home

Police Pepper Spray Teen Over Curfew Violation

By Jeralyn, Section Juvenile Offenders
Posted on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:22:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Until I watched the video, I thought maybe there wasn't much to complain about with this story.

A 15-year-old girl is facing a felony battery charge from a curfew violation incident in which a city police officer struck and pepper sprayed her after she bit him — actions shown in a police videotape released Thursday. Fort Pierce Police Chief Sean Baldwin said he stands by how Officer Dan Gilroy handled the July arrest.

The video changed my mind. I come down on the girl's side. First off, why arrest teens on curfew violations? Why not just give them a citation?

Even if arrest is warranted for a curfew violation, handcuffing a teen in back is unnecessary force. It's painful. They are children. Surely he could have cuffed her in front. She's screaming in pain and then he slams her face into the car hood. It's not until afterwards that she finally bites his hand (which is protected by a glove.) Then he hits her and sprays the pepper spray directly in her eyes.

More...

She was trying to get him to stop hurting her and she bit him. That was the only means available to her. What would you have done to get him to stop?

The cop was in a position of physical domination and control the entire incident. My view: He used unnecessary force. The charges against her should be dropped and the city needs to revise its policy on curfew violations.

I'm scheduled to talk about the case on TV tomorrow afternoon....just curious to see what you all think.

< Rush Limbaugh's Probation Almost Over | Saving Troy Davis From Execution >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Police Pepper Spray Teen Over Curfew Violation | 162 comments (162 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Wow. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by SLH on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:54:49 PM EST
    My 13 year old and I both started crying watching this.  It was horrible to see this tiny little girl get her head slammed into the hood of a car by a cop who was way bigger than her and was wrestling her while she was crying and (in this observer's opinion) probably scared half to death.  Sure, a lot of juvenile offenders can be scary, but this kid sure doesn't look like a scary kid.  What is particularly shocking to me is that she was being manhandled and pepper-sprayed over a curfew violation.  Unless there are some other facts to show that she was a danger to the officer or other people or had a horde of dangerous law-breakers along with her, the arrest, cuffing, struggle, etc. are major overkill.

    Shocking.  Her worst case scenario should be some sort of resisting charge, if anything.  And the officer should face some discipline or retraining due to his overuse of force.  As far as one can tell from the video, his response was disproportionate to the risk he faced.  

    curfew violation (none / 0) (#157)
    by brendak6945 on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:46:29 PM EST
    This  is a sickening event by brut force of a person of authority. this is a curfew violation not a murder suspect.these officer need to be focused on real criminals.I feel this needs to be
    overturned. she should not be a felon because she was trying to defend herself while saying she was sorry and pleading for her mother. He practically broke her arms. How would he feel if that was his daughter, I BET HE WOULD BE OUTRAGED! I am traumatized emotionally that this could happen to someonelses child. This is a child people!!!

    [ Parent ]
    Curfew? (none / 0) (#158)
    by glassdog on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 10:08:42 PM EST
    Anybody notice the bag in her hand? guess what was in that? It was full of new clothes and i quote

    "Investigators said the teen was being arrested for violating the city's curfew and acting suspiciously. She was allegedly carrying a garbage bag full of new clothes with tags still attached, WPBF reported."

    [ Parent ]

    Race as a factor in this arrest (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Aaron on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:55:09 PM EST
    I know the city of Fort Pierce, and traditionally law enforcement treats members of the black community significantly differently than members of the white community.

    This speaks to the problems which still exist in the South, like what we saw in the Jena 6 situation.  This young Black girl will now have a felony criminal record, that is going to pop up on a computer every time she gets stopped for the rest of her life, don't believe that stuff about juvenile records going away after you hit 18, not in Florida.

    I don't know all the facts of the case, but when I see crap like this, and knowing how the cops operate in St. Lucia County, I have to wonder how differently this girl would've been treated if she had been white.

    cops (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by eric on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    Disgusting.

    And she's the one being charged?

    That was hard to watch.... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:05:05 PM EST
    just brutal.

    Some of the comments on the linked article will do wonders for your stomach too.  We're a sick breed sometimes.

    This is just one instance..... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jazzcattg1 on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:52:34 PM EST
    There are many more that are not publicized - a total disgrace and more than likely the cop union in Ft. Pierce is totally against civil oversight.  No wonder they are called pigs.

    well... I didn't even need sound. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Michael Gass on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:59:00 PM EST
    First, do cops HAVE to arrest on curfew violation?  In this case, yes.  It is a matter of liability.  What happens when the officer sees the girl out after curfew, lets her go, and she is later raped and/or killed?  Yep.  Lawsuit.  So, yes, in this case, a custody "arrest" is necessary.  What happens (for most departments) is the juvenile is taken into custody, taken to the police department, and her parents or guardian contacted.  Once the parents arrive, the offending juvenile is issued their ticket/citation and released into the custody of their parents.  

    Second, do cops HAVE to handcuff behind the back?  NO.  Many departments policies cite handcuffing behind the back FIRST, but, they allow for elderly, handicapped, and JUVENILES to be handcuffed in the front.  The reason is obvious; these people are little threat to an officer.  So, while this IS in the realm of officer discretion, until I know the departments policy on juveniles, I cannot say it was "wrong".

    HOWEVER... and I HOPE you knew this was coming...

    PUNCHING her in the face?  NO.  SPRAYING HER because she was resisting the officer AFTER he punches her?  NO.

    What is, then, the difference I see between this incident and the Florida tasering of the college student?

    First, gender/size.  This officer CLEARLY can control this little girl while the 5 or 6 officers with the college student were having trouble controlling him.  This cannot be overstated, in my opinion.  

    Second, age.  This officer is dealing with a juvenile while the officers in Florida were dealing with an adult.  The rules are different.

    Third, brutality.  This officer is CLEARLY out of line when he punches her in the face THEN sprays her.  I have discussed the use-of-force continuum before, and frankly, this officer is clearly in violation here.  The Florida officers, in my opinion, clearly did follow the use-of-force continuum.

