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! 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 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Police Pepper Spray Teen Over Curfew Violation | 160 comments (160 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

    To make him stop, instead of biting ... (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Beldar on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 09:19:18 PM EST
    Jeralyn, you ask:

    What would you have done to get him to stop?

    Answer: Put my hands behind my back.

    Or suffer their wrath due to.... (none / 0) (#39)
    by 1980Ford on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 11:44:02 PM EST
    contempt of cop.

    Parent
    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.  

    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) (#111)
    by Michael Gass on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 07:59:38 PM EST
    Let me TRY and explain it to you...

    A cop who is 5'8" 150 lbs responds to a scene and before backup arrives is suddenly in a fight with a guy 6'5" 300 lbs... can that officer strike someone in the face?  Sure.  They can also SHOOT THEM if they believe they have answered "ability, opportunity, and jeopardy".  

    That means:

    • That the person has the ability to cause serious harm or death to the officer or another...
    • That the person has the opportunity to cause serious harm or death to the officer or another...
    • That the officer, or another, is in fact, in jeopardy of serious harm or death...

    But, that is the EXTREME case, not the case that officers deal with EVERYDAY.  In everyday calls, you have backup (or should), the subjects (or suspects) are not NFL football player size, and the situation doesn't get into a "who dies" scenario.

    But, we are talking a 15 year old wisp of a girl vs an obviously larger and stronger officer.

    There is absolutely NO REASON, NO JUSTIFICATION, for striking her in the face.

    As for "po-dunk pd"... lmao... gee... can your attacks get any more ridiculous?  I don't care if the person graduated the police academy and works for a small dept, a university department, or even a casino (Las Vegas casino's have their own certified police force)... they are cops... and they do a job.

    Maybe for an encore, you should go to the GOP blogs and beat up on that 12 year old kid who spoke out for SCHIP... that should make you feel like a man too.

    As for me, I have nothing to be ashamed of; I have been to Iraq twice, I am a veteran of our armed forces, I am a bomb tech by specialty, I have worked for 3 Presidents doing Secret Service Protection missions, and, I have been in law enforcement reaching the level of Sergeant.

    Parent

    This (none / 0) (#113)
    by Patrick on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 11:17:26 PM EST
    Isn't about the use of deadly force or when it is applicable.   This is about whether or not the strike viewed on the video is a reasonable use of force.   I believe it is, and have been in the same circumstance where I was being bitten by a juvenile and struck him (In my case it was a male) in the face.   The case went to court and judge heard the evidence and it was a lawful use of force.  If it ever gets that far, there will be many experts in the use of force testifying, and based on my experience with them, they will say the same thing I have.  A human bite, even from a 13 year old, can cause sigificant injury to another human.  I'm sure you don't dispute that.  That being said, the response this officer did to protect himself, in the fractions of a second following the bite, are reasonable.  You've heard of the OODA loop I'm sure, and it's applicability to use of force situations.   Consider that in your into your calculations of this incident.  

    I too served in the military both active and reserve, and have been a cop for 20+ years, rising to the level of, well, above sergeant.  I've served on a swat team as a member and team leader, and as a use of force instructor, certified by California P.O.S.T.  In my opinion this was and will eventually be deemed by a court, a reasonable use of force.  

    It's not personal, and I apologize for the personal attacks.  I'm just stunned that a person with the qualifications you say you have can state your conclusions as facts.

    Parent

    Oh... and because you seem to need things (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Michael Gass on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 08:16:01 PM EST
    to be explained FULLY...

    Fighting for your LIFE is NOT trying to CONTROL a person in a situation YOU control.

    But, why do I doubt that little nuance means anything to you?

    Parent

    In the interest (none / 0) (#114)
    by Patrick on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 11:22:29 PM EST
    of full disclosure....There's no difference between fighting for your life and trying to control someone, IMO. When you start drawing those distictions, you start adding delay to the decision making which can be potentially fatal.  

    The standard for use of force, everywhere in this country, is the reasonableness standard.  I probably would have handled this situation differently that the officer in the video, but like I said before that does not matter as lond as his actions to protect himself are reasonable, and I believe they were and I believe that given sufficient resources, Which we don't have here, the argument that will be made in regards to the use of force will be more than compelling.  

     

    Parent

    you really DON'T have a clue... do you? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Michael Gass on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 11:45:39 PM EST
    .There's no difference between fighting for your life and trying to control someone, IMO.

    In YOUR OPINION?  As compared to WHAT?  As you compare your knowledge to WHAT?  ARE you a cop?  HAVE you been a cop?  While you disparage MY experience... what is YOUR experience to say IN YOUR OPINION?

    Nothing?

    NO experience?  NONE WHAT SO EVER?

    When you are fighting for your LIFE... you do ANYTHING...

    When you don't have to fight for your life... your mind realizes the rules...

    But, you have absolutely ZERO experience to equate to this while you try to disparage mine... don't you?

    No... I didn't think you did...

    You are simply an idiot who spouts off BS with ZERO to back it...

    Parent

    Apparently (1.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Patrick on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 10:30:45 AM EST
    you missed my comment just above this one.  You know, the one where I outlined my experience.  I'm figuring this is a perfect example of how you've gotten yourself stuck in the untenable position of declaring, in no uncertain terms, that the officer was "Clearly in violation" and had certainly called off his backup.  Two points which you cannot support with anything other than, "I was a cop once and it's true because I said so."  Good day Mr. Gass..An appropo name.  

    Parent
    Bull... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Michael Gass on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 02:37:07 PM EST
    Isn't about the use of deadly force or when it is applicable.   This is about whether or not the strike viewed on the video is a reasonable use of force.
     

    "Reasonableness" is determined by size, gender, situation, and force level NEEDED to control someone... NOT simply "is hitting them in the face reasonable".

    I believe it is, and have been in the same circumstance where I was being bitten by a juvenile and struck him (In my case it was a male) in the face.   The case went to court and judge heard the evidence and it was a lawful use of force.  If it ever gets that far, there will be many experts in the use of force testifying, and based on my experience with them, they will say the same thing I have.

    I've watched judges rule that a person paying $5,000 for a lawyer to defend them on DUI charges was "punishment enough"... didn't mean it was, just that they ruled that way.

    I also watched "experts" testify that the force used in the Rodney King beating was "justified"... that didn't make it so either.

    I would also watch officers around a patrol car with the suspect already cuffed and in the rear stand there and taunt the person... that doesn't make it right. (side note; these are the same officers who would lament how they were in fights every weekend... gee... I didn't have to wonder why how they treated people.)

    I too served in the military both active and reserve, and have been a cop for 20+ years, rising to the level of, well, above sergeant.  I've served on a swat team as a member and team leader, and as a use of force instructor, certified by California P.O.S.T.  In my opinion this was and will eventually be deemed by a court, a reasonable use of force.

    It's not personal, and I apologize for the personal attacks.  I'm just stunned that a person with the qualifications you say you have can state your conclusions as facts.

    I doubt you are stunned that I conclude it as fact, more likely, you are stunned an ex-cop isn't defending the actions of another officer (and no, I didn't see this post of your qualifications when I posted my reply, but, it DOES explain your "po-dunk pd" remark... you think being at a big department makes you better than another cop who wasn't.)

    Face it, the strike to the face was in no way trying to control or subdue his subject, it was pure retaliation for her trying to bite him, the same his spraying her was retaliation.  If he can't even keep his cool when a KID tries to bite him, what is he going to do when an ADULT actually takes him on... shoot them out of fear?

    Parent

    I'm hardly stunned (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Patrick on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 04:00:44 PM EST
    that an ex-cop doesn't defend the actions of other cops.  I'm amazaed by your ability to devine intent with such limited information.   I've criticized police actions in these very threads.  I've even said I probably would have handled this particular situation differently. None of which makes this use of force unreasonable.  

    Now you somehow "know" that this strike was retaliation....all from a video-tape.  I'd suggest you're taking too large of a leap of faith.  And yes I still doubt your claimed credentials.  

    NOT simply "is hitting them in the face reasonable".

    That is exactly the question, reasonableness is determined by using the totality of the circumstances in the particular event being viewed.  Those criteria you mention are part, but not all, of that determination. I'm also confident that you think you know it all and have done it all, but that is truly unlikely...based on six years of experience at a tribal casino or wherever you works.    

    Parent

    Just a bit more.. (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Patrick on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:51:27 AM EST
    According to both articles I've read, the officer was responding to a call, not self-initiating the contact.   So someone else thought her presence (after 1 AM) was noteworthy.  

    Did you read the description of the suspects (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Aaron on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 03:01:54 PM EST
    "Gilroy was responding to a 911 call about a suspicious couple walking the area of 24th Street and Boston Avenue with full garbage bags, when he met up with Riley at about 1:50 a.m.
    She was carrying a bag of what appeared to be new clothing, the officer reported."

    So apparently this police officer mistook this girl for a couple, and the small plastic shopping bag she was carrying for a garbage bag, right?

    I believe this is a predominantly black residential neighborhood, near Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.  Perhaps in this white cops mind,

     Black Girl + shopping bag with new clothes = likely perpetrator.

    So he thought he better make an arrest just to be on the safe side.

    Notice that this teenager hasn't been charged with any other crime, other than those instigated by the police officer, so apparently he got the wrong person, and he probably knew this when he attempted to cover his ass by getting the arrest on videotape. What does he care that he arrested an innocent person, he responded to the call in a black neighborhood, and made an arrest, case closed, no need for further discussion, happens every day in Black America.  

    Somehow I suspect that this officer now regrets making that videotape, of a young girl who is voicing her obvious distress over being arrested, for what amounts to a nothing offense, curfew violation.

    Many cities have curfews for minors, believing that it will curb juvenile crime, and give police officers a tool that will allow them to stop and detain teenagers, even if they have no probable cause.  But the tactic is flawed, because juveniles who commit crime don't pay attention to curfews, and lots of innocent teenagers, especially minority teens, get swept up by the police, especially when thay can't find legitimate perpetrators.


    Parent

    Bleeding Hearts (1.00 / 2) (#57)
    by RobertZee on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 05:54:39 PM EST
    Knock it off.

    If she would have just done as the officer asked none of this would have happened, and its not like he did anything wrong.

    Hes used the proper amount of pshyical force to do what was needed. You all whine about how young she is. Is she too young to understand the words "put your hands behind you back?" I didn't think so. So how is this wrong?

    Maybe she should stop being out so late breaking laws and inside studying for classes, good job defending a future criminal.

    Of course she's a future criminal (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 12:41:15 PM EST
    Just look at her! (sic)

    Parent
    It Is Simple (1.00 / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 01:18:19 PM EST
    YOU DON'T PUNCH PEOPLE IN THE FACE MUCH LESS A 15 YEAR OLD GIRL.

    What a load of crap. (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by JustChel on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 07:48:51 AM EST
    Its not racial just because there are different colors of skin on the people involved.  Why can't the cop claim that she bit him because he was white and she wouldn't have resisted arrest had he been a black officer?  Why is it black people only get to claim the race card.  That is such a load of crap. By doing this, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson actually do a brilliant job of cultivating racism, by being blatant racists themselves. Hypocrasy should be punishable by law.

    In the officers report it said she was acting suspiciously. She was also carrying around a garbage bag of clothes that still had tags on them. The officer was doing his job. The exact job we, as tax payers pay him to perform.  

    The officer was calm, he was patient. He did his best to keep her in front of the camera where everything would be documented.

    Yes, this girl is 15 years old. At her age she should be able to follow simple instructions.  She chose not to. Instead, she chose to assault an officer of the law. Keep in mind no force, thats ZERO force would have had to be used if she had cooperated. What about making this girl RESPONSIBILE for her actions?

    I can not believe the audacity of you people who are whining about excessive force. What about children being raised with RESPECT for not only Police, but their elders in general. Keep in mind... These violent, disrespectful brats are going to be the generation taking care of you when you get old.  

       

    Nobody's Whining (none / 0) (#105)
    by bigal on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:52:28 PM EST
    The people that here are only posting comments.
    You speak about respect. This is an abstract idea that is almost always earned in order for it to work.

    Respecting the police although probably a good idea is irrelevant. Do you know why?
    Because respecting people in general (cops included)is not a law. So some choose not adhere to good manners, so what. Officers in general feel that X-amount of hours of training, high school diploma, backgroung check and a 12 grade level on the TABE test.
    Ohh I forgot and being sworn in to uphold the constitution of the U.S. is commensurate with respect.

    Lets not even begin with attitude.

     

    Parent

    she got what she deserved (1.00 / 1) (#107)
    by James Graham on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 05:55:20 PM EST
    I believe the girl got what she deserved.  I think that you all want to lay blame where it doesn't belong when something like this happens and throw the "race-factor" up in the middle of it.  I believe that if put in the same position, most would have taken similar action as the police officer.  He handled her very well.  
    She was unwilling to cooperate with him through the entire process.  If she hadn't of resisted, she wouldn't have been in pain and he wouldn't have had to use any of the force that you deem unnesessary.  

    What's pepperspraying worth? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:14:55 PM EST
    I've a pending excessive force action stemming from being sprayed over a dubious tresspass collecting ballot access signatures at the U of Wisconsin Student Union. If they want to settle before we put in big hours, and straighten out the 1st Amendment issues, the case can go away for $50,000.

    innocent until proven guilty (none / 0) (#13)
    by diogenes on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:57:36 PM EST
    Guess that doesn't apply to cops, even on a criminal defense site.  The quick race/class rush to judgment somehow reminds me of what happened at Duke.

    Yeah? (none / 0) (#23)
    by manys on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:51:42 PM EST
    When was race/class mentioned? Are you opposed to all laws broken by cops should have an "under the color of authority" enhancement tacked on? They are tasked with knowing the law, after all.

    Parent
    In case you didn't notice.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by 1980Ford on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 09:00:04 PM EST
    The cop wasn't arrested. Nor will he be, even if he killed her he would get off because he "feared for his life."

    Parent
    Totally Justified (none / 0) (#40)
    by HPenguin on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:33:23 AM EST

    This guy was asking her very calmly to cooperate. Not only that but on various occasions you see him reposition her INFRONT of the camera and check. He most certainly wanted his actions on tape, ergo he wasn't going to hurt her on purpose.

    The ONLY reason he might have been "hurting her" would be because she wasn't cooperating in the first place, or how do you expect him to get her cuffed while she resists? By gingerly grabbing her forearm with his thumb and index finger? He needed to do that so-called "chicken wing" move.

    Then she BITES HIM?! I mean, seriously, someone bites me, especially a girl like this going nuts, that fist is going to come up IMMEDIATELY, maybe even as a knee-jerk reaction.

    Why'd he pepper spray her? I can only imagine it's to control her. Was it overkill? MAYBE. But then again a bite that's been backed up by a consistent resist of arrest already shows an intent to fight the cuffs tooth rimshot and nail. The spray would be a legitimate, if not somewhat harsh, option.

    Notice how suddenly the cuffs come on ALOT easier after the spray? This cop tried for AWHILE to get those on calmly. You can't say this is brutality.

    Oh, adolescents breaking curfew are getting arrested, why? Not ours to discuss, that's an entirely different subject.

    The point is subject A resisted heavily and she got sprayed. Now she gets to chill in the cooler for a bit while she learns not to make a cop's job any harder than it already is.

    Oh, and stating the obvious: Mark my words but if the "victim" was male, nobody would care and everyone would be on the cop's side.

    Honestly, poor guy for now having to take controversy over doing his job.

    This is not brutality... (none / 0) (#42)
    by HPenguin on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:05:37 AM EST

    ...I come from Puerto Rico.

    The other day a handcuffed man was thrown to the ground, he was resisting arrest.

    The officer calmly took out his gun and shot him five times, taking a good interval between shots.

    THAT'S police brutality. Not this. This is a teenager biting a cop and getting pepper sprayed for it.

    If my kid did that I'd smack him in the back of the head and say "Well, now you learned you don't bite cops or fight an arrest, now do you?"

    oh (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jen M on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 08:51:49 AM EST
    so as long as it is less severe than the worst example of police brutality YOU know about, then it isn't police brutality.

    Parent
    This Is Police Brutality (none / 0) (#110)
    by Justice on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 07:37:46 PM EST
    All you done is show a more extreme case of police brutality.  Both cases are brutal and over excessive.  This is not India, this is the USA, a place of the free and the brave, one of the greatest countries in the world.  Still this is police brutality!!!!!

    Parent
    According to a couple articles I read (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:44:34 AM EST
    she was kicking and punching him when he apprehended her which is the reason he brought her to the front of the car so everything that happened would be video taped.

    Oh, when he apprehended her she was carrying a bag of clothes with the price tags still on them...

    police officer pepper sprays teen (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by pattyjo on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 12:26:47 PM EST
    Where did this info come from?  

    Parent
    Sorry, didn't see this until just now. (none / 0) (#101)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:22:01 PM EST
    Gilroy dragged the girl to the front of his car, dodging her kicks and swings and activating his in-car video camera to record the remainder of the encounter, his report said.


    Parent
    Kicks and swings are a resonable (none / 0) (#102)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:42:35 PM EST
    responce to being dragged, I'd say. Or, maybe, when you cant do anything, you should just lay back and enjoy it, eh su?

    Parent
    I wonder if she got "dragged" (none / 0) (#104)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:49:52 PM EST
    in response to her kicking and swinging?

    Parent
    Well, everybody knows (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jondee on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 01:35:13 PM EST
    that "they",being more closely related to primative forbears, become unnaturally strong when in a state of panic; often it takes all the violence and strength even the most fit, athletic Aryan male can muster to subdue one of their females. Furthermore the primitive lesson in respect (all they're capable of gleaning from the experience), may well serve the female later in life. (Sic)

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 01:41:04 PM EST
    One wonders what the trolls would be saying if it were a 15 year old blond girl.... and if the cop was one of 'them' primitives.

    Parent
    I think few of them own movies (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jondee on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 01:57:32 PM EST
    with that very "plot".

    Parent
    Brutality? (none / 0) (#50)
    by treerat on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:24:03 PM EST
    Sorry but dont blame the cop for creating the curfew law. His job is only to enforce it. She was actively resisting arrest and he was trying to cuff her without hurting her. She bit him. After that he punched her and sprayed her. He took her into custody and no one got hurt.

    She could have de-escalated at any time. She could have not bit him. Do you want someone's saliva in an open wound on your arm? How would you react?

    What lead up to what we see??? Makes u wonder (none / 0) (#51)
    by unknown on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:45:47 PM EST
    I agree this girl looked confused and scared. But what we don't see or hear is what lead up to the part that was filmed. Not sure why "breaking curfew" requires such force. It'not like she was selling drugs, robbing or had a weapon. She just broke curfew. For it to get that out of control how did the officer approach her, what did he say or do to make her feel so scared and confused. I truly believe it's the first itial contact that will set the mood and that is the part we do not know as it is not on the tape. He could of provoked her in a way that made her feel confused, scared which then created the out of control situation. And like I said, that is what we DON'T see on the tape. All we see is the part that is already out of control.

    There's a lot of gratuitous speculation (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jack Okie on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:18:21 PM EST
    about why the girl was out after curfew and what transpired before the cop moved to the front of his vehicle:  It'not like she was selling drugs, robbing or had a weapon.  How the hell was the officer supposed to know what she had until he got her under control?

    My great-grandmother was married at 15.  I imagine she would have a few choice words seeing how you twist yourselves into pretzels in attempting to infantilze the kids of today.

    I don't need to be following the conversation (none / 0) (#80)
    by bigal on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 02:11:25 PM EST
    I believe we are in accordance in almost all areas except, in execution and details.

    Your right, I haven't been folowing the conversations, but then again theres really no need.

    This is definitely NOT about race (none / 0) (#93)
    by TheCanadian on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 11:28:51 AM EST
    it is about that very special US american style of police work.
    I bet the officer is a huge patriot, representing his country 100% the way people all over the world think of it these days

    Will it ever be reported whether (none / 0) (#98)
    by Pancho on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 03:15:24 PM EST
    or not the merchandise was stolen?

    As far as I know (none / 0) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 03:50:30 PM EST
    she has not been charged with anything regarding theft or possession of stolen property or anything like that.

    Parent
    Cop Using Excessive Force (none / 0) (#109)
    by Justice on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 07:31:05 PM EST
    This is a scenario: Hilton Paris out after curfew hours, carrying a bag.  Do you think this officer would respond this way to her, an elitist, white upperclass citizen?  No, you don't.  I am not trying to play the race card, because I feel regardless of what color this little girl is, she should not have had to put up with this kind of treatment. And it doesn't matter what color the cop is, this is wrong. The incident with the cops tasering the young man questioning John Kerry was wrong.  The handcuffs already on the guy 5-8 officers already surrounding the guy---why taser him.  Both incident show excessive brute forces of the law.  The officer is wrong!!!

    Too bad... (none / 0) (#120)
    by latino4lyf on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 08:17:52 PM EST
    And I say too bad because it's too bad all of you have no clue what she was doing!! Let me guess, "She's black and that's why she did it".
    Figures from a whole bunch of Democrats!!!
    I heard this story today, and wanted to search for it so I can see it, and lord and behold it's on ALL left wing pages. THIS is what's wrong with this country, everyone see's what the cop did but no one see's what she did. GET A CLUE F UCKING DEMOCRATS!!!

    reply to patrick, just so you can read it... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Michael Gass on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 11:48:12 PM EST
    I'm amazed by your ability to divine intent with such limited information.

    Oh yes... such limited information!  

    • A video that clearly shows one officer, one suspect, and an officer who is in almost complete control of the situation with the exception being able to get the girl properly handcuffed because he put her over the hood of the car instead of another position.  It has only been proven, time and again, that putting suspects on cars or walls only give them purchase to resist FROM... and IF you are in fact an "instructor", you should KNOW that.

    • Statement by the Fort Pierce Police Chief:

    In a letter released to the press over the weekend, Ft. Pierce Police Chief R. Sean Baldwin said that the video, which has recently attracted national attention, was hard for him to watch.

    Yeah, I bet it was!  I bet he saw EXACTLY the same thing I did... a cop who screwed up and punched a 15 year-old kid BEFORE spraying her.

    "It is always disturbing to see a police officer apply force to a juvenile, even when it is legal and justified. Likewise, it is disturbing to see a juvenile biting an officer," Baldwin said.

    Baldwin said he has reached out to Riley's family in an attempt to hear any complaints that they may have, but that the family has not responded, according to the release. He also said that he believed Gilroy had the right to defend himself.

    "While the video is disturbing, I trust that the members of our community understand that officers have a right, and even an obligation, to protect themselves from violent attacks," Baldwin said.

    Yes, an officer DOES have the right to DEFEND him/her self from a violent attack.  The operative word is DEFEND and I would HARDLY classify that as a "violent attack".  There were no weapons involved, the officer was in almost 100% control of the girl, only having difficulty in cuffing her by himself, and her "attack" consisted of biting at him, or actually biting him.  SOOO violent!  

    My God... next on COPS... officer VIOLENTLY attacked by 83 year-old granny whose dentures fall out as she tries to bite him...!!!!

    - More statements made:

    "It is shocking to see that a police officer has had to use that level of force against a child," Baldwin said Thursday night. "But ... my opinion is he responded appropriately and in accordance with our policies.

    "I do not expect my officers to stand there and allow a child or an adult to bite them," he added.

    Yes... it IS shocking that an officer had to escalate up to PUNCHING a juvenile in the FACE... that much he says truthfully.  Should the officer have ALLOWED her to bite him?  No.  I never said he did.  But, there were OTHER means to stop her from biting him that DIDN'T require PUNCHING HER.  For instance...

    1. The officer could have disengaged, sprayed her, then re-established control over her.

    2. The officer could have used an iron-wristlock takedown since her one wrist was already cuffed, proning her out on the the ground.  He would never have lost physical control of her and because she is now in that position she couldn't bite at him again.

    There WERE other options, both of which are FAR more justifiable then PUNCHING HER before he sprays her.  Yes, I CAN "divine" that because I have BEEN THERE, DONE IT... I can WATCH IT... and I can READ.  

    Her "resistance" up to that point was so minor, she wasn't sprayed UNTIL that point, so, don't sit here and try and tell me about "limited information".

    I've even said I probably would have handled this particular situation differently. None of which makes this use of force unreasonable.

    I KNOW I would have handled it differently.  His tactics sucked.  His response was unwarranted.  And THAT is why his use-of-force at that level IS unreasonable.  But, for you, SEEING, READING, and having experience and knowledge is no longer enough?  Give me a break, but, I'll save the best for last.

    Now you somehow "know" that this strike was retaliation....all from a video-tape.  I'd suggest you're taking too large of a leap of faith.

    And I'd "suggest" you're defense of this officer is weak.  The punch to her face is clearly instinctual.  ANYONE can see THAT.  

    That is exactly the question, reasonableness is determined by using the totality of the circumstances in the particular event being viewed.  Those criteria you mention are part, but not all, of that determination.

    It is that entire "totality of the circumstance" that MAKES this unreasonable.

    - He stops a juvenile at night, after curfew, for being "suspicious".

    Gilroy was responding to a 911 call about a suspicious couple walking the area of 24th Street and Boston Avenue with full garbage bags, when he met up with Riley at about 1:50 a.m.

    No problem.

    - His stop at that point is, in fact, investigatory in nature (try Terry v. Ohio).  

    "Where the facts known to an officer suggest, but do not 'necessarily' indicate ongoing criminal activity, an officer is entitled to detain an individual to resolve the ambiguity."

    So what did he resolve?  Not that she was engaged in illegal activity such as murder, or robbery, or even possession of stolen items.  He determined that it was a minor out after curfew.

    - He places her under arrest for a minor infraction (out after curfew).

    No problem.

    But, look at the report above:  Gilroy meets up with her at 1:50 am.  Now, look at the time on the dash-camera; 07:20.  

    So, this officer was out on this call for 5 and half HOURS... and you want to sit and question if he called off his backup or not????  You want to sit and talk REASONABLENESS???? What do you take me for, an IDIOT?  When was the last time YOU spent 5 and a half hours trying to determine the identity of someone just to arrest them for a curfew violation IF you are in fact a cop?  And you want to know how I "divined" he called off his backup????  THAT is obvious... after 5 and a half hours, ANY BACKUP would have been there UNLESS he called them off!

    I'm also confident that you think you know it all and have done it all, but that is truly unlikely...based on six years of experience at a tribal casino or wherever you works.

    And yes I still doubt your claimed credentials.

    You can question, claim, think, all you want... you can try and attack, demean, whatever.  

    When I was Sergeant of the shift, there is no way, no how, this officer would have been out on this call for 5 and a half hours without ME or the shift Corporal being there to determine WHY after 45 minutes to an hour.  And, I'll guarantee you, there is no way I'd let this officer out of my sight again after this pathetic episode he produced ON VIDEO... AFTER dicking around with her 5 and a half hours on the side of the road BEFORE he tries to arrest her.

    Wow, (none / 0) (#125)
    by Patrick on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 10:40:19 AM EST
    It's hard not to demean such a wild fantasy.  It's clearly not 0720 hours in the morning.   You know how I can tell?  Cause it's still dark and it ain't dark at 0720 in the morning in July.  So clearly the clock is wrong, just like the clock on my current vehicle.  Even if it's Sept or yesterday, it's still not dark at 0720.   So how does that fit into your scenario?  Clearly you aren't as observant as you think you are.  

    The police chief didn't see exactly what you saw.  No one is saying the video isn't disturbing.  What he does say, according to your own post is that the use of force was appropriate and in accordance with the department policy.   So tell me agin how that supports your position?

    So what did he resolve?  Not that she was engaged in illegal activity such as murder, or robbery, or even possession of stolen items.  He determined that it was a minor out after curfew.

    Neither you nor I have any idea what he resolved?  We know that after the incident she was charged with a curfuew violation and resisting.  As you can clearly see at the beginning of the video, she still has the bag in her left hand.  It's unlikely the officer has even searched the bag to "resolve" anything.  You have no idea what time he arrived, how long it took him to locate the suspect or how long he was in contact with her prior to the video coming on.  So again, there's no way to logically determine any of which you claim to have determined.  

    So, this officer was out on this call for 5 and half HOURS... and you want to sit and question if he called off his backup or not????  You want to sit and talk REASONABLENESS???? What do you take me for, an IDIOT?

    Ummm, yes.  Or just stuck trying to defend an indefensible position and doing a bad job of it.  However, since the rest of your post seems to be about how long the officer was out there based on the dash cam clock, and I've pretty clearly debunked that, it's not really worth responding to.  

    So tell me the type of agency did you work for....Sheriff's Department, City police, tribal police, which?  How many people in your department?  

    Parent

    So, you are saying that the officer is (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Michael Gass on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 04:21:01 PM EST
    violating policy before he ever leaves the department?

    Here is the Madison WI PD policy and procedures on in-car camera's:

    c. At the beginning of each shift, employees shall ensure that the in-car data capture equipment is functioning correctly by completing the following procedures: i. Confirm system power-up upon starting the vehicle. ii. Confirm the correct date and time on the monitor. iii. Synchronize the transmitter/microphone to the in-car data capture system in the car. iv. Confirm video and audio recording.

    Every policy and procedure for cameras that I've read state, at a minimum, that the officer will ensure their cameras are functioning properly prior to going on patrol, and, in the better policies and procedures it is specifically stated (as I show above) that the date/time stamp will be confirmed to be correct.

    The incident report (found here) states that the incident started at 0130 and ended at 0155.  The in-car camera states 0720.  So, the camera was NOT functioning properly, or, the officer lied on his report (I'll give you the date/time is off... but, how this relates for later is yet to come).

    The minor in this case, was NOT required to be arrested if it was her first curfew violation:

    877.22  Minors prohibited in public places and establishments during certain hours; penalty; procedure.--

    (3)  A minor who violates this section shall receive a written warning for her or his first violation. A minor who violates this section after having received a prior written warning is guilty of a civil infraction and shall pay a fine of $50 for each violation.

    (4)  If a minor violates a curfew and is taken into custody, the minor shall be transported immediately to a police station or to a facility operated by a religious, charitable, or civic organization that conducts a curfew program in cooperation with a local law enforcement agency. After recording pertinent information about the minor, the law enforcement agency shall attempt to contact the parent of the minor and, if successful, shall request that the parent take custody of the minor and shall release the minor to the parent. If the law enforcement agency is not able to contact the minor's parent within 2 hours after the minor is taken into custody, or if the parent refuses to take custody of the minor, the law enforcement agency may transport the minor to her or his residence or proceed as authorized under 1part II of chapter 39.

    So, let's say that the stop did take only 25 minutes (which I would expect out of an officer), what do we have?

    • We have an officer who left his department with an in-car camera NOT functioning properly.

    • We have an officer who didn't HAVE to arrest the minor (if it was her first offense), and, even if he did arrest her, he surely didn't have to punch her before sprayed her.

    and...

    - We now have a POLICE CHIEF who posted an incident report with a MINORS name AND address on the internet.

    AND...

    - She wasn't even CHARGED with the curfew violation by the incident report!

    So...

    If she WASN'T under arrest for curfew violation why was he handcuffing her again?  Right... he SHOULDN'T have been handcuffing her.

    She is only charged with battery and with resisting arrest W/O VIOLENCE, which takes your whole "oh, she violently attacked him" argument and tosses it in the garbage.

    Parent

    You sure are funny... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Patrick on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 05:11:03 PM EST
    violating policy before he ever leaves the department?
    Here is the Madison WI PD policy and procedures on in-car camera's:

    This ain't Madison WI PD, but OK, he's in violation of department policy w/respect to his in-car camera.  That proves what in regards to the use of force?  

    Like I explained before...Curfew is a "May take" offense, however, the fact that an officer arrests for a may take offense means nothing.  If you read the report, you know the he decided to make the arrest after she was evasive in answering questions, and he observed the bag in her hands with new clothing, still on the hanger, inside and noted that the store where she said she bought it had been closed for 4-5 hours.  Now, if he's on the ball, he's thinking burglary, and certainly has plaenty of reason to detain her based solely on that, but wait...We have an actionable offense, curfew, that he can take immedaite action on, and avoid all that, "Was the detention reasonable" stuff in court.  So he does. Good decision making, IMO.  

    - We now have a POLICE CHIEF who posted an incident report with a MINORS name AND address on the internet.

    Which again, perhaps is improper, but proves nothing w/respect to the use of force.  

    She wasn't even CHARGED with the curfew violation by the incident report!

    I think it's pretty clear she is.  

    If she WASN'T under arrest for curfew violation why was he handcuffing her again?  Right... he SHOULDN'T have been handcuffing her.

    She is only charged with battery and with resisting arrest W/O VIOLENCE, which takes your whole "oh, she violently attacked him" argument and tosses it in the garbage.

    Which makes responding to this kinda superfluous, but he was handcuffing her she was under arrest for a curfew violation and was resisting arrest.  AS for the W/O Violence part of the resisting arrest, I think the "Battery on a LEO" trumps that, and is probably how they charge it down there.  

    I'll be happy to conceed any point that you can substantiate with a sound, well-reasoned argument.  

    Parent

    In the interest of accuracy (none / 0) (#143)
    by Patrick on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 05:45:44 PM EST
    Something you may not be familiar with,,,

    So, let's say that the stop did take only 25 minutes (which I would expect out of an officer), what do we have?

    The stop took more like 6 minutes based on the officers report.  So figure that into your fantasy too.  The 25 minutes is from time of call.  A person of your ability to devine must know that the 25 minutes you allow for the stop includes, dispatch time, response time etc.  

    Parent

    Another reason why (none / 0) (#126)
    by Patrick on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 11:04:50 AM EST
    it's not 0720 in the morning.   The linked police report, a post or two below, shows the arrest report which indicates the time of arrest was 0150 hours.   Now if you're right and really was 0720, I'll submit that you're right.  But since it isn't and as you claim, there was no problem until you figured out that the officer had been out there 5 hours...Well, we're back to you're an idiot.  You can't know the status of his backup, whether he called it off, or was still waiting, as you say.  

    Just because a reponse is instinctive, doesn't make it unreasonable.  In fact that's part of what makes it reasonable.  

    According to the report, he felt she was being untruthful and evasive during his initial questioning and took the path of least resistance, the curfew arrest, because he felt the plastic bag of clothes, containing the hangers and price tags, and her explanation for possessing it was suspicious.  So, in your infinite experience is it OK for an officer to arrest for a minor crime, even if he suspects a bigger one may have occurred.  In fact isn't it proper to make the arrest first, so that during a search incident to arrest you can legally discover the contents of the bag?    You're a "sergeant" this is an easy question.  

    Actually, I'm convinced you've embellished your experience, so it may in fact be a difficult question.  

    But either way, your repeated, "because I say so", and misinterpretation of the video are enough for any reasonable person to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about.  Reply if you want, but debunking your points is no longer challenging...Not that it ever was.  

    Parent

    No... what we are back to... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Michael Gass on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 04:37:18 PM EST
    given the report...

    • Is that the minor was NOT under arrest for curfew violation.

    • She is charged with battery.

    So, let's run through the stop, just as any other stop of this kind that I've done (and supposedly, you)...

    He gets a description... locates someone meeting that description and stops her.  She didn't try to run off (no chase), so she was cooperative.  He finds her in possession of a bag containing clothes with price tags.  He figures the clothing is stolen, but, has no facts to back it up, but, he surely isn't letting her go with that bag that he is sure is full of stolen clothing.  So, he's going to take her into custody and confiscate the clothing.  As he starts to take her into custody, she fights back.  She isn't under arrest for the curfew violation (if she was, he would have charged her with it), so, she had NO obligation to be allowed to be taken into custody.  He eventually charges her with the battery and resisting arrest... but NOT the curfew violation... which, after realizing he punched her on the camera and sprayed her, became CYA for his own actions.

    Parent

    So let's run through your argument... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Patrick on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 05:22:00 PM EST
    She didn't try to run off (no chase), so she was cooperative.

    Clearly not.....

    He figures the clothing is stolen, but, has no facts to back it up, but, he surely isn't letting her go with that bag that he is sure is full of stolen clothing.

    He says no such thing, he says that the clothing in conjunction with her evasive answers makes him suspicious.  But taking your agrument at face value, you think he should let her go with that "bag of stolen clothing" when he has probable cause to arrest her for an offense that no one here believes she wasn't committing, just because an arrest isn't mandatory for that offense?  

    As he starts to take her into custody, she fights back.  She isn't under arrest for the curfew violation (if she was, he would have charged her with it), so, she had NO obligation to be allowed to be taken into custody.

    You're right she isn't under arrest...In his report the officer states he informed her that she was detained for a curfew violation.  You can't handcuff someone who's detained?  And yes the officer is acting legally so she has an obligation not to resist his lawful actions.  

    He eventually charges her with the battery and resisting arrest... but NOT the curfew violation... which, after realizing he punched her on the camera and sprayed her, became CYA for his own actions.

    That is another opinion you can't back up.   The detention is lawful, as soon as she resists it, she's committed a more serious offense, and and even more serious when when she bites him.  Now, you claim it was CYA, but we can actually see that portion on the tape.  So your assumption that it's CYA makes no sense.  


    Parent

    That I HAVE to respond to this is sad... (none / 0) (#144)
    by Michael Gass on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 05:57:19 PM EST
    and... makes my point CLEARLY...

       He figures the clothing is stolen, but, has no facts to back it up, but, he surely isn't letting her go with that bag that he is sure is full of stolen clothing.

    He says no such thing, he says that the clothing in conjunction with her evasive answers makes him suspicious.  But taking your agrument at face value, you think he should let her go with that "bag of stolen clothing" when he has probable cause to arrest her for an offense that no one here believes she wasn't committing, just because an arrest isn't mandatory for that offense?  

    YES... he ABSOF@CKINGLUTELY SHOULD LET HER GO IF HE IS NOT CHARGING HER WITH THE OUT AFTER CURFEW VIOLATION.  He can be suspicious all day long.  The LAW requires people to allow officers a REASONABLE time to sort out ambiguity... NOT detain them INDEFINITELY based on a SUSPICION.

    That I have to explain that to you shows you are either; a) an old school cop who could care less about the law or rights of others, or b) NOT a cop at all.  But, you certainly have shown you have no respect for the laws or the rights of others.  

    If he had EVIDENCE that the clothing was stolen, why was THAT not charged?  Oh, right, because he DIDN'T have any evidence... ONLY SUSPICION and THAT IS NOT ENOUGH.  He can determine in 5 minutes that she is a juvenile out after curfew.  THAT is his charge (a charge that was NOT made).  THAT charge is separate to stolen clothing, which, he could ALSO have determined within minutes by; a) did she have a receipt?  If not, b) contact dispatch and see if there are any reports of a robbery in the area recently?  If not, he has now solved the ambiguity issue to a REASONABLE level.

    He NOW has the choice... arrest for the curfew, or, let her go WITH HER BAG OF CLOTHES.  He did NEITHER.  He didn't arrest her for the curfew violation AND he didn't allow her to leave the scene.  

    What he DID do was escalated the situation HIMSELF due to his SUSPICIONS that were NOT VERIFIABLE or supported by ANY EVIDENCE until he finally punched a 15 year old girl in the face and sprayed her.

    So... let me be clear...

    YES, YOU LET HER GO WITH HER BAG OR YOU ARREST HER RIGHT THEN, AND CHARGE HER, WITH CURFEW VIOLATION.

    You're right she isn't under arrest...In his report the officer states he informed her that she was detained for a curfew violation.  You can't handcuff someone who's detained?  And yes the officer is acting legally so she has an obligation not to resist his lawful actions.

    No.  Wrong.  Her INITIAL detaining was for SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY (based on the 911 call).  He DETERMINED she was a juvenile out after curfew.  AT THAT POINT, HE CANNOT DETAIN HER FURTHER BASED ON THAT ALONE.  He either arrests her or lets her go as it is now no longer an investigatory stop and she is not in custody. He chose NOT to arrest her and detained her FURTHER.

