Cop fired after video shows him slamming 12-year-old girl to the ground

Officer's report was "inconsistent with the video," officials say.

Read the whole story

 

[AustinAllan]

Apparently there is no action too depraved that a police office can undertake while on duty that the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas will not defend as justified. It is up to all of us to decide if we are going to live in fear in a police state or we are going to demand that the police act as public servants.

 

[syntaks]

“There’s two sides to every story,” Charley Wilkison, the group's executive director, told The Associated Press.

Not this one.

 

[Tom Brokaw]

trs8[/url]":3smt4w1o]If you're going to get into fights and then resist arrest, then don't be surprised when you suffer the consequences... I've no sympathy for her.

No concept of proportionality, huh?

Aside from bruises and a headache she came out fine, so clearly the officer performed the maneuver well. She went along meekly after that.

Great, I'll flip you over my hip, you land on your face on a brick sidewalk, and if you only have a little bit of pain, then I did it right! Perfect! No problems!

I want to hope it's a good lesson for her, but I doubt it. Right now everyone is telling her she's 100% in the right. Let's not think about how she got into that situation in the first place. This is how you get a generation of self entitled brats. You teach them all their rights but none of their responsibilities.

Leading by example would be a great way to start teaching responsibilities.

 

[cmacd]

A.Felix[/url]":zlbfl06r]

cmacd[/url]":zlbfl06r]Okay, having seen it now, two things:

1) If you make a police officer take you down forcibly...which is to say if you don't just comply and go peacefully and without incident...you have increased your odds of injury about a thousandfold. Physically subduing another human being, even a 12-year-old, can lead to injury for one or both parties involved. It's why in many or even most(?) districts, restraining a child is something a teacher must specifically be trained in [before doing it], to minimize the risk to both of them. But applying force to control another noncompliant human being is still risky, period. Even tasers, etc., are risky.

2) I suspect the majority of this officer's training over his career was focused on using force against adults. I'd wager he's had inadequate (if any) training in how to take down or restrain children, including larger children. His seemingly disproportionate use of force may stem from that. Because let's be real, if that same video featured a 20-year-old man it wouldn't even move the needle.
That said, falsifying the report seems to indicate that he knew he did something wrong, and was trying to evade consequences for it.

What training? I can subdue a 12 year old girl very easily with minor harm if any at all. It's a little girl without any weapons. Do you seriously need to be trained for that unless it's in how to be absolutely careful not to inflict any damage? Lesson 1: wrap your arms around them to keep them still and hold them with their back against your chest. Lesson 2: if they're kicking and may hurt you, themselves, or someone in the immediate vicinity then grab them like carrying a large package. One arm around their torso to hold their own arms in place, and the other arm grabs their legs. You proceed to take them away.

There, training finished. It's not like a child will suddenly pull out some ninja moves on you. If someone who is trained to deal with grown men who are putting up a fight can't use a minimum force to subdue a kid, and confuses the training, maybe that person shouldn't be enforcing anything around kids. I'm not defending any kid's behavior. Yes, I know kids can sometimes be major assholes. Still, a 12 year old girl poses no physical challenge to an adult male. Pick her up, carry her away. How hard is that?

I don't know, I've never tried it, and haven't had the training I'm referring to. But my wife was a teacher, it was definitely a "thing." And I'm assuming it went beyond two sentences. So somebody other than myself thinks that proper techniques to subdue and restrain children with minimal risk to both parties aren't just "common sense." Probably implemented after improper technique led to liability for injury to either the student, or the teacher.

And you missed my point, which is that somebody specifically trained to take down a grown man may be at a disadvantage in this regard, as it increases the chance he'll wind up using too much force.

Meh, whatever. Don't think this topic is really a place for nuance anyway.

 

[daarong]

omegahelix[/url]":2teq8t2t]"We intend to fully, fully defend this officer"

Jesus Christ. He face planted a 12 year old girl. What she did or was doing is irrelevant short of pulling out some sort of weapon. He's a grown man twice her size. This is child abuse on top of police brutality.

Agreed - and anything short of a criminal lawsuit would be disgraceful.

I was relieved to read he was fired... but to be grateful when an officer is actually fired for physically assaulting a small child.... is very sad, because being fired should be this officer's least concern.

 

[Onyx Spartan II]

AustinAllan[/url]":2sxiyvso]Apparently there is no action too depraved that a police office can undertake while on duty that the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas will not defend as justified. It is up to all of us to decide if we are going to live in fear in a police state or we are going to demand that the police act as public servants.

As others have noted, they said nothing about his conduct, only that they will ensure his rights as a US citizen are respected. Incidentally that also helps make sure there's less chance of anything getting overturned on appeal because you made sure to dot your I's and cross your T's the first time.

 

[infected]

syntaks[/url]":3mkcfj3g]

“There’s two sides to every story,” Charley Wilkison, the group's executive director, told The Associated Press.

Not this one.

Well, I see the side of a young girls face impacting with the upwards facing side of a concrete floor... so technically he is right I suppose.

 

[noanoxan]

Schizoid[/url]":1riype4p]To be fair, 12-year-old girls can be pretty vicious.

It takes a pretty big man to bring down a 12-year-old girl, y'know.

 

[foreignreign]

cmacd[/url]":2lkq8jjr]

...

You make the cops put you on the ground, it will hurt.

As I said, I'm guessing he had poor (if any) training on better methods of taking down noncompliant kids. And he obviously realized he overstepped, given the report. This is probably more a "why using real cops in school hallways is a bad idea" problem than anything, if you ask me.

I can see where you're coming from with this line of reasoning, but the one big question that remains in my mind is how exactly can this be a rehearsed takedown maneuver?

Maybe if the officer in question's training was primarily targeted at taking down people much lighter than him, but I can't see this guy going for this kind of move on someone his size considering the chances he'd buckle himself over in the process. He had to have known some other maneuver that would've gotten the job done without faceplanting the girl's face into cement with a ridiculous amount of force involved.

 

[KGFish]

cmacd[/url]":80tdafm9]

A.Felix[/url]":80tdafm9]

cmacd[/url]":80tdafm9]Okay, having seen it now, two things:

1) If you make a police officer take you down forcibly...which is to say if you don't just comply and go peacefully and without incident...you have increased your odds of injury about a thousandfold. Physically subduing another human being, even a 12-year-old, can lead to injury for one or both parties involved. It's why in many or even most(?) districts, restraining a child is something a teacher must specifically be trained in [before doing it], to minimize the risk to both of them. But applying force to control another noncompliant human being is still risky, period. Even tasers, etc., are risky.

2) I suspect the majority of this officer's training over his career was focused on using force against adults. I'd wager he's had inadequate (if any) training in how to take down or restrain children, including larger children. His seemingly disproportionate use of force may stem from that. Because let's be real, if that same video featured a 20-year-old man it wouldn't even move the needle.
That said, falsifying the report seems to indicate that he knew he did something wrong, and was trying to evade consequences for it.

What training? I can subdue a 12 year old girl very easily with minor harm if any at all. It's a little girl without any weapons. Do you seriously need to be trained for that unless it's in how to be absolutely careful not to inflict any damage? Lesson 1: wrap your arms around them to keep them still and hold them with their back against your chest. Lesson 2: if they're kicking and may hurt you, themselves, or someone in the immediate vicinity then grab them like carrying a large package. One arm around their torso to hold their own arms in place, and the other arm grabs their legs. You proceed to take them away.

There, training finished. It's not like a child will suddenly pull out some ninja moves on you. If someone who is trained to deal with grown men who are putting up a fight can't use a minimum force to subdue a kid, and confuses the training, maybe that person shouldn't be enforcing anything around kids. I'm not defending any kid's behavior. Yes, I know kids can sometimes be major assholes. Still, a 12 year old girl poses no physical challenge to an adult male. Pick her up, carry her away. How hard is that?

I don't know, I've never tried it, and haven't had the training I'm referring to. But my wife was a teacher, it was definitely a "thing." And I'm assuming it went beyond two sentences. So somebody other than myself thinks that proper techniques to subdue and restrain children with minimal risk to both parties aren't just "common sense." Probably implemented after improper technique led to liability for injury to either the student, or the teacher.

And you missed my point, which is that somebody specifically trained to take down a grown man may be at a disadvantage in this regard, as it increases the chance he'll wind up using too much force.

Meh, whatever. Don't think this topic is really a place for nuance anyway.

You actually bring up a really good point - but it shows the idiocy in even greater detail. Why is a 200 lbs man using takedown techniques that are designed to tackle an aggressor of equal size and strength on someone half their size, even less than that in strength, and who was already subdued? Everything you can try to explain this just makes the entire situation even worse.

 

[cmacd]

A bear hug would have restrained her. He doesn't get to try until he gets it right. And what is this about a 12 year old girl "making" a cop use physical force?

The bear hug is force, too.

If somebody doesn't comply with verbal instructions, you have two choices...let them do as they please, or use force. The former is usually frowned upon.

If the first level of force (in this case the bear hug) doesn't lead to compliance (it didn't seem to), you escalate. The only other option is you get to sit there in a loving embrace with them until the end of time.

Of course, the full-force faceplant into a hard floor was risky as all hell, and absolutely inappropriate (or at least disproportionate) as far as escalation goes. Hence the false report, controversy, charges.

 

[Meailda]

Meailda[/url]":j7qj8h5o]

angrysand[/url]":j7qj8h5o]this is disturbing to watch. this could be anyone's daughter, sister, niece...

whats more disturbing is all the other instances of police brutality and abuse that go unseen and unpunished.

Or anyone's, you know, person. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but having to relate a woman to someone's relative just reinforces the societal view of women being somehow less than a [male] human.

What?!?! Let me guess. you just learned the word micro-aggression. So let me explain this to you. Relating someone to "anyone's family" is common rhetoric used to inspire sympathy with the subject of the claim. See also "That homeless guy could have been anyone's son or father" see also: Humanization

Thanks for restating my point. When you have to resort to such tactics to humanize a group, that's a pretty good sign something is up. For instance, you predominantly do not hear that sort of humanization for someone coming from a position of power. So I don't need to say, "that could be anyone's son, brother, or nephew" when I'm talking about Adam Savage.

No you are totally mistaken. This is a way of simply saying that could happen to anyone and it is not because they did anything to deserve it. We aren't talking about a group. I could also say that soldier could have been anyone's daughter. This is a way of heading off the argument that their actions merited what they got.
You pull out the family bit because people generally suck and you can count on someone not to care as long as they don't know the victim.

 

[cmacd]

KGFish[/url]":37le8rcl]

cmacd[/url]":37le8rcl]

A.Felix[/url]":37le8rcl]

cmacd[/url]":37le8rcl]Okay, having seen it now, two things:

1) If you make a police officer take you down forcibly...which is to say if you don't just comply and go peacefully and without incident...you have increased your odds of injury about a thousandfold. Physically subduing another human being, even a 12-year-old, can lead to injury for one or both parties involved. It's why in many or even most(?) districts, restraining a child is something a teacher must specifically be trained in [before doing it], to minimize the risk to both of them. But applying force to control another noncompliant human being is still risky, period. Even tasers, etc., are risky.

2) I suspect the majority of this officer's training over his career was focused on using force against adults. I'd wager he's had inadequate (if any) training in how to take down or restrain children, including larger children. His seemingly disproportionate use of force may stem from that. Because let's be real, if that same video featured a 20-year-old man it wouldn't even move the needle.
That said, falsifying the report seems to indicate that he knew he did something wrong, and was trying to evade consequences for it.

What training? I can subdue a 12 year old girl very easily with minor harm if any at all. It's a little girl without any weapons. Do you seriously need to be trained for that unless it's in how to be absolutely careful not to inflict any damage? Lesson 1: wrap your arms around them to keep them still and hold them with their back against your chest. Lesson 2: if they're kicking and may hurt you, themselves, or someone in the immediate vicinity then grab them like carrying a large package. One arm around their torso to hold their own arms in place, and the other arm grabs their legs. You proceed to take them away.

There, training finished. It's not like a child will suddenly pull out some ninja moves on you. If someone who is trained to deal with grown men who are putting up a fight can't use a minimum force to subdue a kid, and confuses the training, maybe that person shouldn't be enforcing anything around kids. I'm not defending any kid's behavior. Yes, I know kids can sometimes be major assholes. Still, a 12 year old girl poses no physical challenge to an adult male. Pick her up, carry her away. How hard is that?

I don't know, I've never tried it, and haven't had the training I'm referring to. But my wife was a teacher, it was definitely a "thing." And I'm assuming it went beyond two sentences. So somebody other than myself thinks that proper techniques to subdue and restrain children with minimal risk to both parties aren't just "common sense." Probably implemented after improper technique led to liability for injury to either the student, or the teacher.

And you missed my point, which is that somebody specifically trained to take down a grown man may be at a disadvantage in this regard, as it increases the chance he'll wind up using too much force.

Meh, whatever. Don't think this topic is really a place for nuance anyway.

You actually bring up a really good point - but it shows the idiocy in even greater detail. Why is a 200 lbs man using takedown techniques that are designed to tackle an aggressor of equal size and strength on someone half their size, even less than that in strength, and who was already subdued? Everything you can try to explain this just makes the entire situation even worse.

Of course.

That's why I was very clear that this is not a defense of the officer.

Just a discussion of the situation.

 

[Fatesrider]

Fyrebaugh[/url]":xtckzfha]Yes, there are two sides to every story, and the officer's report that he already filed should have given his side of the story, I'm sure that this video gives a different story. I also feel that if the officer had been accurate in his report stating that he threw her to the ground he would not have been fired.

Therein lies the crux of the matter, IMHO.

What part of the video wasn't uploaded? What history did the student have? What was the situation going in? Those are actually vital points in any police action that results in discipline or injury.

HOWEVER, the biggest one is consistency between what the police report and what actually happened. If there's an obvious discrepancy or important omission, then the officer should be held liable for falsifying a police report AT THE LEAST. That should be an offense worthy of summary dismissal.

To be fair, the police unions are doing their jobs when they defend these low-lifes. Defense attorneys do the same kind of thing. Cops work under a contract and the unions make sure the contracts are followed. I'm fairly certain that no contract allows cops to falsify their reports or omit this kind of behavior/action without suffering ejection from their position. So the pro-forma statement by the police union isn't supporting the cop's actions, only their right to make sure the firing was according to the contract.

Don't like it? Fine, change the laws.

We are a nation of laws, after all. We either obey them, or invite anarchy. As it stands, anarchy seems to be preferred. But because "common sense" seems to be absent, I don't see it as an improvement. We can change our laws to suit us. If we don't do that, it's on us for that omission.

In the meantime, dogpiling on ALL cops for the actions of the few who should never have been allowed anywhere near a badge seems to be one of those things where "common sense" is lacking. If you kick all good dogs along with the bad one, they become bad dogs or run away. It works the same for people. (Look at the militant stands and venom spewed by the liberals after being beaten on by the conservatives for 30+ years!)

Keep in mind, too, that the media (Ars included) make money from clicks and ads. The more sensationalized the event/headline, the more the clicks, the more money they make. Toss in the comments and the "We hate the pigs!" 1960's rhetoric and it's deja vous all over again with the media eating it up.

There ARE two sides to every story. Sometimes it's not what it appears to be. Sometimes it is. One has to take the time to consider each of these on a case by case basis and to consider the appropriate actions to take once consideration is done. As so many have pointed out here on Ars, these "knee-jerk" "(SOMEONE'S NAME) laws" are usually very badly written over-reactions to some random event.

<glances at the majority of comments>

Yes, yes they frequently are.

Stop and think people. There is a problem with the perception of law enforcement made much worse by a few bad players and a lot of media hype. If we fire all the cops, what next? Arming every Tom, Dick and Dirty Harry to take over? It's an issue that will take reason and critical thinking to deal with. I don't see that there's a lot of either in most of these posts. If ever there was a time to stop and think, this would be it.

 

[cmacd]

foreignreign[/url]":u1rkb3v4]

cmacd[/url]":u1rkb3v4]

...

You make the cops put you on the ground, it will hurt.

As I said, I'm guessing he had poor (if any) training on better methods of taking down noncompliant kids. And he obviously realized he overstepped, given the report. This is probably more a "why using real cops in school hallways is a bad idea" problem than anything, if you ask me.

I can see where you're coming from with this line of reasoning, but the one big question that remains in my mind is how exactly can this be a rehearsed takedown maneuver?

Maybe if the officer in question's training was primarily targeted at taking down people much lighter than him, but I can't see this guy going for this kind of move on someone his size considering the chances he'd buckle himself over in the process. He had to have known some other maneuver that would've gotten the job done without faceplanting the girl's face into cement with a ridiculous amount of force involved.

A good point. Either it's not a commonly applied takedown move (likely?), or it's one intended for a suspect that's lighter than you but still more or less full-grown. I could mayyybe see it being used if you had a single suspect, and another officer with you.

Or, obviously, maybe he's just a terrible cop. Not discounting that possibility at all.

 

[KGFish]

cmacd[/url]":2ginkamp]

KGFish[/url]":2ginkamp]

cmacd[/url]":2ginkamp]

A.Felix[/url]":2ginkamp]

cmacd[/url]":2ginkamp]Okay, having seen it now, two things:

1) If you make a police officer take you down forcibly...which is to say if you don't just comply and go peacefully and without incident...you have increased your odds of injury about a thousandfold. Physically subduing another human being, even a 12-year-old, can lead to injury for one or both parties involved. It's why in many or even most(?) districts, restraining a child is something a teacher must specifically be trained in [before doing it], to minimize the risk to both of them. But applying force to control another noncompliant human being is still risky, period. Even tasers, etc., are risky.

2) I suspect the majority of this officer's training over his career was focused on using force against adults. I'd wager he's had inadequate (if any) training in how to take down or restrain children, including larger children. His seemingly disproportionate use of force may stem from that. Because let's be real, if that same video featured a 20-year-old man it wouldn't even move the needle.
That said, falsifying the report seems to indicate that he knew he did something wrong, and was trying to evade consequences for it.

What training? I can subdue a 12 year old girl very easily with minor harm if any at all. It's a little girl without any weapons. Do you seriously need to be trained for that unless it's in how to be absolutely careful not to inflict any damage? Lesson 1: wrap your arms around them to keep them still and hold them with their back against your chest. Lesson 2: if they're kicking and may hurt you, themselves, or someone in the immediate vicinity then grab them like carrying a large package. One arm around their torso to hold their own arms in place, and the other arm grabs their legs. You proceed to take them away.

There, training finished. It's not like a child will suddenly pull out some ninja moves on you. If someone who is trained to deal with grown men who are putting up a fight can't use a minimum force to subdue a kid, and confuses the training, maybe that person shouldn't be enforcing anything around kids. I'm not defending any kid's behavior. Yes, I know kids can sometimes be major assholes. Still, a 12 year old girl poses no physical challenge to an adult male. Pick her up, carry her away. How hard is that?

I don't know, I've never tried it, and haven't had the training I'm referring to. But my wife was a teacher, it was definitely a "thing." And I'm assuming it went beyond two sentences. So somebody other than myself thinks that proper techniques to subdue and restrain children with minimal risk to both parties aren't just "common sense." Probably implemented after improper technique led to liability for injury to either the student, or the teacher.

And you missed my point, which is that somebody specifically trained to take down a grown man may be at a disadvantage in this regard, as it increases the chance he'll wind up using too much force.

Meh, whatever. Don't think this topic is really a place for nuance anyway.

You actually bring up a really good point - but it shows the idiocy in even greater detail. Why is a 200 lbs man using takedown techniques that are designed to tackle an aggressor of equal size and strength on someone half their size, even less than that in strength, and who was already subdued? Everything you can try to explain this just makes the entire situation even worse.

Of course.

That's why I was very clear that this is not a defense of the officer.

Just a discussion of the situation.

Right. I guess this is where my habit of using "you" as a stand-in for "people" comes back to bite me. Just continuing on your train of thought leads me back to the same conclusion, no matter what path I go down: it's always "this is not how you deal with school children doing school children stuff".

 

[daarong]

cmacd[/url]":2phelc16]

A bear hug would have restrained her. He doesn't get to try until he gets it right. And what is this about a 12 year old girl "making" a cop use physical force?

The bear hug is force, too.

If somebody doesn't comply with verbal instructions, you have two choices...let them do as they please, or use force. The former is usually frowned upon.

If the first level of force (in this case the bear hug) doesn't lead to compliance (it didn't seem to), you escalate. The only other option is you get to sit there in a loving embrace with them until the end of time.

Of course, the full-force faceplant into a hard floor was risky as all hell, and absolutely inappropriate (or at least disproportionate) as far as escalation goes. Hence the false report, controversy, charges.

Why would an officer ever bear hug a small child? Is there a problem with snatching their wrists and throwing them in cuffs, no matter if they're resisting or not? This isn't a case of a "child" who is actually a 250lb high school football player. In this case the "child" is really a small and delicate person (though maybe packing a really nasty attitude)

 

[Meailda]

eldonyo[/url]":15uqvhow]

bittermann[/url]":15uqvhow]

SixDegrees[/url]":15uqvhow]Police suck.

Until you need them...amiright?

No, you aren't.

I see we got a bunch of Internet tough guys that can do without! amiright this time...

No you aren't. Police have no duty (Per the Supreme Court) to protect anyone. They also tend to keep people from protecting themselves. This is why police suck when you need them. They have no duty to be there when you need them. To protect and serve. Sometimes.

 

[KGFish]

Fatesrider[/url]":1csp3cq8]

Fyrebaugh[/url]":1csp3cq8]Yes, there are two sides to every story, and the officer's report that he already filed should have given his side of the story, I'm sure that this video gives a different story. I also feel that if the officer had been accurate in his report stating that he threw her to the ground he would not have been fired.

Therein lies the crux of the matter, IMHO.

What part of the video wasn't uploaded? What history did the student have? What was the situation going in? Those are actually vital points in any police action that results in discipline or injury.

HOWEVER, the biggest one is consistency between what the police report and what actually happened. If there's an obvious discrepancy or important omission, then the officer should be held liable for falsifying a police report AT THE LEAST. That should be an offense worthy of summary dismissal.

To be fair, the police unions are doing their jobs when they defend these low-lifes. Defense attorneys do the same kind of thing. Cops work under a contract and the unions make sure the contracts are followed. I'm fairly certain that no contract allows cops to falsify their reports or omit this kind of behavior/action without suffering ejection from their position. So the pro-forma statement by the police union isn't supporting the cop's actions, only their right to make sure the firing was according to the contract.

Don't like it? Fine, change the laws.

We are a nation of laws, after all. We either obey them, or invite anarchy. As it stands, anarchy seems to be preferred. But because "common sense" seems to be absent, I don't see it as an improvement. We can change our laws to suit us. If we don't do that, it's on us for that omission.

In the meantime, dogpiling on ALL cops for the actions of the few who should never have been allowed anywhere near a badge seems to be one of those things where "common sense" is lacking. If you kick all good dogs along with the bad one, they become bad dogs or run away. It works the same for people. (Look at the militant stands and venom spewed by the liberals after being beaten on by the conservatives for 30+ years!)

Keep in mind, too, that the media (Ars included) make money from clicks and ads. The more sensationalized the event/headline, the more the clicks, the more money they make. Toss in the comments and the "We hate the pigs!" 1960's rhetoric and it's deja vous all over again with the media eating it up.

There ARE two sides to every story. Sometimes it's not what it appears to be. Sometimes it is. One has to take the time to consider each of these on a case by case basis and to consider the appropriate actions to take once consideration is done. As so many have pointed out here on Ars, these "knee-jerk" "(SOMEONE'S NAME) laws" are usually very badly written over-reactions to some random event.

<glances at the majority of comments>

Yes, yes they frequently are.

Stop and think people. There is a problem with the perception of law enforcement made much worse by a few bad players and a lot of media hype. If we fire all the cops, what next? Arming every Tom, Dick and Dirty Harry to take over? It's an issue that will take reason and critical thinking to deal with. I don't see that there's a lot of either in most of these posts. If ever there was a time to stop and think, this would be it.

Like I said before: this goes beyond just bad cops, but into bad training, bad processes, bad school management, bad superiors, bad culture, bad everything. Yeah, there are good cops. I can't tell them apart from the bad cops though - not at least until they didn't beat me up, and then I'm left to wonder if it was because I'm white and look upper-class.

Funnily enough, they're complaining about over-generalization when they're applying their stereotypes quite freely. "Can't trust no one - they all may have guns!"

Congratulations, cops. This is how you create a death spiral.

 

[bcarpe]

georgeh2k[/url]":2i28xjul]I would have respect for the police unions if they just for once came out and said, "This officer's behavior was wrong. We will NOT stand up for him." Until then, I'm tired of police unions defending this type of behavior.

If it's the union's job to defend the officer's rights, they darn well better defend the officer's rights. That doesn't mean trying to get him no punishment in a subversion of justice, but it does mean making sure that his punishment isn't more severe than justice demands.

 

[cmacd]

Right. I guess this is where my habit of using "you" as a stand-in for "people" comes back to bite me. Just continuing on your train of thought leads me back to the same conclusion, no matter what path I go down: it's always "this is not how you deal with school children doing school children stuff".

Yup.

I mean there's really not much conversation as to whether the use of force was justified, or whether the false report is acceptable. Most defending the former and all defending the latter wouldn't be reasonable people, so no point trying to have a reasonable conversation on it.

But I think there's a lot of room for conversation as to the broader issues that might have contributed, and how to reduce the chance of a repeat incident (with another officer, as this guy should clearly be fired).

 

[Deleted member 1]

The amount of force was clearly excessive, if that grown man can't control a young lady half his weight and size without slamming her to the ground, then he needs to find a new job outside of being a police officer.

On the other hand that young lady does seem to be making it difficult for the officer to control her. It would be nice to see the ENTIRE video, I would like to see how he approached her, I know back in my day I knew the officers at my school because they made themselves known.

 

[azazel1024]

PRMan[/url]":1930wta4]

thedrwes[/url]":1930wta4]It was excessive force, but if you resist, then you should be taken to the ground. Most accidents happen because people feel that they don't need to listen to a police officer. This is the problem that we need to fix, not the police officer.

They are trained to take down people who are violent offenders, and if you are not going to listen, then they will take you down in the manner that they were trained. If you think it is cool to resist them, then you have done this to yourself.

But it's only this way because nobody respects them anymore. He should be able to subdue a 12 year old who hasn't started fighting yet without potentially fracturing her skull. Talking her down should have been the first step.

Absolutely.

Why police officers (and authoritarians) don't seem to get this, I don't know why. You know who struggles with this? My kids. They are 4, 6 and 8. I have to have talks with them at least every other day of "did you use yours words first? Hmmm, you didn't. Next time use your words with your brother instead of kicking him." Or "Oh, you used your words and she didn't listen? Well, did you tell Mommy or Daddy before using your hands? Ohhhh, no you didn't."

I think every parent who has more than one child has the same thing, but eventually a child gets it (well, most).

I feel like these officers never had a parent who told them to use their fucking words first. The girl didn't pull a weapon. She wasn't actively engaged in violence against another person. I see no excuses for the officers behavior that aren't grounded in him being a violent disturbed individual.

 

[A.Felix]

cmacd[/url]":big21gek]

A.Felix[/url]":big21gek]

cmacd[/url]":big21gek]Okay, having seen it now, two things:

1) If you make a police officer take you down forcibly...which is to say if you don't just comply and go peacefully and without incident...you have increased your odds of injury about a thousandfold. Physically subduing another human being, even a 12-year-old, can lead to injury for one or both parties involved. It's why in many or even most(?) districts, restraining a child is something a teacher must specifically be trained in [before doing it], to minimize the risk to both of them. But applying force to control another noncompliant human being is still risky, period. Even tasers, etc., are risky.

2) I suspect the majority of this officer's training over his career was focused on using force against adults. I'd wager he's had inadequate (if any) training in how to take down or restrain children, including larger children. His seemingly disproportionate use of force may stem from that. Because let's be real, if that same video featured a 20-year-old man it wouldn't even move the needle.
That said, falsifying the report seems to indicate that he knew he did something wrong, and was trying to evade consequences for it.

What training? I can subdue a 12 year old girl very easily with minor harm if any at all. It's a little girl without any weapons. Do you seriously need to be trained for that unless it's in how to be absolutely careful not to inflict any damage? Lesson 1: wrap your arms around them to keep them still and hold them with their back against your chest. Lesson 2: if they're kicking and may hurt you, themselves, or someone in the immediate vicinity then grab them like carrying a large package. One arm around their torso to hold their own arms in place, and the other arm grabs their legs. You proceed to take them away.

There, training finished. It's not like a child will suddenly pull out some ninja moves on you. If someone who is trained to deal with grown men who are putting up a fight can't use a minimum force to subdue a kid, and confuses the training, maybe that person shouldn't be enforcing anything around kids. I'm not defending any kid's behavior. Yes, I know kids can sometimes be major assholes. Still, a 12 year old girl poses no physical challenge to an adult male. Pick her up, carry her away. How hard is that?

I don't know, I've never tried it, and haven't had the training I'm referring to. But my wife was a teacher, it was definitely a "thing." And I'm assuming it went beyond two sentences. So somebody other than myself thinks that proper techniques to subdue and restrain children with minimal risk to both parties aren't just "common sense." Probably implemented after improper technique led to liability for injury to either the student, or the teacher.

And you missed my point, which is that somebody specifically trained to take down a grown man may be at a disadvantage in this regard, as it increases the chance he'll wind up using too much force.

Meh, whatever. Don't think this topic is really a place for nuance anyway.

No, I didn't miss your point, I addressed it. If someone is confusing the training to take a grown man to what it takes to subdue a kid, which seems was already overpowered to begin with, that person has no business enforcing anything around kids. It's like saying an NFL player is imparting some children summer camp and then suddenly he brutally body slams a kid because his entire career he's been training to hit targets that are as strong as he is. Or Mayweather going to a school gym to give a class to 8th grade girls that are into boxing and out of reflex knocks one out. Something has to be seriously wrong with you if you can't distinguish the situation regardless of your training.

 

[cmacd]

daarong[/url]":2iwxfa27]

cmacd[/url]":2iwxfa27]

A bear hug would have restrained her. He doesn't get to try until he gets it right. And what is this about a 12 year old girl "making" a cop use physical force?

The bear hug is force, too.

If somebody doesn't comply with verbal instructions, you have two choices...let them do as they please, or use force. The former is usually frowned upon.

If the first level of force (in this case the bear hug) doesn't lead to compliance (it didn't seem to), you escalate. The only other option is you get to sit there in a loving embrace with them until the end of time.

Of course, the full-force faceplant into a hard floor was risky as all hell, and absolutely inappropriate (or at least disproportionate) as far as escalation goes. Hence the false report, controversy, charges.

Why would an officer ever bear hug a small child? Is there a problem with snatching their wrists and throwing them in cuffs, no matter if they're resisting or not? This isn't a case of a "child" who is actually a 250lb high school football player. In this case the "child" is really a small and delicate person (though maybe packing a really nasty attitude)

Devil's Advocate: Would a bear hug actually be more or less risky than applying significant force to the arms/wrists/joints of said delicate, growing child? Which carries the greater risk of significant injury? Keep in mind that even if you aren't applying significant force, their own struggles may.

Obviously the faceplant is another matter. But is the bear hug really a poor choice, and what's the likelihood of a dislocation/break in a child's arm if you torque it wrong (or they torque it wrong) trying to get them in cuffs?

Honest question, not something I'm familiar with. I do know that forcing noncompliant adults into cuffs is quite risky to both officer and suspect.

 

[superchkn]

Meailda[/url]":2szw9yn0]

Meailda[/url]":2szw9yn0]

angrysand[/url]":2szw9yn0]this is disturbing to watch. this could be anyone's daughter, sister, niece...

whats more disturbing is all the other instances of police brutality and abuse that go unseen and unpunished.

Or anyone's, you know, person. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but having to relate a woman to someone's relative just reinforces the societal view of women being somehow less than a [male] human.

What?!?! Let me guess. you just learned the word micro-aggression. So let me explain this to you. Relating someone to "anyone's family" is common rhetoric used to inspire sympathy with the subject of the claim. See also "That homeless guy could have been anyone's son or father" see also: Humanization

Thanks for restating my point. When you have to resort to such tactics to humanize a group, that's a pretty good sign something is up. For instance, you predominantly do not hear that sort of humanization for someone coming from a position of power. So I don't need to say, "that could be anyone's son, brother, or nephew" when I'm talking about Adam Savage.

No you are totally mistaken. This is a way of simply saying that could happen to anyone and it is not because they did anything to deserve it. We aren't talking about a group. I could also say that soldier could have been anyone's daughter. This is a way of heading off the argument that their actions merited what they got.
You pull out the family bit because people generally suck and you can count on someone not to care as long as they don't know the victim.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I see this used in discussions here and elsewhere when talking about women, but not when talking about men. But you're right, it's not about groups (or people the majority don't relate to, because we just like to use words unnecessarily.)

 

[Oz7]

The San Antonio Independent School District's superintendent said that 27-year-old district officer Joshua Kehm's use of force at Rhodes Middle School on March 29 was "absolutely unwarranted."

"Additionally, the officer’s report was inconsistent with the video and it was also delayed," Pedro Martinez, the district's superintendent,

"absolutely unwarranted" signifies that the behavior was not called for in this instance; instead of an adjectives that describes the act itself such as "absolutely unacceptable" (and I am going for a mild adjective here- stronger ones come more naturally to mind). If such a behavior is "warranted" in a school at times, maybe they should fire the superintendent?

Contrast the nuanced language above with the statement coming from the union: “We intend to fully, fully defend this officer and make sure that all of his rights are upheld.”

 

[no0ne1-0-8]

KGFish[/url]":15zubj96]

no0ne1-0-8[/url]":15zubj96]

aeolist[/url]":15zubj96]

no0ne1-0-8[/url]":15zubj96]The behavior of this officer does not represent the behavior of thousands of well-meaning and well-behaved officers elsewhere

I will believe that as soon as said officers start behaving well when it comes to turning in felons in their midst instead of remaining silent or lying on their behalf.

Some do report wrongdoers. Many of the reports came from fellow officers and more often than not they were not anonymous. The personnel in internal affairs really wanted to nail the perpetrators and pushed hard for termination. Again, the extraordinary power of the union overwhelmed IA.

You are also overlooking the fact that the district attorney (or more appropriately sometimes a single assistant district attorney) is the one who decides to prosecute or not. In Texas DAs are elected at the county level, but ADAs are hired/appointed.

Similarly the views of these groups do not represent those of many individual police they "represent". These slimy groups fleece departments and officers for their own gain as well as the gain of poorly-behaved individuals.

And I will believe this when the individual police start voting reformers into union positions.

Seriously now. San Antonio police union members, which make up 99% of San Antonio police officers, voted no confidence just a few weeks ago in the police chief for failing to terminate an officer that shot and killed an unarmed man in February.

I realize defending (some) police officers might be an unpopular position, but would caution you to exert the appropriate amount of cynicism and research your facts first. Sometimes the circumstances justify more cynicism than less, but you cannot dismiss all police as psychopaths in one casual wave of the hand. On the other hand, I would feel comfortable doing that for police union lawyers.

What you're indicating is that the problem is systemic, and not just a few bad apples spoiling the barrel. If the union is so strong it can overrule IA, we have a serious problem that goes far beyond just some cops being bad. It shows that process doesn't exist to enforce rules. It shows superiors are more interested in protecting their own than in upholding the law. It shows the entire system is rotten to the core.

I agree completely. That is what I have directly encountered. That's just the police side. We haven't even mentioned how the DA's office will conspire with the police departments.

Because the problem is so systemic it is also complicated. Individual officers understandably can feel powerless in the face of union action because, let's face it, they are. Often nothing happens so they are left wondering why bother? That disincentivizes them to report future misconduct. Combine that with the blue wall of silence/no snitching culture, the real risks to his or her career the officer takes in reporting the misconduct, the mounting bills barely payable with his or her relatively low salary which are subject to those risks, and the ease and comfort of maintaining the status quo and you have a recipe for encouraging officers to look the other way.

So when officers do report misconduct it shows their extraordinary courage and deep desire to take the ethical course of action. As I said in the last post, these reports are not uncommon, so it is reasonable to assume that many officers are thoughtful people with integrity that want to do the right thing. I realize you haven't disputed any of this, but these stories break my heart because I always remember some of the truly good people I worked with whenever I hear people generalizing that all police are evil. Certainly some are, but from my experience most aren't. That's all I'll say.

 

[A.Felix]

TheDarkerPhantom[/url]":9iisjsea]The amount of force was clearly excessive, if that grown man can't control a young lady half his weight and size without slamming her to the ground, then he needs to find a new job outside of being a police officer.

On the other hand that young lady does seem to be making it difficult for the officer to control her. It would be nice to see the ENTIRE video, I would like to see how he approached her, I know back in my day I knew the officers at my school because they made themselves known.

I'll refer your second point to your first. If a 12 year old girl can make it difficult for you to physically control her... you need to find a new job outside of being a police officer.

 

[cmacd]

TheDarkerPhantom[/url]":wbdc11up]The amount of force was clearly excessive, if that grown man can't control a young lady half his weight and size without slamming her to the ground, then he needs to find a new job outside of being a police officer.

On the other hand that young lady does seem to be making it difficult for the officer to control her. It would be nice to see the ENTIRE video, I would like to see how he approached her, I know back in my day I knew the officers at my school because they made themselves known.

I'd be very interested in knowing what, if any, effort was made to de-escalate before he starting trying to physically subdue her.

 

[KGFish]

no0ne1-0-8[/url]":1pvzb8f4]

KGFish[/url]":1pvzb8f4]

no0ne1-0-8[/url]":1pvzb8f4]

aeolist[/url]":1pvzb8f4]

no0ne1-0-8[/url]":1pvzb8f4]The behavior of this officer does not represent the behavior of thousands of well-meaning and well-behaved officers elsewhere

I will believe that as soon as said officers start behaving well when it comes to turning in felons in their midst instead of remaining silent or lying on their behalf.

Some do report wrongdoers. Many of the reports came from fellow officers and more often than not they were not anonymous. The personnel in internal affairs really wanted to nail the perpetrators and pushed hard for termination. Again, the extraordinary power of the union overwhelmed IA.

You are also overlooking the fact that the district attorney (or more appropriately sometimes a single assistant district attorney) is the one who decides to prosecute or not. In Texas DAs are elected at the county level, but ADAs are hired/appointed.

Similarly the views of these groups do not represent those of many individual police they "represent". These slimy groups fleece departments and officers for their own gain as well as the gain of poorly-behaved individuals.

And I will believe this when the individual police start voting reformers into union positions.

Seriously now. San Antonio police union members, which make up 99% of San Antonio police officers, voted no confidence just a few weeks ago in the police chief for failing to terminate an officer that shot and killed an unarmed man in February.

I realize defending (some) police officers might be an unpopular position, but would caution you to exert the appropriate amount of cynicism and research your facts first. Sometimes the circumstances justify more cynicism than less, but you cannot dismiss all police as psychopaths in one casual wave of the hand. On the other hand, I would feel comfortable doing that for police union lawyers.

What you're indicating is that the problem is systemic, and not just a few bad apples spoiling the barrel. If the union is so strong it can overrule IA, we have a serious problem that goes far beyond just some cops being bad. It shows that process doesn't exist to enforce rules. It shows superiors are more interested in protecting their own than in upholding the law. It shows the entire system is rotten to the core.

I agree completely. That is what I have directly encountered. That's just the police side. We haven't even mentioned how the DA's office will conspire with the police departments.

Because the problem is so systemic it is also complicated. Individual officers understandably can feel powerless in the face of union action because, let's face it, they are. Often nothing happens so they are left wondering why bother? That disincentivizes them to report future misconduct. Combine that with the blue wall of silence/no snitching culture, the real risks to his or her career the officer takes in reporting the misconduct, the mounting bills barely payable with his or her relatively low salary which are subject to those risks, and the ease and comfort of maintaining the status quo and you have a recipe for encouraging officers to look the other way.

So when officers do report misconduct it shows their extraordinary courage and deep desire to take the ethical course of action. As I said in the last post, these reports are not uncommon, so it is reasonable to assume that many officers are thoughtful people with integrity that want to do the right thing. I realize you haven't disputed any of this, but these stories break my heart because I always remember some of the truly good people I worked with whenever I hear people generalizing that all police are evil. Certainly some are, but from my experience most aren't. That's all I'll say.

I do appreciate your comments. It's easy to lump every cop into the homicidal maniac category after viewing a few of these videos. And.... I'll stop here as well.

 

[Head Pirate]

bittermann[/url]":fi6lq9hd]

eldonyo[/url]":fi6lq9hd]

bittermann[/url]":fi6lq9hd]

SixDegrees[/url]":fi6lq9hd]Police suck.

Until you need them...amiright?

No, you aren't.

I see we got a bunch of Internet tough guys that can do without! amiright this time...

This is a logical fallacies often called the alternate fallacies. You are making an argument based on the assumption that the alternative to having something is not having anything at all when other alternatives clearly exist. For example:

Cutting your arms off will get rid of hang nails
You have a hang nail
If you don't want to cut your arms off, there is no way to get rid of your hang nail.

This isn't true; there are a lot of better ways to deal with a hang nail, like tweezers

In the US, the system of law enforcement is pretty horrible.
You would like law and order
If you don't want the US system of law enforcement, there is no way to have law and order.

This is clearly false. There are a lot of countries in the world that have effective law enforcement without having to accept police brutality and child abuse.

 

[ziegler]

bittermann[/url]":3ejuowya]

eldonyo[/url]":3ejuowya]

bittermann[/url]":3ejuowya]

SixDegrees[/url]":3ejuowya]Police suck.

Until you need them...amiright?

No, you aren't.

I see we got a bunch of Internet tough guys that can do without! amiright this time...

I dont call the cops.
I am not a internet tough guy.
I am fully aware that when a cop comes to your property, you are as much under investigation as the person you called the cops on.They see something they dont like in the house or on the property and suddenly you're getting arrested or ticketed or worse.
I dont call the cops because they are more dangerous than any person I have had to deal with in my lifetime.

Cops, the guys in uniform in the patrol car, are little more than revenue agents and pencil pushers. They "do" very little unless they are unlucky enough to be witness to a bad situation and even then, they have no obligation to protect you, defend you, or do anything else except protect themselves and neutralize the disturbance.

So not a tough guy, I just know how futile and dangerous the system is for innocent people that still think Andy Griffith is the epitome of what a LEO is today.

 

[Oz7]

TheDarkerPhantom[/url]":y611bz1r]The amount of force was clearly excessive, if that grown man can't control a young lady half his weight and size without slamming her to the ground, then he needs to find a new job outside of being a police officer.

On the other hand that young lady does seem to be making it difficult for the officer to control her. It would be nice to see the ENTIRE video, I would like to see how he approached her, I know back in my day I knew the officers at my school because they made themselves known.

I am SO tired of the on one hand and on the other hand business. There is a lot of gray in life- this for once is not one of them. No we don't need to know more about this, no we don't need to see the ENTIRE video. She is a 16 year old half his size in a school who is unarmed. He shouldn't have used force like he did. PERIOD.

 

[Meailda]

Meailda[/url]":339zud3k]

eldonyo[/url]":339zud3k]

bittermann[/url]":339zud3k]

SixDegrees[/url]":339zud3k]Police suck.

Until you need them...amiright?

No, you aren't.

I see we got a bunch of Internet tough guys that can do without! amiright this time...

No you aren't. Police have no duty (Per the Supreme Court) to protect anyone. They also tend to keep people from protecting themselves. This is why police suck when you need them. They have no duty to be there when you need them. To protect and serve. Sometimes.

So you nit picked a general statement to death. Congrats. Lets hope you never need to file a police report or contact them due to harassment, assault, theft or any other situation a police officer might be needed. I don't think you are as right or as "righteous" as you think you are. Internet geniuses lol.

So you failed to rebut my argument. Unless you call an insult and a hypothetical situation a rebuttal (I don't. I call that a weak defense of a weak argument). If you don't think I am right here's the link http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html.
Righteous? No. I'm just a normal guy struggling with all the normal problems of being human. Much like police officers.
Also how did you know I am a genius?