    Lawsuit?  You bet.  And... she'll win a settlement before it ever gets to court.  Why?  The officer CLEARLY loses his control over the scene when he punches her in the face and sprays her, both of which, were clearly unnecessary.

    Funny (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:14:28 PM EST
    I have discussed the use-of-force continuum before, and frankly, this officer is clearly in violation here.
    It was exactly that discussion that I was thinking of which made me think it was probably w/in it.

    Do you have a link to FL or any PD's continuum for reference?

    [ Parent ]

    I do not... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Michael Gass on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:25:23 PM EST
    and frankly, you aren't going to find it posted on the web.  

    Each departments use-of-force continuum is written by their states laws, supreme court rulings, and the equipment their department uses.

    However, punching 15 year old girls in the face before spraying them... will not be found in any use-of-force continuum.

    [ Parent ]

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:03:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    One thing I have brought out before (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Michael Gass on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:35:34 PM EST
    is that the use-of-force continuum is fluid... meaning... that you can go from asking to deadly force in about .02 seconds in certain situations.

    However, while that is true, the exact opposite is true as well; you might have the opportunity to take 10 minutes to defuse a situation.  Think of hostage situations, here, but there are others as well.

    Every response is situation generated.

    If the officers patrol vehicle had a cage (meaning, screen separating the back from front), why NOT cuff her in the front of her body for transport to the department?  

    Also, did you ever see a backup officer?  I didn't.  So, the officer felt he could handle the girl on his own... yet... he punches her and sprays her?  

    I've been on traffic stops and called off my backup.  I've also requested additional units (which brought the entire road force, btw... long story).

    But, officers act as they are trained.  When I was a Field Training Officer, and later, Sergeant of my shift, I did not tolerate any abuse or brutality, to INCLUDE verbal abuse.  That didn't mean that I didn't get physical when necessary, it merely meant that we knew our job, what we were allowed to do and weren't allowed to do, and we followed it.  I have chased suspects on foot and in vehicles.  I have "drawn down" on suspects.  There are things that an officer will HAVE to do in the course of his/her job, and, there are things an officer CHOOSES to do.  There is a difference.

    Much of it depends on tactics.  Good tactics will lessen the chance of confrontations that go wrong.  Bad tactics invite it.  Sometimes, you can't avoid it.

    But, in this case, the officer is clearly in the wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    Is taking her in most rational? (none / 0) (#34)
    by 1980Ford on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 08:45:05 PM EST
    Why not have her parent(s) pick her up at the scene?

    [ Parent ]
    no time... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Michael Gass on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 09:07:41 PM EST
    that's why you take them to the department.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's the link (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:21:36 PM EST
    for Florida's Use of Force Continuum (pdf)

    [ Parent ]
    Page 5 on Juveniles (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:24:51 PM EST
    Response. In properly determining the appropriate response to a subject's resistance, several factors must be evaluated by an officer. For instance, an unarmed small framed female juvenile may be displaying level five resistance, but would probably only require a level three response by the average officer.

    ...It should be remembered that by law, an officer need not retreat in efforts to lawfully control a subject, but may utilize
    the amount of defensive action necessary to accomplish lawful duties. This is not to say that a tactical retreat in the face of overwhelming odds may not be the wisest choice.



    [ Parent ]
    wait.. this is the Univ. of Florida UoF... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Michael Gass on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:49:18 PM EST
    ...

    So, I can use this to comment only on the tasering.

    2. In many cases some level of force will be necessary to effect an arrest or to protect the officer(s) and others from harm or danger. That amount of physical control may be as low as placing a hand on an individual's body and directing that individual to place his/her hands behind his/her back for handcuffing. Depending upon the level of resistance offered, the officer may use techniques that escalate the amount of force needed to gain compliance from an individual during the arrest process.

    That is their first defense.

    Now... if we GUESS that this UoF is CONSISTANT with OTHER Florida departments... here is what I bring out concerning the girl:

    Guidelines cannot be written to encompass every possible application for the use of ASR Spray, however, as with any other use of force, the ASR spray must not be used indiscriminately or without just cause.

    There is no "just cause" I saw.

    1. Response. In properly determining the appropriate response to a subject's resistance, several factors must be evaluated by an officer. For instance, an unarmed small framed female juvenile may be displaying level five resistance, but would probably only require a level three response by the average officer. In contrast, a single officer faced with a very large and powerful individual may find that the response to even mild physical resistance must be escalated several levels in order to effect control over the subject.

    This is my exact argument.  The size/gender disparity in no way authorized the use of spray.

    Also, this UoF policy does not address juveniles specifically... there are some that do.

    [ Parent ]

    all very true... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Michael Gass on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:57:40 PM EST
    But, specifically addressing the tasering incident, now that I have their exact UoF continuum...

    I would classify the actions of the student as a Level 5 condition of resistance.

    The officers went to the takedown (level 3 of officer control) and then taser (level 4).

    And... use of the taser itself:

    K. Taser. The Taser is deployed as an additional police tool and is not intended to replace firearms or self-defense techniques. The Taser may be used to control a dangerous or violent subject when deadly physical force does not appear to be justified and/or necessary and to prevent a subject from harming himself or herself, or to prevent the immediate destruction of evidence or property when other means are impractical or unsafe.

    I don't see where the UoF was violated.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh... and let me just say... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Michael Gass on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 08:04:51 PM EST
    That the Univ. of Florida Use of Force Policy is VERY poorly written!  As a defense lawyer, I would get several different departments UoF policies and put that against this one any day.

    I would show that the policy itself is too general, too vague, when put against other departments.

    Just a thought.

    [ Parent ]

    I lived in Florida for a long while (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Nowonmai on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:38:42 PM EST
    And you want to know what happens when teens break curfew? They are told to go home, and if they are already on their way home, they're told to move it a bit faster.

    The apologist who thinks this cop was being patient, sorry but no. You have a scared 15 yr old child, having her arm cruelly twisted up behind her (I would have been screaming at that point) begging for mercy. What does he do? Twists it even further up making her scream in pain, slams her face into the hood of the car, causing more pain, and when he tries to get her other arm, she bites his GLOVE in an effort to make the pain stop. And then he punched her in the face.

