Police video shows disturbing response to teen assault, plus poll
posted at 2:17 pm on March 1, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Any of us who have parented teenagers know how frustrating they can be, and one has to imagine that police officers know that better than most. Most of the time, they react better than Deputy Paul Schene did in this video, after a 15-year-old girl responded to a demand that she remove her shoes by flipping one at Schene. He then charged into the cell and now faces criminal prosecution (via QandO):
The video shows Schene and Brunner as they escorted the girl into the holding cell. Schene had asked her to remove her basketball shoes, and, as she slipped out of her left shoe, she appeared to kick it at Schene.
Schene then lunged through the door and kicked her, striking either her stomach or upper thigh area, court documents say. He pushed her against a corner wall before flinging her to the floor by her hair. He then squatted down on her and made “two overhead strikes,” although it’s unclear where the blows landed.
The detective who reviewed the video said it appeared Schene and Brunner had the girl under control when Schene struck her. Schene, who is 6 feet 2 and weighs 195 pounds, did not explain his action to investigators, court documents say.
He and the girl exchanged words. Brunner said she was “real lippy” after being informed she was under arrest and called them “fat pigs.”
The Sheriff’s Office policy manual says deputies should use physical or deadly force only when “necessary to effect an arrest, to defend themselves or others from violence, or to otherwise accomplish police duties according to law.”
Normally, we give police a lot of leeway to control violent or obstructive arrestees, and for good reason. It’s dangerous to second-guess how an officer reacts in two ways. First, in many instances, we don’t get a chance to see the larger context, in which an officer may see a threat not depicted in later exploration of video clips. Second, it pressures law-enforcement personnel to act too passively in situations requiring greater control, leading to dangerous and even deadly incidents.
In this case, though, it’s difficult to see any context in which Schene could justify his actions. Presumably, the teen had already been searched for weapons and was in fairly firm custody at the jail. She committed an assault by flipping the shoe at Schene (and battery if she actually hit him), but she represented no threat at all, nor were there any threats in the vicinity of the secure detention facility. Even before he punched her in the head twice, Schene used an excessive level of force clearly intended for punitive action rather than to secure the girl.
The defense did not want the video released before the trial because it would “inflame public opinion”. I’d guess that would be the case, but the video is publicly owned by the Seattle taxpayers who paid for it. Would the police have released it if the video showed Schene properly reacting to a real threat? I’m betting yes.
What do Hot Air readers think? Did Schene overreact, and does he deserve prosecution?
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 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Gosh, sorry you were disappointed. Perhaps next time they’ll build a colosseum, and you can watch her get torn to shreds by lions. That way, your sadistic pleasures will be satisfied.
Sydney Carton on March 1, 2009 at 5:56 PM
I saw that also. His lying afterwards indicates guilt. He knew he was wrong and is now trying to cover it up.
He’s going to get the book thrown at him. Notwithstanding all the teenage sadists on this blog, reasonable people don’t want to live in a society in which thugs are cops. Real cops don’t want it either. The only people who are crowing about how happy they are that this girl was mauled are infantile kids on this blog who are cowards. Only cowards are happy that helpless girls are attacked.
Sydney Carton on March 1, 2009 at 5:59 PM
I disagree with the headline. I didn’t find it disturbing. I saw a b*tch with an attitude problem get set straight by a guy who probably puts up with more crap than any of us can imagine. You throw something at a cop? Expect to have your attitude adjusted.
D2Boston on March 1, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Wonderful. That should help bury the dude. I’ve been kicked in the shins with far more force than that flicked shoe ever could muster, and never needed treatment.
And “panic attack”? There’s only one person in that video that lost their senses.
MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 6:02 PM
You are right. I will be disappointed if the lil sociopath finds herself again in a confrontational situation. With her piss poor attitude she may get worse than a mere few hits to the head, but at least you will be satisified.
