Investigation Launched After Cop Punches Teen Girl At Pride Fest

[ksen]

More like being angry at a dog for biting someone when their handler reacts badly to them. Or blaming a shark for biting when it smells blood. You train someone to react immediately to a perceived attack, along with a media that makes us paranoid about attacks, and then marvel in stupidity when someone actually acts.

If you can't understand why my story about (a skilled person) not being able to (perceive important details) in a situation of (heightened adrenaline), the same essential situation that the cop was in, applies to the cop, then you are the blind one here.

Cops aren't soldiers so your example has no bearing on the issue. And I can't think of any situation where, "it was the adrenaline, man!" is a valid excuse for beating the shit out of somebody.

 

[KeepTalking]

If you can't understand why my story about (a skilled person) not being able to (perceive important details) in a situation of (heightened adrenaline), the same essential situation that the cop was in, applies to the cop, then you are the blind one here. Even the ability to discern friend or foe in such stressful situations is shoddy at best, hence why the kid that pops out of the closet in that scenario was shot dead 3 in 4 groups.

So, a soldier who is the process of being trained for the chaos of combat is the same essential situation as a cop on the job, who has supposedly completed his training, and is not in a combat situation? No, not buying it.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I'm gay. I certainly do not have a problem with the girl or her behavior. I am also, however, trained in threat management, assessment, and reaction. You think it's so fucking easy to know what 'right' is in the heat of the moment. You don't seem to want to acknowledge the fact that snap judgements suffer from having to be made by a part of the brain that bypasses rational thought. News flash: when there's an active potential threat, you act first and thinking comes later. It's the difference between being dead or alive at the end of it.

I feel for the girl. The bad guy here is the one who freaked out, screamed that the girl was a threat, and triggered a reaction response.

While I agree that the duck dynasty asshole is also culpable, the police officer is also supposed to be trained in "threat management, assessment, and reaction". His job is to keep his head cool in difficult situations, assess the problem, stabilize the situation so everyone is safe and then do an investigation to determine if someone should be arrested for breaking the law. He did none of this, instead losing his temper and bypassing his rational thought processes and repeatedly beating the crap out of a small teenage girl, using WAY more violence than was necessary to subdue her. All the while also bypassing the investigatory part of the process. In essence, he took some guy's word that he was assaulted, and acted.

While I expect police officers to make mistakes in handling difficult situations and attempting to keep a cool head during highly emotional situations, this wasn't even an exceptionally demanding situation for a police officer to be in. He negligently mishandled a simple protest situation in which opposite sides were engaged in over the top rhetoric. He should be charged with assault, unlawful arrest, and be severely disciplined if not terminated. He abused his power and picked a small powerless target to vent his own frustrations upon.

Just because police officers in this country often have systemic problems with abusing their power does not excuse his behavior and remove the need for corrective action. If we are to ever fix these problems than an obvious step in doing so is to make sure that abusers of the system that violate a suspects rights should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The problem is that people are so afraid of crime thanks to the media that they grant the police far too much power and offer way too much leeway in their day to day activities. The reason that it doesn't get more media attention in itself is that black people are usually the target of this kind of abuse, and so many couldn't care less. The problem is spreading however, and perhaps as more and more people become targets of these bad cops we may be able to affect change.

There is a very authoritarian streak (especially on the right) in this country, and the pool of people that desire and are selected to be police officers are often authoritarian as well. Add to this a very "us and them" attitude with regards to cops verses the civilian population, and mix in the nature of the job itself, which doesn't usually involve contact with fine examples of human behavior, and you have an ugly situation just waiting to overflow with problems. Now, because of fear of terrorism, these same authoritarians are armed to the teeth and often more of a paramilitary operation than a police force. This further alienates them from the civilian population, and also increases the general fear and anxiety among the civilians, often making them more compliant out of fear, and more likely to make mistakes in situations that involve police officers, because they are so fearful.

Change is sorely needed, and step one is to curb the tide of rights violations by officers. They must know they will be prosecuted if they knowingly do these things, not protected by the very system that is supposed to be protecting the civilian population in this country. Unfortunately, the days when they were simply viewed as necessary public servants is gone, replaced by thugs with weapons that in many cases despise the very public they are supposed to SERVE and PROTECT.

 

[laughing dog]

More like being angry at a dog for biting someone when their handler reacts badly to them. Or blaming a shark for biting when it smells blood. You train someone to react immediately to a perceived attack, along with a media that makes us paranoid about attacks, and then marvel in stupidity when someone actually acts.

If you can't understand why my story about (a skilled person) not being able to (perceive important details) in a situation of (heightened adrenaline), the same essential situation that the cop was in, applies to the cop, then you are the blind one here.

Cops aren't soldiers so your example has no bearing on the issue. And I can't think of any situation where, "it was the adrenaline, man!" is a valid excuse for beating the shit out of somebody.

MMA or ice hockey fights come to mind. But certainly not for a response by police officers.

 

[Sajara]

Threat Assessment

When I was a teenager, I ran out of gas on a highway off-ramp. It was late at night and the gas station I was trying to get to, which was only 100yards or so away, was closed. I didn't have a spare gas can in my car at the time, so I was stuck. I called the local police station for help.

An officer came within minutes. He started to get out of his car, so I started to get out of mine. As I started walking towards his car, his hand went to his gun at his hip and he started to pull it out of its holster. He immediately told me to go back to my car and wait there.

Once I did so, his gun went right back in his holster and he informed me that I should never approach an officer in their vehicle without their okay to do so.

I was a potential threat, but rather than punching at me wildly, he started to draw his weapon for his own protection and gave me clear instructions. Had I resisted or actually been a threat, he would have had his weapon drawn and called for back up.

This to me, makes complete sense for how an officer handles a potentially dangerous situation. If the officer in the video wanted to handle the situation better, he would have asked for a clearing between the protestors and the crowd, about 10 feet or so, larger if the crowd gets bigger. From there he would have a better handle on the situation and a more direct line of sight between the crowd and the protestors.

If someone was creating a disturbance, reaching for that gun (he wouldn't even have to draw it) and giving clear instructions to step forward and explain the issue at hand would have been infinitely better than what happened.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are two questions that need to be answered:

1) Did the girl do something that warranted her being placed under arrest?

2) Did the girl do something that warranted her being knocked down, pulled back up by her hair, and punched in the gut 3 times before being placed under arrest?

These questions overlap somewhat, but they are separate considerations. If the girl did something for which she could have been arrested, it does not follow that she did something that warranted the beating the cop gave her.

I'll disagree on both of these points.

In one sense #1 is the important issue--was the cop justified in arresting her?

The cop's behavior isn't out of line for someone resisting arrest, thus #2 is moot.

However, in reality #1 is also moot--you are not allowed to resist even an unlawful arrest. If it's an unlawful arrest you're supposed to challenge it in court, not at the scene.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Comparing the unedited video and "from an other angle one" on :

http://www.towleroad.com/2014/06/newclippgh.html

the cop undeniably on the unedited video proceeds to engage in an immediate physical intervention where he pushes her and then grabs her by her hair to then punch her. At those points, there is absolutely nothing indicating he was to engage in any defensive violence based on the claim of her "resisting arrest" (mind you she was charged with resisting arrest). He basically jumps in and on her. As if there were no other alternative but to physically assault her to defuse the situation and respond to the alleged fear of being assaulted communicated by the douchebag whose sole motivation to be present a the Gay Pride event was to agitate and provoke. There is no attempt on the cop's part to engage in a verbal communication with her to defuse the situation. He right away jumped into the use of physical force and at a time she is not in any direct physical contact with the allegedly threatened party.

A couple of thoughts crossing my mind when it comes to the power given to words : those religious agitators and provocateurs get profound satisfaction from watching this teen going ape shit on them. That is what they want. They want to hurt and wound you with their vociferation to the point you will forget that GLBT persons in the US have already won several battles. You forget they have no power over Federal Judges who will block legislation intended to prevent you from benefiting of equal rights. They have no power over the approval rate of the majority of Americans regarding gay marriage in 2014. They had no power in preventing the dismantlement of DNADNT. Your fellow gay men and women who are servicemembers do not have to hide any longer. Those hate groups are no different than "the dogs who bark as the caravan passes by" (Arab proverb).Remember that your caravan keeps moving forward and on its path will be greeted by millions who cheer for you.

It is their hateful words which bite you. But they have no power over your experiencing of love for your same gender partner in life. Why give them the time of the day? Why reacting to their presence at an event which celebrates you and your fellow gay persons? Keep singing, dancing and walking hand and hand and ignore them. Do not give them the satisfaction of their hateful words causing so much distress and anger.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are two questions that need to be answered:

1) Did the girl do something that warranted her being placed under arrest?

2) Did the girl do something that warranted her being knocked down, pulled back up by her hair, and punched in the gut 3 times before being placed under arrest?

These questions overlap somewhat, but they are separate considerations. If the girl did something for which she could have been arrested, it does not follow that she did something that warranted the beating the cop gave her.

I'll disagree on both of these points.

Just stunned.

In one sense #1 is the important issue--was the cop justified in arresting her?

Certainly not out of the blue.

The cop's behavior isn't out of line for someone resisting arrest, thus #2 is moot.

Three punches into the abdomen of a teen? That would be is someone is very forcefully resisting arrest... ie attacking the officer.

However, in reality #1 is also moot--you are not allowed to resist even an unlawful arrest. If it's an unlawful arrest you're supposed to challenge it in court, not at the scene.

So it is just wild west then? Jebus man, there is video evidence that this is unjust, and you are all fine with it. It is free game according to you. The cop can do whatever. The officer should be fired.[/progressive]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

More like being angry at a dog for biting someone when their handler reacts badly to them. Or blaming a shark for biting when it smells blood. You train someone to react immediately to a perceived attack, along with a media that makes us paranoid about attacks, and then marvel in stupidity when someone actually acts.

If you can't understand why my story about (a skilled person) not being able to (perceive important details) in a situation of (heightened adrenaline), the same essential situation that the cop was in, applies to the cop, then you are the blind one here.

Cops aren't soldiers so your example has no bearing on the issue. And I can't think of any situation where, "it was the adrenaline, man!" is a valid excuse for beating the shit out of somebody.

They're both use-of-force situations. I find the comparison reasonable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

More like being angry at a dog for biting someone when their handler reacts badly to them. Or blaming a shark for biting when it smells blood. You train someone to react immediately to a perceived attack, along with a media that makes us paranoid about attacks, and then marvel in stupidity when someone actually acts.

If you can't understand why my story about (a skilled person) not being able to (perceive important details) in a situation of (heightened adrenaline), the same essential situation that the cop was in, applies to the cop, then you are the blind one here.

Cops aren't soldiers so your example has no bearing on the issue. And I can't think of any situation where, "it was the adrenaline, man!" is a valid excuse for beating the shit out of somebody.

They're both use-of-force situations. I find the comparison reasonable.

Why is violence required to subdue the teen?

 

[doubtingt]

More like being angry at a dog for biting someone when their handler reacts badly to them. Or blaming a shark for biting when it smells blood. You train someone to react immediately to a perceived attack, along with a media that makes us paranoid about attacks, and then marvel in stupidity when someone actually acts.

If you can't understand why my story about (a skilled person) not being able to (perceive important details) in a situation of (heightened adrenaline), the same essential situation that the cop was in, applies to the cop, then you are the blind one here.

Cops aren't soldiers so your example has no bearing on the issue. And I can't think of any situation where, "it was the adrenaline, man!" is a valid excuse for beating the shit out of somebody.

They're both use-of-force situations. I find the comparison reasonable.

Why is violence required to subdue the teen?

Exactly. If that is the only way this cop could subdue and unarmed teenage girl who showed no ability or will to use any real force against the cop, then the cop is pathetically incompetent to a degree where he is unable to protect or serve the community. Thus, he should be fired. If he could have used other more effective methods that all cops are trained to use, but instead chose to beat her while she was in a cowering position, then it was an act of criminal violence with intent to harm and he should go to prison.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Comparing the unedited video and "from an other angle one" on :

http://www.towleroad.com/2014/06/newclippgh.html

the cop undeniably on the unedited video proceeds to engage in an immediate physical intervention where he pushes her and then grabs her by her hair to then punch her. At those points, there is absolutely nothing indicating he was to engage in any defensive violence based on the claim of her "resisting arrest" (mind you she was charged with resisting arrest). He basically jumps in and on her. As if there were no other alternative but to physically assault her to defuse the situation and respond to the alleged fear of being assaulted communicated by the douchebag whose sole motivation to be present a the Gay Pride event was to agitate and provoke. There is no attempt on the cop's part to engage in a verbal communication with her to defuse the situation. He right away jumped into the use of physical force and at a time she is not in any direct physical contact with the allegedly threatened party.

