Video: The obligatory “Cop beats woman DWI suspect?” clip
posted at 1:25 pm on February 20, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Slip and fall or sticktime? Not your usual “cops behaving badly” YouTube fare here, as it’s what you don’t see that’s kicked up the fuss. Plus, the taser — the magic ingredient in nearly all viral brutality videos — remains holstered throughout. Could she really have fallen so hard to do the damage you see in the photos near the end of the clip? Shreveport PD was unpersuaded. This is worth reading too, although I’d guess every cop gets a bogus excessive-force complaint tossed at him periodically.
The raw video is here, although it doesn’t show you anything GMA doesn’t.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Unfortunately, the bad guys know that. They know if they can accuse a cop of injuring them or even touching them improperly, they can get a jury to side with them and maybe win millions of dollars. I was watching one of those police dash-cam shows just the other day, and cops have been saved countless times by their own cameras from false accusations of abuse by people they’ve pulled over. One drunk guy tripped and fell on his face on the pavement and later claimed the cop had beat him. If not for the dash-cam, the cop would have had the fight of his life proving that those bruises and cuts were not his doing. Another lady claimed a cop had “touched her improperly” while cuffing her, but the tape showed he did no such thing. The cops say it happens ALL THE TIME. Which is why the cop in this video is dumb for turning off the camera at all once he realized she was combative and stupid. But the fact remains that the bad guys know that public opinion turns against cops in a heartbeat when they can show some bruises to a news crew. They know the cops can’t touch them–some of them hope the cops will because it’s worth a couple of black eyes to them for the possibility of a multimillion-dollar settlement. I usually side with the cops unless the evidence is overwhelming that unnecessary brutality occurred. It’s wrong that the bad guys can beat the crap out of the cops and the cops have to take it, but the cops can barely touch the bad guys without facing unemployment and a lawsuit for doing their jobs.
aero on February 20, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Care to expand?
Hollowpoint on February 20, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Sure you resist arrest and stuff happens. I had to learn that the hard way when I was teenager. You don’t mouth off to a cop. I can not believe the amount of whimps we are raising. Like I said above if she was not unruly it wouldn’t have happened. It is her fault.
As far as public punishment? sure why not. Public hangings seemed to work for thousands of years.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 3:19 PM
What a drunken skank. She’ll probably settle out of court with them for six figures, which bothers me because it was her own delinquent behavior that caused the whole mess.
Not saying she deserved to get slugged, if in fact that is what happened, but she still isn’t deserving of a penny over this.
Hopefully, the stupid white trash woman will not drink and drive anymnore.
PS – you can get two black eyes from a broken nose. And if she fell straight down when she did it, it wouldn’t be uncommon to chip a couple teeth on impact either.
Moral of the story – if a cop tells you to do something, do it. You have nothing to gain by black eyes and chipped teeth when you don’t.
Wouldn’t it have been so much easier just to taze her?
moonbat monitor on February 20, 2008 at 3:22 PM
lol, sure change the conditions that events happened. How about sticking to the story:
Imagine being a cop showing up on scene with a man kneeling by a woman telling her to lie still, after he called 911, and he explains that she was handcuffed (let’s just say roleplaying) and took a face plant. Do you arrest him for abuse after he shows you a tape of her flaying around drunk?
You seem to forget that the pictures you are looking at are hours later and swelling has set in. Also the pictures include damage she had from ramming her car into other cars and stuff.
I get it, you hate cops and anytime someone is hurt around a cop it is the cops fault – unless the cop has it on video that he/she did not. And drunks never lie or injure themselves, esp. angry thrashing drunks. And every injury to a face that has more than one result has to be caused by multiple strikes/blows to said face.
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 3:23 PM
PB…I would think you would know better than to compare those two entirely different instances with each other. I see your point, but there’s no comparison.
I just find it interesting…each time there’s a police post here at HA, there’s a very clear divide amongst us as to the police vs. “victim”. But, in every case, the “victim” has either mouthed-off, or disobeyed simple orders.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: When you’re confronted by police, do what they say. It’s all “Yes sir” and “no sir”.
That, and someone said earlier in this thread…what if this woman, driving DUI, killed someone? I would never condone a police officer beating anyone, but in this case, the simple evidence we see leans more towards the woman fell herself.
JetBoy on February 20, 2008 at 3:30 PM
By the way, I had a very similar injury from a drunken faceplant once. Swollen lip, cut forehead, etc. Almost in the same spots too.
I wasn’t handcuffed, but my hands were in my pockets because it was freeeezing cold, and when I slipped on some ice I had nothing to break my fall with but my face. Ouch!
I think that woman face planted. You can literally see how she turned her head to avoid going straight down, therefore causing the one side of her lip to swell up, the mark on the forehead, and the nose slightly bent that direction also.
Again, trust me. I’ve faceplanted like that before, and my injuries were consistent with hers. Heck, I actually had a concussion from it.
No, I’m not proud to admit this either. But hey, I was young and stupid.
moonbat monitor on February 20, 2008 at 3:30 PM
I think that if anyone has grounds to sue here, it’s the cop.
To hell with that drunk piece of white trash.
At least when I faceplanted, I was 19 and in college. And it was my birthday! LOL.
moonbat monitor on February 20, 2008 at 3:31 PM
No, I just have a little problem with government agents violently abusing fellow citizens. That whole conservative thing about individual freedoms, rule of law, opposing authoritarianism? Remember those?
We can’t know with 100% certainty what happened, but the evidence overwhelmingly suggests a savage act by the cop- evidence you’d instantly discount simply because a police officer (instead of a mere commoner) was involved. Apparently the police officials themselves agreed something other than a drunken fall occurred, given that they fired the guy and don’t seem to be going out of their way to defend him, even though it would be in their best interests to do so.
Hollowpoint on February 20, 2008 at 3:33 PM
No it doesn’t. Put your hands behind your back, flail around, and jump directly on your face with the full force of your body weight, and see what you look like.
I did once, and it wasn’t pretty. And no cop beat me. A parking lot did.
moonbat monitor on February 20, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Unseen, the irony of which you speak lies in the fact that the people most insulted by your words are cops themselves. Your words are a complete and total insult to every good cop walking our streets protecting us and seeking out criminals.
Your only excuse can be serious lack of education or youth. I’m suspecting youth.
Zetterson on February 20, 2008 at 3:12 PM
College grad here. So no to both of your “excuses”. I have been around on this earth long enough to know that there are many cops out there that are great people, and there are some that are really bad people. I also understand that they are all human and that they are doing the best job they can with what they have to work with. I also have seen time after time that it is peoples own actions that cause them the problems. If the lady wasn’t drinking it wouldn’t have happened. Whatever it was that happened. If she wasn’t driving it wouldn’t have happened. If she didn’t become agressive with the cop she wouldn’t have fallen/got knocked down. What part of those actions is the cop’s fault? he was just doing his job, trying to control an unruly drunk. Maybe you all have never dealt with a drunk that wants to fight. there is no reasoning with them. There is nothing you can say, nothing you can do. You can either leave the scene or you have to subdue the drunk. the cop could not because of his job leave the scene thus he had to subdue her. Maybe she fell in the process, maybe he had to use force in the process, maybe it was a combination. I don’t know and I don’t care because at the end of the day, she was subdued. the officer did his job. Maybe he didn’t do it nice enough, maybe he lost control. He was fired after all but he accomplished his goal. And regardless it was the drunks fault.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 3:34 PM
This is why if you have a camera, leave it rolling.
- The Cat
P.S. This could be taken both ways. What’s his history? We have a good idea on what her’s is.
MirCat on February 20, 2008 at 3:38 PM
You misunderstood my point. I wasn’t comparing the two incidents. I was just pointing out that your argument – specifically that it “just makes no sense” – can cut both ways.
If you’d told me the story of the Klown Kar Cop and Skateboard Kaper (along with the Case of the Hippie Remote Control Madman) … I’d have laughed. I’d have been sure there was more to the story. I’d have said exactly the same thing you did: “that makes no sense!”
Which was my point. Sometimes people (including cops) do things that make no sense.
I’m not condemning the officer. I don’t know what happened. But saying “it doesn’t make sense” sure doesn’t help him.
It also made no sense to turn the camera off when he was alone with a female suspect.
As for what the evidence leans towards, I don’t see it quite the same way. I certainly have been around enough to know people are wrong to claim the injuries aren’t consistent with a good whack on the face; I’ve had them myself. When you fall and break your nose, you chip teeth, break cheekbones, and almost always end up with two black eyes. Hell, Hollywood starlets get two black eyes when the get their noses done. (I knew my better half’s subscription to People magazine would come in handy someday).
So its perfectly possible she fell on her face. But its also perfectly possible she was hit with something, or dropped on her face.
I have no idea which. Neither do you. Or any of the rest of the folks here. If I had to bet a lot of money, I’d guess the truth is in the middle: I’d guess the officer was subduing her, and more or less intentionally let her hit the ground a little hard than necessary. Not the same as a night stick to the face, but not the same as an accidental slip, either.
The only thing I know for sure that the camera being turned off was either awfully inconvenient or awfully convenient. Take your pick.
Professor Blather on February 20, 2008 at 3:41 PM
I am a big supporter of law enforcement, but police are not permitted to hit people because they’re “mouthing off.” Disobeying orders depends on the situation. Imagine this conversation:
Police: Come over here.
Citizen: Sure, f**kface. (complies)
Police: Put your hands in the air.
Citizen: You got it, a**hole. (complies)
Police: Put your hands behind your back.
