Georgia Officer Not Punished After Admitting He Kicked 9-Month Pregnant Woman In The Stomach!

reply to post by timerty


Would you use a sledge hammer to drive a nail? You could but it's more practical to use a normal hammer.
I don't disagree he was acting (presumably in self-defense) but he used a "sledge hammer" instead of more practical tool. That's all I'm saying.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Why is anyone suprised here on ATS? This is what happens in a tyranny, no suprise at all for me. This will probably become the standard over the comming months and years.

reply to post by RealSpoke


So maybe they both did the wrong thing? If you are pregnant you probably shouldn't be aggravating situations like this, but in no way should the policeman kick her. A warning and safer way of nullifying her threat would have been a better choice.

Also gotta say I was a bit disappointed in how you responded to the troll, I thought you were better than that.

wow. after reading the story, i'd be downright embarrassed to be a LEO these days. what a schmuck.

all of these losers with violent streaks that would put Mommy Dearest to shame sure makes the whole bunch smell awfully pungent and not in a good way either.

not only should he be removed from duty but he should have to cover the $$ difference for her premature Csect, all future developmental challenges the child encounters and the taxpayers for a "training" refund.
he obviously missed a few important sessions.

cops acting on "impulse and perception" is exactly the problem here, not the pregnant woman.
if my brother was just tazed and convulsing in front of me, i would certainly be attempting to attend to him, pregnant or not.

anyone who thinks a pregnant woman will stand idly by while their family is physically attacked, needs to read a book or two.

to the persistent poster who thinks the woman intentionally put her unborn child at risk ??? are you trolling?
how does attempting to attend to her wounded brother equal intentionally risking her unborn child?

by your logic, a pregnant EMT should change jobs, right?
after all, voluntary presence at an accident scene is certainly intentionally risking the life of the unborn, right?

what about cops in the line of duty while pregnant ?? does your logic apply to them too ?
and, doctors, what about them ?? they're around disease, psychopaths, armed thugs, blood pathogens, you name it, they voluntarily expose their unborn to such conditions daily ... are they "intentionally risking their unborn" also ??

one can easily deny this officer acted responsibly by his own commentary.
he didn't use any "tools" or logic, just brute force and i sure hope he is held responsible, not the rest of the taxpayers.

reply to post by timerty


Your issue seem to be with women In general....why do you have such anger towards women? rejected one to many times? unfaithful girlfriend? mean mom?...either way get over It.

Originally posted by Rustyk
reply to post by timerty

 

Would you use a sledge hammer to drive a nail? You could but it's more practical to use a normal hammer.
I don't disagree he was acting (presumably in self-defense) but he used a "sledge hammer" instead of more practical tool. That's all I'm saying.

I'm disappointed that you claimed to be someone experienced in dealing with law enforcement, yet you still don't understand how to handle the kind of people who disrespects the law. Were you actually lying when you said you had experience?

Let me be so kind and give you the real clue of how things work in proper law enforcement. If a person attempts to attack a law enforcer, he/she would act in the way where he thinks he spotted some vulnerabilities that would allow him to successfully deal with the law enforcer. Therefore, he would expect the law enforcer to react in a way that would not be effective to counter his attack. So what the law enforcer should do to successfully resolve any attack, is to react in a higher level that the attacker assumed he would react, so that this adjustment or increase in 'reaction strength' can properly counter the attack. Not only would the law enforcer have the higher chance of countering the present attack, but he would also prevent any future incidents where attackers would underestimate him again.

By putting this logical theory in practice, if a pregnant woman would to think that she has spotted some vulnerabilities that made her think that she can simply disable a police officer by attacking him, then the police officer has to react in a higher level not just to counter the attack but also to deter future others from thinking he is vulnerable or weak. This higher level translates to not treating the attacking woman the way that she thought she should or would be treated as in a respectful or soft gentlemanly way, but this higher level translate to treating her in a way where she would not think of underestimating police officers again and commit the same act again.

If the police officer treated her by holding her arms nicely in a gentlemanly way while she whacks him, do you think this can deter similar cases from happening again? If the police officer is seen as a softie who can't even handle a woman, he is might as well quit his job because he is so damn useless shame of the earth for not being able to even handle a woman. He should then quit from his job and cut off his penis out of shame, and be self-exiled to Thailand and be a transvestite.

So the deterrence the police officer used by being extra rough is the right way to prove that he is not a softie so that that can deter future attackers. So now that the news is out, pregnant women would not dare attack police officers. How effective is this? That pregnant woman tried to test the waters but ended up a failure. Good for her courage! I hope she dare tries again!

Any man who still thinks that the police officer was wrong by not being gentlemanly to handle the violent woman should just cut off his dick too. Because if they can't even handle that woman, they should go to thailand and become a subservient woman themselves and give in to every person who wants to.take advantage of you! Shame to you and your ancestors!

Originally posted by TruthWizard
reply to post by timerty

 

Your issue seem to be with women In general....why do you have such anger towards women? rejected one to many times? unfaithful girlfriend? mean mom?...either way get over It.

I don't have an issue with women in general. It is those women who act like rough men that turns me way off! And then they try to act girly when they play the victim. I have seen so many of these kind of women. You guys haven't seen it all yet, just like little naive virgin boys who have yet to understand the world, and then fall prey to such women and let them manipulate you with their cunning. I feel so disappointed and shameful at such gullible men who can't see through their lies. But what can I do? Such intellectual weaklings of the male race deserves whatever they are blind to. I am not angry but disappointed at stupid men who get conned one after the other, the shameful lot of my gender.

Originally posted by timerty
I have read the report and I think it is the fault of the woman who put her unborn child at risk in the first place.

She should not have got in the way of the police officer in the first place. The police officer might have thought she was just fat rather than pregnant, and more so if she acted as though she wasn't pregnant.

In the first place, a pregnant woman should never behave as though she is not pregnant. If she tries to act violent to a police officer, then she only has herself to blame. It is her fault for putting her unborn child at risk. She is a dumb bitch.

If you are 9 months pregnant, it is common sense not to get physical with any police officer or anyone. She was selfish and dumb enough not to protect her own unborn child but try to be a loud mouth. Your freaking brother can handle himself. Don't butt in and think you can use your pregnancy as a leverage.

Her brother created trouble, so it is possible that she would also be a trouble maker herself, its in the family. She is a pregnant troublemaker. And then now she is trying to act the victim on TV? Shame on her.

I detest pregnant women who think they are above others just because they are pregnant and others have to give way to them. Sick of such people. Met so many of them before so I can recognize this one just like that.

edit on 20-5-2012 by timerty because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2012 by timerty because: (no reason given)

THIS post tells me something how you (US americans) think about the police.

It something along the lines: If you get shot by the police, you did not behave properly. In this case, its her own fault. HELLO? If a pregnant women in germany would attack a policemen, they would take the beats, because everyone knows, pregnants can be short tempered and that she will probably be hurt with the baby if they act too rough.

The government of the US and I assume a big portion of the population believe its okay for the police to be seen as a "rough" troop. So does your post! Thats the problem. It makes them (the police, of course, not all) think they are somewhat superior. Tasers, that are now aviable to most policemen doesn´t make the situation any better.

THATS THE PROBLEM.

EDIT:
Just read your post over mine here and your sentence nails the point down for me (as my english is not as good as I want)

By putting this logical theory in practice, if a pregnant woman would to think that she has spotted some vulnerabilities that made her think that she can simply disable a police officer by attacking him, then the police officer has to react in a higher level not just to counter the attack but also to deter future others from thinking he is vulnerable or weak. This higher level translates to not treating the attacking woman the way that she thought she should or would be treated as in a respectful or soft gentlemanly way, but this higher level translate to treating her in a way where she would not think of underestimating police officers again and commit the same act again.

This kind of thinking. Always give back the double. Thats the problem. A police officer in germany wouldn´t think like that (because they´re not trained like that). He wouldnt think that letting a pregnant women attacking him would be seen as "weak". Its the other way, he has to keep as cool as he can and try to defend himself in a manner that is propper. Thats the difference.

But he had to use that door kick, as he was "trained" to.

reply to post by timerty


Ok. I see, you're a child.

I'll put it to you this way. If YOUR MOM was 9 months pregnant with you, and she spouted off to a cop or better yet spit in his face, I guess its cool if the dumb bitch got kicked in the stomach. That's your logic. So that's alright, right?

She got what she deserved, correct?

...You just keep in mind, that's someone's wife, mother, or sister. Not just some dumb bitch.

reply to post by timerty


In my experience, drawing a sidearm will generally make someone re-consider their attack... NOT ALWAYS, but those few are usually on drugs or are REALLY not wanting to go to jail and put their lives at risk for it.

Do YOU have any experience in law enforcement to back up your claims?

reply to post by verschickter


You do see that he's the only one in this thread that supports the cop right?

The rest of us Americans are on his ass. Don't use a generalization like that when 90% of us here are defending the woman.

reply to post by becomingaware


Yeah I read it, my very first sentence. This wasn´t meant to be generalizing. Of course its never everyone.
The other way, 90% of the ATS members do not represent the general public opinion. So you can´t compare that either.

How about what I wrote? As a US citizen, do you think this is reality?

reply to post by RealSpoke


Looking at it from their twisted perspective.. they didn't punish the cop because she did not miscarry. I could see it now GOOD JOB JOHNSON You did what was taught to you in the academy on a pregnant woman AND you dind't cause a miscarriage. GOOD JOB are you gunning for a promotion?? cuz you have upper management written all over you

More about "Officer" Jerad Wheeler:

Fleischer filed an open records request and found two more use-of-force complaints against Wheeler within the last nine months. In all three cases, the victims were not the focus of the original police incident.

In September 2011, a 53-year-old woman said Wheeler twisted her arm behind her back and pushed her face down in the patrol car. The woman's daughter had just been in a car accident and she had gone to the scene to help with her young grandchildren.

In January 2012, a family complained after Wheeler shot their dog while he was on a chain inside their garage. Wheeler had responded to the wrong address.

source

reply to post by LadyJae

really ??? all that within the past 9 months ??
schmuck isn't a strong enough word for this dirtbag.

sure sounds like this officer, at minimum, should be tested for steroid use/abuse.
chemical imbalance or not, this officer isn't "fit for duty" and the citizens should have a say/vote in such a matter, we still have to pay for his idiocy, don't we ?

some people here are letting their moral outrage cloud what is really happening. The badge is immunity. Had this woman gotten in a fight, she would have been charged with "child" endangerment, and been forced to undergo a series of awful scenarios. This Policy Enforcement Officer, by kicking the baby specifically, should be charged with child endangerment and assault and battery on a child. He was not, because he had both an excuse and a badge: the two grant immunity. A natural person, has no inherent "excuse" and no "badge" so there is no immunity for the same acts.

the larger question is, is the officer there to protect? If so he should not kick anyone, or is he there to collect money via fines and jail, in which case kicking in response to some agitation is acceptable as it elevates the "crime" to one where a significant fine can be charged?

What is the officer's job in actuality, not in theory, but in actuality? Ostensibly he was there to "protect" the woman and her unborn child, but, in a wink of an eye, his job changed, to kicking the unborn child because it was now a threat? Notice how protecting the women became charging the woman (charging=money) with in that scenario.

What his his job, when is the line or protector to arrestor crossed and why?

reply to post by timerty


She didn't attack the officer. She was never charged with assault on a cop, she was charged with disorderly conduct and the charges were dropped.

reply to post by verschickter


A large percent of Americans do not like cops at all. The only ones that seem to are white baby boomers.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by verschickter

 

A large percent of Americans do not like cops at all. The only ones that seem to are white baby boomers.

edit on 21-5-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

And the cops themselves.
That's usually the ones that you see on these threads backing up the violence of their 'Brothers'.