    Don't give me "he was worried about AIDS" B.S.  Gloves don't get AIDS, and the worst he would have gotten is pinch.

    Then he sprays pepper spray directly up close into her eyes and face.

    This is a hysterical 15 yr old child. Gotta love how Florida cares for children, as they have such a great track record.

    Curfew Arrest (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by proudleftists on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:37:51 AM EST
    I am afraid that the police have declared war on Americans. I am an African American widow and I feel that people of color will be the first, and MOST frequent victims of police brutality and police brutality does exist. Please Americans, of All Races, reject hate, murder, and war. Beyonce Welch - A very Concerned African - American Grandmother.

    Disturbing (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by olujade on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:51:07 AM EST
    It is disturbing to see this cop abuse this young girl who's only crime is a curfew violation, would he like it if someone did this to his child? This is a crime and he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, no retrainning he should lose his job and be locked up.
    olujade

    Only crime? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Patrick on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:52:17 AM EST
    Is curfew?   I'm pretty sure she was resisting arrest too?  

    [ Parent ]
    thats two crimes! (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 03:17:43 PM EST
    She's lucky she didnt wind up in emergency, eh Pat?

    [ Parent ]
    Ahh yup....sure whatever makes (none / 0) (#60)
    by Patrick on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:32:00 PM EST
    you feel good about yourself.  

    [ Parent ]
    what (none / 0) (#62)
    by glanton on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:24:04 PM EST
    was the purpose of your comment?  The rhetorical purpose?  

    [ Parent ]
    "WE THE PEOPLE" (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by JOHNRHABIBMD on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:55:53 PM EST
    THE POLICE NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND THIS COP NEEDS TO BE FIRED.  SHE WAS A YOUNG GIRL CRYING AND SCARED AND NO THREAT TO HIM AT ALL.  HE TREATED HER LIKE A DOG AND HE COULD HAVE DEFUSED THE SITUATION HAD HE WANTED TO.  HE DIDN'T!  HE HAD NO RIGHT SPRAYING THAT IN HER FACE.  LETS REMIND THESE COPS THAT THEIR JOB IS TO ARREST YOU AND NOTHING ELSE.  HE STRONG ARMED HER AND SCARED THIS GIRL TO HYSTERIA.  HE COULD HAVE HAD HER HANDCUFFED WITHOUT MUCH EFFORT BUT CHOSE TO HUMILIATE AND DOMINATE HER.  WHETHER HER BEHAVIOR AND HYSTERIA MADE HIM ANGRY THEN THATS JUST TOO BAD.  HE IS NOT THE JUDGE, JURY, OR EXECUTIONER SO THEY NEED TO BACK OFF WITH THEIR AGGRESSIVE USE OF POWER OVER PEOPLE.  WHAT A LOUSY LOW DISPICABLE COP THIS IS.  THEY DEMAND RESPECT YET GIVE NO ONE ANY OF IT AND ROB LIBERTY AS THEY SEE FIT.

    police officer pepper sprays teen (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by pattyjo on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 12:15:35 PM EST
    I sooo agree EVERYTHING you said - and very well I might add.  Why did he keep  "prancing & paradeing" in front of his camera toying with this child.  I think his chief must feel very proud - like the cop did - of himself.  What is their oath again?  They both need to be locked up with the very people they have done this to.  I can't believe the chief approved and stood up for this low-life, self-serving "protector"????  This certainly warrants a huge law-suit!

    [ Parent ]
    It's always a "lawful use of force" (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:06:14 PM EST
    Lynching was a lawful use of force -- or at least not so unlawful as to ever warrent prosecution.

    If you as a fit, grown man cant defuse a situation with an obviously paniced, 80 lb, fifteen year old without resorting to punching and slamming her head against a car, you should apply to Sh*twater and get your as* over to Iraq where you can hopefully get it out of your system.

    I suppose we should be thankful that she wasnt a "nappy headed" he, or he might have ended up like that "uncooperative" kid in the Florida juvenile facility awhile back.

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by SSE on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 07:02:37 AM EST
    Well it would seem that A. She isn't "doing nothing" she is quite obviously resisting his attempts to put the handcuffs on her. B. He moved "into" camera view, which would suggest that he doesn't feel he is doing anything wrong and "wants" a record of what is happening. Yes he is bigger than she is, yes she is a small/thin girl, yes he could have wrenched her arms behind her back and really hurt her if he had wanted to do so. It looks to me as if it would be very hard not to hurt her arms as thin as they are.

    I think he was having a great deal of trouble "not" hurting her, while she is struggling to keep him from cuffing her. If he had called for back up(and do we know he didn't and they just hadn't arrived?) and several more officers had come what would have happened had she continued as she was going? Would she have ended up on the ground with 2 or 3 officers holding her down while trying to cuff her? Face it, neither of them is blameless. As someone said before what was she apologizing for that we didn't see before they moved in front of the camera?

    heaven won't be crowded (none / 0) (#160)
    by vikings01 on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:09:10 AM EST
    are you crazy

    [ Parent ]
    police officer pepper sprays teen (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by pattyjo on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:57:54 AM EST
    It should've taken this "officer" about 10-seconds to cuff this child. I am sure he has no children. What is the psycological profile of this individual? His cheif condoned this also. The chief should be held accountable as well as the firing and imprisonment of the officer. Why is this happening so much and who is going to ever control this on police forces? I've seen this with my own eyes too often in reality. Parent

    Response To Mr. Michael Gass (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by bigal on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 01:38:17 PM EST
    I agree with most of your assessment of the incident however, I differ with you on the matter of escalation of force pertaining to the FDLE use of force matrix.

    First, the officer is clearly in almost complete control. Second, if you look closely at the video you will notice she bites his glove and then releases. After the alleged "bite" the officer uses a closed right fist to punch the teen subject in the face (after the fact).

    While still in almost complete control of the teen subject (other than one hand not being handcuffed)the officer then decides to raise the level of force to intermediate and relinquishs pepper spray, after the level of threat has subsided. This is where most of the problem lays.

    The officer punched and peppered sprayed a teen subject for the initial crime of curfew violation which in most cities is an ordinance violation.

    The officer is obviously in almost complete control due to his size and force (self evident when he picks her up and "places" her in front of the camera, on the hood of vehicle, as to record the incident).

    The only threat level is an uncuffed teen hand and an alleged glove bite.

    The forced used is clearly excessive and after the fact, when the threat level was no long present and had clearly subsided.

    FDLE Use of Force Matrix for officers indicates
    that officers are authorized in escalating force as that force escalates. However, officers must also descalate. This officer failed to and that is where almost all of the liability rests.

    you haven't been following the conversation (none / 0) (#78)
    by Michael Gass on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 01:41:43 PM EST
    I would guess...

    I have said exactly the same thing.

    [ Parent ]

    Have an opinion, but accept the facts. (none / 0) (#81)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 05:14:47 PM EST
    Second, if you look closely at the video you will notice she bites his glove and then releases. After the alleged "bite" the officer uses a closed right fist to punch the teen subject in the face (after the fact).
    Uh, no.
    "(She) left a large amount of saliva on my wrist as she took a full bite," the officer wrote. "My wrist was red and slightly bruised, but there was no broken skin."


    [ Parent ]
    yea Right (none / 0) (#83)
    by bigal on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 06:23:32 PM EST
    What do you think he's going to say?
    That she didn't bite him.
    Please don't be so naive.

    It's irrelevant anyways.
    This will never see the inside of a courtroom.
    The state will more than likely drop charges and there will be a settlement.

    [ Parent ]

    you can bet there will be a settlement (none / 0) (#84)
    by Michael Gass on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 06:26:15 PM EST
    Not because the State will drop charges, but, the family will as soon as the check amount is sufficient.

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely (none / 0) (#87)
    by bigal on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 06:30:36 PM EST
    absolutely right on the money.

    [ Parent ]
    If I was her Attorney (none / 0) (#85)
    by bigal on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 06:29:09 PM EST
    Theres no way you justify that use of force.
    In a courtroom things are different.

    Where are the photographs of the injury?

    Where was the officer treated for injuries if any?

    You watch and see the severity of the bite and the glove is going to be brought up in court.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Why?? (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 08:18:34 PM EST
    The officer is obviously in almost complete control due to his size and force (self evident when he picks her up and "places" her in front of the camera, on the hood of vehicle, as to record the incident).

    I haven't the vaguest idea as to who is "right" in this, but I would like to interject that placing someone "under control" who doesn't want to is a very difficult task.  

    I always told my children that if they became involved with the police to:

    1. Be cooperative but admit nothing.

    2. Submit to arrest/restraints.

    3. Call me.

    There is a ton of truth in the old song that goes...

    "I fought the law and the law won."

    [ Parent ]

    Teach your children well.... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:46:36 PM EST
    However, if they fail to heed your advice, as children are known to do, it does not give grown male police officers the right to manhandle your children.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#100)
    by bigal on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:01:13 PM EST
    Those are wise guidelines when dealing with any law enforcement official.


    [ Parent ]
    wait what? (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by whywouldusaythat on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 05:52:46 PM EST
    resisting arrest...i think that sums it up. dont resist the cops...duh

    Tom (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 12:57:07 PM EST
    Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments.
    Get some therapy.

    Tom 's comments have been deleted (none / 0) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 02:21:51 PM EST
    and he's been banned from the site.

    [ Parent ]
    good! (none / 0) (#97)
    by Michael Gass on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 02:45:34 PM EST
    How did your appearance go?

    (I refuse to watch FOX)

    [ Parent ]

    I worry about our country.... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 01:31:53 PM EST
    when the answer is always "just do what the cops says"...talk about a one-way ticket to tyranny.  What if the cop says jump off a bridge, must we comply?

    The so-called resisting arrest here looks a lot like resisting abuse...aka basic human instinct when your arm is being twisted like a pretzel.

    The Police Chief has posted her name and address (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by EscVector on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 03:03:16 AM EST
    The Ft. Pierce Police Chief posted this poor child's name and address along with the police report in a press release on the Ft. Pierce Police departments website.  This is the most outrageous child abuse of a small girl.  It appears racially motivated.

    http://www.fppd.org/

    This so called officer and the police chief should be fired and also held on charged of child endangerment.    

    That so-called officer..... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 08:51:18 AM EST
    needs his clock cleaned by somebody his own size....that's what he needs.

    [ Parent ]
    Police reports are public documents (none / 0) (#127)
    by roy on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 11:32:44 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Misleading and Wrong (none / 0) (#128)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 12:14:46 PM EST
    Access to public records is not simply a yes-or-no proposition. Sometimes, only selected parties have been permitted to have access to the records, parties are permitted to have access for specific uses, or specific uses are prohibited while others are permitted. Use restrictions can be categorized as an exception to an access policy or, depending on your point of view, as an exception to a confidentiality policy. Use restrictions offer additional alternatives for crafting policy, but it becomes more difficult to establish a simple framework for analysis. New constitutional considerations may arise with use restrictions.

    link

    There is always a balance between the public's right to know and the privacy rights of an individual. In some states/ jurisdictions Police Reports are not public. And in this case there is no justification to print her address. Just judging by some of the comments here, especially the one that was deleted for its racist slant, releasing her home address puts her and her family in danger.

    [ Parent ]

    See my response to Patrick (none / 0) (#131)
    by roy on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 02:50:22 PM EST
    You have some good points about the generalities, but the specifics seem to support my point.

    [ Parent ]
    Fed Rules (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 03:13:45 PM EST
    Statutory rules regulate access to some court records and proceedings. For example, there is a general statutory policy of denying public access to records of criminal cases involving juveniles. Under federal law, juvenile court records are safeguarded from disclosure to unauthorized persons. Similarly, the Uniform Juvenile Court Act excludes the public from hearings and permits no general inspection of court files and records without a legitimate interest and leave of the court. Protecting juveniles from undue expose is an obvious reason for the policy of confidential proceedings and confidential records.

    From the above link

    This from Findlaw:

    Are juvenile court records confidential?
    Yes. Juvenile records should be kept separate and apart from other court records. Accessibility is limited to the child, his or her attorney and parents, DCF, law enforcement, some school personnel, and some correctional staff. They should never be accessible to the general public. Even the records of related agencies are not accessible without permission of the court. As with police records, there is also provision for destruction at specific points in time. Victims also have a right to the information and reports.

    Does this mean the media cannot publish your child's name?
    No, it does not. Juvenile court hearings are open to the public unless closed by the court. The press is free to publish any information gathered at a public hearing. Florida law also permits the police to release the name and address of a child 16 years of age or older who has been arrested for a felony.

    findlaw

    The girl is 15. Seems like releasing her address is not kosher according to the above.


    [ Parent ]

    Seems like, yeah (none / 0) (#135)
    by roy on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 03:19:29 PM EST
    I hadn't heard of the 16-year-old cutoff

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, (none / 0) (#129)
    by Patrick on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 12:46:06 PM EST
    they are not completely public records, and in California, it would be illegal to release this report w/out the suspect ID redacted.  

    [ Parent ]
    Florida is not California (none / 0) (#130)
    by roy on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 02:49:25 PM EST
    Florida has aggressive sunshine laws.  According to the state Attorney General:

    Arrest reports prepared by a law enforcement agency after the arrest of a subject are generally considered to be open for public inspection. At the same time, however, certain information such as the identity of a sexual battery victim is exempt.

    That doesn't specifically address juveniles, but according to a source whose credibility I can't vouch for but which matches my previous understanding:

    In the case of a juvenile, their arrest information may also be a matter of public record despite their age. In 1994 the juvenile law was modified to eliminate the age restriction and provide enhanced disclosure.

    Now, if a child is taken into custody and charged with a violation of the law that, if committed by an adult, would be a felony the child's name, photograph, address and crime or arrest report is a matter of public record.

    If I read the arrest report correctly, "Battery on officer firefighter EMT etc" is a felony.

    [ Parent ]

    If that is true (none / 0) (#132)
    by Patrick on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 02:56:01 PM EST
    The release of the information would be legal then.  However, what purpose does releasing her name and address serve?  I can absolutely see the need to release the report.  

    Of course, if done under a FoIA request, perhaps they were barred from redacting.  

    [ Parent ]

    ...and I'm done for the day (none / 0) (#134)
    by roy on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 03:16:22 PM EST
    The girl's address is relevant to understanding the event, since the cop says she falsely claimed to live near where she was arrested.  I do think it would be better if they had redacted her name and most of the address; I just don't think they should be demonized for publicizing public records.

    I haven't seen anything that suggests the police cannot redact reports they voluntarily post to their website, and I haven't seen anything that suggests this report was posted other-than-voluntarily.


    [ Parent ]

    That's no way... (3.66 / 3) (#3)
    by desertswine on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:52:22 PM EST
    to handle a scared kid. Don't these rubes get any training?

    She can't be any more than 80 lbs (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by magster on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:33:49 PM EST
    The use of pepper spray and brute force on such a frail looking kid was sadistic.

    [ Parent ]
    detail (none / 0) (#24)
    by manys on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:54:38 PM EST
    Check at 17:21:50 or so. Watch how he eyeballs the camera right when he's saying she's "going to get hurt."

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, (none / 0) (#106)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 05:12:40 PM EST
    From their cultcha 'n heritage, the pure white flowa
    of which is bein' strangled by liberal agitators.

    [ Parent ]
    disturbing (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by roger on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:39:05 PM EST
    The "chicken wing" move early on was overdone, I'm suprised that he did not break her arm.

    The pepper spray was used after she stopped struggling. The only unusual thing about this case is the video. Florida cops are removing video from their cars, they win more cases that way.

    disgusting

    cop was right to pepper spray (3.00 / 2) (#66)
    by letsgetreal on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:04:50 AM EST
    Look at both sides of this story.

    She was out past curfew and she knew it.
    If she had just remaind peaceful, she probably would have been taken back home, maybe given a ticket, and that would have been the end of it.

    She is 15. She knows right from wrong.
    You cant say "poor little child". At 15, she knows what is going on.
    Just because she is on the skinny side does not make her helpless.
    We see this all the time in the news; teenagers, even female, even skinny, breaking the law and committing violent crimes.

    She was giving the officer a battle. She keeps pulling her arms away. She keep trying to get away.
    The officer doesn't know if she has a knife or worse.
    He was most likely trying to not have to really hurt her. It doesn't matter what she was saying, on that footage she is clearly resisting the officer.

    She bit him!

    The cop doesn't know if she has TB, HIV or the like. The human mouth if full of germs.

    She got what she asked for. She is lucky that all she got was a smack in the head and pepper spray.
    Yes, it would break my heart if that was my daughter. I have a daughter. But I would know where she is.
    Look, I am not trying to be harsh- just real.
    You act like a fool, you get treated like a fool.

    Where were her parents anyway?

    the cop was right (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ivyfree on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 12:36:36 PM EST
    Gotta agree with this one. We don't know what went on before the cop brought her in front of the video camera.  The fact that he chose to do so tells me something.  And while I never expected my kids to be arrested... and they weren't... we taught them: do NOT argue with a cop or disobey them.  If you're innocent, we'll fight in court. But you don't resist what a cop is doing, because they can't know your intentions or if you're carrying a weapon, and they will control the situation.  

    I'm sorry the girl was frightened and hurt, but I'm not starting out with the assumption that all that happened was that she was out after curfew. (I disagree with curfew laws anyway.)  I'm also not baying for the cop's blood because he peppersprayed her or smacked her after she bit him.  What I saw was a cop attempting to control a girl who was actively resisting arrest, who deliberately brought her in front of the camera so that the event could be recorded, and a girl who kept fighting until he used uncomfortable, but nonlethal and essentially nondamaging pepper spray. Too bad it happened, but all that it would have taken to stop it would be for the girl to say, "all right!" and stand still.

    [ Parent ]

    cop was right to pepper spray (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ihateliberals on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    I agree the girl broke the law by being out after curfew and resisting arrest. I would like to see the hole story and not have an opinion on a short video. He did not beat her senseless nor did he throw her on the ground and put he knee into the base of her neck. The officer tied to be as civil as anyone could and did everything by the book.

    With a child to acted like that with a law enforcement officer maybe someone need to go beat the crap out of the parents for not teaching the child better.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Strick on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:50:10 PM EST
    While the cop in the patrol car can exercise considerable discretion, I imagine he doesn't set policy over whether to arrest teens out after curfew or not.  For that matter, I doubt he sets policy on how to cuff suspects.  Even children can be dangerous cuffed in front (I don't what to think what my 160 lb football playing, Tae Kwon Do trained 13 year old is really capable of if he put up a struggle).

    As to the cop's behavior, I'm sorry, he was as patient as I can imagine him being.  This is even clearer than the taser incident down in Florida.  The girl resisted, and then attempted to bite the officer.  Every policeman, firefighter, EMS, anyone who interacts with the public is worried about AIDs and other things that can be transmitted from a suspect or patient.  It wasn't a response I liked to see, but a reasonable one.

    It does show me one thing.  Just in case one of my kids ever gets arrested for doing the stupid things teenagers do, I think it's time to explain to them how to deal with being arrested.  We can argue before or after the arrest, but when they start putting the cuffs on, go quietly.  No matter who they think they are or how wrong the situation.  We can deal with it better later.

    Oh, and just wait 'til I get you home.

    Was an arrest warranted ? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Aaron on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:06:42 PM EST
    That's the question. Why was this police officer arresting this young girl for a curfew violation?

    That's not common practice in Florida jurisdictions, so what did she do to warrant an arrest?  We don't have any idea what happened before that video started.

    In the old days of community policing, a local cop who knew the neighborhood would just give the kid a ride home, or call their parents to pick them up, but those days are gone apparently.

    Still an arrest is extremely unusual unless the child is under suspicion of criminal activity.  But we don't know whether that was the case or not.

    I'd be interested to know if the child has a previous criminal record, if not, know she does, and every time she gets stopped by a police officer she's going to be treated with suspicion.

    This kind of thing can change your whole life.


    [ Parent ]

    Sorry to be crude... (none / 0) (#22)
    by manys on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:49:32 PM EST
    He probably thought he could get a little wink-wink and got angry when his hopes were dashed.

    [ Parent ]
    Bull (none / 0) (#35)
    by 1980Ford on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 08:53:55 PM EST
    He would have better control giving her the cuffs and telling her to put them on. Professionals are supposed to be in control and keep things in control, not go out of control.

    He never seemed to talk to her like, you know, as if she is a person.

    [ Parent ]

    OK, J, I assume you'll be appearing with another (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:39:34 PM EST
    pundit with an opposing POV, so here's your warm up...

    The sound card on my PC died, so I couldn't hear what he and she were saying, and I'll set aside all the "whether and how she should have been cuffed" questions.

    It looked to me like he was being very patient with her. I think he easily could have wrenched the h*ll out of her wrist and strong-armed it back to where he could cuff it if he wanted to, but, reasonably, imo, he chose not to.

    Then, after spending a significant amount of time trying with a very reasonable amount of force to get her her to comply, and at a point where she had worked herself into a position to where she was close to turning around toward him and thereby significantly reduce his control of the situation, he stopped her from doing so by slamming her - again with some restraint, imo. If it was a guy he probably would have put much more force into it.

    Even after that, she continued to resist and did, or almost did, bite him. It looked to me like she got, or was aiming at, his unprotected wrist, not his gloved hand.

    When she did so, he instinctively reacted to that bite a with quick punch to those same teeth.

    Then, perhaps keeping in mind that this was a girl, and instead of using much greater physical force, ie., more, harder/punches and/or more/harder slams hoping that at some point she would start to comply, he pepper-sprayed her.

    The spray did the job, she almost immediately stopped resisting and let him cuff her.

    Honestly, I'd rather get pepper sprayed than have some dude bust my jaw or arm.

    Was he w/in his training and protocols. Probably. Should they be trained differently? I'm not so sure.

    That you seemingly think (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:25:28 PM EST
    'more/harder punches and slams' is a valid option for a cop who probobly outweighed that little (frightened) whisp of a thing by a hundred lbs, says alot about you, su.

    As if much needed to be said.

    Btw, One can only speculate about what transpired before the video begins; the girl is obviously scared out of her wits.

    [ Parent ]

    "Seemingly think" (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:06:41 PM EST
    is the operative phrase here. Don't let its meaning escape you.

    [ Parent ]
    probably (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:30:28 PM EST
    there will be someone else, but it could be a cop or a pro-prosecution attorney.  I don't ask who else will be on because because it's more spontaneous if I don't know in advance.  And sometimes, it's just me and the anchor.

    If anyone wants to watch, it's Fox News at 2:40 ET.  Just keep in mind it could get canceled for breaking news or be anywhere in that half hour block.

    [ Parent ]

    Jeralyn, (none / 0) (#21)
    by Michael Gass on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:39:49 PM EST
    I'm sure you'll have many comments and receive the time to ask questions back.  Here are some you might ask:

    • Does the department use-of-force continuum include punching juveniles in the face before pepper spraying them?

    • What is the departments policy on handcuffing juveniles (is there a definite age restriction where juveniles are not to be handcuffed, or, handcuffed in front).

    • Given the obvious size and gender disparity, what justification did the officer have to spray the juvenile... much less punch her?

    Those would be my 3 "must ask" questions.

    [ Parent ]
    Now 2:30 ET (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:00:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    out of frame (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cargocarl on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:45:38 PM EST
    I think the cop brought her into camera view because he wanted a record of the situation he was dealing with.  Its very disturbing image of the young girl, but she wasn't cooperating, she was escalating the situation and when she took the bite, he took the LEAST violent measure available to quickly get the situation under control.

    There's alot I don't know about the situation or the people involved.
    I don't know what happened that led to the need for handcuffs (What was she belatedly apologizing for?)

    The pepper spray WORKED. After several minutes of struggle that harmed them both she immediately began to cooperated. And he could back off.

    Its disturbing, and if there was a racial aspect to the officer's choices then that is more disturbing, but I a girl making very bad choices and a cop having a very bad day.  Thats what I see.  

    Did you miss (none / 0) (#43)
    by Nowonmai on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 06:16:24 AM EST
    His punching the child in the face?

    I don't know if you have been subjected to acute pain, but I have. I have gone animalistic, biting, clawing etc to make it stop. And I am an adult and purportedly have a modicum of self control due to my age, and experience.

    A scared child?

    [ Parent ]

    Brutality? (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Patrick on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:47:53 AM EST
    This is not police brutality?   The officer was not out of control, the child was.  The "Slam" into the hood, was a direct result of her twisting and turning and his trying to maintain control.  The punch in the face will eventually be deemed a lawful use of force, because it was.   Who in their right mind would even consider momentarily cuffing this juvenile in front???   Prediction...When this all comes out the wash, the use of force will be reasonable, even if some would have done it another way.  

    I love the experts above who "know" that this is an example brutality.   If only we could get jurors with their clairvoyance, we'd be much better off.  As for the use of force continuum, no modern law enforcement agency uses that term anymore, just like "ladder of escalation", it is outdated, and tends to show the commentors lack of current expertise.  

    From what I saw, absent the time the two were out of camera view, the use of force is within reason.   That someone may have done it differently is not the legal standard for excessive force.  I would expect the lawyers on this site to know that.  I for one would have taken her to ground.  It's much easier to control a suspect (That's what she is) on the ground.  

    As for the arrest for curfew, well, I think that cat has been skinned, but let's be clear, the curfew violation is the least of her problems.  

    try reading my profile (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Michael Gass on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 08:35:43 PM EST
    I would say that I have the training and experience to know police brutality when I see it since I was, in fact, a cop.

    I have no problem with the slam on the hood.  The punch in the face is a whole different issue and the pepper spray was totally uncalled for.

    [ Parent ]

    Well I guess that settles is... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Patrick on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:30:54 PM EST
    and also provides some insight into why the expertise is dated.  

    [ Parent ]
    oh geez-zus.. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Michael Gass on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 12:29:47 AM EST
    First it's "experts"... now it's "dated expertise"?

    How much "expertise" changed in a few years from beating someone with a nightstick, to beating them with a pr-24, or beating them with an ASP?

    How much "expertise" changed from shooting them with a revolver to shooting them with a semi-auto?

    How much "expertise" do you think changed from when I was on the road and people got sprayed to now?  

    Or, maybe you think it takes some "newer" expertise to punch people in the face?

    Or... did you just hate that someone on a lawyer blog was actually a cop and not defending them in this case, so, you had to pull something out of thin air?  

    [ Parent ]

    Torture R Us (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 01:07:41 AM EST
    and also provides some insight into why the expertise is dated.

    Patrick must be refering to the new breakthroughs in police work developed by Yoo, Gonzales et al. and tested at abu ghraib and gitmo.

    Punching in the face and pepper spray to the eyes is considered a polite warmup and perfectly legal.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, (none / 0) (#67)
    by Patrick on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:19:38 AM EST
    First it's "experts"... now it's "dated expertise"?

    If you'll review, first it was, "Lack of current expertise,"  The it was, "Dated expertise."  

    It was also the suggestion that this suspect did not need to be handcuffed in back that cinched it for me.  I don't know where or how you worked, but it's a good thing you don't do it anymore, your mindset is dangerous.  To you and those you worked with.  

    To come out and declare as you did that

    This officer is CLEARLY out of line when he punches her in the face THEN sprays her.  I have discussed the use-of-force continuum before, and frankly, this officer is clearly in violation here.  The Florida officers, in my opinion, clearly did follow the use-of-force continuum.

    Smacks of someone who doesn't know force options and how they ARE applicable.   That you defend police actions in one incident doesn't deflect that you've inserted your foot on this one.  

    With respect to force continuums you said...

    and frankly, you aren't going to find it posted on the web.

    Shortly thereafter a link to one was posted by the host...   Hmmmm, I think it was found posted on the internet.  

    And....

    However, punching 15 year old girls in the face before spraying them... will not be found in any use-of-force continuum.

    Perhaps not in that exact language, but physical strikes and pepper spray can be used in any combination or order if their use is appropriate.  Are you suggesting that you can't escalate and de-escalate the use of force?  Because that's the only way your comment makes any sense.

    Or this gem...

    Also, did you ever see a backup officer?  I didn't.  So, the officer felt he could handle the girl on his own... yet... he punches her and sprays her?  

    How can you possible know that?  Perhaps the officer's backup was still on the way, you don't know and an "Expert" wouldn't make the assumption you did.  

    So tell me, what agency did you work for?   Very few people get promoted to sergeant with the amount of experience you claim to have (6 years total if I read correctly).    

    And to answer your questions above,

    Quite a bit has changed, but I don't know when you were on the streets.  Perhaps you know the difference in striking techniques with an asp as opposed to a straight stick or PR-24.  

    Perhaps you know that pepper spray is different than the mace of old.  

    Perhaps you know there are differences between firing a revolver and semi....But if you did, then you know the answers to the questions you've already asked.

    I believe when all is said and done this will be judged as a lawful use of force.   There's nothing on that video that clearly puts it into the unlawful category.  Perhaps something will come out later, but with the information that's available from the article and video, no one, who wants to maintain their credibilty, can say what you have.  

    [ Parent ]

    right... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Michael Gass on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    It was also the suggestion that this suspect did not need to be handcuffed in back that cinched it for me.  I don't know where or how you worked, but it's a good thing you don't do it anymore, your mindset is dangerous.  To you and those you worked with.
     

    Why is it when people are losing a discussion, their first resort is to try character assassination?

    Smacks of someone who doesn't know force options and how they ARE applicable.   That you defend police actions in one incident doesn't deflect that you've inserted your foot on this one.  

    No... I have no clue on force continuum's.  I mean, I was ONLY a cop for 6 years, and ONLY had to practice it daily on the road.  I would have NO clue about it... unlike you who are... who again?  and done what again?

    Shortly thereafter a link to one was posted by the host...   Hmmmm, I think it was found posted on the internet.

    Well, I am surprised that our host found A departments force continuum online... but I checked Fort Pierce website, they don't.  Oh, and since you missed it, Univ of Florida's force continuum isn't Fort Pierce.

    Perhaps not in that exact language, but physical strikes and pepper spray can be used in any combination or order if their use is appropriate.  Are you suggesting that you can't escalate and de-escalate the use of force?  Because that's the only way your comment makes any sense.

    Or, just doesn't make sense to someone who has never been a cop.  You don't hit people in the face, much less kids, when you are trying to control them.  Knee strikes to the common peronial, sure, but not punching in the face.  Here, let me reiterate just for you... YOU DON'T PUNCH PEOPLE IN THE FACE MUCH LESS A 15 YEAR OLD GIRL.

    How can you possible know that?  Perhaps the officer's backup was still on the way, you don't know and an "Expert" wouldn't make the assumption you did.

    For the same reason I "know" that there is no force continuum that teaches officers to punch little girls in the face... I WAS A COP.  We had a state trooper killed because he called off his backup.  I've called off my backup before.  My Lt. called off his backup many times.  I don't know of any agency whose dispatch doesn't automatically start rolling a backup unit and it is the first officer on the scene who then makes the call to let the backup arrive or not.  

    As for departments where you can make Sgt. in 6... you're right.  Many departments you can't, especially huge departments where it takes people retiring or dying to get promoted.  I worked for a small department that had a huge turnover rate.

    Perhaps you know the difference in striking techniques with an asp as opposed to a straight stick or PR-24.  

    Perhaps you know that pepper spray is different than the mace of old.  

    Perhaps you know there are differences between firing a revolver and semi....But if you did, then you know the answers to the questions you've already asked.

    And perhaps you think that making a difference between using the pr-24 to do a Georgia Trooper Take-down and using an ASP for a common peronial strike makes some difference... but in the use-of-force, there is no difference.

    Perhaps you believe using a revolver speed loader to semi-auto clip makes some difference, but in the use-of-force, deadly force is deadly force.

    Who cares if CS went to OC or not... spray is spray in the use-of-force.

    I don't care if you use Tae Kwon, Judo, or PPCT... hand strikes are hand strikes in the use-of-force.

    Perhaps something will come out later, but with the information that's available from the article and video, no one, who wants to maintain their credibilty, can say what you have.
     

    oh boo hoo... I've had my credibility questioned... and over the internet... I'm crushed.


    [ Parent ]

    The Face is (none / 0) (#86)
    by Patrick on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 06:29:55 PM EST
    a legal targeting area for hand strikes....I'm sorry, you don't know what you are talking about in that respect.  

    Why is it when people are losing a discussion, their first resort is to try character assassination?

    Calling your expertise into question is not character assassination.  In fact I don't think I've yet to call your character into question, but I do think your assumptions in this matter are way off base and not backed by the situation as we know it.  

    Or, just doesn't make sense to someone who has never been a cop.  You don't hit people in the face

    So people have called off their backup...You included.   That does not prove that the officer did so in this case at all.  In fact one could posit that his, "Looking at the camera" is actually looking past the camera for another unit. He is talking on the extender at one point, I imagine that ain't to say that he's code-4.    

    oh boo hoo... I've had my credibility questioned... and over the internet... I'm crushed.

    Well, you've pretty much responded to my remarks with the equivalent of jumping up and down and yelling, "because I'm a cop and I said so," argument enough that you just might be...Deep down inside.

    Oh, and in my experience, huge departments have higher turnover rates that the smaller ones in most cases, but perhaps your's is different.  Yes, I doubt that you were a supervisor in any actual police dept, but if you were, I wonder what your people thought of you.  

    [ Parent ]

    well, since the PPCT techniques are not (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Michael Gass on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 07:02:16 PM EST
    specifically listed out on its website, its really hard to SHOW you that the highest striking point taught is the side of the neck using open hand or forearm strikes.

    I can show you here:

    Defensive Counterstrikes:  The defensive counterstrike unit teaches reflexive reaction to a physical attack when impact weapons or firearms are not appropriate. The students will learn to neutralize an aggressive assault with a basic system of blocks, punches, and kicks, designed to control a subject with minimal chance of injury.

    But, that is very general.  Here:

    The Pressure Point Control Tactics course was one of the first subject control systems to adopt the tactical, legal, and medical research approach to system design. This three day course is broken down into key blocks of instruction: controlling low level resistance with finger tip touch pressure to nerve pressure points and controlling high level resistance through a defensive counter strike and baton which creates motor dysfunctions and controlled stuns. All of the techniques within the system have been tactically, legally, and medically researched. The application of these techniques to pressure points of an individual who is demonstrating passive or defensive resistance is highly effective no matter what the size or strength level of the officer is.

    But, again, it doesn't say EXACTLY where the motor strikes are located (that's why you take the course).  But, the FACE is NOT one of them, even for counterstrikes, because you are looking to establish CONTROL.

    So, yeah... I can say because I was a cop, I was trained in PPCT (Pressure Points Control and Tactics), and at NO TIME were we trained to punch people in the face.  PERIOD.  Much less punch a 15 year old girl in the face whose resistance was minimal.  

    As for what you "believe", you can believe what you wish.

    [ Parent ]

    zzzzzzzzz (none / 0) (#108)
    by Patrick on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 07:16:10 PM EST
    Soooo, as I understand it...Your whole point is... it's true because you say so and you once were a cop?  Okie dokie.  Podunk PD get's the blue ribbon.  

    Just so we're clear, in your infinite experience, it is never OK to strike someone in the face?  

    [ Parent ]

    gotta love humerous posts... (5.00 / 1) (