Citizen: Absolutely, s**t for brains. (complies)
The police are not permitted to attach people. There’s a very basic, common law rule about attacks that is as old as the Magna Carta: Words are not adequate provocation. That goes for anyone involved in a fight, whether the police or Joe Sixpack. Words are not adequate provocation. And as far as the law and the police are concerned, if a person obeys and complies with a cop’s lawful commands, the person can say whatever he wants to a cop. FYI – the police can also order a person to be silent, within the bounds of the law.
Sydney Carton on February 20, 2008 at 3:41 PM
DUDE! In case you missed it my charge of hating cops was a sarcastic comment to illustrate your absurd charge at those of us that support him.
What is wrong with you, really? You are making the same claims over and over even though I have already answered them. NO, the evidence does not support abuse – you ignore everyone that has has ALMOST THE EXACT SAME DAMAGE FROM FACE PLANTS here. Are we all lying as well? You claim I am ignoring evidence SOLELY because I disagree with your claim of abuse, yet I have addressed every piece of information available and given my thinking behind each one.
If this video had been two citizens, two cops, two anything I will still have the same opinion – everything points to the drunk being a stupid drunk and face planting.
No sarcasm here: What happened to you in the past that makes you so eager to claim this cop is an abuser? What makes you want to ignore everyone else that has had the same injuries and all of them received NOT by police abuse? Seriously, what is up?
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 3:44 PM
I’m sure that I will take a lot of flack over this, but anyone that has a cop in their family, in a lot of cases (NOT ALL) often show poor judgement. They aren’t typically the sharpest tools in the shed. They work for fairly low wages and are given a huge amount of power. How many cases are kicked from mistakes? The details of the law is their job and they mess it up constantly. They are typical of all the other civil servants – until we require competence, and are willing to pay for the expertise and the quality of people that we would want for these jobs – we get what we pay for. And for anyone thinking about going to a police academy? Are you interested in serving your community, or are you looking for a job that allows you to pretty much do whatever you want to do? Have an inferiority complex? Wouldn’t it be cool to carry a gun? Yeah baby. Cool…….. And finally, is there anyone out there (except for cops) that understands that the police have to deal with crazy people all the time, and are put in stressful situations constantly, and that someone may want to mention that so when they feel themselves losing control, they may want to take a step back? Why not? Because they think they can do whatever they want.
JeffinOrlando on February 20, 2008 at 3:44 PM
By the way, lest anyone forget–if that drunk driver wins a lawsuit or gets a settlement, it’s the taxpayers who will pay the six- or seven-figure amount she wins. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather spend that money to hire more cops or give existing cops raises than to pay off that idiot for whatever did or didn’t happen that day. The result will be that next time she’ll kill a kid while driving drunk–but it will be in a Mercedes this time instead of a rusty old Pinto.
aero on February 20, 2008 at 3:52 PM
the person can say whatever he wants to a cop
Sydney Carton on February 20, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Sure you can….you keep on believing that. It’s a good way to end up “falling” in the police station and getting two black eyes in the process.
I agree with you theortically but then there is reality, you know the place we all have to live in. mouthing off to a cop esp when drunk is a good why to wake up the next day sore.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 3:44 PM
And as the tone may not have come through well, I am actually worried about ya Hollowpoint.
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 3:57 PM
unseen, I agree that mouthing off to a cop is not a good idea because it might encourage a corrupt cop to attack you.
But you accept that corruption. I do not. I’m not encouraging people to mouth off to cops, but unlike you, I’m not going to accept that cops can attack people without consequences and outside the law. Cops that do that need to be punished and prosecuted. They are abusing their authority, period.
Good cops are people who can sift through all that verbal abuse and do their job lawfully and properly without becoming a thug.
Do you REALLY want to live in an America where cops can attack people just because they don’t like the way a person talked to them, or how a person looks, or for whatever reason they can think of? Really? How would that kind of America be any different from a third world country?
Sydney Carton on February 20, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 3:57 PM
I really don’t think anything happened to him in the past. i think it is just fear that it might happen in the future.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 3:59 PM
I have several law-enforcement officers in my family, very high ranked law-enforcements officers. There are a lot of good cops, but there are also cops who think that because they’re cops they have the authority to cover each other and their family’s a$$es and they don’t need to play by the same rules. I don’t necessarily take one side over the other. Each case is individualistic and you need to look at it only in the context of this case, not 20 million other cases before it.
That being said: The facts are the officer stated that she tried to exit the room again and slipped and fell causing the damage. I would suggest those calling this woman, who clearly requested to make a phone call prior to taking the breathalizer test (which is within in her rights whether you agree or like it or not), a drunken skank rewatch the video. Clearly observe where the door and seat for the breathalizer are situated. Look at where she was located when he turned off the video. Then look at where and how she is lying and where the blood is located when the video turns back on. Sorry folks, the officers story doesn’t jive. If she “fell” she landed where she did because of him doing what he was doing throughout the entire video prior, holding her by the arm. How she “slipped” and fell going out the door and landed on her back in the middle of the floor and that be the ONLY location of any blood seen on the floor is something better explained by a forensic scientists. But it doesn’t seem at all accurate to his account to me.
Sultry Beauty on February 20, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Again, let me stress this, as someone that has faceplanted, it is VERY possible that this woman just took a header. Especially with her hands cuffed behind her back and nothing to break her fall with…..but her pretty little face.
You’d be surprised how much momentum you can get falling just a few feet when your flailing around. Your body can work sort of like a whip, with the tip (or head in this case) acting like the end of it.
moonbat monitor on February 20, 2008 at 4:01 PM
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Drinking and driving is a crime. If the punishment handed out, a beating, had been the legal dictates of a court, I’d have applauded it. I’ve long been a supporter of flogging for certain crimes, and DUI is one of them. However, the police aren’t judge, jury, although possibly executioner.
No matter how you look at this event, the police officer comes off badly. If you believe his story in it’s entirety, he still violated procedure by covering the camera, obviously not an accident. At a minimum, he set himself up to appear as an abusive police officer. He still set the department up to a huge liability by his ill advised actions.
Friends, let’s be honest for a moment. This situation for the officer is sort of like being named as the Hitler look a like of the decade. No matter how much you try, you can’t help but look bad.
He showed incredibly bad judgment covering the camera, and we’re left with little choice but to assume that if she fell, she was probably helped to fall. He was the one in control, and the one responsible. She wasn’t in control, she was in custody. If she’s too rowdy to process, then you get another officer, open the door and call for assistance, and you put her in the drunk tank until she’s more sober. Then you book her for DUI, and for resisting arrest. You don’t argue with a drunk, everybody loses that argument.
He was fired, and absolutely correct in being fired. As a citizen, I don’t want that kind of person representing me.
As for those who say it’s appropriate. Just remember that you said so when your wife, girlfriend, daughter, or sister are abused by someone in authority. With authority comes responsibility, and this officer did not act responsibly.
Snake307 on February 20, 2008 at 4:02 PM
“Police decided not to file criminal charges against the officer saying, “no one knows for sure what happened because the tape was off.”"
“According to police policy in that jurisdiction, if they do not agree to take a sobriety test and get booked, then they’re allowed to turn off the tape.”
–So, make it standard policy to allow the officers to turn off the tape just when things are likely to get ugly with a non-cooperative and likely combative person in custody. Then make it standard practice not to file charges against the officer because the tape was off and “know one knows for sure what happened. This is orders of magnitude worse than just some frustrated cop abusing a suspect. This is state sanctioned brutality and abuse.
greggish on February 20, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Do you REALLY want to live in an America where cops can attack people just because they don’t like the way a person talked to them, or how a person looks, or for whatever reason they can think of? Really? How would that kind of America be any different from a third world country?
Sydney Carton on February 20, 2008 at 3:58 PM
No offense but have you ever had a runin with a cop? they don’t attack you, they react to your actions. If you swing they swing, if you mouth off, spit, you may or may not have an accident, you draw a gun they draw a gun, you shoot they shoot. They apply force when and if needed to subdue you and keep the peace. The application of force is not the same a gulag, or a concentration camp, or a police state. It is simply the way of life. If you are polite, restrain your movements, follow the orders of the police 99% of the time nothing happens. Of course there will always be a bad apple in the police force that beats the crap out of you for giggles but they are few and far between.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Snake307 on February 20, 2008 at 4:02 PM
If he beat her for the crime of DUI I would agree but that is not what he did. He did not judge her, nor did he met out punishment. He simple subdued a suspect. Maybe that resulting with her falling, maybe he had to use force, it doesn’t matter. He subdued a suspect, do we really live in a country where people can not understand this concept. It’s no wonder BHO is leading in the polls.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Why are you still feeding an obvious troll?
Professor Blather on February 20, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Then make it standard practice not to file charges against the officer because the tape was off and “know one knows for sure what happened. This is orders of magnitude worse than just some frustrated cop abusing a suspect. This is state sanctioned brutality and abuse.
greggish on February 20, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Hmmm and yet if you take the test and follow orders then the tape keeps rolling. how does that figure into you theory?
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Professor Blather on February 20, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Hey buddy, i don’t know when you joined and I don’t care. You don’t like my posts fine don’t read them. But equating everyone you do not agree with as a troll shows a complete lack of mental ability.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 4:17 PM
“He simple subdued a suspect. Maybe that resulting with her falling, maybe he had to use force, it doesn’t matter. He subdued a suspect, do we really live in a country where people can not understand this concept.”
I’m right there with you my friend. And of course sometimes maybe you need to turn off the video tape so the police can really give a good beating to women that have their hands cuffed behind their backs. Do we really want to live in a country where people can not understand this concept?
greggish on February 20, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Interesting how the first thing you do is point out that “bad guys” know that people don’t want the cops to beat up other people. If someone files a false complaint, that’s one thing. But to let the cops hide behind an irrational fear of “bad guys” is absurd.
corbettw on February 20, 2008 at 4:20 PM
“Hmmm and yet if you take the test and follow orders then the tape keeps rolling. how does that figure into you theory?
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 4:15 PM”
Well, if you are cooperating and “not refusing” you are much less likely to deserve a beating. So in those cases, I suppose that jurisdiction decided it was safe to leave the cameras rolling.
greggish on February 20, 2008 at 4:21 PM
I thought the cop beat her as well. When I showed the tape to my boyfriend, he immediately said it looked like she fell. He’s a firefighter/EMT and says he has seen drunks do face plants and wind up looking like that many times. Generally, someone who has been beaten has swollen eyes, which she doesn’t have. They’re just black and blue, indicating that she fell flat on her face. And, she has no lacerations on her eyes, which she would have if someone punched her hard enough to cause bruising like that.
So, upon reviewing and re-reviewing the evidence, I believe the cop didn’t do this.
CookeyD on February 20, 2008 at 4:21 PM
I see your point, but those injuries also happen when you get your ass kicked too. I know you siad you had it happen to you, a faceplant, but I’ve seen dudes in beer-league hockey get jackhammered and end up looking like that.
Dude shouldn’t have turned off the tape, cut and dry.
liquidflorian on February 20, 2008 at 4:25 PM
The officer, should of had help..
no need to tun off the cameras.
Not sure why he was left alone with a disorderly female anyhow.
Chakra Hammer on February 20, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Why would a cop turn off a video camera taping a woman who is already claiming her rights are being violated and who is resisting? The tape would only protect him if he were doing his job correctly.
Seems like that guy had enough, turned off the camera and beat the crap out of her. You don’t slip and fall in the middle of the room and bust teeth, forehead and get black eyes. During my rambunctious youth I received over 600 stitches in various spots but mostly above the shoulders. Car accidents, sports including rugby and football, slipping and falling against a metal stoop, slipping and falling backwards off a diving board onto a concrete slab, other accidents and brawls never left my face looking like that woman’s.
peacenprosperity on February 20, 2008 at 4:30 PM
“Irrational fear” of bad guys? It’s irrational to fear people who get drunk and get behind the wheel of a 2-ton vehicle on the same roads I’m on? It’s irrational to fear people who would shoot me for the 20 bucks in my pocket? It’s irrational to fear all the countless ways I can become a victim to violent, unhinged, and greedy criminals? Have you never had anything bad happen to you in your life? Have you never had to call the cops for anything? I want to live in your world, where it’s “irrational” to fear bad guys. I’ll tell you–in the world where I live, there are far, far more “bad guys” than bad cops. I’m grateful people are willing to do dangerous police work so I can live in a nice, safe neighborhood like I do. Just like I’m grateful to people who sign up to be soldiers so I can live in freedom and prosperity.
aero on February 20, 2008 at 4:37 PM
If this were another scenario like the Duke non-rape case, I’d be on his side as well. However, it isn’t.
1. Officer deals with a somewhat beligerent suspect, who is drunk to some degree. Part of the job, but is clearly getting frustrated and angry.
2. Suspect sitting in chair, officer turns off camera for no apparent reason, then immediately after she’s lying in a pool of blood.
3. Injuries too severe to be likely to be caused by a simple fall in a small room. A motorcycle accident? Sure, but not merely falling down in the middle of the floor.
4. She immediately calls for help, saying he beat her up (as opposed to hours or days later).
5. Officer is fired after lengthy investigation, Chief cites lack of evidence (rather than innocence) as reason criminal charges aren’t filed.
Walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.
I’ve seen black eyes from a broken nose. They don’t look anything like that. And a broken cheekbone and broken teeth? How many times did she supposedly fall? Are we to believe that she stood on the chair and dived face first on the floor, and had the presence of mind to immediately make a false claim against an officer- one that already had a couple complaints against him?
If it were a “tie goes to the runner” situation, yeah- I’d give the cop the benefit of the doubt over a criminal suspect. But between the nature of her injuries, his turning off the camera right before it happened, the fact that she claimed she was beat up as it happened, and that an investigation found sufficient wrongdoing to warrant firing the officer- the simplest (and therefore most likely) explanation is that he lost his cool, turned off the camera so he wouldn’t get caught “teaching her a lesson” and in anger beat her worse than he intended to.
You’re obviously inclined to believe the officer’s version of events- fine. Just hope you don’t get on the wrong side of an angry police officer who decides to get violent- because you’ll find a whole lot of people ready to give the cop a pass and blame you no matter what the evidence or situation.
Hollowpoint on February 20, 2008 at 4:41 PM
I am usually one to give the cop the benefit of the doubt but in this case with the camera being turned off then coming back on and she is bloody and laying on the floor I say this guy should not only have been fired but charged.
EnochCain on February 20, 2008 at 5:10 PM
That he shut off the camera is proof that he planned to whup the crap out of her.
But too bad he wasn’t legally able to just crack her over the head once with a baton ON CAMERA for not sitting down and shutting up. We have a situation where we are supposed to coddle dirtbags, and then when things happen, they really happen bad.
Spartacus on February 20, 2008 at 5:30 PM
It could be that the purpose of the tape is to demostrate that she has be read her rights and has refused to take a sobriety test. Both of these are critical pieces of evidence required for prosecution.
If the purpose of the tape is not to monitor the behavior of the police officer or the arrested person, then the proper procedure would be to turn the tape off as soon as the Miranda rights are completed and she has refused the test.
gridlock2 on February 20, 2008 at 6:00 PM
At least it was just a person and not a cow.
Tzetzes on February 20, 2008 at 7:02 PM
I can’t believe no one has told this joke. I’m sure I’ll take some heat for it, but I can handle it:
What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?
Nothing. You already told her twice.
Relax, it’s just a joke!
fourstringfuror on February 20, 2008 at 7:02 PM
If I followed the story correctly she ended up having the DWI charges not filed against her. Good job thug cop in not being professional in carrying out your duties. You allowed a drunk to get a free pass and probably got a free pass yourself in having no charges filed against you.
Authority misused and the public interests not served.
Bradky on February 20, 2008 at 7:22 PM
She is struggling with the cop? That calls for backup. One, so someone else is there to back up your story, two, so you can handle the SUSPECT without problems. Bad police work all around, he should have left the camera on since she was uncooperative, the camera protects the cop more that the suspect.
deadbackpacker on February 20, 2008 at 7:31 PM
I work for hospitals on the financial end. I make sure they get paid.
In my state, when someone is in custody of the police and require medical treatment, the jurisdiction holding them is responsible to pay for the treatment. I have NEVER had a cop admit financial liability. Let me repeat that: I HAVE NEVER HAD A COP ADMIT THAT THE HANDCUFFED GUY IN FRONT OF ME IS UNDER ARREST!! THEY LIE TO MY FACE!! Did you get that? Did I stutter? THEY FLAT A$$ED LIE AND THINK THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT!! Then I sue them, of course, and they get really f-ing contrite really f-ing quick.
Yes I’m yelling, because you buttclowns that defend these liars think you have a clue.
It’s said that a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. Well a libertarian is a conservative who’s been mugged by a cop. Get over your “law and order” selves, and quit threatening people with the “that’s what you deserve” crap. Grow a pair, you statist pansies.
HerrMorgenholz on February 20, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Good to see the whole innocent until proven guilty thing working here.
Perhaps we can just state that he beat her up in cold blood to top it off.
Seriously though, whilst I won’t be ’standing up’ for the cop I’m at least willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise
Reaps on February 20, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Did he just say buttclowns?
fourstringfuror on February 20, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Amen. Best quote I have read in months.
AZ_Redneck on February 20, 2008 at 9:04 PM
I’m as pro-cop, anti-drunk white trash as anyone but “she fell and injured herself”?!? Hahahahaha! You have to be kidding me.
Headline: Man falls on knife, accidentally stabs self 34 times.
Rosetta on February 20, 2008 at 9:19 PM
question if this was a man would the outrage be the same. what if it was a 6ft 300lb drunk man? Or maybe a black 6 ft 300lb drunk man? would we still see the same outrage?
I defend the cop. He did what he had to do to subdue the suspect. I could care less how he did it. Before the camera was turned off the suspect was resisting arrest, slaming into doors and walls. After the camera came back on the suspect was being wheeled away. a job well done by the men in blue IMO.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 9:35 PM
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080220/NEWS03/302200001
This is the third time he has been in trouble. Why people automatically insist on defending a person they have no knowledge of is beyond me. Is this the type of professional you want on your police force?
“An unrelated lawsuit, filed in Caddo District Court in 2006 by Shreveporter Darlene Atkins, alleges Willis put his gun to the head of her son Dillon Freeman in 2005.
Atkins said Willis threatened to shoot Freeman if family members came closer to the pair. Her lawsuit states the incident happened after Willis pursued Freeman, who was riding a scooter, to the family’s home.
Another lawsuit filed in 2006 alleges Willis arrested Shreveporter Tomeka Bush and had her car seized as retaliation for a complaint filed against him about the incident involving Freeman. Bush’s lawsuit says she’s related to Atkins and Freeman.”
Bradky on February 20, 2008 at 11:20 PM
I’ve seen people face plant before, and those black eyes look just like a face plant.
Tim Burton on February 20, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Why did he get fired then? The police chief obviously thought something was not right. The local news here says the DA, State boys and FBI are reviewing the facts so it may not be over yet.
Bradky on February 20, 2008 at 11:36 PM
As soon as the officer turned off the camera, he lost any chance of me believing him.
I am glad that piece of garbage has been fired.
Criminal charges should be filed and a massive lawsuit should hit that city.
I do not want to live in a society where cops turn off surveilance cameras so that they can beat a woman and leave them lying in pools of blood on the floor.
The worst part is most cops probably think this thugs actions are justified.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 21, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Is there any reason that a Police Department that is doing their job with integrity and following the law and their procedures perfectly would NOT have a surveilance camera in every room of the building that records 24/7?
The technology exists and its not expensive.
I think it would be a very good use of time for the Justice Department to do a little sniffing around that Department.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 21, 2008 at 12:51 AM
So my question is: If they tell you you have the right to an attorney, but they don’t allow you a phone call, is your attorney supposed to be psychic?
munseym on February 21, 2008 at 2:36 AM
The fact that the camera was turned off and when it came back on she was a bloody mess pretty much says it all.
Was she being a drunken pain in the butt? Yes.
Would I normally support a cop who was just trying to restrain an out of control drunk? Yes.
However this is pretty cut and dry IMO.
Benaiah on February 21, 2008 at 3:38 AM
When pro-lifers got arrested for rescue missions in the late 80s, angry cops (only a very very few, not the majority) would handcuff the prolifer, then hold him up (instructions to prolifers were to go limp when being arrested) then let him drop him on his face. Prolifers sued a couple and the cops claimed the person tripped while handcuffed.
So the “same injuries” can result from abuse because the same thing is happening, only from the officer’s actions, not the DWI lady’s.
Bottom line: turning off the camera makes him look awfully bad, no matter whose procedure told him to do it.
inviolet on February 21, 2008 at 6:28 AM
you know I have to say I don’t believe her at all. She was arrested for hit and run and DWI. She could have sustained her injures when the airbag went off. Broken nose are common in those cases. Also two very black eyes often are common with broken a nose. The tape is only suppose to run will she is doing the breath test. After she refused it the video was turned off. I hate how everyone is ready to believe whatever they see on TV anymore. A picture is worth a thousand words.
Does anyone here remeber the douche bag john fairplay when he jumped on Danny Bonaduce. Fairplay fucked up his grill pretty badly. Very much the same way this bitch probaly did. If your handcuffed you can’t break your fall so it is possible she could have fallen and broken her nose and a few teeth. Not to mention the pics of were taken after the swelling so it looks far worse. Don’t be so fast to judge things may not be the way they seem.
Mofugger on February 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM
It also doesn’t show you the smarmy little GMA fem introducing the piece with his faux concern.
Jaibones on February 21, 2008 at 9:06 AM
The cop was fired for good reason, because he beat the tar out of her, and should be brought up on criminal charges. She is handcuffed. How rowdy could she be? She’s not bleeding and then when the camera is turned back on she’s a bloody mess with 2 puddles of blood. The
copex-cop should be brought up on charges. Unacceptable. Cops are not above the law and they should be held to a higher standard than the average citizen at all times and prosecuted to the full extent when they break the law. Also there should be 2 officers present at all times during a booking.Geronimo on February 21, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Wow..I cannot believe that some of you actually think she fell on her face.
He most definitely beat her. Glad he got fired. And hope she has a brother bigger and madder than he.
Sick.
bridgetown on February 21, 2008 at 9:38 AM
I can’t think of one legitimate reason to turn off a tape, especially in a situation like this.
I almost always give the benefit of doubt to law enforcement, but this seems to me to be a case of police brutality.
EEprom on February 21, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Looks like that Cop beat the tar out of that women.
TheSitRep on February 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Interesting commentary. Seems to be lots of speculation.
Allow me to speculate, as well. Looks to me like the evidence is consistent with the woman taking a face-plant.
Also, people seem to be ignoring that the tape was shut off per policy, and that the woman, according to video is indeed facing a trial for DWI, reckless driving, etc. unlike what someone said.
I also noted that, as soon as the woman confirmed that she was being recorded, she became more belligerent and the cop ended up cuffing her, to control her.
The cop may have beat her, but I doubt it. He definitely screwed up by not having someone else in the room.
JannyMae on February 21, 2008 at 11:00 AM
If I were on a jury, and that cop had slapped her hard, or put her hard on the ground after all the struggling she did, or even pulled out a mag light and cracked her skull once, I would NEVER convict him. She had a chance to sit down and shut up, but she wouldn’t take it.
