Female Officer LITERATELY Beats The Shoes Off A Man With Her Baton

reply to post by vermonster


I was wondering the same thing to!!!

The agents must take Sundays off LOL!!!!!

Originally posted by sabbathcrazy

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by ProphecyPhD

 

So what happened before the video started? Trying to make judgments either way without having the entire story is not the correct next step. But, of course as shown in the San Francisco shooting incident, certain individuals will do just that simply out of personal prejudices and not from facts.

It dont matter, your innocent until proven guilty and cops do not have the right to chose sentences for criminals. So their is no justifications. A cop was holding him down while she beat his face in. You think thats right? If i was that man, I would have ended up with the death sentence. I would have sweepted her feet and beat her face into the pavement.

Even if....he just shot someone?Would you feel the same if this person was involved in harming you or your own child?Or worse ..murder?What scenario would justify this type of behavior?

reply to post by Lightrule

This is what the good old quick, hand on each side of her head, make a sharp twisting motion, neck snapper move is for. This is not an arrest, it is a farce.

Really? I mean really?

I've worked in law enforcement (lawyer) for enough years to know that blame is not 100% for either side. It fluctuates, sometimes the police are in the right, sometimes they are not.

Well, how many times, as an attorney, have you made an arrest? How many times, as an attorney, have you had to confront a violent individual? How many times, as an attorney have you had to use force on an individual who is resisting arrest?

This gong show of an arrest lays at LEAST 50% of the blame onto those police officers, they failed to use their training. Nobody can deny that, because the police academy does not teach gang-beatings for any situation. Even if the man was ramped up on a drug cocktail the SOP is not a beat down. I know for a fact a beat down is a lazy pig's cop out.

As an attorney, when did you graduate the police academy?

You are correct that the police academy does not teach gang-beatings, but this is a far cry from a "gang-beating."

This was not a beat down. "SOP" is that resistance to arrest will be met with reasonable use of force based on a use of force continuum. That use of force includes pain compliance techniques. Pain compliance techniques include strikes which are meant to inflict pain but not serious, lasting damage.

Decorated honest cops have told me so;
"If an arrest gets to a point where it's a slug fest or all out brawl we have failed in our duty and training."

If this was the case then why are police trained in use of force and not just verbal techniques of deescalation?

Because some people are incapable of listening to reason.

I think you have mistaken what those honest cops have said. If an arrest gets to a point where it is a slug fest or all out brawl then parts of their training, including deescalation and verbal techniques, have failed. It is then time to move onto other aspects of their training.

Add that to the fact its two on one, I'd definitely say the police hold some blame here.

So just because the man decided to fight two police officers, the officers are to blame for his decision to fight?

reply to post by ProphecyPhD


She never hit him in the head. If she had been hitting him in the head, I would agree that is excessive force. She was striking him in the arm, and on the back. You really think ANYONE could take that many blows to the head by a baton? I don't think you are being reasonable, this post I'm responding to highlights that.

reply to post by sabbathcrazy

It dont matter, your innocent until proven guilty and cops do not have the right to chose sentences for criminals.

The full quote is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

You are assuming that the police were using force as punishment for whatever crime the man is alleged to have committed.

Based on the man's actions that were depicted in the video, the man was resisting arrest.

A cop was holding him down while she beat his face in.

The male police officer was attempting to hold him down. Because the man kept trying to stand up and was grabbing the male officer, the female officer chose to use the baton.

At no time was the man struck in the face with the baton. So no, she did not beat his face in.

These video`s are rather pointless when they don`t show the beginning of the incident. As far as I can tell the two cops where standing there and the guy slammed the male cop to the ground then the male cop grabbed the guys legs trying to stop him from hitting the female cop all the while the female cop pulled the baton out for protection from a crazed cop attacking thug.

Well sure it may not have been like that but that could also very well be correct since we don`t know do we?


What I do know from the video was the cops used mostly non-lethal force on a suspect resisting arrest all the while the suspect was being slowed down by a male cop with a sever hugging problem it seems.
I say mostly non-lethal force due to a couple of those blows seemed head aimed. That I am against.

Let's face it...

She enjoyed the power of the baton and beating the man as evidenced when she kept beating him as he was trying to ward off the blows. And some of those blows were aimed at his head.

reply to post by ProphecyPhD

If someone attacks you with a knife and you shoot them it is NOT considered self defence and you WILL be charged.

Well that all depends on the situation. The blanket statement above does not provide a full picture of the issue.

One difference is whether or not you are legally allowed to carrying the firearm. If you are in a state that allows open carry and you are within the law on using your firearm in self defense, which is clearly spelled out in laws which vary from state to state, then the shooting will be documented by the police, reviewed by the state's attorney and if found to be within the law no charges will be filed.

If you are in a state where it is illegal to carry a firearm without a concealed carry permit, then no matter what the situation, you will be charged with some degree of murder because of the aggravating circumstance that you were not supposed to be carrying the firearm in the first place. Now, that does not neccessarily mean that you will be convicted of murder.

If a police officer THINKS you have a knife and kills you they will NOT be charged.

Also a blanket statement.

When it comes to charging police officers, only the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the shooting can be considered. So, if it turns out that the man was unarmed, but was reported to be armed, or the gun turns out to be fake etc., that cannot be considered in the charging of the officer.

What needs to also be considered is the events that led up to the police shooting someone. If they get a call for a man with a gun, locate a man fitting the description, approach the man and order him to put his hands up or get on the ground and he reaches for his waistband or pulls out a dark object quickly then that can be considered a "furative movement" and shooting would be justified. I know some will have issue with this but if the police are pointing guns at you and ordering you to put your hands up or get on the ground, any reasonable person's reaction would be to follow the instructions of the officer correct?

reply to post by ProphecyPhD


Well, based on the yellow Arabic writing on the red thing on one of the officer's sleeves, I think it is safe to say these are not police officers in the United States.

When you try to compare police officer of the United States to police officer in other countries you are comparing apples to baseballs. Even comparing police officers from one jurisdiction to another within the United States is comparing apples to oranges. It is a totally different culture with totally different laws.

What did THESE guys do before this picture was taken to deserve this

Who knows? But anyone can take any photograph out of context.

The THUG was clearly RESISTING ARREST. PERIOD.

The officers safety was in jeopardy by this raging THUG who refused to comply with simple instructions of laying on the ground to be cuffed for the safety of the officers as well as the safety to any citizen in the area.

If you do NOT wish for this to happen to you, then 1) DO NOT RESIST ARREST, 2) DO NOT ACT LIKE A THUG. And 3) FOLLOW the officers INSTRUCTIONS.

I too would have BEAT HIS SHOES OFF with a baton.

Officers actions JUSTIFIED 100%.

100%

reply to post by ProphecyPhD

"Resisting" arrest or not, if it were you or someone you knew and loved would you accept this type of treatment or not? That is the question

See, you are trying to illicit an emotional response from people by replacing the man resisting arrest with someone they know or love.

That is irrational at best.

First, no one I know or love would resist arrest and cause the police to use this amount of force on them. Second, if someone I knew or loved was resisting arrest I would tell them to stop immediately to end the situation. If the police continued to use force, then I would have issue. But, that is not the case here.

reply to post by Lightrule

Why didn't he just stay on the ground? Maybe because some of us are getting sick and tired of having to Sit! Stay! and Obey! just like a bunch of dogs...

Well, if the police have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe the person committed a crime our society disagrees with you and says that person must obey the police and follow their instructions. Our society also disagrees with you and says if that person chooses resist a lawful arrest or detention, the police are justified to use a reasonable amount of force to arrest or detain that same person.

I can't speak for him but I can speak for myself had I been in that situation. I'd have been fighting for my life, meaning theirs were at risk because I would have been trying to stop the attack by causing complete incapacitation of my attackers.

Well are you speaking as someone who has broken the law? If so, then you reap what you sow.

Are you speaking as someone who has not committed a crime? If so, then you should not show any resistance because as long as the police are not blatantly violating your constitutional rights, everything will be worked out whether that be in court or after further investigation by the police.

A badge doesn't grant protection from self defense. Neither does it allow unlawful assaults on citizens.

You are correct. But it would only be self defense if the arrest was unlawful. Based on the video, you have no reason to make that assumption.

reply to post by Darce

Originally posted by Darce
reply to post by vermonster

 

I was wondering the same thing to!!!

The agents must take Sundays off LOL!!!!!

Or....

perhaps this is a methodical way of confusion.

reply to post by ProphecyPhD

I did not notice the officer on the ground at the beginning of the video. Very interesting indeed. But as many have pointed out in this thread, "who knows what happened before the video started" he could have tripped or been knocked to the ground by his baton wielding comrade.

Based on the man's actions throughout the video, I would say your assumption was incorrect.

My question is this, "Are police allowed to BEAT you (yes YOU) into submission?? If they can do it to him they can legally do it to you....... maybe even for dancing at a monument

I think a better question is, "are the police allowed to beat ANYONE THEY CHOOSE into submission?"

The answer to that question is no. If the police have probable cause to believe that someone has commited a crime and while trying to effect an arrest on that person they resist, then the police are allowed to use reasonable force to overcome that resistance and take the person into custody.

reply to post by ProphecyPhD

A narcissist would LOVE to have you as a lackey

But were not talking about a narcissist and a lackey. Were talking about a police officer and a suspect.

Notice how I did not say CRIMINAL I said SUSPECT.

reply to post by vermonster


Ooooh, scary thought...


Either way it was like your thread was posted on a hippy basher lover forum and here we are with just a few posters and actual cops saying this was justified. Strange indeed.

reply to post by ProphecyPhD

I thought all police officers had pepper spray or O2, why not use that?

Yes, that would have been a justified use of force as well. But baton strikes to his extremities was also a justified use of force as well.

Do you really need to beat someone in the head with a stick 20 times?

It is hard to tell in the video, I will give you that, but at no time did I see a clear blow to the head with the baton.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


Did you watch the slow-motion at the end? It was epic. Her last few blows were square on the noggin.

My only comment on the video is those police really sucked at subduing him. The male officer crawling around could have easily had his pistol taken. And homeslice probably lost his shoes and practically his pants is because they are worn loose for some stupid reason. Maybe they were the fashion police, he needed a good ass-whippin'.

reply to post by Lightrule

Just because you have a lack of imagination and compassion for fellow human beings, and believe that a brutal, beating is the only way to control a person

It has nothing to do with compassion or imagination. Sometimes, when all else fails, use of force is justified.

doesn't mean that I have to believe or act that way.

I am sure you will not have to. That is why lawyers do not patrol the streets and police officers do.