Video: The obligatory “Cop beats woman DWI suspect?” clip
posted at 1:25 pm on February 20, 2008 by Allahpundit
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.
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: 1 2 Next »
Yep, that looks like a good old fashioned beat down.
Nice policy. Do as we say or we will turn off the tape?
awake on February 20, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Suspecious. Why turn the camera off?
Al Sharpton is on the phone, oh, nevermind.
RobCon on February 20, 2008 at 1:33 PM
I’ve been down on the cops lately with that Dude guy. But this looks like it was her own fault. The policeman in question was as restrained as possible.
sweeper on February 20, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Resistance is futile.
infidel on February 20, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Betcha she won’t drink, or even drink and drive again.
Mazztek on February 20, 2008 at 1:36 PM
He shoulda at least taken her handcuffs off if he was gonna beat the snot out of her. Totally unfair. That’s dirrrrty pool right there man.
NTWR on February 20, 2008 at 1:36 PM
This seems like a rather obvious case of police brutality.
Sean68 on February 20, 2008 at 1:38 PM
I blame Bush.
pedestrian on February 20, 2008 at 1:39 PM
My grandmother used to hit me harder than that.
windbag on February 20, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Hmm. The racoon black eyes don’t look like punches. They look like she got a concussion by falling down and hitting her head. That makes the cop’s claim that she fell down possible. The broken teeth and the scratch marks on her face, though, lead me to believe that the cop beat the crap out of her. With your hands handcuffed behind your back you cannot fall down and break teeth and get scratches on your face. I’m not sure how that could possibly happen.
Is the cop’s claim that shutting the camera off being common procedure true? The news broadcast didn’t say that it was or wasn’t. They just reported that the cop “claims” that to be the case. Why on earth would it be common police procedure to shut off the camera? I would assume that its purpose is to prevent something like this from happening. Why then would they allow the camera to be shut off? That doesn’t make any sense to me.
Zetterson on February 20, 2008 at 1:41 PM
It could be that the person that wanted that camera on the most is the officer. Most people (including GMA) want to believe he pummeled her. If the camera had been left on, we may very well see a drunk, agitated, combative woman, pull away from the officer and fall face first onto the floor or wall with her hands handcuffed behind her back.
I’m no Quincy but I’d say her injuries are consistent with that theory.
Squarestate on February 20, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Restrained? Are you kidding me? The cop gave her two black eyes and cut her face up. Why do you think he covered up the camera?
SoulGlo on February 20, 2008 at 1:41 PM
“She fell.”
Right….
null on February 20, 2008 at 1:42 PM
For you’re examination, a case of total stupidity.
One, a drunk woman, the other a cop that turns off the tape too early.
Kini on February 20, 2008 at 1:42 PM
who gets 2 black eyes from falling down? apparently only battered wives and this girl
Keli on February 20, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Two black eyes = two hits to the face. One fall to the floor wouldn’t do it.
Lone Star on February 20, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Throw him in jail for assault. Cops need to be held to a higher standard than the general public, not get a free pass for this kind of violent abuse of power as happens too often.
She’s being beligerent, he’s getting frustrated, he turns off the camera, then she’s lying all bloody with beat up? Sorry, that’s no fall or accident.
Hollowpoint on February 20, 2008 at 1:44 PM
She was arrested on “suspition” of DUI? I’d say that’s a given…
Most important thing here…we don’t know what happened to her. I’m no expert, but it looks as if she fell face first stumbling over herself. Ergo, the broken tooth and black eyes.
I just love when wasted civilians tell the police what their rights are…
JetBoy on February 20, 2008 at 1:44 PM
It is the large pool of blood that gives me pause as to the veracity of the cop’s story.She would have had to take a head-first dive off of the table at the very least for that to happen IMHO. Plus, as has been mentioned, a tape of her doing this to herself would make this an open and shut case. With no tape, not so much.
bbz123 on February 20, 2008 at 1:46 PM
If it’s a “He said, she said situation” I’m more willing to give the cop the benefit of the doubt. Notice how she takes a fall right after she discovers the camera.
If the cop did beat her up, that’s a very, very bad scenario. But still, it’s hard for me to feel sorry for a drunk driver who is being difficult and resisitng the officer. She needs to grow up and stop driving drunk before she kills someone.
Dork B. on February 20, 2008 at 1:47 PM
I’ve been down on the cops lately with that Dude guy. But this looks like it was her own fault. The policeman in question was as restrained as possible.
sweeper on February 20, 2008 at 1:33 PM
What do you mean this looks like her fault? The woman had already been handcuffed, what harm could she have possibly done to the cop. Some of you will find excuses no matter what.
mainmann on February 20, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Zetterson is right. A basilar skull fracture typically causes “racoon eyes”.
mikeyboss on February 20, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Or when they say “hey, I paay your saallarry! You werk fohrrmuh!”
Still, he should be fired for not following procedure by turning off or blocking the camera. That was his safety net. Now he just looks guilty no matter what happened.
NTWR on February 20, 2008 at 1:48 PM
I suspect he hit her, but I if you break your nose (in a fall, conceivably), your eyes can blacken.
And one minor distinction: reports say he “turned off the tape,” when it looks like he put something over the camera. Might mean nothing, though shutting off a camera might leave an extra record of something odd having taken place.
BillINDC on February 20, 2008 at 1:49 PM
What a totally bogus excuse! “In accordance with normal practice”? Since when is it ” normal practice” to turn off a camera? If this lady fell like the officer said she did, he’d be seriously needing that footage to back up his claim. They should throw this clown in jail for assault, and she should be suing the city of Shreveport up the nose for this!
pilamaye on February 20, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Yeah dont forget, if she fell down right on her nose and it broke, both eyes are going to swell up.
broker1 on February 20, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Have to admit that the point in one of the linked stories does stand out: there was only blood on the floor and her. If he was beating the s#!t out of her like she claimed there would have been blood on him or his baton.
If she was fighting and took a face plant and he then turns the tape back on because now she is bloody it would make sense.
If he beat her up, why bother recording it? Wouldn’t he just put out his lie and have her taken to a hospital? Why record the results of a beating that could be used against you?
That just does not make sense. Going with the cop over the drunk on this one.
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 1:50 PM
that’s what I thought too…
liquidflorian on February 20, 2008 at 1:51 PM
If the cop turned off the camera in order to beat the donkey-snot out of her, why would he turn the camera back on to show the results of his corrective work?
Lone Star on February 20, 2008 at 1:52 PM
That’s just nasty. When ever some one “turns off the camera” I get a bit suspicious.
Mr. Bingley on February 20, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Ever watch this and sometimes this?
Just like COPS.
You know, there’s 303 MILLION people in America now. IF you break the law, I want you gone. We can’t take care of 303 Mil.
Mazztek on February 20, 2008 at 1:52 PM
I wonder what his wife looks like!
Pam on February 20, 2008 at 1:52 PM
I do find it strange the officer was fired, and not put on administrative leave, or confined to desk duty…pending a full investigation.
JetBoy on February 20, 2008 at 1:52 PM
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.”
That is why he turned off the video per the procedure. She refused and he was taking her to the next room (his claim). It helps to read all the stuff linked in the post.
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Maybe she was pushed down by a conservative while she was walking her dog.
RMCS_USN on February 20, 2008 at 1:53 PM
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.
“Obviously, those pictures are brutal but he didn’t brutalize her,” Brainard said.
Willis has appealed his firing and will go before the civil service board.
Attorney Ron Miciotto, who represents Garbarino, said his client was injured because the officer did not follow procedure in handling Garbarino.The lady’s lawyer did not even claim abuse by the cop, only that he is at fault for her damage, aka she could not stop her face plant due to being handcuffed.
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 1:56 PM
meh…nevermind, I just read the article…the officer WAS put on administrative leave, but fired for turning off the camera. But then, he DID turn the camera back on…why would he do that, if he beat her?
It just doesn’t look like he did…she’s handcuffed, and probably fell. That also explains the “pool” of blood on the floor. I take it, her blood wasn’t found anywhere else…like on a nightstick for instance.
JetBoy on February 20, 2008 at 1:56 PM
BowHuntingTexas on February 20, 2008 at 1:58 PM
None, but you are assuming he hit her, instead of what makes more sense: she thrashes around like a drunk fool and goes face first into a concrete floor.
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 1:58 PM
That is a good point. If he shut the camera off so he could beat her up then why would he turn it back on when he did? It would make much more sense for him to turn the camera back on after she is removed from the room. Unless, of course, he knows that all he needs to do is not film him actually beating her up and nobody can prove anything. He knows he’s still “not guilty” by the letter of the law. What does he care?
Zetterson on February 20, 2008 at 1:59 PM
No sympathy. She could of killed somebody driving drunk. Does not excuse excessice force.
koolbrease on February 20, 2008 at 2:00 PM
“The officer apparently over reacted” Maybe apparent to Professor Swindler, but it’s not apparent to me!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on February 20, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Why wouldn’t he? It’s not like no one’s going to find out at that point. So after beating the snot out of her (and he did, it wasn’t a “fall”, he turns on the camera to show him offering aid.
Why people are so willing to perform mental gymnastics to defend the police in obvious abuse of power cases like this baffles me.
He was fired, and for good reason- he turned off the camera, beat her up (her injuries are inconsistant with a mere fall), perhaps worse than he intended, and quick turned the camera back on before help arrived. Perhaps he thought he could bury the tape.
If it was someone I cared about that this happened to, the coward would have problems much more serious than being jobless.
Hollowpoint on February 20, 2008 at 2:01 PM
OK, before the incident, he covered the camera. Friends, you only do that if you don’t want the incident you are planning to be taped. Remember the cops have learned since Rodney King that the tape makes their dry reporting of the event somewhat suspect.
As for blood on the floor and her only, Phooey. Don’t tell me he couldn’t/wouldn’t wipe down his baton (polite name for big stick) or his hands easily.
Too much damage for a fall, too suspicious with the camera covered up. Perhaps it really was bad luck on his part, having a suspect “Fall” while being booked. Yet, why cover up the camera if you’re just going to restrain the suspect? Additionally, why not call additional officers, it is the police station after all, and have them assist you so the suspect doesn’t get hurt? After all, they do that everywhere else right?
For some reason, he couldn’t be bothered to open the door and call out to the hallway “Can I get a little help in here?” No matter how you approach this incident, the police officers judgment was either flawed, or he injured her intentionally. The officer in question was properly fired.
Wait, I’m supposed to be conservative. Shouldn’t I support the police? I do. I support those police officers who deserve my support. Not anyone who wears a badge. I have long supported the idea that police should be tested by polygraph at least once a year, better yet ever six months. We the community put our trust and safety in the hands of these people. We should test them, to insure that they are indeed worthy of our trust. If our assumption that 98% of the police are dedicated hard working and honest servants of the community is accurate, then wouldn’t they want to help us get the other two percent out of uniform?
Snake307 on February 20, 2008 at 2:02 PM
The large pool in one spot actually backs up the cops story. If he had been hitting her it would not be in one spot, but all over the place as she was thrashing around/getting hit.
Having busted my nose by an accidental head butt from someone else I know how much blood can come out – I had more than this woman.
I believe that the chain of events in the linked story are true.
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Broken noses lead to black eyes quite often.
Right here
broker1 on February 20, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Dude… can a policeman ever be wrong or abusive in your mind?
From the article:
That’s not an accidental fall. And I’m quite sure that when you had your nose broken, your eyes didn’t look that bad. Having broken someone else’s nose before, his didn’t look anything like that woman’s.
As far as the pool of blood, he most likely beat her up on the ground, in one spot. From the way the Chief described it in the article, he wasn’t prosecuted only due to lack of evidence- thanks to people like you on juries, it’s extremely difficult to convict the small minority of cops who abuse their power violently.
Hollowpoint on February 20, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Hollowpoint on February 20, 2008 at 2:01 PM
There is no evidence of abuse.
Why is all the blood in one pool on the floor?
Why was there no blood on the officer or his equipment?
It is far more believable that he turned off the tape that was to be used in court after she refused to take the test. He goes to move her to the next room and she continues to act like a crazy drunk. She struggles, breaks free but face plants into the floor – getting the broken nose and cut above the eye (I have done worse in martial arts training with a fall). The cops calls 911 (per the story) for medical help and then turns the camera back on to record all events to PROTECT himself, not to cover a crime.
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Yeah right. She got 2 black eyes, a laceration on her forhead, and from the looks of it, a busted head on the backside. She fell down, yeah right…
kcd on February 20, 2008 at 2:14 PM
There should have been 2 officers there, preferrably of the same sex as the suspect. That’s almost rule number 1 when transporting arrestees of the opposite sex.
Officers are people too, so whoever said they should be held to a higher standard than others please understand the pressure of NEVER being able to screw up at work. No doubt the consequences are high, but I could see several scenarios where those injuries could have have been self inflicted. I’m not saying they were, but it IS possible.
simon on February 20, 2008 at 2:16 PM
First off, yes they can.
Second, glad you are sure of something you cannot be sure of. They did. Hell take a look at women who get nose jobs – they can look that bad. My own mother’s did and she did not break anything, but just surgery.
Have you ever fallen face first on a solid concrete floor, without the ability to slow the fall with your arms/hands? It is more than enough force to knock out teeth. I would like to see the xrays and talk to the doctor – I would bet good money that all her injuries (oddly enough all the face) are consistent with a face plant.
And if he beat her up in one spot on the ground he would still have blood on him, and/or splattered around the floor. You think someone getting beat would not move about at all?
I think the better question is can a cop ever be innocent in your eyes.
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 2:21 PM
This makes the most sense to me.
Hollowpoint – you’re assertion that he beat her is just that, an assertion, not evidenced fact. Even her lawyer is not claiming police brutality. There’s something fishy there.
Not only that…but I have very little sympathy for an idiotic woman driving drunk. Drunks are clumsy – and a lot of times looking for a reason to claim someone else is to blaim for their situation. I bet this idiot drunk DID face plant.
But can any of you explain why the officer is not covered in blood after “beating the perp”?
tickleddragon on February 20, 2008 at 2:25 PM
I’m a guy and all, but that is one handsome reporter. I’m pretty sure he winked at me at the beginning.
“It all comes down to what’s on the tape…”
*ding!*
“…or more importantly what’s not there.”
ZRyan on February 20, 2008 at 2:28 PM
WATCH THE RAW VIDEO
She already has a bloody lip in the raw video from thrashing around and running into the wall.
If he had been abusing her before turning off the video that would be on tape. Why would he bother to turn off the tape much less save it, if he was already abusing her before hand?
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 2:29 PM
If I were a cop – assuming I wasn’t the “Dude!” guy – I’d ALWAYS want a camera on me and whoever I was dealing with. Preferably two or three cameras from every angle. On all the time.
Dashboard cameras have saved a lot of cops from bogus brutality claims and other phony stories (and, of course, caught a few bad cops in the act).
And alone? With a female? I’d bring in my own video camera and do live podcast to make sure NOBODY could claim something happened that didn’t happen.
Why in God’s name would he turn off the camera?
At best he’s a moron. Cops need to think like lifeguards – self-protection comes first. And when you’re alone with a female suspect, you better either get witnesses or get a camera.
I don’t know if he beat her or not, but he sure went to some trouble to make it look like he did, and give himself no way to back up his side.
————————-
These stories always make me ask two questions:
1) Why the Hell do people become cops?
2) Why the Hell do people decide not to cooperate with cops?
Both are mysteries to me.
Professor Blather on February 20, 2008 at 2:32 PM
That I 100% agree with. There should have been a second officer there, but I can see how a routine matter of sitting a drunk down and having them take a silly breath test would not make a cop think that he/she needed to have another person present.
But once she got to be crazy drunk mode it would have been time to call another officer in for sure. He screwed up there no doubt.
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 2:32 PM
What can I say. Drunk drivers have taken out entire families. She gets no sympathy from me. If the cop did rough her up then that is just as inexcusable as drunk driving and he should definately be fired, but I wasn’t there to witness.
bojack on February 20, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Main lesson to be learned here: Don’t turn off the tape! ALL of this speculation could have been avoided if the tape had just ran. The fact that the tape was turned off “looks” suspicious, even if it happened exactly as the officer described.
kcd on February 20, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Hollowpoint and Voidseeker, its impossible to tell from this video whether or not the officer actually beat her up. That’s what makes both of your arguments good ones. Though the officer’s behavior is highly suspicious, in the end, its impossible to prove anything here. The difinitive, beyond reasonable doubt, evidence is lacking. If I had a gun to my head I’d say he beat her up, but in reality, we’ll never know.
Zetterson on February 20, 2008 at 2:34 PM
I take it you never played football. Or even basketball. Or been in a car accident.
I’ve seen plenty of relatively minor incidents with guys hit heard on the top or back of the head – sometimes hitting the ground, and even with helmets on – where they ended up with two black eyes. No fists required.
When my wife and I were rear-ended at an intersection, she hit the dash with her forehead. Result? Two black eyes.
Professor Blather on February 20, 2008 at 2:35 PM
The cop was following procedure – turning off the tape after refusal to take the test and take the suspect out of the room.
They should change procedure to have the tape turned off after the suspect has been moved, that is true. But the cop was doing his routine for DWI processing.
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Suuuuure she did Professor
Zetterson on February 20, 2008 at 2:39 PM
You don’t want to get the crap beat out of you? don’t Drink and Drive and don’t bad mounth a police officer. We now offically live in the land of the not free and the home of the whimps. She got a black eye folks. Who cares….she is a drunk that could have killed innocent people. She was resisting arrest. If she would have sat in the chair and answered yes sir/no sir this would not have happened. you can not reason with a drunk. It’s not like he raped her or anything.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 2:41 PM
It is not suspicious to me at all once I read that it is procedure to turn off the tape after the test has been done or refused. It would be more suspicious if he had never turned the tape back on after the fall in my mine.
I totally agree that procedure should be that taping should not be stopped until suspect has been moved from the room. Would have saved the cops ass in this case as she was already beating the tar out of herself by thrashing around and running into walls before the video was turned off.
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Let’s just consider this:
She’s uncooperative, she’s refusing the sobriety tests, and she’s demanding her phone call. So. . .
You turn off the tape and try to get her to leave this room so she can be processed/booked and then tossed in the tank to sober up. After turning off the tape, he tells her to stand up and leave this room with him. She asks “Why?” begins screaming for her phone call and when he tells her that her phone call comes AFTER she’s booked into the jail, she flips out. She squirms and twists and finally jerks away from the officer, loses her balance and face plants.
Just consider that, is it plausible? Does not the officer still get the innocent until proven guilty benefit of the doubt?
I can easily see how it would be policy to turn off the recorder if the suspect is refusing to take the sobriety tests. The “test” is over at that point, period, she refused and she gets her liscense suspended for 90 days just for refusing.
Next stop on her journey through our legal system is to get booked into the jail so that she can sober up, make bail, call a lawyer whatever.
The woman, obviously VERY intoxicated, is simply having none of it, is refusing the authority of the officers, and the system. In the course of her refusal (and flipping out), she takes a faceplant.
I went head first over my handlebars on my bike and smacked the pavement face first when I was in my teens. . . the result?
Racoon black eyes, two broken teeth, lacerations and cuts to my forehead and a broken nose.
Show me that picture without telling me about the cop and the arrest, and I’ll say “Wow, someone took a helluva face plant!”
Jason Coleman on February 20, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Then punish her through legal means, not through a police beat down. Her guilt doesn’t justify the cop dispensing with the legal system and administering a beating. It’s one thing to argue with the facts, but if you grant that the cop is responsible for her injuries, then he deserved to be fired at the very least.
phronesis on February 20, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Main lesson to be learned here:
Don’t turn off the tape!Don’t bad mouth a police officer. ALL of this speculation could have been avoided ifthe tape had just ranthe police just said yes she gotten beaten and anyone else that resists arrest will get beat too. The fact that the tape was turned off“looks” suspicious, fails to drive the needed lesson home even if it happened exactly as the officer described.kcd on February 20, 2008 at 2:34 PM
There fixed it…
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Aside from the injuries, the suspiciousness of blocking the camera immediately before he sustained injury, and that she immediately claimed that he beat the s**t out of her.
You can’t tell from the video if there’s splattering or not, but the easiest way to beat her up would be to pin her down first in one spot rather than chase her around the room.
Doesn’t take long to wipe it off. The blow that broke her nose could’ve been the last.
Hardly- why open yourself to false accusations?
Again- the swelling, broken teeth, broken cheekbone, broken nose, body bruises- that’s not a fall. Just one of those injuries? Maybe. But not all of them.
Also, it appears that she was struggling to get out of the room, not stay in. Now we’re to believe that she struggled loose and caused all those injuries herself in an effort to stay there?