I’m sure that Paris Hilton never got smacked, but see how well she turned out … NOT!
DannoJyd on March 1, 2009 at 6:03 PM
How did you react?
aengus on March 1, 2009 at 6:04 PM
OMG! You run around pissing people off everywhere? Perhaps you do need treatment. /sarc
DannoJyd on March 1, 2009 at 6:06 PM
The reason they don’t want it released is so that the judicial process can proceed with the best possible chance of an impartial jury. Releasing the tape just because it was paid for the taxpayers is a poor argument. Evidence can get tainted this way. Tax payer dollars pay for ballistics evidence and crime scene evidence (via the pay for detectives and investigators) but taht evidence wouldn’t receive the same treatment, would it?
The evidence should be held until trial, or until they decide not to go to trial, otherwise the prosecution’s case is hurt: What happens if a mistrial is had because it’s found that the jury pool has been prejudiced by this video? If nothing else, the state’s costs just went up, because the defense will file to have the case held elsewhere, and the hearings alone to decide that issue cost money (tax payer money).
We have a system of justice set up to get to the truth and be as fair as possible. Leaking this video undermines that system. While you may not think that it will matter in this case, there are cases where it would matter, and the system might come to the wrong result because of these types of leaks.
jtkerch79 on March 1, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Doesn’t matter if the person arrested is 15 or 50, male or female. If they’re in the cell, that’s the end of it. You don’t go in unless they refuse to get out when you tell them to, or they’re stuffing their underwear in the toilet to make it overflow, or they have a weapon (if they do, you screwed up), etc.
I appreciate the comments about looking at the rest of the story but you have to understand that the police really are, and should be, held to a higher standard of behavior. There is no way to expect society to respect the authority of the police if they use that authority to act like a criminal.
Allowing your anger to control your behavior is something all people have to deal with in one way or another sometime in their lives, but for a policeman, it’s simply something that must not happen.
No excuses. A professional officer doesn’t behave like this. His actions make him no better than the morons out there. If he is unable to contain his rage, then he has no business being a cop.
n0doz on March 1, 2009 at 6:09 PM
So now a teenager with an attitude problem is a sociopath? And not the cop who brutally attacked her? You are really sick. How do you know she has a “piss poor attitude”? There’s NO AUDIO! Aren’t you guys saying not to judge? You don’t know what she said, yet you’re glad she was attacked.
And for the last time, words are not adequate provocation. The law has said that for centuries, with a reason. Because it demands more of its people, including state actors, than jumping at the slightest offense.
LOL, your attack on Paris Hilton is the icing on the cake. Talk about small dick syndrome.
Sydney Carton on March 1, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Yep. For all we know someone reading this thread could be on the jury.
aengus on March 1, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Grabbed the person by the arms, turned them around, and sat them down on the floor until someone bigger could take control of them. All without punching or hair-pulling.
My point is that what she could be seen doing in the video would barely raise a bruise. We’re talking about a teenage girl’s shoe being flicked with minimal force. She’s a brat, and she has an attitude. However, those aren’t crimes, nor are they justification for what happened.
MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 6:11 PM
As if the video isn’t enough – here are a few other particulars to ponder:
He swore on his statement that the shoe in the video formed a blood filled pocket. Really.
I think that sums it up. I’m sure he is a fine officer. Just misunderstood and underappreciated.
Now, I am going to go throw up.
JeffinOrlando on March 1, 2009 at 6:12 PM
By the way, I might admit to a bit more bias than most in the US, because I still live in a state where the cops are the only ones allowed to carry a gun, openly or concealed. The former is legal, but a lot of cops will ticket you for a superfluous charge merely by having it.
MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Good.
I’m not holding you to the same standard as the cop. I presume it was a dude your own size that kicked you. I was just curious.
aengus on March 1, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Wikipedia lists WI as an “Anomalous Open Carry State” which apparently means that it is “generally lawful, but the state may lack preemption or there may be other significant restrictions.” Is that an error?
aengus on March 1, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Nah! I’m sure she was picked up for selling girl scout cookies.