A couple of thoughts crossing my mind when it comes to the power given to words : those religious agitators and provocateurs get profound satisfaction from watching this teen going ape shit on them. That is what they want. They want to hurt and wound you with their vociferation to the point you will forget that GLBT persons in the US have already won several battles. You forget they have no power over Federal Judges who will block legislation intended to prevent you from benefiting of equal rights. They have no power over the approval rate of the majority of Americans regarding gay marriage in 2014. They had no power in preventing the dismantlement of DNADNT. Your fellow gay men and women who are servicemembers do not have to hide any longer. Those hate groups are no different than "the dogs who bark as the caravan passes by" (Arab proverb).Remember that your caravan keeps moving forward and on its path will be greeted by millions who cheer for you.

It is their hateful words which bite you. But they have no power over your experiencing of love for your same gender partner in life. Why give them the time of the day? Why reacting to their presence at an event which celebrates you and your fellow gay persons? Keep singing, dancing and walking hand and hand and ignore them. Do not give them the satisfaction of their hateful words causing so much distress and anger.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sabine Grant again.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just watched the vid from Sabine's link. Short of pulling a knife or gun, there was absolutely no excuse for the officers super quick resorting to violence. Anyone who defends it should probably move to Iran or China or a nation where such authoritarian use of force goes unquestioned.

Cops aren't soldiers so your example has no bearing on the issue. And I can't think of any situation where, "it was the adrenaline, man!" is a valid excuse for beating the shit out of somebody.

They're both use-of-force situations. I find the comparison reasonable.

Why is violence required to subdue the teen?

Exactly. If that is the only way this cop could subdue and unarmed teenage girl who showed no ability or will to use any real force against the cop, then the cop is pathetically incompetent to a degree where he is unable to protect or serve the community. Thus, he should be fired. If he could have used other more effective methods that all cops are trained to use, but instead chose to beat her while she was in a cowering position, then it was an act of criminal violence with intent to harm and he should go to prison.

What is fearful is that at worst he'll be suspended (with pay).

Comparing the unedited video and "from an other angle one" on :

http://www.towleroad.com/2014/06/newclippgh.html

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sabine Grant again.

I'll take some.

 

[Sabine Grant]

More like being angry at a dog for biting someone when their handler reacts badly to them. Or blaming a shark for biting when it smells blood. You train someone to react immediately to a perceived attack, along with a media that makes us paranoid about attacks, and then marvel in stupidity when someone actually acts.

If you can't understand why my story about (a skilled person) not being able to (perceive important details) in a situation of (heightened adrenaline), the same essential situation that the cop was in, applies to the cop, then you are the blind one here.

Cops aren't soldiers so your example has no bearing on the issue. And I can't think of any situation where, "it was the adrenaline, man!" is a valid excuse for beating the shit out of somebody.

They're both use-of-force situations. I find the comparison reasonable.

Why is violence required to subdue the teen?

Your question brought to my mind the difference between acting on mere suspicion and probable cause. More precisely, did that law enforcement officer have probable cause to support his immediate use of physical force? IMO that could be addressed by paying close attention to the unedited video.

 

[doubtingt]

It is their hateful words which bite you. But they have no power over your experiencing of love for your same gender partner in life. Why give them the time of the day? Why reacting to their presence at an event which celebrates you and your fellow gay persons? Keep singing, dancing and walking hand and hand and ignore them. Do not give them the satisfaction of their hateful words causing so much distress and anger.

I agree this would be the more productive attitude, but I think reactions of anger are not just to the words, but to the real power and harm that those words reflect. IF these gay-bashers and the views they represent were a small minority with little political or social power, then I don't think people in the LGBT community would pay any attention to them. But they are sizable group representing views with massive social and political influence that harm the lives, cause physical harm, and erode the human rights of LGBTs. I think the angry reactions and inability to just ignore them is rooted in this fact. I realize that you realize this, but its worth pointing out that while in this moment it was "just words", those words are intended as support and motivation for hateful and violent intolerant actions and thus pose a real threat.

 

[ksen]

More like being angry at a dog for biting someone when their handler reacts badly to them. Or blaming a shark for biting when it smells blood. You train someone to react immediately to a perceived attack, along with a media that makes us paranoid about attacks, and then marvel in stupidity when someone actually acts.

If you can't understand why my story about (a skilled person) not being able to (perceive important details) in a situation of (heightened adrenaline), the same essential situation that the cop was in, applies to the cop, then you are the blind one here.

Cops aren't soldiers so your example has no bearing on the issue. And I can't think of any situation where, "it was the adrenaline, man!" is a valid excuse for beating the shit out of somebody.

They're both use-of-force situations. I find the comparison reasonable.

Of course you do because you're an authoritarian.

- - - Updated - - -

More like being angry at a dog for biting someone when their handler reacts badly to them. Or blaming a shark for biting when it smells blood. You train someone to react immediately to a perceived attack, along with a media that makes us paranoid about attacks, and then marvel in stupidity when someone actually acts.

If you can't understand why my story about (a skilled person) not being able to (perceive important details) in a situation of (heightened adrenaline), the same essential situation that the cop was in, applies to the cop, then you are the blind one here.

Cops aren't soldiers so your example has no bearing on the issue. And I can't think of any situation where, "it was the adrenaline, man!" is a valid excuse for beating the shit out of somebody.

They're both use-of-force situations. I find the comparison reasonable.

Why is violence required to subdue the teen?

Well, it was either that or put his dick in her butt.

 

[Jarhyn]

More like being angry at a dog for biting someone when their handler reacts badly to them. Or blaming a shark for biting when it smells blood. You train someone to react immediately to a perceived attack, along with a media that makes us paranoid about attacks, and then marvel in stupidity when someone actually acts.

If you can't understand why my story about (a skilled person) not being able to (perceive important details) in a situation of (heightened adrenaline), the same essential situation that the cop was in, applies to the cop, then you are the blind one here.

Cops aren't soldiers so your example has no bearing on the issue. And I can't think of any situation where, "it was the adrenaline, man!" is a valid excuse for beating the shit out of somebody.

They're both use-of-force situations. I find the comparison reasonable.

Of course you do because you're an authoritarian.

- - - Updated - - -

More like being angry at a dog for biting someone when their handler reacts badly to them. Or blaming a shark for biting when it smells blood. You train someone to react immediately to a perceived attack, along with a media that makes us paranoid about attacks, and then marvel in stupidity when someone actually acts.

If you can't understand why my story about (a skilled person) not being able to (perceive important details) in a situation of (heightened adrenaline), the same essential situation that the cop was in, applies to the cop, then you are the blind one here.

Cops aren't soldiers so your example has no bearing on the issue. And I can't think of any situation where, "it was the adrenaline, man!" is a valid excuse for beating the shit out of somebody.

They're both use-of-force situations. I find the comparison reasonable.

Why is violence required to subdue the teen?

Well, it was either that or put his dick in her butt.

so now you are comparing an immediate reaction to a potential assault situation with RAPE? What the fuck is wrong with you. If I got tackled and beat on by a police officer after someone made them think I was dangerous and needed immediate subdual, I wouldn't blame the cop. I'd blame the asshole who cried wolf. I'd sue the shit out him for making a false accusation resulting in bodily harm. I don't doubt for one second after reading the bit on towel road that she got an elbow into the cop when she was struggling. What was he supposed to do? Someone you are subduing to stop what you can only assume is an assault in progress hits you, you hit back, particularly if you don't have an arm bar, leg lock, or other incapacitating hold on them. A 'teenage girl' can break a nose, jaw, rib, or even incapacitate someone with a well placed elbow or knee, and city cops have plenty of exposure to psychotic, violent people of all shapes and sizes. Exactly how many fights have you been in again, where you didn't know who it was or what they were capable of? Where you didn't know if they were armed, drugged, or trained?

Let's turn this the other way, and say the girl made like the protestor, a wiry little man was attacking her. Would you be so ready to crucify the cop? He looked about as capable of self defense as she did; though I doubt you care about any of that.

Would it have been justified if the girl had a gun in her purse, but hadn't taken it out? Would it have been justified if she had a jackknife in her pocket? What if she had been on PCP? How about if she had a rock? Would the cop have been justified if the girl had hit the protestor before the protestor called out and the cop looked over?

The cop had no way of knowing AT ALL that any of those situations were the case. An action is right or wrong when it is taken, not when results are known. He took the safest gamble he could afford. The shame rests on the protestor.

 

[Nexus]

The cop had no way of knowing AT ALL that any of those situations were the case.

No, he could have observed the situation and seen that the girl wasn't attacking anyone. That's what happens when someone makes an actual threat assessment.

An action is right or wrong when it is taken, not when results are known.

Again wrong, people are held accountable for the results of their harmful actions the reasons for their bad decisions only serve to mitigate punishment.

He took the safest gamble he could afford.

No, he reacted without thinking only driven by emotion.

 

[ksen]

Well, it was either that or put his dick in her butt.

so now you are comparing an immediate reaction to a potential assault situation with RAPE?

I'm comparing a violent assault with a violent assault.

What the fuck is wrong with you.

I couldn't help myself. I had adrenaline surging through my veins and had to make a snap decision!

If I got tackled and beat on by a police officer after someone made them think I was dangerous and needed immediate subdual, I wouldn't blame the cop.

Then you're an idiot.

I'd blame the asshole who cried wolf. I'd sue the shit out him for making a false accusation resulting in bodily harm. I don't doubt for one second after reading the bit on towel road that she got an elbow into the cop when she was struggling. What was he supposed to do? Someone you are subduing to stop what you can only assume is an assault in progress hits you, you hit back, particularly if you don't have an arm bar, leg lock, or other incapacitating hold on them. A 'teenage girl' can break a nose, jaw, rib, or even incapacitate someone with a well placed elbow or knee, and city cops have plenty of exposure to psychotic, violent people of all shapes and sizes. Exactly how many fights have you been in again, where you didn't know who it was or what they were capable of? Where you didn't know if they were armed, drugged, or trained?

blah blah blah just more nonsense defending the jerk who did the actually assaulting.

There was only one assault at this protest, the assault of this girl by that police officer.

Let's turn this the other way, and say the girl made like the protestor, a wiry little man was attacking her. Would you be so ready to crucify the cop? He looked about as capable of self defense as she did; though I doubt you care about any of that.

you betcha

Would it have been justified if the girl had a gun in her purse, but hadn't taken it out? Would it have been justified if she had a jackknife in her pocket? What if she had been on PCP? How about if she had a rock? Would the cop have been justified if the girl had hit the protestor before the protestor called out and the cop looked over?

Stop worrying about alternate realities and deal with our reality. She didn't have a gun. She didn't have a jackknife. She wasn't on PCP. She didn't have a rock. She didn't hit the protestor.

The cop had no way of knowing AT ALL that any of those situations were the case. An action is right or wrong when it is taken, not when results are known. He took the safest gamble he could afford. The shame rests on the protestor.

No one's arguing the protestor guy isn't a douchebag. But only one person, well loren too, is arguing that the cop isn't a criminal douchebag.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, he could have observed the situation and seen that the girl wasn't attacking anyone. That's what happens when someone makes an actual threat assessment.

and let the protestor get potentially shot, maimed, killed, stabbed, beat, or bludgeoned while he stood agape.

An action is right or wrong when it is taken, not when results are known.

Again wrong, people are held accountable for the results of their harmful actions the reasons for their bad decisions only serve to mitigate punishment.

then you are an ethical simpleton, and I refuse to engage such magical thinking. You expect the cop to be an omniscient god. I expect him to be a Homosapien, a little bit rational and a lot bit animal.

He took the safest gamble he could afford.

No, he reacted without thinking only driven by emotion.

Generally that's the definition of 'reaction'. Sure, it would have been nice if he had the magical power to stop time and observe every facet of the situation first, but magical time stopping powers do not exist, and in the mean time someone was potentially getting assaulted on his watch.

I repeat, and it is a shame I have to do so, magical powers do not exist. People MUST act on incomplete information, or they will never be able to act. It's called the  halting problem.