Your inability or unwillingness to read with comprehension or to think critically is not the problem of other posters.
He attempted to restrain her. The video shows her thrashing around, thus the restraining wasn't successful and he had to apply more force to get her to comply. Whether the level of force was appropriate or not, the fact remains that if she hadn't resisted being restrained she would not have been slammed on the pavement.
No, not because she is a woman but because
1. What led to the situation is always relevant as it affects the proper response.
That seems to be the reaction of many here.
Since people in this thread explicitly recognized his decision to restrain her as justified, a hyperbolic statement accusing such persons as the "officer not being allowed to lay a finger on her" contradicts the evidence in the thread and is a complete strawman.
Utter nonsense. She was not going anywhere and she was no danger to anyone. Holding a thrashing child is considered effective restraint in schools and by parents.
That is not a fact, but your assumption.
Your willingness to impute unsavory motives and lying on the part of the mother reflect less about her motives and more about you. As to the leg, who knows when or for how long the victim may have been unconscious?
No. The officer had the girl restrained. She was unarmed. No one else was involved. What happened prior to that video has no bearing on the proper course of action at that time.
What is this lying you are babbling about?
Thank you for confirming my observation.
I asked you first.
Sure, why restrict the discussion to feasible outcomes? A response consistent with your "contributions" to this thread.
Thank you for confirming my observation.
I asked you first.
A response consistent with your "contributions" to this thread.
Apparently you are unable to come up with any rationale that might justify the officer's reaction.
Given your posting history, nothing. You did write "You could start by showing some interest in the circumstances around the incident." Obviously, you don't. You prefer to engage in silly straw men. So, thanks for confirming you have absolutely no interest in contributing anything remotely resembling relevant content.
Like what? You keep waving your hand about this possible evidence that one must first consider. Give an example of the possible evidence that would make a rational person reconsider that this police officer over-reaction?
Except that your point is logically false. It most certainly will be right if there is no evidence that mitigates the officer's actions. I cannot imagine what would justify his reactions, but that is a reflection of my imagination. Which is why I have repeatedly asked for some possible mitigating or justifying factors. But this thread gets from you is evasiveness and an absence of reasoning.
My goodness. Obviously nothing discusses in this thread will get to the truth – that requires evidence from the situation. Moreover, you are taking the “don’t know and don’t care” out of context. The exchange was
The mother’s statements are not relevant to the officer’s actions.
If think creating silly straw men, taking quotes out of context and using poor reasoning is "considering all the relevant factors", then that does explain your presence in this thread.
I certainly can understand that you don't know how to respond to an actual post, since nowhere did I write anything that could be construed to mean that waiting for evidence is an "absence of reasoning". This yet another example of you taking a quote out of context.