BTW, your liberal homosexual tendencies are showing.
DannoJyd on March 1, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Nope. It was a woman in her early twenties, drunk, and with one of those lovely attitudes we all know.
The thing is, if we’re going to entrust LEOs with the authority to detain us and potentially put us in prison, they need to be held to a higher standard than what we civilians would do. By no means am I saying there shouldn’t be an understanding that their job is dangerous, and some consideration is required. The Rodney King case was a perfect example of a need for the look at the facts of the case, even though they did make mistakes.
This, on the other hand, isn’t a 300 pound grown man, drunk, high on weed, charging officers and getting up after being tasered twice, all while 23 officers with multiple cars and a police helicopter overhead are facing him. This is a 15 year old girl in a cell, flicking her shoe off.
The most important point I’m trying to make is that true bad apples like these are tried and punished if guilty, so that people like Stacey Koon aren’t crucified for being justified in their actions.
MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Well, I will say in the Jo case it was the opinion of an inquest jury that Schene was justified in that Jo attacked him, tried to strangle him with his radio cord, and was believed by Schene to be going for a weapon when Schene shot him (no weapon recovered). Schene had someone in custody in his car when he pulled Jo over, but what she had to say didn’t figure into any of the news reports I have been able to find.
DrSteve on March 1, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Actually, both the Attorney General and the Governor have made public statements that people can open carry their firearms. However, if you do it, you can be charged with Mayhem, Disorderly Conduct, or Disturbing the Peace if someone gets upset that they see a pistol on your hip.
The recent court case in West Allis is a huge step in the direction of stopping that BS, but it will be dissected by the anti-gun lefties in our Supreme Court.
MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 6:24 PM
I think that juvenile comment speaks for itself. I was right, the only people who are happy over this vicious attack are cowardly kids.
Sydney Carton on March 1, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Tool alert.
MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 6:28 PM
This is police brutality, no matter how you try to spin this. When a 15 yr old girl flicks her shoes and gets mauled by an officer, that guy has no business in the force on my tax dollars. I am really amazed to see some folks trying to defend this officer – it is *indefensible*. Trying to convince someone that a police officer should be given a benefit of doubt in *all* situations just because he has taken the oath to protect our citizens, is akin to saying we should always be giving benefit of doubt to our elected officials even when they are doing something boneheaded.
peter_griffin on March 1, 2009 at 6:28 PM
For such a ‘vicious assault’ as some of you claim it was, her only complaint was a bruise on her hip and some scratches on her arm and neck. Afterwards, she complained of not being able to breath, medics were called and treated her. It was unnecessary to transport her to the hospital. That’s why the officer noted she had a panic attack.
Blake on March 1, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Emotional distress should not be the basis for charging anyone with a crime. If that were enforced uniformly throughout society you’d have already been arrested for “Mayhem” due to your comments. :)
Here’s hoping that your get your full 2nd Amendment rights.
aengus on March 1, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Oh, good. I’m sure being thrown around and punched had nothing to do with it.
MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 6:33 PM
“mauled”? I don’t think so. Did the girl have any actual, physical injuries?
progressoverpeace on March 1, 2009 at 6:33 PM
What happened prior to the video tape? We don’t know, and thus are not qualified to make an opinion.
We know the girl was locked up. Why? We also know she wasn’t scared. Why not? We do know that she did something to piss off that cop, and I too don’t believe it was just the shoe incident.
We’ll never know, but I would bet she is a repeat offender.
DannoJyd on March 1, 2009 at 6:35 PM
No joke…that’s part of the reason I stay as anonymous as possible. Working in this town, I don’t need my politics to become an excuse to fire me in an economy like this.
Thanks. I’m going to be fighting like mad to see if it can happen before really bad things begin happening.
MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Those “punches” were hardly real punches. Watch the video again and watch the “punches”. They weren’t real. Not even close.
progressoverpeace on March 1, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Troll alert!
DannoJyd on March 1, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Uhhhh kay.
MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 6:37 PM
At the trial we’ll hear the testimony of the two officers.
aengus on March 1, 2009 at 6:38 PM
So, if they were so real, what damage did they do? Tell me.
progressoverpeace on March 1, 2009 at 6:39 PM
I mean the jury will hear the testimony of the two officers.
aengus on March 1, 2009 at 6:41 PM
Yeah, they probably weren’t that effective since the officer was in a rage and not under control to properly apply the beating. More glancing blows than anything else.
Are you friggin kidding me?
JeffinOrlando on March 1, 2009 at 6:43 PM
So police officers are allowed to punch and kick people in custody if they have something said to them that pisses them off?
Is that written down somewhere?
Tomblvd on March 1, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Okay. He was in such a rage that he was pounding her with full force but unable to get a square shot in. Right. And they look slow and pulled in the video because … the frame rate just happened to slow down concurrently with the blows?
progressoverpeace on March 1, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Thing is, now all that matters is what her jury believes at trial. Thanks, officer!
I cannot imagine why she didn’t ask to be taken to the hospital, what with the helpful officers (having just familiarized her with her lung volume) standing right there, and having said goodness knows what to her between the beatdown and the arrival of the EMTs.
DrSteve on March 1, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Perhaps because this is America, not North Korea. See, in America, we have things called due process and constitutional rights. Whereas in North Korea, if you enter a police station they can do whatever they want to you.
Sounds like you’re more happy with the North Korea version of things.
Sydney Carton on March 1, 2009 at 6:49 PM
I meant to write: “… the frame rate just happened to speed up …”
progressoverpeace on March 1, 2009 at 6:49 PM
The officer’s jury, I mean.
DrSteve on March 1, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Why do we want to live in a world where teenage girls feel so free and cocky to flip shit (and shoes) at cops that are locking them up? How much crap do cops have to take? How self-rightous should teenage punks get to feel? Should he have called in a riot squad with non-lethal padded shields and foam-rubber batons to subdue her?
Spartacus on March 1, 2009 at 6:50 PM
?
We don’t. But that is what the judicial system is for. They could have charged her with additional charges. But now that won’t happen, will it?
Instead, she’ll be sitting on a pile of money with an even bigger attitude.
No, he should have closed the door.
Tomblvd on March 1, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Putting your imagination aside, as a juvenile, she has the right to counsel who would have seen that she received medical treatment if she requested it or if the atty thought she needed it. Additionally, her atty would document any and all injuries she complained she received while in custody. As it stands, she has only complained of a bruise and some scratches.
Blake on March 1, 2009 at 7:01 PM
We don’t know if she asked to be taken to the hospital. All we know is that she wasn’t. It could be that the police refused to take her to the hospital, because it would’ve exposed the beating more.
Sydney Carton on March 1, 2009 at 7:07 PM
How much you wanna bet the cop’s a Democrat?
flipflop on March 1, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Look, the issue here is how a police officer or any other person with authority should react in a similar situation.
Q: Was this girl stupid, belligerant, disrespectful, and asking for a good thump from the reality stick?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Given that, should a police officer escalate the amount of force being used on a detained individual disproportionately to the amount of force used upon him, just because she deserved it?
A: Absolutely not. A profesional would use only the force necessary to handle the situation. No matter how bad you want to slap a smug grin off a delinquent’s face, you don’t, because you are better than that and you don’t have to to control her. He could easily have turned her around and cuffed her without going to the level of force he used. His partner was right there and could’ve helped. But he chose to use her hair for leverage (that’s the part I think will most stick in a juror’s mind) to throw her to the ground. If she had become aggressive instead of just childishly defiant, then take her down, however you need to. Maybe that truly was the case here. Maybe we only saw part of the problem. But guess what? We will not see the other things that may or may not have happened, because they probably were not caught on video. Neither will teh jury. So now, no matter what his reasons that he will claim, the jury will see a tenaged girl getting beat down by a cop (a minority to boot) and this girl will get a reduced sentance or just plain get off, and at a minimum the cop will get suspended for a while.
Like it or not, you wear a uniform (Military, police, etc.) you are held to a higher standard, because you represent more than just yourself. Every one of us that wear uniforms know this, and his apparent slip in professionalism is his own fault. Period.
He knows that too, if he could honestly answer without self-incrimination.
jtkerch79 on March 1, 2009 at 7:23 PM
That was waaaay over the top and uncalled for. She didnt throw it at him, for God’s sake. I hope they throw the book at him.
becki51758 on March 1, 2009 at 7:24 PM
The fact that he is a police officer is imaterial, he assaulted an unarmed and restrained underage girl. The act of flipping her shoe at the officer while petulent and disrespectful is not justification for what happened to her and neither is any words she may have directed at Officer Paul Schane. This man
iswas an agent of the law, he should be held to higher standard not a lower one.The test here is objective not subjective ie, would a right minded individual have reacted the way this
manpunk did in a similar scenario.I think if your answer to that question is yes or you think that this 15 year old girl got what she deserved you need to ask yourself some serious questions about what kind of individual you are and how it is that your outlook on the role of the police force in your community has become so skewed.
Finally while this officer may claim a defense of provocation in the criminal proceedings that he will likely face it’s clear that nothing this girl did could possibly meet the legal test for such a defense furthermore in civil proceedings there is no such defense.
Equanim1ty found on March 1, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Still delusional, I see. She was examined by medics who determined that she did not need to go to the hospital. If she had been beaten, as you claim she was, she would have had noticeable and/or complained of injuries when she saw her atty, when she saw the judge, and when she saw her parents. In your delusional conspiratorial world, are they also in cahoots with the police? lol!
p.s.: Are you a 9/11 truthier, too?
Blake on March 1, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Going by your line of thought, it is ok for you to assault your wife as long as she does not have any injuries. Makes sense.
peter_griffin on March 1, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Rocket scientist: If the fact that he is a police officer is immaterial (it is not) then you can’t argue that he should be held to a higher standard because he is a police officer.
Blake on March 1, 2009 at 7:32 PM
That’s your line of thought, not his.
If someone denies punching their wife in the head and the wife has no noticible head injuries and does not complain of injuries or pain to her head, it is evidence that she was not punched in the head. duh.
Blake on March 1, 2009 at 7:35 PM
But if there is video that proves it….
Duh.
Tomblvd on March 1, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Is it my imagination, or are the folks here who don’t think Schene was too aggressive using awfully aggressive rhetoric (eg “delusional”, “Rocket Scientist”, etc.) to make their arguments…?
JohnTant on March 1, 2009 at 7:38 PM
I used to work at a boys group home. We were all trained in SCM..Safe Crisis Management. If a teen flipped out was would restrain him. We had to fill out paperwork afterwards and if there were injuries, the state investigated. There are ways to handle a child who is attacking you. That wasnt an attack tho.
That was not any kind of legal restraint either well, maybe in Seattle it is, but not in PA.
becki51758 on March 1, 2009 at 7:39 PM
LOL. Blake’s saying that the guy didn’t punch her when he clearly did. Didn’t slam her head against the wall when he clearly did. Didn’t slam her head to the ground when he clearly did. Didn’t pull her up by the hair when he clearly did.
One thing about this incident that is also chilling is the fact that this is one of the few that was recorded by video that provides obvious impartial evidence. How many times has this happened with no video? Cops could get away with murder without a video showing another side. Thankfully, this seems evident to all except for the most willfully blind.