Between her accusation at the time and the nature of the injuries, a videotape wouldn’t be necessary to convict you or I- we’d be in jail. But because the perpetrator is a cop, he apparently deserves a standard of proof beyond “reasonable doubt”, but instead “absolutely no possible doubt”.
Turning a blind eye to abuse perpetrated by government officials- particularly armed ones- only encourages more of the same. Given the power police have over ordinary citizens, they need to be held to a high standard- not a low one.
Hollowpoint on February 20, 2008 at 2:50 PM
The only one saying she was “beat down” is the drunk, belligerent woman herself. Ask yourself…why would a veteran cop hit a handcuffed woman, hard enough to do THAT kind of damage? At police headquarters no less. Makes no sense…
JetBoy on February 20, 2008 at 2:51 PM
phronesis on February 20, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Ah yes, that’s right we live in the land of attorneys now I forgot. I think he should be given a raise and a promotion. and yet people wonder how crimnals become the victims….
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 2:51 PM
There are plenty of oppressive police states in the world. I’d rather not add the US to the list.
Police exist to protect the public- not lord over them.
Hollowpoint on February 20, 2008 at 2:52 PM
I couldn’t watch the video, but I did view the pictures. If she fell, she must have fallen down about 20 flights of stairs. There is no way in hell that someone can convince me the cop didn’t beat the bejuzus out of her. You don’t get that many bruises, in that many places, by falling down and thrashing about. Just doesn’t happen.
Come on, she looked like an extra on a zombie movie with all the bruising and swelling! Some here need to open their eyes, not all cops are in the right all the time.
Torch on February 20, 2008 at 2:54 PM
I looked at the entire gallery of photos they had for the article. One thing that puts me off is that they have her displaying what are obviously seat belt bruises from the crash that ended her up there to start with. There is no way the cop caused those.
The other thing is that there is no way her other injuries were all caused by a fall. The black eyes and the busted teeth OR the black eyes and the forehead stitches, maybe, but not the busted teeth, split lip, black eyes, broken cheek, AND forehead stitches. That was a beatdown. And yeah, all of the blood was in one place because cops hate chasing you around the room while they pummel you.
phelps on February 20, 2008 at 2:54 PM
So you think its OK if the story comes out that he really beat her up? You don’t have a problem with that? It is illegal for a cop to beat on an handcuffed arrested person for a reason. Call me crazy but I hardly think its a sign of a “tough” society when its big men beat up women with their hands handcuffed behind their backs. There are numerous ways this could have been avoided. The cop is either corrupt or stupid. Take you pick because you have no other choices available. As for the girl, she was stupid to drink and drive. She did not deserve to get beat up for it though. And her lawyer is correct, she was handled in a manner that led to this. Whether it was because of violence or stupidity is rather irrelivant.
Zetterson on February 20, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Read the thread. Plenty here are willing to give him a pass even when the evidence strongly suggests that he got violent with her. Also note that the language the Chief used- it suggests that he also believes he beat her, but didn’t have enough with which to win a conviction. You can be sure that he wasn’t fired simply for turning off a camera- especially if it was “procedure” as he claimed.
Hollowpoint on February 20, 2008 at 2:55 PM
The only one saying she was “beat down” is the drunk, belligerent woman herself. Ask yourself…why would a veteran cop hit a handcuffed woman, hard enough to do THAT kind of damage? At police headquarters no less. Makes no sense…
JetBoy on February 20, 2008 at 2:51 PM
again it is a false argument. Even if He did beat the crap out of her. I could care less. She brought all the pain on herself be it from the officer or from a fall. If she was not drinking it would not have happened, if she did not drive will drinking it would not have happened, if she would have been in control of her actions and mouth at the police station it would not have happened. Everything that happened to this woman was HER FAULT. She learned a lesson…move on.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Well, she also got a bit mouthy.
Professor Blather on February 20, 2008 at 2:59 PM
People who get nose jobs usually get two black eyes afterwards, so injuries to the nose can result in raccoon eyes. She could have fallen and landed square on her nose and done that. If he were hitting her repeatedly, it seems like there would have been blood spatter, there would have been blood all over him, and she would have probably smeared the blood pool in her struggles to get away or avoid more punches. She clearly was lying relatively still for some time for that blood pool to form that way. So he either hit her once, square on the nose, and she hit the deck and lay still; or he is telling the truth and she fell. Given her struggles and stupidity in the taped part, I’m with the cop on this one.