But when the camera goes off, and then comes on again and she is laying in a pint of her own blood with a broken nose, black eyes and busted teeth, I’m going to convict.
Spartacus on February 21, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Quite simple: Do what the cop says, and you will not have any trouble.
clawjockey on February 21, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Blah, blah, blah.
A cop beats a handcuffed woman. He should do a bit of a few years.
thegreatbeast on February 21, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Punk-A$$ anarchy is not becoming. No one should be able to “He did what he had to do to subdue the suspect. I could care less how he did it.” Why don’t you go down to Berkeley and say these same stupid crap, because it’s no different. It’s no different regardless of whose right/wrong, guilty/innocent. If you make statements like this then you AGREE that the officer took matters into his own hands. If that’s the case, HE broke the law and therefore, is as much of a “dirtbag” as you might consider her to be. If we’re using “law-breakers” as “dirtbags” terminology. I don’t want “dirtbags” representing the law.
Sultry Beauty on February 21, 2008 at 2:24 PM
You’re ridiculous. Dude, if that was the case there would have been blood splat all over the place from her “resisting arrest” in the whole first part of that tape. Dude, the tape came back on, blood was pooled IN ONE SPOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FLOOR BY HER FACE, and she was screaming “Help me! He just beat the crap out of me!” Yeah, Sherlock! She got the injuries in a DUI hit & run crash! BTW ~ Before, he turned the video off, did you notice her, after she asked to make a phone call, look right into the camera as say, “is that thing on? I hope you’re getting this all on tape!”
Yes, they said it was policy. But was it also policy to turn it back on? DOH!! Seems to me she got angrier and angrier as a “drunk” because he was giving her the phone call which she felt was in her rights. Cop sure did had it by policy. DOH 2X!!
BOTTOM LINE: HE’S FIRED!!!
Sultry Beauty on February 21, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Turn off the camera, knock her down on to the floor, cause her face to contact the floor repeatedly with assistance of your hand on the back of her head….beating administered, no blood on your hands, no uncomfortable swelling of the knuckles, no blood spattering on your uniform. All nice and neat. /sarc
If you buy the she “just fell” argument, why was there no attempt at first aid by any of the police in attendance? If a non-suspect fell and injured themselves, would the police just stand there and look at a non-suspect bleeding profusely on the floor, or would they administer first aid? A compress on the bleeding wound?
MTinMN on February 21, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Um. If they did beat her, why wouldn’t they administer first aid? I believe the blood came from her nose, therefore there was no ‘bleeding wound’ to put a compress on? Your argument holds no weight. Towards the end of the video, one of the cops is trying to get her to lie down. They had obviously sent for an ambulance. What the hell else were they supposed to do, with someone who was not cooperating?
JannyMae on February 21, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Handcuff them, check.
Put them in a holding cell or an anchor position, (bench with a rail to cuff them to) No check.
I can’t believe some people who think that being unruly or acting out, cussing or even spitting on a cop while handcuffed is a license to get their face kicked in. If you truly, honestly think she deserved it or “fell down”, you’re late for the bridge sale.
Police have to be held to a higher standard than civilians because they are representatives of the law. They have a great power should be subject to a higher standard because of that.
Not to mention the whole “brotherhood” of police. I know that most, even the vast majority of Police officers are good. It’s the bad ones that need to be made an example of. This cop has prior assault complaints against him, no wonder the dept got rid of him. He’s a liability. I guarantee she will make a boatload of money out of this and she should sue him into oblivion just for the hell of it. The preponderance of evidence is against him.
Geronimo on February 21, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Once he turned off the tape, the most reasonable conclusions are all bad for the police officer.
That act alone, should result in some sort of sanction by his superiors.
Then there’s all tha blood …
doufree on February 21, 2008 at 4:35 PM
I don’t want that thug to ever act under color of law.
Would anyone here have a problem with a bunch of folks catching this ex-cop out on a street, turning off their video camera, and turning it back on to show him being carted off by an ambulance?
It’s just his word against their’s … they couldn’t be found guilty of beating him down, so there is no point to prosecuting them.
He just fell down, really, really, really hard.
Kristopher on February 21, 2008 at 6:18 PM
My Mom fell on Monday and broke her nose.
She was playing basketball but not drinking.
She has bruising and swelling similar to this chick’s.
The degree to which one bruises varies from person to person.
Drunkards fall.
Domino on February 21, 2008 at 7:37 PM
did y’all notice how many faceplants she made with the tape rolling??? just into the wall…looked like 3 at least.
police procedure is, once you refuse testing the tape is turned off (& yes i’ve refused, so i know 1st-hand).
how was he to know she’s faceplant into the floor instead of the wall?
those injuries are consistent with a faceplant…and with handcuffs on, there’s nothing to prevent the slam into the floor & the subsequent amount of blood.
Miss_Anthrope on February 22, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2