Sydney Carton on March 1, 2009 at 7:41 PM
If you applied that standard, then any officer arresting anyone would be guilty of assault, since a private citizen woud be charged with assault and, possibly, kidnapping for doing the same thing as the police. Of course we allow our police to use force that we don’t allow private citizens in the same situation. General rules for physical confrontations between civilians dictate (in many states, if wrongly) that one must run away, if possible. Police are charged with pursuing and subduing, in the same exact circumstances.
And if I tossed my shoe, in the same way that the girl did, at some liberal protester, I’d probably be hauled off to jail. You know that this is true. It would be assault and I’d be in big trouble. They’d probably try to charge me with some “hate” enhancement, too. And then the feds would come after me on a “civil rights” violation.
progressoverpeace on March 1, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Oh, that’s total coincidence.
MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 7:42 PM
I said that it was clear from the video that those “punches” were pulled, big time.
progressoverpeace on March 1, 2009 at 7:43 PM
The video does not show the officer hitting her in the head. The court affidavit does not allege that he hit her in the head. And the juvenile does not complain of head pain.
duh yourself.
Blake on March 1, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Nothing I haven’t been called by others here first. And I agree. They did use awfully aggressive rhetoric because I didn’t agree with them.
Blake on March 1, 2009 at 7:47 PM
I looked at that video again and it looks like me that she is just removing her shoes…they do look like slip-ons. My teenager always removed hers that way..and I didnt attack her.
becki51758 on March 1, 2009 at 7:47 PM
So, if my wife comes home and starts “lipping off” at me and then kicks her shoes at me, I can kick her, pull her hair and throw her on the ground. And as long as there are no bruises or lasting pain, I’m in the clear?
Tomblvd on March 1, 2009 at 7:52 PM
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/399955_deputyweb13.html
When the girl stepped back after the kick, “Deputy Schene pushed her onto the back wall. Deputy Schene then took (her) down to the floor by her hair and had her in a handcuffing position. While on the floor, Deputy Schene looked to have (her) in a hair hold and was pulling her head and neck upward,” court papers said.
The affidavit said Schene in the video makes “two overhead strikes down towards” the girl, but the camera angle does not capture where they landed.
A second deputy, who has not been charged, was doing paperwork but witnessed some of the incident, and said the strikes hit the girl in the chest, the court papers said.
Following the alleged assault, the girl complained that she had difficulty breathing and an aid car was called. SeaTac firefighter medics checked her but did not transport her to a hospital.
Schene was not interviewed by Johnson. Through his lawyer, Anne Bremner, he replied to questions sent via e-mail, prosecutors said.
According to court documents, Schene answered that he re-entered the cell to put handcuffs on the girl to prevent another assault after she hit him with her shoe. Schene said the girl “provided resistance and failure to comply with the instructions in the holding area.”
JohnTant on March 1, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Mmmm. Full-bodied Merlot. Hints of cherry and spice, with a smooth finish. I need some cheese for this whine.
MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 7:54 PM
He lied..that shoe did not hit him. What an ass. He must think hes a tough guy.
I would sue his ass if it was my daughter.
becki51758 on March 1, 2009 at 7:57 PM
The officer is not married to the juvenile. She’s a prisoner. If a prisoner refuses to submit to a search, an officer can use force. How much force is necessary and what force was used, is a contested issue for trial. And no, you can not just lock up a prisoner without searching them for objects that they may use to hurt themselves.
You seem to be obsessed with hurting your wife. Maybe, you should seek counseling.
Blake on March 1, 2009 at 7:58 PM
What’s with these civilian analogies? They don’t apply. If your wife stole your potato chips you wouldn’t be allowed to put her up against a wall, frisk her and cuff her, either. But if she stole a bag of potato chips from a store, that is just what a policeman is supposed to do.
I understand the argument that the cop used too much force, but these attempts to paint him as vicious are really beyond the pale. He was certainly allowed to use some force. It is a question of degree and she doesn’t appear to have been hurt.
progressoverpeace on March 1, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Wow…cop misconduct threads never fail to impress me with those who twist themselves into knots defending a bad cop and the sheer volume of posts.
flipflop on March 1, 2009 at 8:00 PM
So you too have been locked up? What did you do?
I’m guessing that as you seem to be such a knowledgable person on the subject.
DannoJyd on March 1, 2009 at 8:03 PM
M
Or, those with little or no knowledge of the facts or law, will convict them solely because they are a police officer.
Blake on March 1, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Uh, she wasn’t refusing. He attacked her becase she kicked a shoe at him and was “lippy”. At the time of the attack she was in the process of removing her shoes, he just didn’t like the way she was doing it.
Tomblvd on March 1, 2009 at 8:06 PM
They do apply when the officer is being defended on the basis of the fact that the girl didn’t have any visible bruises.
Tomblvd on March 1, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Oh, you read lips without even seeing the lips?
Blake on March 1, 2009 at 8:11 PM
She’s not complaining of any invisible bruises, either. You and others have this way of intentionally misstating arguments. The girl complained of a bruise on her hip and some scratches on her neck and arms. She did not complain of soreness to her head or chest.
Blake on March 1, 2009 at 8:14 PM
What are you talking about?
Tomblvd on March 1, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Geez, I got hit on the shin harder than that playing soccer in highschool. I couldn’t walk and had to be taken out of the game for awhile. I didn’t know I had the right to slam the guy against a wall and such.
aikidoka on March 1, 2009 at 8:20 PM
I know someone whose husband slammed her against the wall, chocked her, etc. and she didn’t bruise up much at all, that time.
aikidoka on March 1, 2009 at 8:21 PM
It appeared to be police brutality to me. However that girl is dumb as a box of rocks.
.
On the plus side had she behaved that way to the SS (Gestapo) she would have been raped and murdered with nothing being said.
darktood on March 1, 2009 at 8:21 PM
No, he read the linked article. Maybe you should try it.
MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 8:28 PM
And now that this officer clearly overacted in an unbecoming manner, what lesson has she learned? She may even make some money from this. Why should she have respect for authority when the “authority figures” act no better than she herself would act – if not worse? No, I’m sorry, but this behavior does not eradicate brats from our society.
Upstater85 on March 1, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Ah, now I get it. I couldn’t figure out what the heck he was talking about. I just assumed someone who is spout off so much about this whole mess would have taken the minute or two necessary to actually read the article.
Some people can’t be bothered with the facts.
I wonder if he realizes that this incredibly dangerous auto theif actually boosted her parent’s car.
The kid is a jackass and deserves to be punished, but now she’ll be able to afford her own car, and a lot more. And all the while she’ll be laughing at the system.
Yep, they sure taught her a lesson…
Tomblvd on March 1, 2009 at 8:37 PM
This “cop” is a punk a$$ poser who needs to have his clock cleaned every way possible. This kind of abuse must not be tolerated from our government employees authorized to carry guns, arrest us and hold us in jail. Because he is an officer of the court he needs to be hammered hard.
HumblyRight on March 1, 2009 at 8:38 PM
I’m usually pretty forgiving on what police do to keep order, which is necessary. This, however, was insanely stupid.
I know police should be honored for keeping calm while taking a lot of crap, but that is part of the job. One who reacts this way should not be a cop, plain and simple.
Grafted on March 1, 2009 at 8:44 PM
She did complain about breathing difficulties shortly after she got beat up. I guess that she didn’t have the whole laundry list of her possible injuries ready on short notice for the paramedics makes it all OK?
JohnTant on March 1, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Some of the commenters here seam like they side with Chris Brown because ya know Rihanna is “real lippy”.
- The Cat
MirCat on March 1, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Let me school all you wussies. Oakland Police Jail Division in this house. The kid is a scum bag and has no respect for any authority. Some people only get the point/respond to physical action. JUST WORDS….that don’t cut it. We are taught to always grab the hair, if they have hair, to take some one down, and that’s where you want her. It is possible that she was spitting at him and that’s why he “hit” her. An officer that size is well within reasonable force because even a small girl can kick ass.
depending on his explanation for the slap, I would say 5 days on the beach w/o pay. The union will get 4 days back and its all good. BUT DON’T DO THAT AGAIN.
Mercy4Me on March 1, 2009 at 9:11 PM
Stewie says : “The Cat has an excellent point.”
peter_griffin on March 1, 2009 at 9:11 PM
Nice try at misrepresenting the facts. She gave the statement regarding her injuries several days later. By that time, she would have also spoken to her parents and attorney. And the story broke 3 months after that. There is no indication that her complaint changed.
Blake on March 1, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Missed the /sarc tag. You are kidding, right?
peter_griffin on March 1, 2009 at 9:14 PM
M4M,
As I stated earlier if a cop did this to one of my daughters he had better give his soul to the lord because his ass is mine and there wouldn’t be enough left of him to bury.
thomasaur on March 1, 2009 at 9:21 PM
I’m not misrepresenting anything. I’m going by what the story quoted:
She didn’t wait until “several days later” to complain about breathing difficulties…she complained immediately after, which is what prompted the paramedic call and the bogus “panic attack” diagnosis from Our Hero. This shades your representations that she didn’t complain about any injuries contemporaneous to the incident…she did.
Frankly Blake, I think you should go back and read the stories before you start accusing anyone of misrepresenting facts, especially in such a grossly condescending manner. You got caught once before (the “lippy” post), after all.
JohnTant on March 1, 2009 at 9:23 PM
25 year cop here. Shoe or shoelace removal, as well as the removal of the belt and other potential ligatures, is standard anytime someone is to be left in a cell (hanging prevention). She projects one shoe at him and he clearly goes well beyond an appropriate reaction. Should she have been controlled to prevent the other one from going airborne? Yes, but by other means than flattening her and punching her twice. Yes, I know we couldn’t see where his punches landed, but if they missed her and hit the concrete floor, the second strike wouldn’t have occurred and HE’d be the one needing medical treatment. I support my fellow officers when they are right, correct them when they unintentionally or understandably (under the situation at the time) do more than necessary, but I cannot condone this amount of force in this situation. And YES, I have been attacked in the line of duty and had to fight bad guys, and I will never hesitate to join another officer in any situation where we will both be in danger, so I can make the points herein. As I tell my rookies, every unnecessary punch or kick is another $2,000 into the pocket of the bad guy and $8,000 into the pocket of his lawyer!
AmericanDad on March 1, 2009 at 9:23 PM
And you and the other jerk still don’t. There is no sound and you don’t know what words were “exchanged.”
And I would expect someone who didn’t hear the conversation and only read “exchange words” would not be so dishonest as to extrapolate it as proof she did not refuse.
You said “she wasn’t refusing.” So tell us exactly what he said to her and what she said to him. Exact quotes. Apparently, you can’t be bothered with facts because you just make them up to suit your purpose.
Blake on March 1, 2009 at 9:24 PM
As a former Military Policeman, brutality throw the book. He is in a position of authority and should behave accordingly.
opiemuyo on March 1, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Blake’s Law: When an argument doesn’t go your way, or you are caught not knowing what you’re talking about, argue semantics.
MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 9:28 PM
She was in the process of taking her shoes off when he attacked her. She kicked the shoe at him and he immediately attacked her, there was no time for her to refuse to do anything.
I realize you refuse to look at the video, but it is really quite clear on this fact. They asked her for her shoe, she kicked one at them, and the officer went in after her.
Tomblvd on March 1, 2009 at 9:32 PM
Some police officers are sadists. Simple enough.
spmat on March 1, 2009 at 9:35 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »