The girl was not injured.
Did he fear for his life?
- Thread starter FlyingVan
- Start date
It has to do with excessive force. No injuries were incurred by the level of force by the officer. The most people are saying is 'it looks bad'.
Often times people bring up injuries that occur during altercations with police officers( injuries sustained by the officer or the individual) as an indication of the severity of the incident.
The officer handled this arrest effectively. He extricated her from the chair quickly and slid her along the floor(not body slammed as some are saying) to separate her from the desk and to be able to quickly cuff her without further resistance and potential injury.
For a suspect involved in a violent crime, yes. For a passive but uncooperative student, not so much.
According to the school's own handbook (PDF), violations listed as “disruptive behavior” and “refusal to obey,” which they say the girl was charged with, carry the consequence of detention or in-school suspension. The only two behaviors listed in the handbook that can result in arrest are 1) fighting and 2) verbal confrontation, neither of which the sheriff or school administrators alleged the student had committed.
It never should have gotten to the point of an arrest even being considered, as the student was not a danger to herself or the other students, was not fighting or verbally confronting anyone. What they should have done is giver her a choice, "Either come with me to the office to talk about your behavior, or you can refuse to come to the office and just sit here quietly and continue to rack up days added to your suspension." Then, if she didn't sit there quietly, or continued to sit there by the time class was over, they should have given her a choice of standing up and coming with them, or they would remove her and her desk from the classroom.
Instead, the SRO grabbed her by the neck (the maneuver that got him fired, most likely), flipped her over and body slammed, yes, body slammed her to the floor, dragged her out of the chair, flipped her over and handcuffed her. That cannot be defended.
back in the days of the civil rights protests, there was a protocol to deal with the protestors, that is the cops would have about 4 officers to each protestor, and each would get an arm and leg, so that the protestor was removed without any harm to them...or the cop., in light of recent events, they prolly need to go back to that.
He did it forcefully, but again it was done without causing injury. The desk took the brunt of the initial impact. The girl, once on the floor,was then tossed and slid along the floor a few feet. She was not slammed to the floor. She would have sustained severe injuries if she was slammed to the floor like some are saying
The officer should not have lost his job over this incident because 'it looked bad' or because the Sherrif's dept.is in cya mode because of the 'public outcry' and because of fear from wrath of the Feds raining down on them.
Some are making this a racial incident as well because the officer happens to be white and the person happens to be black. Without evidence it is very lame of them to do so.
It was excessive, Muttly, because these men and women are trained to meet resistance or aggression with one level higher than faced with. There are multiple ways to deal with passive resistance properly. If I, as a policeman, shot at a jay walker with my sidearm, but missed, would you say that's an appropriate level of force, because of the lack of injury?
The use of force continuum exists to demonstrate absence of malice aforethought, and to gain compliance. Not sure what bizarro-world you live in that thinks a 'level of injury' precipitates level of force applied, but most of the civilized world disagrees with you.
The use of force continuum exists to demonstrate absence of malice aforethought, and to gain compliance. Not sure what bizarro-world you live in that thinks a 'level of injury' precipitates level of force applied, but most of the civilized world disagrees with you.
Shooting at a jaywalker would be reckless. What this officer did wasn't reckless. He was totally under control and initially used the girl's own gravity to help extricate her from the desk without slamming to the floor. He then cleared her from the desk by sliding her on the floor and creating an area to put the cuffs on her while she's on the floor.
Btw, talking about bizarro world, Aren't you the guy who said when talking about force continuum, you wouldn't have deescalated the use of force ladder when a Michael Brown went for an officer's gun but then was a significant distance away and wasn't an immediate threat? Are you that guy?
Not necessarily a pattern. There is adage that goes something like this: If an officer has been around long enough they will be accused of something. And if they haven't been, they probably have not done their job very well.
Yeah, to the rhetorical question of "Just how stupid can people be?," far too many are taking it as a challenge.
So you don't think there are people out there who go looking for a situation that they can end up with a lawsuit that they can make a lot of money on?
Drive a mile on most interstates and you will see 2 or 3 billboards for personal injury lawyers. Listen to the radio or watch tv and see all the ads there too.
This girl started this confrontation for a reason, maybe it wasn't for a lawsuit, but she knew exactly what she was doing. Now that does not mean the cop was right, which is why he was fired, but this all starts and ends with her and her decision.
I propose it is neither a lawsuit conspiracy nor a case of being stupid. I say it is just another instance of someone feeling entitled. Don't know if it is a generational thing, a socioeconomic thing, or just a continuing degradation of American ethics and morals, but it sure seems there are a lot of people feeling entitled today. This sadly includes my own adult children.
Got it. So in your bizarro world it's proper not to deescalate even if someone is no longer an immediate threat and is running away. There is no difference in that scenario involving lethal force, but you see a huge difference when an officer chooses a more aggressive approach to subdue someone,( in a non lethal way. In fact there were no injuries) but still in the parameters of a legal arrest.
Last edited: