I hope this guy rots...
Never mind the fact she was pregnant, He obviously had control of her then tazed her... what a #^$
http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4897
http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4897
0
-
its easy to tell you have a hard on for all and any police,"this is from reading your past post",,she should have done as she was told,she resisted arrest,she resisted handcuffs,your right,he should not have tazed her,her should have smacked her upside the head until she complied, 0 -
Negro women are very strong.
I'm skeptical about the charge of excessive force used on a resistive suspect.0 -
What a mother. Decided to drop her son off at the police station because she and her "babys daddy" don't get along. Someone that dumb deserved to get tazzed. 0 -
Too many complaints from the public about tazers. Get rid of the tazers and go back to shooting people. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
Too many complaints from the public about tazers. Get rid of the tazers and go back to shooting people.
I agree, lets go back to the days of hitting folks over the head with a blackjack, or clubbing them like Rodney King until they give in. Beating the living hell out of someone is WAY better than getting shocked in 5 second intervals.0 -
Barring the violation of one of the plethora of "laws" foisted upon we citizens, you are under NO obligation to talk to a cop if you do not choose to.
For an officer to detain and especially to use force to accomplish the detention, there MUST be a basis in law to do so.
Not sure what the whole story is here, but it sure has the superficial appearance of unlawful detention and unlawful use of force.
If so, I say charge him and fire him.
I for one, am thoroughly sick and tired of abuses of police/government power and authority and the seeming lack of accountability when these abuses occur.
Oh and by the way, why should a citizen who wants to LAWFULLY go about his or her business be required to submit to unlawful force used against him by a representative of the government? I believe that there are some states that have laws on the books allowing the use of physical force against a cop in a defense against a criminal charge IF the cop's use of force, or arrest attempt, is unlawful. If so, amen to those states.
This is a qualified statement, since I am not clear on the circumstances of this particular case.0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
Barring the violation of one of the plethora of "laws" foisted upon we citizens, you are under NO obligation to talk to a cop if you do not choose to.
For an officer to detain and especially to use force to accomplish the detention, there MUST be a basis in law to do so.
Not sure what the whole story is here, but it sure has the superficial appearance of unlawful detention and unlawful use of force.
If so, I say charge him and fire him.
I for one, am thoroughly sick and tired of abuses of police/government power and authority and the seeming lack of accountability when these abuses occur.
not to mention no one knows the womans story, maybe the husband was threatening her safety by being awarded custody, you never know whats going on... that cop should be strung up by his scrotum... and I hope the lady sues the ass off the police dept.0 -
And if this woman had walked out of the police station and hurt that child because she does not get along with the dad everyone would blame the cops for not doing anything to stop her. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by kyplumber
quote:Originally posted by lt496
Barring the violation of one of the plethora of "laws" foisted upon we citizens, you are under NO obligation to talk to a cop if you do not choose to.
For an officer to detain and especially to use force to accomplish the detention, there MUST be a basis in law to do so.
Not sure what the whole story is here, but it sure has the superficial appearance of unlawful detention and unlawful use of force.
If so, I say charge him and fire him.
I for one, am thoroughly sick and tired of abuses of police/government power and authority and the seeming lack of accountability when these abuses occur.
not to mention no one knows the womans story, maybe the husband was threatening her safety by being awarded custody, you never know whats going on... that cop should be strung up by his scrotum... and I hope the lady sues the ass off the police dept.
Maybe, IF there was no lawful reason to detain.0 -
quote:Originally posted by EhlerDave
And if this woman had walked out of the police station and hurt that child because she does not get along with the dad everyone would blame the cops for not doing anything to stop her.
Sorry sir. "Maybe", or a hypothetical, does not equate to a lawful reason to detain.
In answer to your postulation/question...IF she had done so, then she should be swiftly and surely punished for it. Nothing more, nothing less. We don't preempt crimes on a whim, or a thought that someone "may" do something, absent a lawful reason, period.
This is America, or at least it used to be and the government has ZERO right to restrict your freedom of movement under the US Constitution, UNLESS a lawful reason exists.
Being angry, or agitated that nobody is listening, or sympathizing with you over your story, does NOT amount to a lawful reason for detention by an agent of the government.
Last I checked, I was allowed to be irritated. Course, times have changed and we ARE living under the heel of a predatory government, so......0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by EhlerDave
And if this woman had walked out of the police station and hurt that child because she does not get along with the dad everyone would blame the cops for not doing anything to stop her.
Sorry sir. "Maybe", or a hypothetical, does not equate to a lawful reason to detain.
In answer to your postulation/question...IF she had done so, then she should be swiftly and surely punished for it. Nothing more, nothing less. We don't preempt crimes on a whim, or a thought that someone "may" do something, absent a lawful reason, period.
This is America, or at least it used to be and the government has ZERO right to restrict your freedom of movement under the US Constitution, UNLESS a lawful reason exists.
Being angry, or agitated that nobody is listening, or sympathizing with you over your story, does NOT amount to a lawful reason for detention by an agent of the government.
Last I checked, I was allowed to be irritated. Course, times have changed and we ARE living under the heel of a predatory government, so......
My point is we would still blame the police, they cant win no matter what they do.0 -
quote:Originally posted by EhlerDave
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by EhlerDave
And if this woman had walked out of the police station and hurt that child because she does not get along with the dad everyone would blame the cops for not doing anything to stop her.
Sorry sir. "Maybe", or a hypothetical, does not equate to a lawful reason to detain.
In answer to your postulation/question...IF she had done so, then she should be swiftly and surely punished for it. Nothing more, nothing less. We don't preempt crimes on a whim, or a thought that someone "may" do something, absent a lawful reason, period.
This is America, or at least it used to be and the government has ZERO right to restrict your freedom of movement under the US Constitution, UNLESS a lawful reason exists.
Being angry, or agitated that nobody is listening, or sympathizing with you over your story, does NOT amount to a lawful reason for detention by an agent of the government.
Last I checked, I was allowed to be irritated. Course, times have changed and we ARE living under the heel of a predatory government, so......
My point is we would still blame the police, they cant win no matter what they do.
They can if they do the right thing and I should know.
It is a simple proposition, follow to constitution, follow the rules, do the right thing, maintain your integrity, understand your role in society and stay within those bounds and everything else falls into place.
If she did something stupid after she left and they had no reason to detain her, then the fact that there was no lawful reason to detain her is the bottom line, period. Anybody who couldn't accept that fact is not worth giving another though to.
Simple.0 -
I honestly doubt if the news tomorrow said "Woman kills child after taking him to police dept. then leaving" That a single person on here would stand up and say well at least the police followed the Constitution.
Lets not get into what we should do I am suggesting what would happen.0 -
quote:Originally posted by bhale187
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
Too many complaints from the public about tazers. Get rid of the tazers and go back to shooting people.
I agree, lets go back to the days of hitting folks over the head with a blackjack, or clubbing them like Rodney King until they give in. Beating the living hell out of someone is WAY better than getting shocked in 5 second intervals.
FLASHLIGHT THERAPY [:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by EhlerDave
I honestly doubt if the news tomorrow said "Woman kills child after taking him to police dept. then leaving" That a single person on here would stand up and say well at least the police followed the Constitution.
Lets not get into what we should do I am suggesting what would happen.
You are right. I would bet that not one soul would say that the police at least followed the constitution. All the do-gooders would climb out of the woodwork and try to make hay out of it and/or call for some "new legislation" to address it. They'd name the "new legislation" after the kid I am quite sure.
So what?
Your speculation about what "would happen" is no different than me preaching what "should happen".
If your scenario took place, then someone like me "should" step out and tell it like it is, regardless of the fact that this would not be what most would want to hear.
It is long overdue to take a stand and begin educating the populace as to our system of government and about personal responsibility. This must happen at all levels, private and public, private sector and government.
I quietly step down off my forum soapbox now.[:D]0 -
The fact that the interiewed Chief says the lawfulness of the detention is not an issue tells me that the arresting officer was able to articulate that he beleived the women posed a threat to herself or her child. That IS a lawful reason for detention. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by bhale187
The fact that the interiewed Chief says the lawfulness of the detention is not an issue tells me that the arresting officer was able to articulate that he beleived the women posed a threat to herself or her child. That IS a lawful reason for detention.
Sounded more to me like he was not wanting to focus on that aspect and wanted to focus instead on the use of force based on her resistance. This indicates that the lawfulness of the detention is weak, or non-existent.
I'll have to watch again and report back.0 -
Watched it again and reread the story also.
I can understand the officers concern about the safety of the child, since she wanted to turn it over to the cops initially.
It still sounds as if the Chief/Spokesman wants to skip the lawfulness of the detention and focus on the use of force based on the resistance. That is a major red-flag to me.
Not sure, based on the limited info, if reasonable suspicion existed or not. If it did, they are on firm ground. If it didn't, they are wrong.
Can't make an informed judgment based on the limited info.
As to the use of the taser, I think it is one of the best tools to come along in quite some time. It prevents "hands-on" scuffles where people used to get physically hurt, or worse.0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
It still sounds as if the Chief/Spokesman wants to skip the lawfulness of the detention and focus on the use of force based on the resistance. That is a major red-flag to me.
I guess it depends on the Chief, locally it seems the department supervisors are more than happy to throw cops to the media wolves if there is even a hint of a mistake or wrong-doing.0 -
quote:Originally posted by bhale187
quote:Originally posted by lt496
It still sounds as if the Chief/Spokesman wants to skip the lawfulness of the detention and focus on the use of force based on the resistance. That is a major red-flag to me.
I guess it depends on the Chief, locally it seems the department supervisors are more than happy to throw cops to the media wolves if there is even a hint of a mistake or wrong-doing.
That is a true statement and applies to most agencies. Political expediency rules the day.0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
Too many complaints from the public about tazers. Get rid of the tazers and go back to shooting people.
Damn it JAMES!
I spit perfectly good Glenfiddich all over my screen!
[:D]0 -
---
LET'S GET THIS OVER WITH RIGHT NOW!!!
---70% of all police officers are a threat to the community they "serve". ("Serve" being the LA street gang term for "dominate".)
---Police, fire, dogcatchers, prison guards, etc. all mentally believe they are part of some paramilitary brotherhood and that they are some sort of elite group. They refer to citizens as "civilians", as if they (these cop, government employee) were some sort of military group. ALL police are civilians.....READ THIS TO MEAN ALL!!. Get it boys? This means you!
---When called to task for their actions, their union kicks in to protect them along with the police department managers (they call themselves "chief", "lieutenant", "captain", etc.). YOU ARE NOT MILITARY....GET IT!!
---When called to task, they whine about having to face the dangers of the street and that they only see the "underbelly" of society, etc. Police CAUSE 75% of the problems they face in the street. If they don't like the work, GET OUT!! Why do they stay? So they can retire at age 40-45 with a full disability (stress) pension. They get all benefits, pay, etc. and play for the rest of their lives at our expense.
---Police are actually tax collectors and janitors. That's it. They hand out tickets for "gotcha!" offenses, which do not endanger anyone. Tickets are a MAJOR source of revenue for municipalities, don't let anyone fool you. When you hear the police whine about not having enough officers, it's because the municiplaity is down on the manager's (oh! excuse me! "Chief's".) ass to raise revenue by handing out more tickets. Their janitorial functions consist of cleaning up messes. Police rarely prevent crime, accidents, etc. In fact, the US Supreme Court has ruled that it is not the duty of the police to protect citizens.
---Cops are told and they believe this; citizens are expendable and they are not. News flash for police officers!! YOU are expendible. That's what you are paid for. That's why you get more pay and benefits than comparable government employees in non-police positions.
As for that woman in the police station: She was right! She went in there for help and they attacked her. Pure and simple.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Wolf.
As for that woman in the police station: She was right! She went in there for help and they attacked her. Pure and simple.
No, that woman went in there to rid herself of her child who had become an inconvenience. When asked who she was, she attempted to leave with the child. Now she will probably be rich.0 -
So many opinions......so few facts.
Till later, thanks Mateo for spitting good Glenfiddich on your screen. That was worth reading about.0 -
quote:Originally posted by EhlerDave
I honestly doubt if the news tomorrow said "Woman kills child after taking him to police dept. then leaving" That a single person on here would stand up and say well at least the police followed the Constitution.
Lets not get into what we should do I am suggesting what would happen.
We don't have a "Minority Report" unit either. Until a person actually commits a provable crime, why the hell can't they be left alone? Have we reached a point where "what if" or "well, they could" superceeds and overrides actual facts? Being proactive is the same as becoming "thought police". The Constitution makes no allowance for this.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Wolf.
---
LET'S GET THIS OVER WITH RIGHT NOW!!!
---70% of all police officers are a threat to the community they "serve". ("Serve" being the LA street gang term for "dominate".)
---Police, fire, dogcatchers, prison guards, etc. all mentally believe they are part of some paramilitary brotherhood and that they are some sort of elite group. They refer to citizens as "civilians", as if they (these cop, government employee) were some sort of military group. ALL police are civilians.....READ THIS TO MEAN ALL!!. Get it boys? This means you!
---When called to task for their actions, their union kicks in to protect them along with the police department managers (they call themselves "chief", "lieutenant", "captain", etc.). YOU ARE NOT MILITARY....GET IT!!
---When called to task, they whine about having to face the dangers of the street and that they only see the "underbelly" of society, etc. Police CAUSE 75% of the problems they face in the street. If they don't like the work, GET OUT!! Why do they stay? So they can retire at age 40-45 with a full disability (stress) pension. They get all benefits, pay, etc. and play for the rest of their lives at our expense.
---Police are actually tax collectors and janitors. That's it. They hand out tickets for "gotcha!" offenses, which do not endanger anyone. Tickets are a MAJOR source of revenue for municipalities, don't let anyone fool you. When you hear the police whine about not having enough officers, it's because the municiplaity is down on the manager's (oh! excuse me! "Chief's".) ass to raise revenue by handing out more tickets. Their janitorial functions consist of cleaning up messes. Police rarely prevent crime, accidents, etc. In fact, the US Supreme Court has ruled that it is not the duty of the police to protect citizens.
---Cops are told and they believe this; citizens are expendable and they are not. News flash for police officers!! YOU are expendible. That's what you are paid for. That's why you get more pay and benefits than comparable government employees in non-police positions.
As for that woman in the police station: She was right! She went in there for help and they attacked her. Pure and simple.0 -
Here's another one to add to the stirring of the cop pot. Cops used a battering ram to break down a door for $17.18 worth of food! Tell me they couldn't find a landlord to supply a key to the door. Utterly ridiculous.
Nov 29, 11:29 PM (ET)
EASTPOINTE, Mich. (AP) - Police used a battering ram to break down an apartment door and arrest a woman they say grabbed food from a pizza delivery man but failed to pay him.
Jessica Gray, 19, of Eastpointe was arrested Wednesday after she and the occupants of her apartment refused to pay for a delivery of pizza, ribs, chicken, shrimp and a soda valued at $17.18, police say.
According to police, Gray answered the door when a 21-year-old, combo meal-carrying delivery man arrived at her apartment about 7 p.m.
Gray took the meal, then slammed the door and joined four other female occupants inside - ranging in age from 14 to 21 - in yelling insults and threats when he didn't leave, police say.
"She was rough when she took it from him," Detective Lt. Leo Borowsky told The Detroit News. "And she was large enough where he didn't want to fight her."
The Associated Press was unable to reach Gray for comment because she has no listed phone number.
A police report says responding officers "could hear the occupants laughing and whispering inside but refusing to answer the door. The officers advised the occupants that if they refused to come to the door, it would be opened by force."
Police then broke down the door, and the delivery man identified Gray as the person who took the meal. Police recovered rib bones, chicken bones and shrimp tails as evidence.
Gray was arraigned Thursday on a felony charge of larceny from a person, then released after posting a $5,000 bond.
"We take this kind of stuff seriously. It is a crime," Borowsky said. "These (delivery) people are on business and if you steal from them, we're going to prosecute."0 -
quote:Originally posted by susie
Here's another one to add to the stirring of the cop pot. Cops used a battering ram to break down a door for $17.18 worth of food! Tell me they couldn't find a landlord to supply a key to the door. Utterly ridiculous.
Would you have viewed this differently if it was a woman who had her pocket book with $17.18 taken from her, and the man who did it ran into his apartment then refused to open the door?0 -
No, I' not debating the issue of whether they should have arrested the miscreant, only the method of entry-a battering ram. A murder suspect gets negotiated with for hours on end when locked in an apartment and a bunch of giggly females get an apartment door demolished for seventeen bucks worth of pizza. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by susie
No, I' not debating the issue of whether they should have arrested the miscreant, only the method of entry-a battering ram. A murder suspect gets negotiated with for hours on end when locked in an apartment and a bunch of giggly females get an apartment door demolished for seventeen bucks worth of pizza.
A murder suspect gets negotiated with only when he/she has hostages. A bunch of punk teenage theifs get their door busted down after repeated warnings that it would be busted down if they did not open it. I don't see the problem here....0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
53 comments