We’ve made it so our law enforcement officers are often too afraid to do their jobs properly. Dangerous imbeciles like this drunk driver are not scared at all of the police. I’m not saying I want the cops to have free license to brutalize anyone and everyone whenever they feel like it, but a little healthy fear of the police on the part of those who have done wrong is probably not a bad thing. I think we should really give cops the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. Make people think twice about fighting them, cussing them out, hitting them, resisting procedure, etc. A little respect for the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect us would be nice.
aero on February 20, 2008 at 2:59 PM
You deserve to be banned. That is a disgusting defense of police brutality. You don’t even bother to dispute the facts, you just assume that the cop beat her half to death, and then defend it. How would you like it if it was you who was smacked around because you were too drunk to comply? Or if it was your daughter, or one of your relatives?
The only “wimp” around here is you, who is so afraid of the fact that police are supposed to serve the people, that you support a policy of groveling before them. Let me tell you something: the police are our servants. They have no license to brutally attack people in their custody. That is called a gulag and supporting it puts you on the side of people like Stalin.
Sydney Carton on February 20, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Police exist to protect the public- not lord over them.
Hollowpoint on February 20, 2008 at 2:52 PM
If a member of your family ever gets killed by a drunk driver you will wish that some cop some where would have beat some sense into the drunk driver before she killed your loved one. That to me is protecting the public.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Ok Voidseeker, allow me to clarify. Is it possible that the cop actually beat her? The correct answer is yes. Is it possible that the cop did not beat her and it just appears to some that a beating transpired? The correct answer is yes.
Both senarios are possible. Both are also impossible to prove. That is the reality of this. Eitehr way the cop handled the situation improperly though. He was either corrupt and beat her up or he was an idiot and didn’t take the necessary precautions, ie another officer in the room, realizing that it would be wise to leave the camera running, etc.
Zetterson on February 20, 2008 at 3:00 PM
I’m going to go way overboard on this comment. Turn sarcasm on.
Turn sarcasm off.
cjs1943 on February 20, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Now ask yourself: why would a 17-year police veteran throw not one but two massive hissy fits over a skateboarder who used the word “dude” and a hippie playing with a remote controlled car?
Just sayin’.
Perhaps this officer was also forced to drive around in a clown car. It’s an epidemic, man.
Professor Blather on February 20, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Hahaha thats what I thought.
Zetterson on February 20, 2008 at 3:02 PM
That’s really scary. Cops as judge, jury and executioner of whatever sentence they decide to carry out. And answerable to no one? That isn’t compatible with a free society.
phronesis on February 20, 2008 at 3:03 PM
No one said she was struggling to stay, she was being a crazy ass drunk. She was just struggling.
Again you assume. If you or I was there and a cop was looking at the scene, we had no blood on us, she had injuries that a doctor would say is consistent with a unhindered face plant, and she was crazy flaying drunk girl all over video we would NOT be in jail.
And accepting accusations of abuse when the evidence says otherwise encourages more false accusations – AND makes the legitimate cases harder to prove. Just as every false charge of rape makes real cases more suspect. 30% of rape charges in college are false, that does not make the other 70% fake, but it does make them harder to prove/prosecute.
The cop was fired, he was held to a higher standard. It does not look like abuse, there is no proof of abuse, and the injuries are consistent with a face plant. Yet he was still fired for being involved and letting it get to that point.
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Whoops, got my first reply inside the blockquote. My bad. Preview is my friend…
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 3:04 PM
I don’t want the police beating up anyone. Authority is lawful only because they follow procedures to use force when necessary. I don’t want society’s so-called protectors to encourage vicious, thugish, sadistic behavior by thinking they can attack anyone they want without due process or the determinations of a jury. Who else do you want the police to attack before a jury has determined that they violated the law?
And a drunk driver killed my aunt, so don’t try to belittle me with your pathetic attacks. I want a lawful society in which the police are not above the law. You want sadistic thugs beating people up before juries even have a say.
Sydney Carton on February 20, 2008 at 3:04 PM
How would you like it if it was you who was smacked around because you were too drunk to comply?
Sydney Carton on February 20, 2008 at 2:59 PM
been there done that….leanred a lesson have never done it again…
Or if it was your daughter, or one of your relatives?
If it stopped her from Drinking and Driving and saved someones life it would be a well learned lesson.
That is called a gulag and supporting it puts you on the side of people like Stalin.
You need to read a little history if you think this comes anywhere near a gulag.
You deserve to be banned
Yeap another socialist stands up to be counted, site is full of them today it seems..
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Out of curiosity, did you specialize in forensic pathology … or is your medical degree in some other field?
Anybody here admit to not being a board-certified plastic surgeon? Since, you know, we’re all apparently experts on what could not possibly have caused her injuries …
Professor Blather on February 20, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Please, by all means enlighten us with your opinion on which other crimes deserve a beating before they ever get to trial. OK, drunk driving is one, and according to some gere so is getting lippy with a cop. Care to expand?
And why stop at beatings? How about public whippings, stonings or beheadings? Trial? Who needs a stinkin trial?
I’m sure you’d feel differently if you made a mistake, got arrested and ended up in the hospital after being beat up while handcuffed.
Hollowpoint on February 20, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Socialist? Because I think the cops aren’t above the law? Tell me, name one conservative who would support a policy allowing cops to beat the hell out of anyone they arrest, before judges and juries have their say. Do you even know the meaning of due process, limited government, and individual rights? And you think you’re a conservative? You’re just a supporter of thugs.
Sydney Carton on February 20, 2008 at 3:07 PM
You want sadistic thugs beating people up before juries even have a say.
Sydney Carton on February 20, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Look a beating is not sadistic thugs. It is applying the needed force to control the sitution. you resist arrest stuff like this happens. Now if she was sitting down in her chair being nice and polite and the cop comes up and hits her I would be against that. But she wasn’t. she was loud, unruly, fighting him at every turn. It was all her fault. Police are there to protect and to serve but they are also there to keep the peace. you do not keep the peace by being nice to unruly drunks.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Ignore him. Obviously anyone who thinks police ought to be allowed to beat alleged perpetrators without any due process whatsoever is either mentally imbalanced or a liberal troll just here trying to make conservatives look bad.
Not even worth the argument. Save your breath. Rest assured most conservatives fully support the U.S. Constitution.
Professor Blather on February 20, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Socialist? Because I think the cops aren’t above the law?Sydney Carton on February 20, 2008 at 3:07 PM
No because your first thought when confronted with speech that you disagree with is to ban it.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 3:11 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
LOL, yeah- police get fired all the time for “being involved” and allowing drunks to fall down. Again, read the article- when after a 4 month investigation the Chief makes a point of saying that there wasn’t enough to bring criminal charges, you can bet that they strongly considered bringing them.
Imagine walking into a room in which you find a civilian man standing over a bloody and broken woman who immediately says that he beat her up. She has 2 very swollen black eyes, a broken nose, broken cheekbone, and broken teeth. You’d be inclined to believe him if he just said “she fell”? Yeah, right.
Hollowpoint on February 20, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Yup. Or a need to compensate for insecurity about his manhood. Probably all three, actually.
Nobody thinks cops should arbitrarily beat people up. Least of all cops. What he’s offering is the worst caricature of what the KosKids think conservatives believe.
So ignore her. Really. Either a kid or a troll.
Professor Blather on February 20, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Zetterson on February 20, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Yes, both ARE possible, but only one is probable. And evidence points more to one than the other.
Those that support the idea she was beaten do so out of ignorance of facial injuries and the fear of not seeing everything on a tape. Because they cannot see it they have to assume the worst of the cop (who has done nothing abusive or out of line up to the point he turns off the tape after her refusal to take the breath test). Their bias against law enforcement officers shows through on a few posters as well.
Those that think she is lying and the cop is telling the truth have suffered injuries, or had family members that have done so, without anyone doing the beating. We take a look at the cops actions before and after the tape was turned off, and actually try to look at the situation without getting emotional and biased.
There is nothing but the drunks claim of abuse that says he hit her. He did not get forceful the whole time she was being crazy drunk. The list goes on from there (and I do not care to retype it all).
I will go with logic on this and not the claim of a drunk (or those that hate cops).
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 3:16 PM
You’re right, the guy is a lunatic. Nobody in their right mind would ever support a policy allowing the police to beat people up without due process. It is insane.
Sydney Carton on February 20, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »