights are being abused/stolen and fight for them. Instead, more and more people today are content with lying supine, with arms wide open, and letting authority figures walk all over them and make no mistake, they will do it if you let them.

Armed with knowledge of the laws and your rights, no person in a position of power can ever deny you of either, and often times, can get you off the hook. Although it is my opinion that America is increasingly becoming more of a Police State and those in power who abuse it, seem to get away with it more and more.

Seathornia

07-10-2007, 09:29

thank you...

Sometimes I say: "some peps here will use any outrageous excuse to defend some bad things the men-in-uniform do"...

Now I can quote this as a perfect example. Like I said thank you.

Sorry OD, that doesn't work. You're using an example from someone who doesn't agree with it in the first place and therefore will not find a reasonable excuse.

~snip~
1) For someone who can't breathe... some people seem to sure be able to talk a lot.

Wheezing, maybe? I know I can definitely call out that I can't breathe, because where speaking is the expelling of air, breathing is the taking in of air. It's perfectly possible to be able to expel air while not being able to get any in.

3) The cop has to tell her 8 times to put her hands behind her back before he gets her left hand behind her). He has to tell her another seven times (?) and pepper-spray her before he gets the other arm.

4) In this day and age, you can't take risks with spilled blood, or bodily fluids. She tried to bite him... which could have resulted in broken skin. I doubt that they will rule his response excessive.

5) When a cop tells you to put your hands behind your back, you do. Mamma ain't gonna help you.

She bit him. That was probably a bit over the top, but now, consider this:

She's a fifteen year old girl. He's an adult male. Let's change a few things, shall we?

3) The man has to tell her 8 times to put her hands behind her back...
5) When a man tells you to put your hands behind your back, you do.

Ehm, wait a moment. What if she was worried that, seeing as how there was no one else around (not even another cop), he might have been trying to rape her? After all, she said so herself, she didn't do anything wrong and the cop never told her what she did wrong. I'd consider it very reasonable to be worried as a fifteen year old girl when an older adult male handles you in this way without reason.

And that's where the cop made the mistake: He never told her why she had to put her hands behind her back, which would allow her to be worried and act in self-defence.

Surely both sides can learn from this...

Edwinasia

07-10-2007, 09:46

Hey, but she is black!

So probably she is deserving it...

New Tacoma

07-10-2007, 11:08

Hey, but she is black!

So probably she is deserving it...

Go back to Alabama you racist cocksucker.

Seathornia

07-10-2007, 12:47

Hey, but she is black!

So probably she is deserving it...

If that was sarcasm, let it be known that there are people crazy enough to mean this seriously.

The SR

07-10-2007, 13:30

I'd consider it very reasonable to be worried as a fifteen year old girl when an older adult male handles you in this way without reason.

And that's where the cop made the mistake: He never told her why she had to put her hands behind her back, which would allow her to be worried and act in self-defence.

nail on head. thinly veiled in some of the posts is the classic 'law and order' standard that questioning authority of any description should get you a smack in the mouth.

maybe its a european thing, but the cops have to tell you why you are being moved on or lagged. obviously how cops see themselves in relation to the public in the US is different, but tugging a schoolgirl, cuffing her and ulitmatly punching and spraying her for simply being out after dark would simply not be tolerated. she is entitled to go about her business without fear of being arrested and beaten without being told why.

this side of the pond if the arrest turns out to have been technically incorrect, as i suspent it might be here, its not assualt on a police officer. its assault on a kidnapper in uniform.

Non Aligned States

07-10-2007, 13:45

this side of the pond if the arrest turns out to have been technically incorrect, as i suspent it might be here, its not assualt on a police officer. its assault on a kidnapper in uniform.

Why don't you show the video to a police officer in your home area then and ask him/her then hmm?

Or are you afraid of "the pigs" as you call them?

The SR

07-10-2007, 14:02

Why don't you show the video to a police officer in your home area then and ask him/her then hmm?

Or are you afraid of "the pigs" as you call them?

no im not afraid of the pigs, because I have the right to walk down the street without getting lagged. i believe its €30k a day or part thereof you are held in Ireland if they had no right to arrest you in the first place. and my bite would not be assault on a copper as they were acting illegally in the first place.

if this arrest happened in Europe the entire debate would be different. clearly her human right to go about her business was impeded by a police man who decided to create the confrontation. maybe thats the procedure he has, but in other western states there is no way the police would have the power to do anything other than ask her where she is going. there is no allegation she was up to no good and no evidence she had previous.

basically it is a sad indictment on American policing when 15 year old girls out after dark are the 'enemy' and become subject to aggressive police action. go and catch some criminals and stop beating on 90lb girls you hero.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 14:39

It's my understanding that the cop was bending this girls arm back so far when he was first arresting her, that she bit him in response to that. I know that if I was being arrested and the cop was being overly aggressive in pulling my arms and wrist back to the point of breaking it, I'd, more than likely, instinctively strike the officer(s) in an attempt to stop them from breaking my limb.

The cop applied leverage AFTER telling her EIGHT times to put her hands behind her back.

She refused to comply. She fought him. Applying leverage is certainly neither unwarranted use of force, nor an excessive use.

Also - if you actually took the time to watch the film, she doesn't bite him in response to leverage, she bites him a considerable time later.

As for your hysterical "pulling my arms and wrist back to the point of breaking it"... I see no evidence of any limb being broken. You attempt to appeal to emotion. Fail.

If indeed that is that case, the biting was a response to the cop being to aggressive, then the use of pepper spray and hitting was uncalled for, just like the over-extending of this girls arm.

Not at all. That's not how it works. The police are authorised to use reasonable force. He tells her to let him cuff her. She refuses, won't hold still, and fights him. He applies a reasonable amount of perssure - AFTER explicitly telling her that he will if she doesn't comply.

He was arresting her. She then assaulted a police officer. He peppersprayed her AFTER she physically attacked him. Case closed.

And as for the people who cry that you sumbit to a cop no matter what, well I disagree. If a cop is harrasing me and wrongfully arrest me, I shall not give him or her a legit. reason (IE: resisting arrest) to do it, but I will raise all holy hell as they do do it.

So - you yourself say you wouldn't resist arrest.

What she should have done is protested after the arrest. Fighting and biting was stupid.

Armed with knowledge of the laws and your rights, no person in a position of power can ever deny you of either...

You obviously don't pay much attention to the news.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 14:44

This is America, not socialist Europe, she assualted a police officer, he had the right to use as much force within reason to restrain her, believe me, I would know.

Art-Vandalay

07-10-2007, 14:50

Yes, in some places but not all. It is also only for minors not with an adult. Curfews are mostly in smaller towns where they can be enforced easily. I highly doubt any large American city has a curfew for minors.

Nashville has a cerfew for anyone under 18 without a parent. 11PM.

Art-Vandalay

07-10-2007, 14:53

this girl is a typical spoiled brat.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 14:53

Wheezing, maybe?

Did you even bother to watch the video?

I know I can definitely call out that I can't breathe, because where speaking is the expelling of air, breathing is the taking in of air. It's perfectly possible to be able to expel air while not being able to get any in.

She manages to yell out (yell, not wheeze) at least three times that she 'can't breathe'... and at least one other phrase. Clearly, "I can't breathe" is not true.

If you honestly believe "It's perfectly possible to be able to expel air while not being able to get any in..." (and you think it applies to the extent in the video), then I have a nice perpetual-motion machine you might like to buy.

She bit him. That was probably a bit over the top, but now, consider this:

She's a fifteen year old girl. He's an adult male. Let's change a few things, shall we?

3) The man has to tell her 8 times to put her hands behind her back...
5) When a man tells you to put your hands behind your back, you do.

No. Let's not change them.

The police force has a different set of rules and considerations which apply. Trying to turn this into 'but he's a man, and she's just a girl...' ignores the fact that his badge is a meaningful symbol of authority. He is authorised to arrest her - and she refuses.

Ehm, wait a moment. What if she was worried that, seeing as how there was no one else around (not even another cop), he might have been trying to rape her?

Why would she be? I'm not saying it's impossible, but you are borrowing excuses with no justification. Have you read somewhere that she has claimed that defence, or are you pulling it out of your ass?

After all, she said so herself..

And, of course, people arrested, charged with a crime, and even serving time, are always the most reliable witnesses to their own culpability.

...she didn't do anything wrong...

Which makes her wrong, also. She did a number of things wrong. She violated curfew - which is 'wrong'. She resisted arrest - which is 'wrong'. She assaulted a police officer - which is 'wrong'.

Not only is her testimony unreliable.. she's actually wrong.

...and the cop never told her what she did wrong.

Didn't he? He told her a number of times to put her hand behind her back. She didn't do that. He pointed out that what she was doing was 'wrong'.

The 'I didn't know no better' defence won't wash.

Also - he already has one cuff on her as he rings her in cam, and we don't know for sure what he says before he starts the voice recorder.

He could have told her she was violating curfew as he pulled over, approached her, cuffed her... etc.

I'd consider it very reasonable to be worried as a fifteen year old girl when an older adult male handles you in this way without reason.

Being worried is one thing. You seem to be ignoring the fact that - before the story starts - she was already guilty. He had a reason, that she knew damn well... she was violating curfew. She proceeded to give him a number of further reasons, also.

And that's where the cop made the mistake: He never told her why she had to put her hands behind her back, which would allow her to be worried and act in self-defence.

He told her to put hands behind her back. He had one wrist cuffed. You don't have to be Einstein to work out why the other hand needs to go behind the back, too. And - again - you ASSUME he hasn't told her why he is arresting her.

The SR

07-10-2007, 14:56

This is America, not socialist Europe, she assualted a police officer, he had the right to use as much force within reason to restrain her, believe me, I would know.

but if it subesquently turns out the policeman was acting outside his authority, that is not the case.

as it turned out, the police officer was wrong to detain her. ergo, that simplisitc caveman view of the relationship the police have with the people they are there to protect is inadequate.

this girl was not a criminal, she was not breaking the law and as such should not have been coerced into that situation. the police should not have the arbitrary power to pull kids off the street.

Katganistan

07-10-2007, 14:58

United human countries

07-10-2007, 15:01

He told her to put hands behind her back. He had one wrist cuffed. You don't have to be Einstein to work out why the other hand needs to go behind the back, too. And - again - you ASSUME he hasn't told her why he is arresting her.

Exactly, besides, if she was doing something suspicious as well as being out after curfew, then he qould've had double the reason to arrest her. I bet if she hadn't resisted arrest he would've let her go with a warning.

Edit: NSG won't do the quote, oh well.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 15:01

...thinly veiled in some of the posts is the classic 'law and order' standard that questioning authority of any description should get you a smack in the mouth.

We aren't talking about 'questioning authority'. He did nothing in response to her protestations of innocence, or her questions. He applied pressure when she resisted arrest. He applied reasonable force when she attacked him.

This really isn't that complicated.

maybe its a european thing, but the cops have to tell you why you are being moved on or lagged. obviously how cops see themselves in relation to the public in the US is different, but tugging a schoolgirl, cuffing her and ulitmatly punching and spraying her for simply being out after dark would simply not be tolerated.

Didn't watch the video, huh?

He didn't 'tug', 'cuff', 'punch' and 'spray' anyone for "simply being out after dark".

He tugged her because she wouldn't allow him to cuff her. He cuffed her because that is a reasonable method of restraint - especially where the person being cuffed is clearly resisting, as she was.

If he 'punched' her (I still say you can't tell what is going on in that vidoe) and peppersprayed her, it's not for "simply being out after dark". It's for assaulting him.

It's hardly a check against him that he escalates, if she just keeps on piling-on the violations.

she is entitled to go about her business without fear of being arrested and beaten without being told why.

No. She isn't. There is a curfew. Thus she has no entitlement to be going "about her business without fear of being arrested".

this side of the pond if the arrest turns out to have been technically incorrect, as i suspent it might be here, its not assualt on a police officer. its assault on a kidnapper in uniform.

Ah. Not even in America. Your cluelessness is excusable... but destructive to the matter of debate.

If you don't have a clue what you are talking about, feel free to shut the fuck up.

Katganistan

07-10-2007, 15:03

this girl was not a criminal, she was not breaking the law and as such should not have been coerced into that situation. the police should not have the arbitrary power to pull kids off the street.

What part of "It is the law that a minor shall not be out after a certain time without a parent or guardian" is difficult for you to understand?

If she was out without a parent or guardian after curfew, she was indeed breaking the law.

This is not an arbitrary power -- this is a law that was enacted in their community because the voting public wanted it.

Of course, you can continue to show your ignorance by insisting that this isn't the way things are where you live -- but this is NOT where you live. It's not where I live either, but it's the law in her community.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 15:07

if this arrest happened in Europe the entire debate would be different.

It would.

It didn't happen in Europe.

Your comment is irrelevent.

clearly her human right to go about her business was impeded by a police man who decided to create the confrontation.

No, her 'human right' is impeded by a curfew law.

She broke it... cops are actually allowed to approach you when you breach the laws... it's funny like that.

The SR

07-10-2007, 15:10

No, her 'human right' is impeded by a curfew law.

She broke it... cops are actually allowed to approach you when you breach the laws... it's funny like that.

it is normal to restrain and handcuff a teen who is breaking a curfew? normal to arrest them as opposed to return them home? normal to leak aspects of the case to the press?

I'd hate to see how this coper would deal with an actual criminal who was actually a threat to the community he is supposed to protect.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 15:11

It would.

It didn't happen in Europe.

Your comment is irrelevent.

No, her 'human right' is impeded by a curfew law.

She broke it... cops are actually allowed to approach you when you breach the laws... it's funny like that.

Strange how most people seem to think the term "Law Man" seems archaic in todays world.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 15:13

Isn't it obvious? Policemen who are bent on savagely raping little girls OBVIOUSLY position them on the hood of their car, turn on the official video recorder that will be reviewed by the department and released to the media, turn on the voice recorder, and REposition their victims when they squirm off-camera so there is NO WAY to mistake that they are sexually abusing them....

oh, wait....

I know.

And - while I don't doubt there HAVE been abuses by police officers, you are right - they are probably not generally being recorded on dashcams. Also... I worry it might set a dangerous precedent if we let the immediate response to any allegation of crime be 'I thought he was going to rape me'.

I'd say there has to be a reasonable suspicion of wrong-doing (from either side) before people start makign accusations.

Last time I watched that tape - the girl WAS breaking curfew law, and the cop WAS NOT raping her.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 15:15

Exactly, besides, if she was doing something suspicious as well as being out after curfew, then he qould've had double the reason to arrest her. I bet if she hadn't resisted arrest he would've let her go with a warning.

Edit: NSG won't do the quote, oh well.

In all likelihood, if she turned out to be lost, or confused or just caught short... she'd have got driven home, or back to the station and had her parents called.

Especially if this was her first such 'offence'.

On the other hand... the 'crime' she was busted for becomes almost irrelevent, when she piles on the offences after she is 'caught'.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 15:16

I know.

And - while I don't doubt there HAVE been abuses by police officers, you are right - they are probably not generally being recorded on dashcams. Also... I worry it might set a dangerous precedent if we let the immediate response to any allegation of crime be 'I thought he was going to rape me'.

I'd say there has to be a reasonable suspicion of wrong-doing (from either side) before people start makign accusations.

Last time I watched that tape - the girl WAS breaking curfew law, and the cop WAS NOT raping her.

That excuse is becoming far to common these days...

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 15:19

it is normal to restrain and handcuff a teen who is breaking a curfew? normal to arrest them as opposed to return them home? normal to leak aspects of the case to the press?

I'd hate to see how this coper would deal with an actual criminal who was actually a threat to the community he is supposed to protect.

It is not abnormal to restrain (and handcuff, which is still 'restraining') someone who is refusing to comply.

She was in breach of the law - simple as.

We don't know if she was going to be just returned home - she refused to comply, and escalated the situation. Attacking the cop was a bad move. resisting the cuffs was a bad move.

Is it normal to " leak aspects of the case to the press"? Who did that?

It IS normal to use the dashcams to verify a 'good' arrest.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 15:21

Strange how most people seem to think the term "Law Man" seems archaic in todays world.

You ain't just whistlin' dixie. I have problems with brutality. I have problems with cops exceeding the remit of law.

I have no problems with a realistic application of law.

Now - when the crime is something arbitrary (I don't think it should be 'illegal' for someone to be carrying a drug for their own use, for example), I might have a problem with the LAW... but not with the cop, provided he follows reasonable due procedure.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 15:24

That excuse is becoming far to common these days...

I'm not trying to diminish rape, or fear of rape.

But - clearly - this instance, there is no rape involved. He doesn't even 'touch her inappropriately'. Indeed, if you watch the cam, he looks really uncomfortable having to even restrain her.

I can't run around shooting cops because 'I think they might rape me'... there has to be a small amount of reason applied.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 15:24

You ain't just whistlin' dixie. I have problems with brutality. I have problems with cops exceeding the remit of law.

I have no problems with a realistic application of law.

Now - when the crime is something arbitrary (I don't think it should be 'illegal' for someone to be carrying a drug for their own use, for example), I might have a problem with the LAW... but not with the cop, provided he follows reasonable due procedure.

That pretty much was percedure, arrest the suspect, if the suspect resists, use reasonable force. If she assaults the officer, he has the right to protect himself, simple as that.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 15:25

I'm not trying to diminish rape, or fear of rape.

But - clearly - this instance, there is no rape involved. He doesn't even 'touch her inappropriately'. Indeed, if you watch the cam, he looks really uncomfortable having to even restrain her.

I can't run around shooting cops because 'I think they might rape me'... there has to be a small amount of reason applied.

Now if he had left the dashcam off, things might have been a bit suspicious, but as I have said before, he was following procedure.

Non Aligned States

07-10-2007, 15:30

clearly her human right to go about her business was impeded by a police man who decided to create the confrontation.

Bollocks. The town had a curfew for her age group. She was violating it. The policeman was doing his duty.

And I noticed you weren't going to try asking the police in your area about the legality of the issue.

The SR

07-10-2007, 15:31

That pretty much was percedure, arrest the suspect, if the suspect resists, use reasonable force. If she assaults the officer, he has the right to protect himself, simple as that.

suspect? she wasn't even under arrest, ergo the point that her rights were not read to her.

is it appropriate to restrain and cuff a kid who is in breach of curfew? no it most certainly is not. put her in the back seat with the other officer and drive her home. the bacon in question handled the situation far too aggressively and a frighnted child panicked and reacted to being manhandled in a situation she should never have been put in by officers who should know better.

The SR

07-10-2007, 15:34

Bollocks. The town had a curfew for her age group. She was violating it. The policeman was doing his duty.

And I noticed you weren't going to try asking the police in your area about the legality of the issue.

i actually just did. when returning a child home it would be more than his job was worth to apply the cuffs.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 15:36

Bollocks. The town had a curfew for her age group. She was violating it. The policeman was doing his duty.

And I noticed you weren't going to try asking the police in your area about the legality of the issue.

Let me clue you in on something... most of these people are from Europe, so they know about as much as a two year old when it comes to US law enforcement.

Non Aligned States

07-10-2007, 15:39

this girl was not a criminal

BZZT! Wrong! If you persist in having pure calcium in your cranial cavity, there's no help for it. It doesn't change the fact that violating curfew automatically makes her a minor criminal.

Maybe you're the kind that won't consider me a criminal if I stole every penny you owned and caved your skull in either. I'm sure in some banana republic, its not illegal to do so, so I can apply those rules to your part of the world.

That's your own logic right there. Applied against you.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 15:41

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 15:43

suspect? she wasn't even under arrest, ergo the point that her rights were not read to her.

is it appropriate to restrain and cuff a kid who is in breach of curfew? no it most certainly is not. put her in the back seat with the other officer and drive her home. the bacon in question handled the situation far too aggressively and a frighnted child panicked and reacted to being manhandled in a situation she should never have been put in by officers who should know better.

The officer should never have been placed in that situation. If she hadn't been violating curfew, the whole debate would be moot.

Since she WAS breaking the law, she has no real recourse when pulled over or arrested.

Just as a matter of curiousity... how do you get someone who is fighting you... into the back of the police car?

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 15:44

Actually, your the wrong one. Violating a law does make you a minor criminal.

Ain't that what he/she said?

United human countries

07-10-2007, 15:46

Ain't that what he/she said?

Yeah. I've probably got more experince with the law enforcement then most of the guys here. (I'm going to sound like a borken record, but my dad is a cop)

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 15:46

That pretty much was percedure, arrest the suspect, if the suspect resists, use reasonable force. If she assaults the officer, he has the right to protect himself, simple as that.

Exactly - it look pretty much procedure all the way. I'm sure it would be possible to pick tiny details that aren't best practise, but the general application looked fairly by-the-book.

The SR

07-10-2007, 15:47

BZZT! Wrong! If you persist in having pure calcium in your cranial cavity, there's no help for it. It doesn't change the fact that violating curfew automatically makes her a minor criminal.

Maybe you're the kind that won't consider me a criminal if I stole every penny you owned and caved your skull in either. I'm sure in some banana republic, its not illegal to do so, so I can apply those rules to your part of the world.

That's your own logic right there. Applied against you.

breaking a curfew is not a felony. it is a misdemenour and as such not a criminal offence.

as such, the cops should not have restrained her like a criminal.

they should have treated her as a teenage girl of diminutive stature who was found outsider after dark and used their discretion and treated the situation with appropriate actions. pepper spray should never be deployed in a simple drop her home and warn her parents situation.

Non Aligned States

07-10-2007, 15:48

Actually, your the wrong one. Violating a law does make you a minor criminal.

Huh? Where did I say it didn't?

i actually just did. when returning a child home it would be more than his job was worth to apply the cuffs.

Hah! And if the teenager resisted? Like she did? Maybe he should just shrug and go home?

suspect? she wasn't even under arrest, ergo the point that her rights were not read to her.

What kind of factually deprived corner of the world did you crawl out of? Rights are only read once the suspect is compliant and restrained. Reciting someone's rights while they can run away is a waste of breath.

is it appropriate to restrain and cuff a kid who is in breach of curfew? no it most certainly is not.

For non-compliant suspects? It most certainly is. You're insisting that it's not is just plain promoting of resisting arrest under any circumstance and getting a lot more people hurt. Maybe you get off on this kind of thing.

The SR

07-10-2007, 15:51

Exactly - it look pretty much procedure all the way. I'm sure it would be possible to pick tiny details that aren't best practise, but the general application looked fairly by-the-book.

despite the fact she wasnt placed under arrest when the officer tried to cuff her? is it normal practice to restrain 'suspects' and cuff them when they arent under arrest?

this has all the hallmarks of an illegal arrest.

The SR

07-10-2007, 15:52

Well, she did resist arrest and assault an officer... people seem to forget that little bit.

she wasnt under arrest at the time of the 'assault'.

so your hang em and flog em nonsense goes out the window. the cuffs should not have been placed on her so as such she is entitled to resist.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 15:53

breaking a curfew is not a felony. it is a misdemenour and as such not a criminal offence.

as such, the cops should not have restrained her like a criminal.

they should have treated her as a teenage girl of diminutive stature who was found outsider after dark and used their discretion and treated the situation with appropriate actions. pepper spray should never be deployed in a simple drop her home and warn her parents situation.

Well, she did resist arrest and assault an officer... people seem to forget that little bit.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 15:54

...pepper spray should never be deployed in a simple drop her home and warn her parents situation.

It wasn't.

It was deployed in an 'assaulting an office' situation.

Here's your strawman. Enjoy.

Non Aligned States

07-10-2007, 15:55

breaking a curfew is not a felony. it is a misdemenour and as such not a criminal offence.

as such, the cops should not have restrained her like a criminal.

Bzzt! Wrong again! Drunk driving is a misdemeanor, not a felony. But drivers caught doing that when resisting arrest are arrested and restrained the same way as any burglar or murderer.

You just don't plain get it do you? Resisting arrest automatically elevates any petty infraction to a much more serious offense with equally serious responses.

If you obey a bouncer in a bar when he asks you to leave, nothing happens, but if you swing at him, expect to lose teeth. Same principle. Only its legal.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 15:55

What kind of factually deprived corner of the world did you crawl out of? Rights are only read once the suspect is compliant and restrained. Reciting someone's rights while they can run away is a waste of breath.

I believe our SR-friend is trying to apply Irish law to the US.

The SR

07-10-2007, 15:56

Well, she did resist arrest and assault an officer... people seem to forget that little bit.

she wasnt arrested, nor could she have been, for breaking the curfew.

the entire debate hinges on whether US coppers have the right to restrain and cuff children who they were not breaking a criminal code. or anyone.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 15:57

I believe our SR-friend is trying to apply Irish law to the US.

Actually, they do that in the US, right after they have them in cuffs.

Non Aligned States

07-10-2007, 15:57

she wasnt arrested, nor could she have been, for caving in my skull.

Fixed for SR's ludicrousness.

The SR

07-10-2007, 15:59

Fixed for SR's ludicrousness.

are you seriously going to try and compare the 'crimes' of being a child outside after dark and an attempted murder?

this is surreal stuff.

The SR

07-10-2007, 16:00

Yes, you can actually get arrested for it. The curfew exisists to prevent misconduct after hours. Therefore, the officer had all the right to arrest her.

the officer had a right to return her home.

breaking a curfew is not in itself usually a felony.

Non Aligned States

07-10-2007, 16:02

are you seriously going to try and compare the 'crimes' of being a child outside after dark and an attempted murder?

Nope. I'm taking your "wah! wah! I don't like their laws, so any arrest made for it is illegal" whines and applying it to other laws.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 16:02

she wasnt arrested, nor could she have been, for breaking the curfew.

the entire debate hinges on whether US coppers have the right to restrain and cuff children who they were not breaking a criminal code. or anyone.

Yes, you can actually get arrested for it. The curfew exisists to prevent misconduct after hours. Therefore, the officer had all the right to arrest her.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 16:05

Actually, they do that in the US, right after they have them in cuffs.

Preaching to the choir... the point I was making is that I believe SR is Irish, and is debating this issue half as he/she thinks it might be, and half as he/she views Irish law.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 16:06

are you seriously going to try and compare the 'crimes' of being a child outside after dark and an attempted murder?

this is surreal stuff.

No. That's the point. There are different levels of 'crime'... and they vary from place to place.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 16:06

Preaching to the choir... the point I was making is that I believe SR is Irish, and is debating this issue half as he/she thinks it might be, and half as he/she views Irish law.

Makes sense, yeah. IT HAPPENED IN THE US PEOPLE, STOP APPLYING EUROPEAN LAW TO THIS!

United human countries

07-10-2007, 16:09

the officer had a right to return her home.

breaking a curfew is not in itself usually a felony.

Yes, he did have that right, however, he chose to follow the law by the book, which means arrest.

Multiland

07-10-2007, 16:11

I would argue against police brutality (as with the famous taser incident in a U.S. library) but even if the force was an excessive response to the girl biting his hand, it's pretty obvious it was one of those instant reactions where your body clicks into gear before your brain. As for the pepper spray, not only had she bit him already but she continued to resist arrest.

Whether the arrest its self was legal is another matter - did he even tell her why he was arresting her? And was their any need for cuffs in the first place?

I'm just waiting for the mother to play the race card.

The SR

07-10-2007, 16:11

Yes, he did have that right, however, he chose to follow the law by the book, which means arrest.

you cannot arrest someone in the absence of a criminal act.

Non Aligned States

07-10-2007, 16:13

you cannot arrest someone in the absence of a criminal act.

Breaking legally enacted curfew = criminal act. What part of that don't you understand?

If you cannot wrap your head around that concept, then you have no grounds to argue that murder = criminal act.

Which will it be? Criminal act? Or no laws keeping kitchen knives out of your ribs?

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 16:21

you cannot arrest someone in the absence of a criminal act.

Are you trying to claim the whole event never happened, or something?

There is debate over whether the police action was appropriate, or excessive... that's the debate.

The SR

07-10-2007, 16:21

Are you trying to claim the whole event never happened, or something?

There is debate over whether the police action was appropriate, or excessive... that's the debate.

exactly, was it apporpriate to treat this child as a criminal when no criminal act took place.

The SR

07-10-2007, 16:22

Breaking legally enacted curfew = criminal act. What part of that don't you understand?

If you cannot wrap your head around that concept, then you have no grounds to argue that murder = criminal act.

Which will it be? Criminal act? Or no laws keeping kitchen knives out of your ribs?

you do understand the difference between a felony and a misdemenour?

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 16:28

exactly, was it apporpriate to treat this child as a criminal when no criminal act took place.

Criminal act(s) did take place.

You seem to be having some kind of block on this.

OceanDrive2

07-10-2007, 16:29

Breaking legally enacted curfew = criminal act. What part of that don't you understand?

If you cannot wrap your head around that concept, then you have no grounds to argue that murder = criminal act.
speeding = Criminal?

maybe silly a question, I just want to know If I am a criminal, thats all. (I am not entering the debate, dont worry :D )

Non Aligned States

07-10-2007, 16:30

you do understand the difference between a felony and a misdemenour?

I'm not sure you understand the difference between a criminal and non-criminals.

You are arguing that breaking a law does not make you a criminal. Then by that reasoning, breaking any law does not make you a criminal.

You don't get to pick and choose which parts of it you don't like.

You don't get your cake and eat it too.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 16:30

you do understand the difference between a felony and a misdemenour?

What are you talking about? Do you even know?

Florida law allows the police to arrest someone for a felony, or a misdemeanour. What is the point you are trying to make?

Non Aligned States

07-10-2007, 16:31

speeding = Criminal?

So's drunk driving. Jaywalking. It's all criminal. The only difference is the level of criminality. Serious crimes, minor crimes, etc, etc. What did you think a misdemeanor was? By the way, by US federal reckoning, a misdemeanor can get you up to just under a year in jail. Still think that misdemeanors aren't crimes?

But arguing that it's not a crime at all to break a law? There's only one way to go with that reasoning.

Greater Somalia

07-10-2007, 16:32

Wow, did you see how he grabbed her scrawny little arms like that? He was close to dislocating her arms. Also, I thought cameras in police cruisers should be running at all times.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 16:33

speeding = Criminal?

just a question, I want to know If I am a criminal, that all.

Yes. County-jail or less (hence misdemenour, not felony), but still crime.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 16:43

Wow, did you see how he grabbed her scrawny little arms like that? He was close to dislocating her arms. Also, I thought cameras in police cruisers should be running at all times.

I don't know how long the camera was running, I don't have the raw feed.

I don't think he was close to 'disclocating her arms'. Of course, if she was worried he might, why not just stand still instead or running around screaming for mamma? That shit might work with mamma, but it just makes you look stupid in the real world.

Wilgrove

07-10-2007, 17:43

Wow, did you see how he grabbed her scrawny little arms like that? He was close to dislocating her arms. Also, I thought cameras in police cruisers should be running at all times.

Well you know, maybe if she wasn't resisting arrest it wouldn't look like he was about to dislocate her arms.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 17:50

Well you know, maybe if she wasn't resisting arrest it wouldn't look like he was about to dislocate her arms.

Again.. that one detail just keeps getting overlooked.

Oh - and the 'little detail' about her being caught in the (criminal) act to start with...

Gun Manufacturers

07-10-2007, 18:03

but if it subesquently turns out the policeman was acting outside his authority, that is not the case.

as it turned out, the police officer was wrong to detain her. ergo, that simplisitc caveman view of the relationship the police have with the people they are there to protect is inadequate.

this girl was not a criminal, she was not breaking the law and as such should not have been coerced into that situation. the police should not have the arbitrary power to pull kids off the street.

The officer wasn't wrong to detain her, because the girl was breaking a law (being out past curfew). She broke more laws when she resisted arrest and assaulted a police officer.

Gun Manufacturers

07-10-2007, 18:11

breaking a curfew is not a felony. it is a misdemenour and as such not a criminal offence.

as such, the cops should not have restrained her like a criminal.

they should have treated her as a teenage girl of diminutive stature who was found outsider after dark and used their discretion and treated the situation with appropriate actions. pepper spray should never be deployed in a simple drop her home and warn her parents situation.

a misdemeanor IS a criminal offense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor

http://www.co.bingham.id.us/Prosecutor/misdemeanor.htm

Gun Manufacturers

07-10-2007, 18:16

the officer had a right to return her home.

breaking a curfew is not in itself usually a felony.

Felonies aren't the only way a person gets cuffed and arrested, a person in the US can be cuffed and arrested for a misdemeanor.

New Tacoma

07-10-2007, 19:42

I see the police brutality apologists are coming out in force.

I guess its OK to assult people if you have the word 'Officer' in front of your name. Isnt that right Grave n idle?

The SR

07-10-2007, 19:59

a misdemeanor IS a criminal offense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor

http://www.co.bingham.id.us/Prosecutor/misdemeanor.htm

im aware of that, i was responding to the hysteronics about murders and heads being caved in.

this was an inappropriate response by the police. big hammer, small nut. and incredulity that there are curfews in the US that people demand to be enforced like this.

Dinaverg

07-10-2007, 20:25

im aware of that, i was responding to the hysteronics about murders and heads being caved in.

Yes, you're aware of it now that you've read it, you clearly weren't before as you'd testified repeatedly she wasn't a criminal

Others had seen how you call something that clearly was a crime not a crime, and did the same for something else that was clearly a crime.

And could you capitalize, please?

Lame Bums

07-10-2007, 20:33

so allegedly she stole clothes from a store.. or so the police say..
at what time is the curfew at Fort Pierce?.. is it when the stores are still open ??

Key word: resisting arrest.

Andaluciae

07-10-2007, 20:45

speeding = Criminal?

maybe silly a question, I just want to know If I am a criminal, thats all. (I am not entering the debate, dont worry :D )

Actually, yes it is.

In common law countries the justice system is split between criminal and civil law. Criminal law is solely enforced by the government, while civil law is law that is "enforced" by private parties, specifically in regards to dealings between private parties. There is no third category, and given that only the state has the power to enforce speed limits, it is criminal law.

Dinaverg

07-10-2007, 20:46

this was an inappropriate response by the police. big hammer, small nut.

See, you keep saying that and people keep telling you why you're wrong. In fact...

We aren't talking about 'questioning authority'. He did nothing in response to her protestations of innocence, or her questions. He applied pressure when she resisted arrest. He applied reasonable force when she attacked him.

This really isn't that complicated.

~~~

Didn't watch the video, huh?

He didn't 'tug', 'cuff', 'punch' and 'spray' anyone for "simply being out after dark".

He tugged her because she wouldn't allow him to cuff her. He cuffed her because that is a reasonable method of restraint - especially where the person being cuffed is clearly resisting, as she was.

If he 'punched' her (I still say you can't tell what is going on in that vidoe) and peppersprayed her, it's not for "simply being out after dark". It's for assaulting him.

It's hardly a check against him that he escalates, if she just keeps on piling-on the violations.

The SR

07-10-2007, 20:47

See, you keep saying that and people keep telling you why you're wrong. In fact...

Jesus wept.

I am saying that the policemen involved shouldn't be handcuffing her in the first place.

It is an overtly aggressive way to escalate as minor an issue the police can involve themselves in.

option a: "you are out after curfew. please get in the car, we are taking you home"

option b : handcuffs, tears, armtwisting, bites, punches and pepper spray.

if a fails, b may become necessary, but they didnt even try a.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 20:53

Jesus wept.

I am saying that the policemen involved shouldn't be handcuffing her in the first place.

It is an overtly aggressive way to escalate as minor an issue the police can involve themselves in.

option a: "you are out after curfew. please get in the car, we are taking you home"

option b : handcuffs, tears, armtwisting, bites, punches and pepper spray.

if a fails, b may become necessary, but they didnt even try a.

Look, he had the right to arrest her and she resisted. Simple as that, the officer applied reasonable force. Unreasonable force would've been beating her with a baton or threatining to shoot her. Plain and simple. This isn't socialist Europe, its America, learn how the laws work.

The SR

07-10-2007, 20:54

Look, he had the right to arrest her and she resisted. Simple as that, the officer applied reasonable force. Unreasonable force would've been beating her with a baton or threatining to shoot her. Plain and simple. This isn't socialist Europe, its America, learn how the laws work.

I remain unconvinced he had the right to arrest her.

And seeing as crime rates in 'socialist europe' are a fraction of those in the states I'm entertained to take a lecture in law and its application from the yanks.

The SR

07-10-2007, 20:57

You know that, huh?

its been a consistant in the story, the police immediatly went and grabbbed her. no attempt seemed to be made to explain to this kid why she was being lifted.

Dinaverg

07-10-2007, 20:59

but they didnt even try a.
You know that, huh?
Just as a matter of curiousity... how do you get someone who is fighting you... into the back of the police car?

Dinaverg

07-10-2007, 21:03

I remain unconvinced he had the right to arrest her.

Okay, no.

a misdemeanor IS a criminal offense.
im aware of that

So, yes, he did have that right, and you do know it. The matter at hand is how.

And seeing as crime rates in 'socialist europe' are a fraction of those in the states I'm entertained to take a lecture in law and its application from the yanks.

Because not arresting people there's no crime to report...Genius.

To be clear, this is sarcasm, I'm putting out that this situation has near nothin to do with the crime rate of various countries. We also have elections and high crime rates, Europe should stop voting, huh?

The SR

07-10-2007, 21:05

Because not arresting people there's no crime to report...Genius.

To be clear, this is sarcasm, I'm putting out that this situation has near nothin to do with the crime rate of various countries. We also have elections and high crime rates, Europe should stop voting, huh?

What on earth are you talking about? We should stop voting to increase our crime rates to american levels? :confused:

Andaluciae

07-10-2007, 21:11

I remain unconvinced he had the right to arrest her.

And seeing as crime rates in 'socialist europe' are a fraction of those in the states I'm entertained to take a lecture in law and its application from the yanks.

Hardly the case, save for murder, crime rates in Europe and the US are nearly identical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#International_comparison

The prevalence of murder is closely related to the proliferation of urban gangs in the United States, and the perpetuation of the conditions that spawn them, through underdevelopment and investment in poorer communities, especially in education.

Dinaverg

07-10-2007, 21:11

What on earth are you talking about? We should stop voting to increase our crime rates to american levels? :confused:

Okay, read once more and slowly. You are saying that because there's a good deal of crime in America, anything we say on law is void. I find this to be a silly proposition, annd countered with one I found similarly silly, namely that voting is the cause of our crime rates.

Dinaverg

07-10-2007, 21:12

its been a consistant in the story, the police immediatly went and grabbbed her. no attempt seemed to be made to explain to this kid why she was being lifted.

No attempt was filmed, it seems...

Didn't he? He told her a number of times to put her hand behind her back. She didn't do that. He pointed out that what she was doing was 'wrong'.

The 'I didn't know no better' defence won't wash.

Also - he already has one cuff on her as he rings her in cam, and we don't know for sure what he says before he starts the voice recorder.

He could have told her she was violating curfew as he pulled over, approached her, cuffed her... etc.

The SR

07-10-2007, 21:13

Okay, read once more and slowly. You are saying that because there's a good deal of crime in America, anything we say on law is void. I find this to be a silly proposition, annd countered with one I found similarly silly, namely that voting is the cause of our crime rates.

no i didnt. i responded to a jibe that us 'socialists' in europe were ignorant of law and order.

we dont tolerate that from our cops and still have less of them shot in the line of duty in lower crime environment. who is more likely to have the right balance?

The SR

07-10-2007, 21:21

One isn't necessarily causing the other, that's the thing. What you may or may not tolerate has not been shown to have anything to do with your crime rate. Till it has, crime rate has little to say about who is tolerating the right amount, so it really doesn't seem relevant here.

respect for law and order and a positive relationship with the police are major contributors to the crime rate.

if the police are 'at war' with the community, there is more likely to be friction and more difficulty in solving crime. the very fact that there are routine curfews in the US is a sign of the 'us v them' mentality that europe generally has avoided. you have a right to ask an officer of the law why you are being arrested, which according to some of the posters here is not a right USians have.

Dinaverg

07-10-2007, 21:21

no i didnt. i responded to a jibe that us 'socialists' in europe were ignorant of law and order.

we dont tolerate that from our cops and still have less of them shot in the line of duty in lower crime environment. who is more likely to have the right balance?

One isn't necessarily causing the other, that's the thing. What you may or may not tolerate has not been shown to have anything to do with your crime rate. Till it has, crime rate has little to say about who is tolerating the right amount, so it really doesn't seem relevant here.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 21:22

I remain unconvinced he had the right to arrest her.

And seeing as crime rates in 'socialist europe' are a fraction of those in the states I'm entertained to take a lecture in law and its application from the yanks.

He had the right to arrest her. Look it up. Besides, i highly doubt the crime rates in Europe are a fraction of what the our crime rate is. That is wistful thinking.

Katganistan

07-10-2007, 21:23

breaking a curfew is not a felony. it is a misdemenour and as such not a criminal offence.

Then you don't understand what a criminal offense is, or that a misdemeanor IS a criminal offense, punishable by as much as a year in prison if convicted, depending on the the municipality. (Do I think breaking curfew would get her prison time? No.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor

she wasnt under arrest at the time of the 'assault'.

so your hang em and flog em nonsense goes out the window. the cuffs should not have been placed on her so as such she is entitled to resist.

She was in the process of being arrested. Really, stay in school.

The SR

07-10-2007, 21:23

You know, not ever cop in America is shot, its namley in high crime areas like east LA and other places like that. Doesn't mean that Europe has better law enforcement, it just means that the big brother approach works, and I might add that that approach goes against the constitution in the US.

how are we using the big brother approach? you are the ones with curfews and 15 year old girls getting knuckles in the face.

that was ludicrious.

Dinaverg

07-10-2007, 21:24

Then you don't understand what a criminal offense is, or that a misdemeanor IS a criminal offense, punishable by as much as a year in prison if convicted, depending on the the municipality. (Do I think breaking curfew would get her prison time? No.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor

Kat's late, hee. :p

United human countries

07-10-2007, 21:24

no i didnt. i responded to a jibe that us 'socialists' in europe were ignorant of law and order.

we dont tolerate that from our cops and still have less of them shot in the line of duty in lower crime environment. who is more likely to have the right balance?

You know, not ever cop in America is shot, its namley in high crime areas like east LA and other places like that. Doesn't mean that Europe has better law enforcement, it just means that the big brother approach works, and I might add that that approach goes against the constitution in the US.

Katganistan

07-10-2007, 21:28

I see the police brutality apologists are coming out in force.

I guess its OK to assult people if you have the word 'Officer' in front of your name. Isnt that right Grave n idle?

I guess it's ok to break the law, resist arrest, and assault the police officer so long as you're screaming for your mommy, isn't that right, New Tacoma?

Jesus wept.

I am saying that the policemen involved shouldn't be handcuffing her in the first place.

It is an overtly aggressive way to escalate as minor an issue the police can involve themselves in.

option a: "you are out after curfew. please get in the car, we are taking you home"

option b : handcuffs, tears, armtwisting, bites, punches and pepper spray.

if a fails, b may become necessary, but they didnt even try a.

HOW do you know that? Were you there? Do you have another bit of video the rest of us don't have access to, or are you making this up as you go along?

The SR

07-10-2007, 21:30

I guess it's ok to break the law, resist arrest, and assault the police officer so long as you're screaming for your mommy, isn't that right, New Tacoma?

its a questionable law.

its not clear was she being arrested, it would explain why she wasn't read her rights.

its highly debateable whether handcuffs and restraint were necessary after what was a very minor offence.

was it necesarry for the officer to force her into the cuffs. would standing her aside and telling her what was happening and why she was being lagged not a more resonable and sensible approach. a professional policeman should have used his discretion in a circumstance of a hysterical and frightned child.

and what class of clown of a cop lets a 90 lb child get the drop on him?

Dinaverg

07-10-2007, 21:34

respect for law and order and a positive relationship with the police are major contributors to the crime rate.

if the police are 'at war' with the community, there is more likely to be friction and more difficulty in solving crime. the very fact that there are routine curfews in the US is a sign of the 'us v them' mentality that europe generally has avoided. you have a right to ask an officer of the law why you are being arrested, which according to some of the posters here is not a right USians have.

You're going to have to do more than just say that. More specifically:

respect for law and order and a positive relationship with the police are major contributors to the crime rate.

This needs a study.

if the police are 'at war' with the community, there is more likely to be friction and more difficulty in solving crime.

'at war' should be more defined.

the very fact that there are routine curfews in the US is a sign of the 'us v them' mentality that europe generally has avoided.

Police are executive, not legislative

you have a right to ask an officer of the law why you are being arrested, which according to some of the posters here is not a right USians have.

And I'd like to see those posts so they might be corrected

Andaluciae

07-10-2007, 21:36

respect for law and order and a positive relationship with the police are major contributors to the crime rate.

Duh. But your characterization of US police-community relations is imperfect and inaccurate.

if the police are 'at war' with the community, there is more likely to be friction and more difficulty in solving crime. the very fact that there are routine curfews in the US is a sign of the 'us v them' mentality that europe generally has avoided.
Actually, the reason why most youth curfews are in place is not because the police want them in place, but because certain members of the community insist that they be put in place for the "safety of our children."

Furthermore, your characterization that these sorts of curfews are only to be found in the United States is entirely inaccurate. They are found in other places as well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curfew#Different_jurisdictions) In Germany, for example, the national Jugendschutzgesetz takes the form of a curfew. There are curfews in the United Kingdom and the Denmark as well.

you have a right to ask an officer of the law why you are being arrested, which according to some of the posters here is not a right USians have.

No one has said anything along those lines.

Katganistan

07-10-2007, 21:36

how are we using the big brother approach? you are the ones with curfews and 15 year old girls getting knuckles in the face.

that was ludicrious.

1) Where, precisely, did she get knuckles in the face? Or are you simply inferring that as well? Explain how you can tell that was the face and not the shoulder, especially as it didn't rock her head back, Physics, you know?

2) WE don't have cameras every freaking place in public, and address systems to say "Hey you in the white hoodie! Stop nicking that bike!" from the police station.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 21:36

how are we using the big brother approach? you are the ones with curfews and 15 year old girls getting knuckles in the face.

that was ludicrious.

Curfews are neccisary for the underaged. And according to law if an officer of the law is assualted, he has the right to defend himself.

The SR

07-10-2007, 21:39

Curfews are neccisary for the underaged. .

that is a highly debatebable statement to make.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 21:41

I see the police brutality apologists are coming out in force.

I guess its OK to assult people if you have the word 'Officer' in front of your name. Isnt that right Grave n idle?

Don't be a twat.

There is a legal justification for 'reasonable force'. There is no legal justification (in this video) for assaulting a police officer. The officer in question doesn't 'assault' anyone - at least, not in THAT video.

I've stated, in this thread no less, that I have an issue with police brutality. This video isn't police brutality.

Katganistan

07-10-2007, 21:41

its a questionable law.

its not clear was she being arrested, it would explain why she wasn't read her rights.

its highly debateable whether handcuffs and restraint were necessary after what was a very minor offence.

was it necesarry for the officer to force her into the cuffs. would standing her aside and telling her what was happening and why she was being lagged not a more resonable and sensible approach. a professional policeman should have used his discretion in a circumstance of a hysterical and frightned child.

and what class of clown of a cop lets a 90 lb child get the drop on him?

You can't read rights to someone who's trying to get away and not listening. She was in the process of being arrested for breaking curfew and resisting the arrest. She can now add assault.

You just plain don't know that that's NOT what happened before the video. You're making assumptions, and repeating them over and over as if it makes them somehow true.If this evil bastard cop wanted to hurt her, would he be calling her miss and ASKING her to stop fighting, and WARNING her, "I don't want to use force, you're little and I could hurt you?"

Please try to use some common sense. Barring that: don't come visit small town America. If you can't be bothered to obey the cops when they tell you to stop doing something, you'll have a miserable and expensive time, much as I'd have equally as miserable a time if an Irish cop tried to stop me for something and I kept walking or fought them.

Dinaverg

07-10-2007, 21:42

its a questionable law.

Go ahead and question it. In your own thread.

its not clear was she being arrested, it would explain why she wasn't read her rights.

On video.

What kind of factually deprived corner of the world did you crawl out of? Rights are only read once the suspect is compliant and restrained. Reciting someone's rights while they can run away is a waste of breath.

its highly debateable whether handcuffs and restraint were necessary after what was a very minor offence.

Restraint was not necessary strictly because of breaking curfew, but more for resisting arrest.

was it necesarry for the officer to force her into the cuffs. would standing her aside and telling her what was happening and why she was being lagged not a more resonable and sensible approach.

Indeed, and it may well have already been attempted.

Dinaverg

07-10-2007, 21:44

that is a highly debatebable statement to make.

Hey, this forum is all about debate! People have been complaining about low volume, seriously, go make a thread.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 21:44

Jesus wept.

I am saying that the policemen involved shouldn't be handcuffing her in the first place.

You keep saying that, and you keep being wrong.

Totally.

Utterly.

Completely.

Wrong.

He is well within his remit to cuff her, for resisting, if nothing else. She had certainly commited at least one crime already (violation of curfew), there is mention of some possibly stolen goods in the article - she may have already been guilty of two seperate crimes.

If, when picked up, she resisted, there is nothing wrong with cuffing her.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 21:44

Don't be a twat.

There is a legal justification for 'reasonable force'. There is no legal justification (in this video) for assaulting a police officer. The officer in question doesn't 'assault' anyone - at least, not in THAT video.

I've stated, in this thread no less, that I have an issue with police brutality. This video isn't police brutality.

Finaly someone makes sense, I just wish all the Europeans would stop applying European law to an (Keyword) AMERICAN incident, its outrageous, like trying to compare water with rock, it just doesn't work.

Andaluciae

07-10-2007, 21:44

its a questionable law.

It certainly is, but given that it is a law the officer did indeed have a right to arrest her.

its not clear was she being arrested, it would explain why she wasn't read her rights.

Because she was in the process of being arrested, and she was resisting arrest. The Miranda warnings are to be read to an individual in police custody, before they are questioned by the police. She was not being questioned by the police, nor is it certain that she was in police custody, as she was resisting arrest.

Dinaverg

07-10-2007, 21:45

You keep saying that, and you keep being wrong.

Totally.

Utterly.

Completely.

Wrong.

Speaking of, I hope you don't mind me restating you, it's just that it's all been said already. :p

Dinaverg

07-10-2007, 21:46

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 21:46

I remain unconvinced he had the right to arrest her.

That doesn't matter. You know nothing about the US legal system, apparently. The sensible thing would be to hide your ignorance by shutting up, learn from the knowledge of others, and quit arguing about things you fail to comprehend.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

Andaluciae

07-10-2007, 21:48

Question: When, during the process, do you think a police officer must read the rights?

I believe a crash course in Miranda would be appropriate for SR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning).

Don't you think?

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 21:50

its not clear was she being arrested, it would explain why she wasn't read her rights.

Question: When, during the process, do you think a police officer must read the rights?

United human countries

07-10-2007, 21:51

That doesn't matter. You know nothing about the US legal system, apparently. The sensible thing would be to hide your ignorance by shutting up, learn from the knowledge of others, and quit arguing about things you fail to comprehend.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

Good advice, (I know I'm brining up something about Europe) Isn't that what the Americans in the thread have been trying to say for the last, oh, 15 pages?

Dinaverg

07-10-2007, 21:52

Good advice, (I know I'm brinign up something about Europe) Isn't that what the Americans in the thread have been trying to say for the lat, oh, 18 pages?

Actually I live in Luxembourg, I can't be arsed to adjust my location accordingly. The more intelligent people have been trying to say that, country irrelevant. :p

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 21:53

Finaly someone makes sense, I just wish all the Europeans would stop applying European law to an (Keyword) AMERICAN incident, its outrageous, like trying to compare water with rock, it just doesn't work.

I'm a Euro too... well, a Euro living in the states.

But - as you say - this isn't in the right geography to be worrying about the specifics of European jurisprudence. She was busted for curfew violation in Florida... not Venice or Bognor. Florida law ftw.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 21:57

I'm a Euro too... well, a Euro living in the states.

But - as you say - this isn't in the right geography to be worrying about the specifics of European jurisprudence. She was busted for curfew violation in Florida... not Venice or Bognor. Florida law ftw.

Oh, well, good to see you based your laws of the actual laws and not assumptions.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 21:57

Speaking of, I hope you don't mind me restating you, it's just that it's all been said already. :p

I laughed about it the second time I saw it... I felt bad for making all your arguments before you got here. :D

Of course I don't mind - there's no point everyone flogging the same horse. :)

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 22:01

Oh, well, good to see you based your laws of the actual laws and not assumptions.

Is true. If I was ignorant of Florida law, I wouldn't be trying to preach what I thought it might (should?) be.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 22:03

Is true. If I was ignorant of Florida law, I wouldn't be trying to preach what I thought it might (should?) be.

Yeah, I think this thread's pretty much dead now. All the reason must've scared off the assumers. Finally, a victory.

Dinaverg

07-10-2007, 22:05

Yeah, I think this thread's pretty much dead now. All the reason must've scared off the assumers. Finally, a victory.
lol, unrelated link
Don't celebrate too early. But a congratulatory round of drinks (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540098) might be okay.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 22:09

Well, drinks are better then watching the trolls over run this thread. Cheers.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 22:15

I believe a crash course in Miranda would be appropriate for SR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning).

Don't you think?

It's funny - SR has constantly complained about the 'law and order' version of American jurisprudence... but, it would seem that is where he/she gets all his/her 'expertise' from.

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 22:16

Well, drinks are better then watching the trolls over run this thread. Cheers.

Just finished the first bottle. Way ahead of you.

United human countries

07-10-2007, 22:16

It's funny - SR has constantly complained about the 'law and order' version of American jurisprudence... but, it would seem that is where he/she gets all his/her 'expertise' from.

Yeah.

Verdigroth

07-10-2007, 22:32

suspect? she wasn't even under arrest, ergo the point that her rights were not read to her.

is it appropriate to restrain and cuff a kid who is in breach of curfew? no it most certainly is not. put her in the back seat with the other officer and drive her home. the bacon in question handled the situation far too aggressively and a frighnted child panicked and reacted to being manhandled in a situation she should never have been put in by officers who should know better.

Rights are only needed to make statements given by the suspect admissable in court. The downside being you can not used statements made by the perp if you don't read them their rights. You don't have to read them their rights...as long as you don't want to use any of their statements as evidence against them.

Seathornia

07-10-2007, 22:57

Did you even bother to watch the video?

No.

She manages to yell out (yell, not wheeze) at least three times that she 'can't breathe'... and at least one other phrase. Clearly, "I can't breathe" is not true.

Meh. Didn't really care either way on this part anyway.

If you honestly believe "It's perfectly possible to be able to expel air while not being able to get any in..." (and you think it applies to the extent in the video), then I have a nice perpetual-motion machine you might like to buy.

Try putting a pillow over your mouth. When you breathe in, the pillow will move in and block your mouth. When you breathe out, the air will push the pillow away. There you go - you can breathe out but not in.

No. Let's not change them.

The police force has a different set of rules and considerations which apply. Trying to turn this into 'but he's a man, and she's just a girl...' ignores the fact that his badge is a meaningful symbol of authority. He is authorised to arrest her - and she refuses.

He may be authorized to arrest her, but he should have to tell her why and at least have the decency to do that.

And yes, I will change it, because officer or not, we've seen that people of authority aren't all do-gooders (see priests with small boys).

I might see a case of self-defence, if a cop tries to "arrest" her so that he can have his way with her. That wasn't the case, of course, but I would certainly understand it if a young female teenager would fight back against an adult male. Hence why I said he should have been clearer about why she was being arrested, not just that she was being arrested.

Why would she be? I'm not saying it's impossible, but you are borrowing excuses with no justification. Have you read somewhere that she has claimed that defence, or are you pulling it out of your ass?

Because there is a man, stronger and older than her, trying to cuff her and not offering any reason other than "because I said so". That's why she could be worried.

I haven't read that she's claimed that defence, but I'm not pulling it out of my ass either. I am working a hypothetical into a real situation.

And, of course, people arrested, charged with a crime, and even serving time, are always the most reliable witnesses to their own culpability.

Culpability was not what I was referring to. What I was referring to was, if you think you're innocent and someone claims you're guilty, but doesn't tell you what you're guilty of and proceeds to try to arrest you based on this, would you not defend yourself?

You need an actual reason to arrest, even if that reason is a suspicion.

Which makes her wrong, also. She did a number of things wrong. She violated curfew - which is 'wrong'. She resisted arrest - which is 'wrong'. She assaulted a police officer - which is 'wrong'.

Resisting arrest and assaulting would actually not be wrong, if indeed she was acting in self-defence.

She did violate a curfew, but wasn't, according to the transcript, ever informed of this.

Didn't he? He told her a number of times to put her hand behind her back. She didn't do that. He pointed out that what she was doing was 'wrong'.

So she was being arrested for resisting arrest? Nice circular logic there.

The 'I didn't know no better' defence won't wash.

Which wouldn't be the defence I am claiming.

Being worried is one thing. You seem to be ignoring the fact that - before the story starts - she was already guilty. He had a reason, that she knew damn well... she was violating curfew. She proceeded to give him a number of further reasons, also.

Did she know damn well that she was violating curfew?

I can't claim it either way and I don't. I merely try to offer a plausible explanation for why the girl acted how she did, while the police officer acted correctly, while still being able to act better than that.

He told her to put hands behind her back. He had one wrist cuffed. You don't have to be Einstein to work out why the other hand needs to go behind the back, too. And - again - you ASSUME he hasn't told her why he is arresting her.

The other cuff has to go behind the back so that she can't resist once he decides to start raping her? [/sarcasm]

But yes, I did make that assumption, because it seemed a plausible assumption to make. About the best reason I can come up for her biting him is in self-defence. In any other case I can come up with, she'd be in the wrong and there'd be no point arguing, would there?

Seathornia

07-10-2007, 23:03

That's a bad thing? :/

I like arguing so...

...yes?

Well, it is good that the cop was indeed arresting her for the breaking the curfew and not doing anything worse.

Dinaverg

07-10-2007, 23:03

In any other case I can come up with, she'd be in the wrong and there'd be no point arguing, would there?

That's a bad thing? :/

Grave_n_idle

07-10-2007, 23:11

What I was referring to was, if you think you're innocent and someone claims you're guilty, but doesn't tell you what you're guilty of and proceeds to try to arrest you based on this, would you not defend yourself?

She was out past curfew. Enough sais. No further grounds needed.

So she was being arrested for resisting arrest? Nice circular logic there.

No - that was one of her offences. She KNEW she was doing wrong.

Layarteb

08-10-2007, 00:01

So she stole clothes and bit a cop while resisting arrest...I bet that taught her not to do those two things again.

Just like the idiot who got tasered, she got what she deserved. Rule #1 DON'T FIGHT WITH THE DAMN COPS AND LISTEN TO THEIR WARNINGS PEOPLE!!!!

Also, to go with my favorite Facebook group:

"How about instead of Fuck the Police, Stop Breaking the Law Asshole!"

Non Aligned States

08-10-2007, 01:26

I remain unconvinced he had the right to arrest her.

Rights are granted by law, not inherent. Laws differ from place to place. They affect what you can get arrested for. Get that in your skull.

Your arguments were used unsuccessfully by drug smuggling tourists in Asia. They were notified like every other passenger about the penalty of drug smuggling, but still did it. They were hung, just like all other drug smugglers.

A crime is a crime. Doing one makes you a criminal, no matter the offense. You can be arrested for any of them. Especially if you're non-compliant with the law.

no i didnt. i responded to a jibe that us 'socialists' in europe were ignorant of law and order.

You are ignorant of American law and order. That much is clear.

European police would be eaten alive by American criminals. They are much more violently inclined than European criminals.

NationStates Jolt Archive

# Video Shows Cop Punching 15-year-old girl During Arrest