To Protect and to Serve...

[Grand Vol]

This pretty much proves you've read a scant word I've written.

No, I read pretty much everything you put on here.

But you're still prone to flying off the cuff at the most minor incident and blowing it way out of proportion.

 

[agent|orange]

So she has zero culpability?

She's admitted she was belligerent and has stated she is embarassed she got that drunk.

Point is... nothing she did even remotely warrants getting her face smashed and a cop that can't handle a 28 year-old white woman who has probably never been in a fight in her life and who is a part-time model should not be a cop under any circumstances.

Period.

I can understand struggling to control a 380lb man who is 6'5. I get that. While the cops went a little over, that instance wasn't egregious. This is egregious.

There is nothing to excuse away the actions here. Does that cop not have any idea how to perform a takedown that doesn't result in the destruction of a persons face?

Same with cops who bungle their no-knock raids and get the wrong house. Then kill the person trying to defend it who has no idea they're cops nor has any reason to suspect he'd be the target of a no-knock raid.

No excuse. It's both predictable and sad that anyone would take the "she was belligerent, she deserved it or had it coming" stance.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Maybe cops should start saying pretty please with sugars on top instead. Maybe people should stop trying to fight the police when pulled over and if they have been wronged, fight it in the courts like the system is set up for.

Now its my turn...

LOL

 

[Grand Vol]

Too late... the ball is in your court to prove me wrong.

Oh Ras, you silly thing.

How many people have died after a traffic stop in Germany vs how many die just in the state of California each year? I don't even have the numbers in front of me, but I guarantee you that just one state would have a far high death toll than the country of Germany.

So somehow it's on me to prove you wrong when you don't even know the actual figures yourself.

You do make me chuckle from time to time.

 

[Grand Vol]

She's admitted she was belligerent and has stated she is embarassed she got that drunk.

Point is... nothing she did even remotely warrants getting her face smashed and a cop that can't handle a 28 year-old white woman who has probably never been in a fight in her life and who is a part-time model should not be a cop under any circumstances.

Period.

I can understand struggling to control a 380lb man who is 6'5. I get that. While the cops went a little over, that instance wasn't egregious. This is egregious.

There is nothing to excuse away the actions here. Does that cop not have any idea how to perform a takedown that doesn't result in the destruction of a persons face?

Same with cops who bungle their no-knock raids and get the wrong house. Then kill the person trying to defend it who has no idea they're cops nor has any reason to suspect he'd be the target of a no-knock raid.

No excuse. It's both predictable and sad that anyone would take the "she was belligerent, she deserved it or had it coming" stance.

I would like to see the whole video before making a judgment.

 

[agent|orange]

No, I read pretty much everything you put on here.

But you're still prone to flying off the cuff at the most minor incident and blowing it way out of proportion.

Not really.

You are just prone to taking my commentary and blowing it out of proportion in a desperate attempt to side-track what I'm saying.

Sh1tty cops are a huge threat to the public at large.

Most cops, statistically, are not sh1tty.

There are more than enough cops, however, that even if an overwhelming majority are good... there are still plenty of sh1tty cops.

Therefore, saying "a good number" could be 240,000 even if it's only 20% of the entire population base.

I hope this demonstration in logic clears things up from my end.

 

[Grand Vol]

Not really.

You are just prone to taking my commentary and blowing it out of proportion in a desperate attempt to side-track what I'm saying.

Sh1tty cops are a huge threat to the public at large.

Most cops, statistically, are not sh1tty.

There are more than enough cops, however, that even if an overwhelming majority are good... there are still plenty of sh1tty cops.

Therefore, saying "a good number" could be 240,000 even if it's only 20% of the entire population base.

I hope this demonstration in logic clears things up from my end.

Hmm, no, I tend to direct my responses dead on to what you post.

 

[tim]

She's admitted she was belligerent and has stated she is embarassed she got that drunk.

Point is... nothing she did even remotely warrants getting her face smashed and a cop that can't handle a 28 year-old white woman who has probably never been in a fight in her life and who is a part-time model should not be a cop under any circumstances.

Period.

I can understand struggling to control a 380lb man who is 6'5. I get that. While the cops went a little over, that instance wasn't egregious. This is egregious.

There is nothing to excuse away the actions here. Does that cop not have any idea how to perform a takedown that doesn't result in the destruction of a persons face?

Same with cops who bungle their no-knock raids and get the wrong house. Then kill the person trying to defend it who has no idea they're cops nor has any reason to suspect he'd be the target of a no-knock raid.

No excuse. It's both predictable and sad that anyone would take the "she was belligerent, she deserved it or had it coming" stance.

Ever tried to spank a 65 lb boy? Sometimes being cautious causes us to have a looser grip. Sometimes we just dont get a good grip. Sometimes people are sweaty. Sometimes people hurt themselves on purpose. Your account is skewed against the officer and her admitting that she was too drunk it does not in any way relieve her from the proximate cause of the injury. She was out of control and had to be re-restrained. Taking her to the ground was the safest option.

Can you explain why she wasnt injured prior to this during the incident?

 

[volbeast33]

She's admitted she was belligerent and has stated she is embarassed she got that drunk.

Point is... nothing she did even remotely warrants getting her face smashed and a cop that can't handle a 28 year-old white woman who has probably never been in a fight in her life and who is a part-time model should not be a cop under any circumstances.

Period.

I can understand struggling to control a 380lb man who is 6'5. I get that. While the cops went a little over, that instance wasn't egregious. This is egregious.

There is nothing to excuse away the actions here. Does that cop not have any idea how to perform a takedown that doesn't result in the destruction of a persons face?

Same with cops who bungle their no-knock raids and get the wrong house. Then kill the person trying to defend it who has no idea they're cops nor has any reason to suspect he'd be the target of a no-knock raid.

No excuse. It's both predictable and sad that anyone would take the "she was belligerent, she deserved it or had it coming" stance.

What does her being white and a model have to do with anything?

 

[volbeast33]

Ever tried to spank a 65 lb boy? Sometimes being cautious causes us to have a looser grip. Sometimes we just dont get a good grip. Sometimes people are sweaty. Sometimes people hurt themselves on purpose. Your account is skewed against the officer and her admitting that she was too drunk it does not in any way relieve her from the proximate cause of the injury. She was out of control and had to be re-restrained. Taking her to the ground was the safest option.

Can you explain why she wasnt injured prior to this during the incident?

That's a very good point and it's not easy to contain anyone when they are fighting against u no matter the size difference.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Maybe cops should start saying pretty please with sugars on top instead. Maybe people should stop trying to fight the police when pulled over and if they have been wronged, fight it in the courts like the system is set up for.

True story...

About 9 or 10 years ago when the big construction project in Knoxville had shut down interstate traffic going into downtown Knoxville and had torn down the Magnolia Street Exit and reworked the Broadway exit, I was sitting in traffic court to pay a speeding ticket (for going 40 in a 30 mph zone). As I was waiting for them to call my name and stand before the judge, there was this one guy who stood up and tried to plead his case to the judge.

The story he told was that he was travelling westbound on I-40 coming into downtown. It is around 10:00 at night and he has his family in the car with him. A cop turns on his blue lights as they were around the Cherry St exit. Now at this time, the big orange barrels were everywhere and the lanes were getting narrowed from 3 lanes to 1 in a very short distance, because the Broadway exit was being worked on and all the traffic was reduced to one lane just around a mile ahead of the Cherry St exit. Anyways, the cops turns on his blue lights and the they guy (with his wife and kids in the car with him at 10:00 at night) has a decision to make. Should he stop right there between Cherry St and Broadway and take up another lane of traffic (there was no shoulder to pullover to) before it reduces down and in the dark or should he go along a little further, get off on the Broadway exit and pullover in a more lighted area and an area with more room for traffic. He choose to drive further an get to a better lit and more room to breathe.

The officer gave him a ticket for speeding and evading arrest or some other charge (basically insinuating that the guy was trying to run from the cops, I can't remember what the actual charge was, though). Well, with the explanation the guy gave and my familiarity with the situation, I knew the evading or whatever charge wasn't going to fly. Everyone in the courtroom was familiar with the I-40 construction at the time, as well. The judge made it stick anyways. Also, the speeding accusation was bogus because the cop admitted himself that he had tailed the driver for a while and then turned his blue lights on at or near the Cherry Street exit. This is where it really gets deep. Like I said, the traffic was being reduced from 3 lanes down to one because of construction. The speed limit was therefore reduced from 55 mph to 45 or maybe even 35 mph (I can't remember). Either way, the cop pulled him over for going 55 mph in a 45/35 mph zone. The problem is that the speed limit sign was within a 2/10th of a mile east of the Cherry St exit. So for this guy to have tailed him for speeding originally, the cop would had to had started tailing him in the 55 mph zone and then waited for him to cross into the 35/45 mph zone near Cherry St (fishing expedition) and then turned on the blue lights when the car barely had a chance to even slow down. The judge made the speeding ticket stick, also.

After that guys case, you could hear the hums and moans in the courtroom after that decision. That was probably the most bogus thing I had seen in a courtroom in a while.

 

[agent|orange]

Ever tried to spank a 65 lb boy? Sometimes being cautious causes us to have a looser grip. Sometimes we just dont get a good grip. Sometimes people are sweaty. Sometimes people hurt themselves on purpose. Your account is skewed against the officer and her admitting that she was too drunk it does not in any way relieve her from the proximate cause of the injury. She was out of control and had to be re-restrained. Taking her to the ground was the safest option.

Can you explain why she wasnt injured prior to this during the incident?

I don't argue that the girl was out of control and needed to be controlled.

She was already accosted in the BART station and was belligerent there, cops were able to control her, bring her to the ground and place restraints on her. That's fine. The cops in the original BART station video showed patience and restraint when dealing with her. My hats off to them for that as some screeching drunk girl would really get on my nerves.

The problem is the escalation in violence and intent with the incident in the police station. That wrist-takedown is nothing like I've ever been taught. You never manipulate someone's wrist and control their entire arm while throwing their opposite shoulder (and therefore their face) directly to the ground unless you intend to hurt that person.

I've been taught wrist-lock takedowns but they were always manipulating the person in reverse so they sit their ass down first and they're easier to control.

This guy either has a bad temper or he's received poor instruction on how to properly take someone down. My best guess is a little of A and a little of B.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I would like to see the whole video before making a judgment.

Video Shows Police Slamming Woman to Ground, Breaking Four Facial Bones Video - ABC News

 

[agent|orange]

What does her being white and a model have to do with anything?

Because she's a skinnyfat girl that has little actual strength even if her intent is to flail about as violently as possible. She's not freakin' Ronda Rousey.

Perhaps saying "white" wasn't really necessary but in her interview she comes across like someone who didn't grow up through a hardscrabble life... at all. I know girls like that and they're nothing but fluff.

 

[volbeast33]

Because she's a skinnyfat girl that has little actual strength even if her intent is to flail about as violently as possible. She's not freakin' Ronda Rousey.

Perhaps saying "white" wasn't really necessary but in her interview she comes across like someone who didn't grow up through a hardscrabble life... at all. I know girls like that and they're nothing but fluff.

They didn't have the girl in the interview....they had the drunk girl flailing around....it looked like the one cop was taking her to the ground to control her and the other cop tried to help grabbing her and causing it to be off balance and her to get slammed into the ground face first....a terrible terrible accident but I don't think their was intent there.

 

[Grand Vol]

I don't argue that the girl was out of control and needed to be controlled.

She was already accosted in the BART station and was belligerent there, cops were able to control here, bring her to the ground and place restraints on here. That's fine. The cops in the original BART station video showed patience and restraint when dealing with her. My hats off to them for that.

The problem is the escalation in violence and intent with the incident in the police station. That wrist-takedown is nothing like I've ever been taught. You never manipulate someone's wrist and control it while throwing their opposite shoulder (and therefore their face) directly to the ground unless you intend to hurt that person.

This guy either has a bad temper or he's received poor instruction on how to properly take someone down. My best guess is a little of A and a little of B.

It's actually a form of an arm bar that is intended to guide a person to the ground. By taking the wrist into that position and pushing on the shoulder or upper arm, it creates a pressure point and the body naturally moves where you guide the arm. You would spin them in about a half circle before getting them on the ground where restraints would be applied or reapplied.

Normally it works as long as one is doing the guiding in a controlled fashion. Which doesn't appear to be the case in this instance as the movement towards the ground was a lot harder than needed. And the intoxicated state of the individual probably didn't help matters.

ETA: And the second cop jumping in likely didn't help the balance situation either.

 

[agent|orange]

They didn't have the girl in the interview....they had the drunk girl flailing around....it looked like the one cop was taking her to the ground to control her and the other cop tried to help grabbing her and causing it to be off balance and her to get slammed into the ground face first....a terrible terrible accident but I don't think their was intent there.

She speaks in an interview regarding her lawsuit against BART.

She's well-spoken, admits she was belligerent and is embarrassed by how she acted. However, she holds firm that excessive force was used.

 

[volbeast33]

She speaks in an interview regarding her lawsuit against BART.

She's well-spoken, admits she was belligerent and is embarrassed by how she acted. However, she holds firm that excessive force was used.

I bet she does....she wants a huge pay day....

 

[agent|orange]

It's actually a form of an arm bar that is intended to guide a person to the ground. By taking the wrist into that position and pushing on the shoulder or upper arm, it creates a pressure point and the body naturally moves where you guide the arm. You would spin them in about a half circle before getting them on the ground where restraints would be applied or reapplied.

Normally it works as long as one is doing the guiding in a controlled fashion. Which doesn't appear to be the case in this instance as the movement towards the ground was a lot harder than needed. And the intoxicated state of the individual probably didn't help matters.

ETA: And the second cop jumping in likely didn't help the balance situation either.

I think the 2nd cop was going for her R-hand under the impression that the 1st cop (one who threw her) was trying to bring them together behind her for restraining.

They are from different departments (2nd is Oakland PD, IIRC... 1st is BART) so it's understandable if they're on different pages.

And you're right on all accounts.

And that's equal parts the problem.

An LEO has to be mindful of the state of the person they're restraining when performing a takedown. The takedown the guy used was violent and was not what the situation warranted. Lastly, the girl was surrounded by LEOs. He could have just called in for a group effort.

And this is going to cause a mess because the takedown cop effectively falsified a statement to cover up busting her face. He said she attacked him. I see absolutely nothing that constitutes an attack... unless her flicking the hairband counts. Which it legally might, I'm not sure.

If a hairband constitutes an attack against someone that has 80-100lbs on someone, well, that's pretty weak.

 

[Grand Vol]

I think the 2nd cop was going for her R-hand under the impression that the 1st cop (one who threw her) was trying to bring them together behind her for restraining.

They are from different departments (2nd is Oakland PD, IIRC... 1st is BART) so it's understandable if they're on different pages.

And you're right on all accounts.

And that's equal parts the problem.

An LEO has to be mindful of the state of the person they're restraining when performing a takedown. The takedown the guy used was violent and was not what the situation warranted. Lastly, the girl was surrounded by LEOs. He could have just called in for a group effort.

And this is going to cause a mess because the takedown cop effectively falsified a statement to cover up busting her face. He said she attacked him. I see absolutely nothing that constitutes an attack... unless her flicking the hairband counts. Which it legally might, I'm not sure.

If a hairband constitutes an attack against someone that has 80-100lbs on someone, well, that's pretty weak.

Generally that works because the other arm is there to break the fall (if there is one) before smacking the ground. But you are correct that the second cop on the right hand took that away. No communication between the two and different departments could be the reason.

The move is intended for knees, hand, belly in that order before getting the suspect on the ground. And is meant to be done by a single person.

 

[Burhead]

Question: Can we use tear gas or pepper spray in combat situations? Is that a Geneva Convention violation?

While tear gas is banned on the battlefield by the Chemical Weapons Convention it is allowed to be used by military forces for drills and riot control freely and is not prohibited at all for domestic law enforcement use. Not sure pepper spray even falls under chemical weapons.

 

[Carl Pickens]

This just in:

Drunk part-time model is safer passed out at a metro stop than she is in the custody of police.

The curious case of Megan Sheehan... where flicking a hair band justifies a shattered face. I can already hear the "she shouldn't have been belligerent!" excuses from the usual suspects.

Because belligerence doesn't justify shattering someone's face. If I just up and busted everyone who was belligerent to me... I doubt the same chuckleheads would be defending me. I'd just be a common thug. But it's acceptable when he's a uniformed officer protected by Unions and the legal system.

I just watched the video ..... That was brutal.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

I back the cops most of the time in here . That was total bs...regardless of her behavior ....and in the police report the cop lied and said she was pinching hin when he took her down. If that was my wife or daughters beautiful face I would jack that cops zz.butt up after I got super paid which she will with taxpayer money. total bullshiz

 

[agent|orange]

While tear gas is banned on the battlefield by the Chemical Weapons Convention it is allowed to be used by military forces for drills and riot control freely and is not prohibited at all for domestic law enforcement use. Not sure pepper spray even falls under chemical weapons.

Well, regardless, if you're going to use it you better know well the consequences of its use.

 

[agent|orange]

I back the cops most of the time in here . That was total bs...regardless of her behavior ....and in the police report the cop lied and said she was pinching hin when he took her down. If that was my wife or daughters beautiful face I would jack that cops zz.butt up after I got super which she with taxpayer money. total bullshiz

Most cop stories that end up in here are about this bad. Usually worse as this girl was at least belligerent and is still alive.

It's just... well... usually it's not a pretty girl on the receiving end.