NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/VIDEO/80219034/1060/NEWS01

She was pretty erratic, she may have just tripped head first into the floor being unable to stop herself since she is cuffed.

I don't know if anyone here has seen this news story, but its things like this that keep me from ever completly trusting the police.

Story: http://www.insideedition.com/news.aspx?storyID=1319
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080220/NEWS03/302200001/1060/NEWS01

I'm sorry I'm having trouble finding the video of the ordeal.

Am I the only one that finds this officer's story sounds a bit false?

I don't know if anyone here has seen this news story, but its things like this that keep me from ever completly trusting the police.

Story: http://www.insideedition.com/news.aspx?storyID=1319
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080220/NEWS03/302200001/1060/NEWS01

I'm sorry I'm having trouble finding the video of the ordeal.

Am I the only one that finds this officer's story sounds a bit false?

Me personally, if I had been that officer, considering how 'combatative' she was being, I would have wanted the camera running to show that I didn't do anything wrong (unless of course his story is bs and hers is true). I guess what I'm trying to say is that it seems rather fishy at best.

We're supposed to believe she sustained that laundry list of injuries from a fall?

I love it when the cops insult the intelligence of the people t hey're supposed to be serving. I think that says a lot about what they really think of us.

Judging by the extent of her injuries and the fact the officer turned the camera off, I'd say that doesn't seem like he just fell.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/VIDEO/80219034/1060/NEWS01

She was pretty erratic, she may have just tripped head first into the floor being unable to stop herself since she is cuffed.

I'm sorry, the video looks like the camera was intentionally blocked, then when it comes back she's laying in a puddle of blood. This does not speak to an accident.

If she got all that from a fall she must have fallen from the roof...


...onto a fence....

...face first.

I'm sorry, the video looks like the camera was intentionally blocked, then when it comes back she's laying in a puddle of blood. This does not speak to an accident.

If you read the article, the camera was blocked by the officer going over to turn it off.

We're supposed to believe she sustained that laundry list of injuries from a fall?

I love it when the cops insult the intelligence of the people t hey're supposed to be serving. I think that says a lot about what they really think of us.

You can actually sustain pretty hefty injuries if you fall head first into a floor and are unable to stop yourself with your hands. I know someone who seriously injured his face and nose just by falling head first off a stationary longboard.

There is exactly zero reason to have turned the camera off and back on. Did he think no one would catch the little, insignificant fact that he turns off the camera and it comes back on with her in a pool of her own blood? This screams police abuse.

You can actually sustain pretty hefty injuries if you fall head first into a floor and are unable to stop yourself with your hands. I know someone who seriously injured his face and nose just by falling head first off a stationary longboard.

I'm not doubting you, but i must also ask, why was the camera turned off, and not kept on so that his claim of evidence would have some pretty strong back-up? Also, if it was clear she was falling, or about to fall, why was he not courteous enough to try and help prevent her fall, to catch her, or to at least slow her fall enough to where she was not so seriously injured. There are far too many questions that I can think of to be satisfied with a simple "she fell and hurt herself."

Last I heard, there is a Federal Investigation into this matter, and if turns out the officer in question is innocent, then I will post on here again and publicly apologise for assuming his guilt when all availible evidence pointed towards it. You can bet I'm going to keep an eye on this story.

I don't know if anyone here has seen this news story, but its things like this that keep me from ever completly trusting the police. **SNIP***Am I the only one that finds this officer's story sounds a bit false?

I lived in the Shreveport-Bossier area for 15 years on three different tours to Barksdale AFB. I even worked part time as a security guard at the "charity" hospital emergency room.
I have little doubt the cop beat the shit out of this lady. :mad: I doubt this happened by slamming her into a door or wall or by her tripping over a chair. :rolleyes:

http://cmsimg.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=D9&Date=20080220&Category=NEWS03&ArtNo=302200001&Ref=AR&Profile=1060&MaxW=375&border=0

Firing is not enough. Any other person without a badge who did that would find themself in prison. He should as well.


If he wasnt going to do anything wrong, why did he turn the fucking camera off? Theyre there for a reason you dumb pig.


*seethes with anger*

I... I'm not sure what to say. He either needs to be sent to a psychiatrist, or prison. Why the heck would he beat her for refusing to take a breathalizer?!? And if that didn't explain it, no I don't believe the cop.

[Poirot-accent]

Ah, mes amies, you are jumping to the conclusions, I think.

If Monsieur Wiley was indeed turning off the camera for the chance to gravely injure Miss Angela, then consider this: Why would he then choose to turn it on again with the extent of her injuries in plain sight?

[/Poirot-accent]

What has me disturbed besides the damage is the fact somebody was standing in front of the camera and the sound getting cut.

The cops worked her over.

What is up with the police these days?

[Poirot-accent]

Ah, mes amies, you are jumping to the conclusions, I think.

If Monsieur Wiley was indeed turning off the camera for the chance to gravely injure Miss Angela, then consider this: Why would he then choose to turn it on again with the extent of her injuries in plain sight?

[/Poirot-accent]

Because hes not bright?



There is absolutally NO REASON to have turned the camera off. None. Why would he do it? Theyre there for a reason, and he knew it.

You can actually sustain pretty hefty injuries if you fall head first into a floor and are unable to stop yourself with your hands. I know someone who seriously injured his face and nose just by falling head first off a stationary longboard.

yes, you can hurt yourself if you fall, but if she fell, she;d also have a broken nose. She doesn't. You don't end up looking like a raccoon from a fall.

Rolling squid;13469051']yes, you can hurt yourself if you fall, but if she fell, she;d also have a broken nose. She doesn't. You don't end up looking like a raccoon from a fall.

You end looking like raccoon if you face-plant with you hands cuffed behind you.

And none of this would have happened if she hadn't gotten drunk in the first place.

You end looking like raccoon if you face-plant with you hands cuffed behind you.

And none of this would have happened if she hadn't gotten drunk in the first place.

Excellent arguement. She got drunk and therefore deserves for a cop to take advantage of his position of authority and handcuff her and beat the crap out of her.


Is a woman's fault too when she gets raped because shs good looking and wore that slutty, slutty skirt?:rolleyes:

I don't know if anyone here has seen this news story, but its things like this that keep me from ever completly trusting the police.

Story: http://www.insideedition.com/news.aspx?storyID=1319
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080220/NEWS03/302200001/1060/NEWS01

I'm sorry I'm having trouble finding the video of the ordeal.

Am I the only one that finds this officer's story sounds a bit false?

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/VIDEO/80219034/1060/NEWS01
It does sound bad on Inside Edition -- but their entire raison d'etre is to sensationalize things. I'd stick with the Shreveport times version thus far.

That said, I think the officer was foolish to turn off the tape -- it looks pretty damning. You'd have to wonder how stupid one would have to be to turn on then shut off a tape that could potentially have documented that she indeed fell and that he did not mistreat her -- because now it certainly looks like he turned the tape off to beat her.

I would say the fact that he was fired says that the police department thought it was pretty peculiar, too.

I would say the fact that he was fired says that the police department thought it was pretty peculiar, too.

Not to mention it is 100% againts protocall for this exact reason.

You end looking like raccoon if you face-plant with you hands cuffed behind you.


Ahh no. You don't.



And none of this would have happened if she hadn't gotten drunk in the first place.

Hey I like that logic! It the same kind of "reasoning" of she wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't dressed like that!

Rolling squid;13469051']yes, you can hurt yourself if you fall, but if she fell, she;d also have a broken nose. She doesn't. You don't end up looking like a raccoon from a fall.

"where she was treated for a broken nose, a fractured cheek bone and bruises on various parts of her body. Two of her teeth were knocked out."

You need to read more carefully. She does have a broken nose.
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080220/NEWS03/302200001/1060/NEWS01

You end looking like raccoon if you face-plant with you hands cuffed behind you.

And none of this would have happened if she hadn't gotten drunk in the first place.

No, you don't, you end up with a broken nose and even bruises, not two black eyes.

And as for the last part, people have already covered it, but getting beaten is not he punishment for refusing to take a breathalyser, it's well within your rights to refuse.

EDIT: "where she was treated for a broken nose, a fractured cheek bone and bruises on various parts of her body. Two of her teeth were knocked out."

You need to read more carefully. She does have a broken nose.
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080220/NEWS03/302200001/1060/NEWS01


hmm, the bruising would still be more even if she fell. And that still doesn't explain the Camera being covered.

Not to mention it is 100% againts protocall for this exact reason.

Not according to the article... though take it with a huge grain of salt, being a statement from his attorney:

"Brainard maintains Willis followed procedure and did not try to mistreat Garbarino. But she was “belligerent” and kept trying to leave the testing area, Brainard said.

In dealing with a DWI suspect, officers turn on a video camera to record the breath testing, according to police. Once that’s done, they turn it off and go into another room for processing. The taping itself is to be used as evidence in court.

“After her refusal to take the breath test, officer Willis turned off and saved the videotape in accordance with normal practice,” Brainard said. “The suspect again tried to leave the room. In the process of (Willis) stopping her, she fell and injured herself.”

Willis called 911 then turned the video camera back on, Brainard said. Blood was only on Garbarino and the floor, which supports Willis’ version, Brainard said."

Not according to the article... though take it with a huge grain of salt, being a statement from his attorney:

According to the cops in my family, you never turn off the camera in an interogation room for this exact reason.

When you enter, its on. You dont turn it off until you leave, with your suspect going out before you do.

It may very from station to station, but I cant imagine that.

Rolling squid;13469134']No, you don't, you end up with a broken nose and even bruises, not two black eyes.

And as for the last part, people have already covered it, but getting beaten is not he punishment for refusing to take a breathalyser, it's well within your rights to refuse.

EDIT:


hmm, the bruising would still be more even if she fell. And that still doesn't explain the Camera being covered.

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/broken_nose/page3_em.htm#Broken%20Nose%20Symptoms

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/broken-nose/DS00992

http://health.yahoo.com/emergency-injury/broken-nose-nasal-fracture/healthwise--aa49289spec.html

http://www.entnet.org/healthinfo/nose/surgery_nose.cfm

http://www.healthsquare.com/mc/fgmc0724.htm


All these mention bruising and black eyes can result from a break.

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/black_eye/page2_em.htm

This one tells how one or both eyes may be bruised by a blow to the face or nose.

According to the cops in my family, you never turn off the camera in an interogation room for this exact reason.

When you enter, its on. You dont turn it off until you leave, with your suspect going out before you do.

It may very from station to station, but I cant imagine that.

Well, the bolded part of the statement was apparently from the police. So YMMV.

According to the cops in my family, you never turn off the camera in an interogation room for this exact reason.

When you enter, its on. You dont turn it off until you leave, with your suspect going out before you do.

It may very from station to station, but I cant imagine that.

Exactly.

Camera goes off, comes back on, suspect is lying on the floor in a pool of blood. Regardless of what happened, what do you think most people are going to think?

Also, after seeing the video, when the camera comes back on, the officer is nowhere to be seen, and she is facing away from the wall. If she was trying to escape and then fell, why is she facing away from the wall?

Because hes not bright?
I think it stretches the boundaries of plausibility to assert that someone can be dull enough to think that he could get away with turning the camera off to beat someone up then turn it back on again to show their battered body in a confined room.

Okay, he obviously wanted to do something that would have compromised him on the record (leave her unsupervised while he went off for a coffee break? Make a pass at her? Give her a slap? Many possibilities exist), and for that alone he probably deserved to get chucked off the force, but I still think we're premature in saying that the evidence we have is conclusive that he assaulted her. The recommencing of the video tape is one reason I have for thinking a relook is worthwhile; the fact that she knew it was on in the first place is another.

EDIT: The idea of turning off the camera as part of standard procedure raises again the second question; why turn it back on again?

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/VIDEO/80219034/1060/NEWS01
It does sound bad on Inside Edition -- but their entire raison d'etre is to sensationalize things. I'd stick with the Shreveport times version thus far.

That said, I think the officer was foolish to turn off the tape -- it looks pretty damning. You'd have to wonder how stupid one would have to be to turn on then shut off a tape that could potentially have documented that she indeed fell and that he did not mistreat her -- because now it certainly looks like he turned the tape off to beat her.

I would say the fact that he was fired says that the police department thought it was pretty peculiar, too.

I must admit the inside edition story did get my blood boiling.

That said, I still must wonder how she was even allowed to fall in the first place.
If she was escaping, why was he not there restraining her? If she did fall, why did he not at least try to slow her fall, if not catch her or prevent it outright?
There are so many questions, and there is a federal investigation going on over the matter.

Not saying this is right, but one incident of a cop beating someone is given more attention than the thousands of cases of abuse women experience everyday.

EDIT: The idea of turning off the camera as part of standard procedure raises again the second question; why turn it back on again?

Might -- and I only say might -- have been that if she fell and did that much to herself, he thought he'd better document what happened after to show he got her help and that he was not bloodied himself.

Otherwise... I can't see much reason to turn it back on to record that a prisoner in your care was banged to hell and back.

Might -- and I only say might -- have been that if she fell and did that much to herself, he thought he'd better document what happened after to show he got her help and that he was not bloodied himself.

Otherwise... I can't see much reason to turn it back on to record that a prisoner in your care was banged to hell and back.

that's the trick of the thing, the camera wasn't turned AFAIK, another officer was just standing in front of it.

Rolling squid;13469447']that's the trick of the thing, the camera wasn't turned AFAIK, another officer was just standing in front of it.

Read the article...
It was turned off.

The most egregious travesty isn't that the woman got beat to fuck, but that everybody within driving distance of Louisiana hasn't ganged up and returned the favor to the pig. Democracy is fucked when vested authorities are so tolerated to abuse.

The most egregious travesty isn't that the woman got beat to fuck, but that everybody within driving distance of Louisiana hasn't ganged up and returned the favor to the pig. Democracy is fucked when vested authorities are so tolerated to abuse.

:confused:

This is truly a statement that one can support both morally and through common sense.

Might -- and I only say might -- have been that if she fell and did that much to herself, he thought he'd better document what happened after to show he got her help and that he was not bloodied himself.

Otherwise... I can't see much reason to turn it back on to record that a prisoner in your care was banged to hell and back.

So you think she fell or walked into the door?

Not saying this is right, but one incident of a cop beating someone is given more attention than the thousands of cases of abuse women experience everyday.

Maybe because the cops are supposed to be the ones PROTECTING us.

And, I personally wouldn't bother turning a camera on just to catch her a bloody mess on the floor. I'd be concerning myself with her and her well-being. I don't know, he IS a cop and trained to handle this stuff, but I'd still be in such a hurry to get her immediate attention (if she DID fall, how do you know an injury with that much blood wouldn't have possibly caused her some serious internal trauma?) that I wouldn't remember to turn a camera on.

Well, but that's me. I'd also leave the camera on if she was being so difficult just to cover my own ass...

After the cop says "Lie down, lie down, don't move.", why is there no further audio? And why does it look like he's smirking as he's walking out of the room while she's obviously saying something to him?

oh my fucking god. I was not expecting to see blood on the floor and shit. Even before that I was saying fuck that son of a bitch .. he had no need to freakin slam her up against the wall. Cops don't like it when you mention you have a right to anything.

I dunno man.. She wasn't balls drunk or anything .. so I seriously doubt she would've slammed her teeth into the floor. That fucking pig. And I don't mean just pig as in cop.. I mean pig as in person too.

Put it this way .. if there was nothing to hide .. the video wouldn't be cut.. period.

And oh yeah .. I saw the other cop snickering .. or crying? I can't tell. It looks like he's about to bust in to tears actually.. but again I can't tell. Or maybe no he's snickering .. I dunno. dammit. Much more likely he'd be snickering than crying .. being he's a cop.

oh my fucking god. I was not expecting to see blood on the floor and shit. Even before that I was saying fuck that son of a bitch .. he had no need to freakin slam her up against the wall. Cops don't like it when you mention you have a right to anything.

I dunno man.. She wasn't balls drunk or anything .. so I seriously doubt she would've slammed her teeth into the floor. That fucking pig. And I don't mean just pig as in cop.. I mean pig as in person too.

Put it this way .. if there was nothing to hide .. the video wouldn't be cut.. period.

And oh yeah .. I saw the other cop snickering. That's bull shit man.

Yeah, her blood alcahol may have been over the legal limit, though she definitely wasn't smashed. I'd say slightly intoxicated at the most...

And oh yeah .. I saw the other cop snickering .. or crying? I can't tell. It looks like he's about to bust in to tears actually.. but again I can't tell. But it sure looks like it.

It's hard to tell, sure, but if he is about to break down like that, it might be over the fact that he beat the shit out of her and realised that he did something horribly wrong.

It'd be a lot easier to call if the audio didn't cut out so abruptly.

Yeah, her blood alcahol may have been over the legal limit, though she definitely wasn't smashed. I'd say slightly intoxicated at the most...



It's hard to tell, sure, but if he is about to break down like that, it might be over the fact that he beat the shit out of her and realised that he did something horribly wrong.

It'd be a lot easier to call if the audio didn't cut out so abruptly.

Yeah. She was definitely not hammered or jacked up too far. She handled it better than I would've sober, if I had gotten pissed off and seen red.

And sorry for changing my post so many times. I was changing it as I was re watching the video over and over.

Yeah. Lack of audio sucks.

And sorry for changing my post so many times. I was changing it as I was re watching the video over and over.

Don't worry, I tend to do that as well.

But notice that she's still talking while he's walking away, and it looks like he's about to burst with laughter, so he hides his mouth from the camera. I don't see any squinting of the eyes, which is what happens when somebody is about to cry... Looks pretty fucking bad to me.

Don't worry, I tend to do that as well.

But notice that she's still talking while he's walking away, and it looks like he's about to burst with laughter, so he hides his mouth from the camera. I don't see any squinting of the eyes, which is what happens when somebody is about to cry... Looks pretty fucking bad to me.


I think you are right. This is fucked up.

And I do not think a fall would do all that .. (I just read the posts in the thread) .. Yes a hard hit to the nose can black eyes.. everyone knows when you bust a nose break a nose you're going to look like a raccoon.

My first thought was if the cop didn't do this.. she would've had to have slammed her face into the floor herself. But being cuffed already on the floor I still don't think she could've done this much damage. Falling face first .. a broken nose maybe .. but not knocked out teeth too. Or knocked teeth and no broken nose.. I just don't see an accidental fall causing both.. even though she was cuffed she could've and would've broken her fall one way or the other.. it's not like she was so smashed she couldn't.

I don't believe she did it to herself or it was an accidental fall. .. I think a cop slammed her freakin head into the floor. And the removal of audio and cutting off of the recording .. and that last cops expression when he's leaving .. well.

I've dealt with plenty of bigger, stronger, drunker, and more violent detainees than that without anyone getting hurt, and I'm smaller (and probably less experienced) than the cop in question. He doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I'm with whoever expressed amazement that he just got fired, not charged with a serious criminal assault.

I've dealt with plenty of bigger, stronger, drunker, and more violent detainees than that without anyone getting hurt, and I'm smaller (and probably less experienced) than the cop in question. He doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I'm with whoever expressed amazement that he just got fired, not charged with a serious criminal assault.
I'm surprised that he got fired. If it happened in Minneapolis, he probably would have been promoted while the city coughed up a few hundred thousand-dollar settlement.

Look, I'm no lawyer, judge, policeman or anything like that. Looking at statements from everyone, it seems either case could be argued. My statement is purely intuitive.

But, if she did fall, while I know that noses can be broken, eyes blacked an bruise made, and even blood produced, I find it hard to believe that a fucking pool of blood could come out of a fall like that.

Look, I'm no lawyer, judge, policeman or anything like that. Looking at statements from everyone, it seems either case could be argued. My statement is purely intuitive.

But, if she did fall, while I know that noses can be broken, eyes blacked an bruise made, and even blood produced, I find it hard to believe that a fucking pool of blood could come out of a fall like that.

okay, it doesn't take much blood to make a pool, and people can look like they bleed out alot more than they actually do. but even then this still sounds dodgy, definately something wrong with the statements.

I think it's clear from reading this thread, if nothing else, that cops have a very serious PR problem. There was a time when a police officer was considered beyond reproach, and when a cop was proven to have committed wrongdoing, it was a sincere shock to the community. Now, we hear about something like this and nobody's surprised. If anything, we're glad that one got caught for a change.

FWIW there's a lot of TV drama that's written from a perspective that's sympathetic to the police, like Law & Order for one. They tend to portray the Constitution and defense attorneys for suspects as though it were all a bunch of unneccessary and superfluous barriers to getting their job done. I think that's dangerous because it tends to give people the idea that the police ought to be above the law, especially the police.

We live in a time where a male doctor can't be alone with a female patient but a male cop can be alone with a female suspect. I don't know about you guys, but I tend to think doctors, in general, are more trustworthy.

And the police departments of the nation need to understand that we don't trust them anymore. It's not because we're paranoid. It's not because we're trying to get away with something. It's because the average cop has an attitude that somehow they deserve a level of personal respect that they don't necessarily deserve. This makes people uneasy, because of the level of power they're entrusted with. We need to know they can handle it. We need to know they deserve it. We don't need cowboys.

What really scares me is how militaristic many police departments are becoming. Ever notice how they used to wear slacks, shirts and a tie on duty? Many departments now have their officers wearing fatigues and web gear. (And not just S.W.A.T. teams. The last traffic ticket I got was issued by an officer wearing blue fatigues and combat boots.)

Whatever you may think of this particular incident, people's reactions are indicative of the current state of affairs between the civilian population and the police. It's getting worse, and somethig has GOT to change soon.

I think it's clear from reading this thread, if nothing else, that cops have a very serious PR problem. There was a time when a police officer was considered beyond reproach, and when a cop was proven to have committed wrongdoing, it was a sincere shock to the community. Now, we hear about something like this and nobody's surprised. If anything, we're glad that one got caught for a change.

FWIW there's a lot of TV drama that's written from a perspective that's sympathetic to the police, like Law & Order for one. They tend to portray the Constitution and defense attorneys for suspects as though it were all a bunch of unneccessary and superfluous barriers to getting their job done. I think that's dangerous because it tends to give people the idea that the police ought to be above the law, especially the police.

We live in a time where a male doctor can't be alone with a female patient but a male cop can be alone with a female suspect. I don't know about you guys, but I tend to think doctors, in general, are more trustworthy.

And the police departments of the nation need to understand that we don't trust them anymore. It's not because we're paranoid. It's not because we're trying to get away with something. It's because the average cop has an attitude that somehow they deserve a level of personal respect that they don't necessarily deserve. This makes people uneasy, because of the level of power they're entrusted with. We need to know they can handle it. We need to know they deserve it. We don't need cowboys.

What really scares me is how militaristic many police departments are becoming. Ever notice how they used to wear slacks, shirts and a tie on duty? Many departments now have their officers wearing fatigues and web gear. (And not just S.W.A.T. teams. The last traffic ticket I got was issued by an officer wearing blue fatigues and combat boots.)

Whatever you may think of this particular incident, people's reactions are indicative of the current state of affairs between the civilian population and the police. It's getting worse, and somethig has GOT to change soon.

I am saddened by instances like this, but I still consider police forces on the whole to be staffed by good people doing a dangerous but necessary job for the good of society. More isolated departments need more oversight, yes, but at the end of the day, most officers of the law are there to protect us.

As for militarism, well.. look at the crime we have today. Hell, gangs are armed with weapons that would flatter a third-world revolutionary group. You have a whole cultural subset that glorifies violence against police (and people in general). And you have a nation who was struck by a terrorist attack and became so inflamed as a result that I'm sure police in combat fatigues are a welcome sight amongst some people.

I don't want to paint the police as some benevolent, altruistic organization beyond condemnation, but I do think they get an awfully bad rap sometimes. Yes, some unfortunate people have made it into the system, but that goes for pretty much every institution everywhere. And despite incidents like this, there are still many, many good people out there doing their best to keep us safe.

I'm surprised that he got fired. If it happened in Minneapolis, he probably would have been promoted while the city coughed up a few hundred thousand-dollar settlement.
Second. Usually when shit like this goes down, the cop goes on paid administrative leave until it blows over.

So you think she fell or walked into the door?

I'm not sure where you came to the conclusion that I have come to any conclusion as yet...
People said "you don't get black eyes from having your nose broken". I provided links to show they do.
People concluded the ONLY reason the camera was turned off was to beat her and it was "against procedure". I pointed people back to the article where it stated the procedure.
People stated "she had not broken her nose, therefore the black eyes were a result of a beating". I pointed them back to the article where it clearly stated she had broken her nose.

Conclusions have been made in this thread -- but not by me. I've stated several times that it certainly looks bad for him, but that's all any of us could honestly say. I don't know what happened in that room. Neither do any of you. Internal affairs, federal authorities, and a court of law will decide that once they have all the evidence in hand.

Interesting that for some here, no matter what the incident presented is, innocent until proven guilty has an amendment: unless you're a cop.

Interesting that for some here, no matter what the incident presented is, innocent until proven guilty has an amendment: unless you're a cop.
Would it be overly conspiracy-theorist to suggest that it might be more about whether sensationalist media says they're guilty or not?

I'm not sure where you came to the conclusion that I have come to any conclusion as yet...
People said "you don't get black eyes from having your nose broken". I provided links to show they do.
People concluded the ONLY reason the camera was turned off was to beat her and it was "against procedure". I pointed people back to the article where it stated the procedure.
People stated "she had not broken her nose, therefore the black eyes were a result of a beating". I pointed them back to the article where it clearly stated she had broken her nose.

Conclusions have been made in this thread -- but not by me. I've stated several times that it certainly looks bad for him, but that's all any of us could honestly say. I don't know what happened in that room. Neither do any of you. Internal affairs, federal authorities, and a court of law will decide that once they have all the evidence in hand.

Interesting that for some here, no matter what the incident presented is, innocent until proven guilty has an amendment: unless you're a cop.

Actually you simply assumed I assumed you came to a conclusion. Sometimes a pointed question is merely an attempt to extract a clarification.

I am not arguing about the broken nose as I too read about it.

Innocent until proven guilty comes from the rule of law. It serves as a protection against our right to think he is guilty.

You must admit the sequence of events could be argued he worked her over.

I myself think he did simply because in my experience; I am having a hard time believing the amount injuries she received came simply from falling on or even against something. A black eye and or a broken nose? Ok I could believe the claim.

Am I an expert? Of course not. I simply reserve the right to make claims and will revoke them when proven wrong.

Time will tell.

No-we will actually never know exactly what happened here.

We will only here what each party's lawyer claims.

He could have punched her. I dont think anyone wit hhalf a brain would turn a camera off,abuse someone and then turn it back on to catch the aftermath.

I'm surprised there was no female officer present.

The policeman's demeanor didnt show him to be hostile or losing his cool.
I dont think he abused her.

I think she continued the behavior the tape displays and met face first with the door and then probably the floor too.

The cop may be guilty of not having assistance and restraining her properly so she didnt harm herself-I thnk it was clear from the start of the tape, she was capable of doing a swan dive,cuffed, onto the table or floor.

The questions I would ask (as an investigator) are

1. Why, if he was having such trouble restraining her, didn't he call for someone else to come help out BEFORE she got hurt?

2. Why did he slam her into the wall when she was looking to see if the camera was turned on while she was being cuffed?

3. Obviously we are looking at edited footage (the cuts are fairly clear) but who did the zooming in and out? Was that on the original footage, and if so, why and who was operating the camera and what is that person's story?
If the zooms were part of editing, who did it and why? What did we not see while the camera was zoomed in?

4. In the same vein... time frame is important. The cuts in the tape indicate that it wasn't just 'she fell, he turned the camera on, he went for help'. How much time elapsed from when she fell to when he actually called for help? If he opened the door and said "get an ambulance", it seems fairly certain that someone might come to see what had happened. Someone also probably would have started first aid. How long between when she fell and first aid was started? Facial wounds can bleed a lot, but generally if someone is bleeding that much, it causes some alarm. Likewise, they may bleed a lot, but probably not fast enough to push that much blood out in just a few seconds, which is all the time it should take to get someone else in the room, yet no one else appears on the tape.

5. Why DID he turn the tape back on? The logical first reaction to an injury with that much blood is "call 911". Why turn the camera on first, then wait however long he did, THEN go to get help?

6. At first she was asking to make a phone call. Why was she not allowed to? Once someone has "lawyered up" the police are required to get them a lawyer (i.e. allow the phone call) before anything else, right? Even if there are procedures that must come first, why not attempt to explain them before jumping right to handcuffs?

7. Why put her in cuffs at all? She was trying to leave the room, which he found very easy to prevent with a hand on one arm. She was not being physically violent, so what was the purpose of the restraint?

8. What happened that made her sit with her head between her knees in the middle? She sounded as though he had done something threatening before that when she answered his question. What happened in the intervening section we didn't see?

9. How drunk was she? She seemed quite upset, but not all that intoxicated. Was a blood test done when she got to the hospital? What did other observers think of her level of intoxication?

10. If she was trying to get out of the room, how did she end up falling so far from the door and with her head pointing AWAY from the door? Did she get a shove which knocked her away from the door before she fell?

11. If the cop had no blood on him, why didn't he? If she had been trying to get out when she fell, wouldn't he have been trying to restrain her? Looking at the tape we did see, he was holding her whenever she was out of the chair. If she broke away, why wasn't it towards the door, which had been her objective all along? Again, did he push her away before she fell?

12. What kind of bruising was found on other parts of her? One would assume there would be some from when he grabbed her earlier in the tape, but was there other bruising that might indicate other things?

13. What did the blood pattern on the floor indicate? The first picture with the pool of blood had no smears, which might indicate that she didn't move at all after starting to bleed. Why not? The following picture shows smears moving away from the door. Again, if her objective was the door, what does that pattern indicate?

I could probably think of more... but those were the first questions that struck me.

I would say the fact that he was fired says that the police department thought it was pretty peculiar, too.
considering that he has a history... I'm glad they fired him.