    That is another opinion you can't back up.   The detention is lawful, as soon as she resists it, she's committed a more serious offense, and and even more serious when when she bites him.  Now, you claim it was CYA, but we can actually see that portion on the tape.  So your assumption that it's CYA makes no sense.  

    Damn right... I don't BLAME her for biting him now.  She wasn't under arrest, the ambiguity was satisfied, and she had every right to walk away.  

    He had established as fact she was in violation of curfew.  If he doesn't arrest her for that charge once there is no longer an ambiguity, it is now incumbent upon HIM to explain WHY she is now obligated to remain further.  The answer is the clothes and his SUSPICION which ALSO takes 5 minutes to satisfy REASONABLY under the law.

    Cops can't detain you forever simply because they have SUSPICIONS and if she was NOT free to leave because she was in curfew violation, she would have, and SHOULD have, been CHARGED with that as a crime.

    Let me repeat... COPS CAN'T SIMPLY DETAIN YOU BECAUSE THEY WANT TO.  PERIOD.

    (I'll add an anecdote story here)

    I went to the County Administration to pay the taxes on a vehicle I owned.  The counter lady told me I owned a vehicle that was a 2000.  I bought the vehicle and had paperwork it was a 1999.  I argued with the lady and she called the Sheriff's Department.

    The deputy walks in and before he even talked to me, he hoists his gun belt up his fat ass and declares, "we arrest people here who cause problems!"

    I looked at him and said, "let me guess, disorderly conduct; loud and boisterous in a public place"?  He lost all cockiness and went, "uh, yeah..."  I said, "yeah, I was a cop too, step outside with me."  I took HIM outside, explained the situation to him, then I told him, "you can certainly arrest me for DC (disorderly conduct), but, I KNOW the elements of the statute AND I know that having an argument with a counterperson does NOT meet the element of the crime."

    He left.  I didn't get arrested.  I then called his shift supervisor and, in lieu of filing a formal complaint, let the supervisor (who had NUMEROUS problems with this officer, so he told me), deal with him.

    If I HADN'T already been a cop, I'd been in jail that day, of that I have no doubt.  I would have been arrested for no other crime than I got into an argument with a counterperson over what year my vehicle was for tax purposes.  

    Parent

    Did you even read the report??? (none / 0) (#145)
    by Patrick on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 06:08:32 PM EST
    All of your points are clearly debunked by the report and your previous posts.  You admit the curfew offense is one that can lead to arrest.  His own report says he detained her for the curfew and when he tried to cuff her pusuant to that detention, the struggle began.  You can try to spin it any way you want, but the probable cause was there and he chose to act on it.   If you read the report you know that the clothes were booked into evidence....Because you can't always determine right then and there whether something is stolen or not.  I guess you've never heard of an unreported crime.   My God your arguments get worse the further you get into this.  So I'll ask again...What type of department did you work for?  

    Parent
    No... it is NOT debunked... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Michael Gass on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 07:19:30 PM EST
    SHE WAS NOT CHARGED WITH THE CURFEW VIOLATION.  You cannot ARREST someone for a charge, then never charge them for it!  There is no debunking here!

    You OBVIOUSLY need it said a SECOND TIME...

    She was DETAINED for suspicious activity.  It was DETERMINED during that detention she was a juvenile out after curfew.  She was NOT arrested for it because she was not CHARGED with it.

    The DETENTION for the bag of clothes must be REASONABLE in length, and in THAT SITUATION, there are only TWO things the officer can do; ask for a receipt and check for robberies in the area.  That takes 5 minutes.  AFTER that, the detention becomes UNREASONABLE.

    He can arrest her for the curfew violation, or, she walks.  Period.

    And his attempt to cuff her for merely being in DETENTION is laughable!  She provided ZERO threat to him OR to herself.  NONE.  There was NO reason to cuff her DURING HER DETENTION.

    As for the clothes... evidence of WHAT?  Was it "evidence" she was a minor?  Was it "evidence" she was out after curfew?  "Evidence" of WHAT?  

    THIS is what has been occurring for YEARS, and it is a violation of people's rights.  There is ZERO probable cause that she stole the items.  NONE.  He CONFISCATED clothes, that at this point, ARE HERS.  Let me be walking down the street and some cop decide that something I have on me isn't mine and try to take it from me simply because he BELIEVES that it MIGHT be stolen.  Me BITING him becomes the least of his worries... I'm not some 5'1" 100lb little girl.

    And you, again, revert to attacks and demeaning... lmao.  She's GOING to get paid.  

    "umm... little girl... you scare me, so, because big ole cop me is scared of little ole you, I'm going to handcuff you for my protection... and if you don't like it, I'm going to punch you and spray you and charge you with a felony!"

    Cha-ching!

    Parent

    The fact (none / 0) (#146)
    by Patrick on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 06:21:14 PM EST
    that you think your reponses address anything of substance with repect to this incident is what is really sad.  

    That I HAVE to respond to this is sad

    Where do you get this stuff...oh wait..Because you were a cop..  I forgot.  How about you read the report, then perhaps we can discuss this without you haveing to fill in all the blanks you have with your wild a$$ guesses.  

    Parent

    oh... and btw... given the FACTS... (none / 0) (#138)
    by Michael Gass on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 04:45:06 PM EST
    Yes... it IS now also a case of racial profiling.

    He finds this young black girl out after curfew with a bag of clothes and he's SURE she must have stolen them (which she MIGHT have.. but there is NO evidence of a crime to justify confiscating the bag at that point).

    So... how'd the tussle occur if she WASN'T under arrest for curfew violation?  What REASON would she have to attack the officer is she WASN'T under arrest, and thus, was FREE to leave?  WHY was she being handcuffed again that caused her to bite him?

    Parent

    Even more funny... (none / 0) (#142)
    by Patrick on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 05:23:22 PM EST
    I'd suggest you didn't leave law enforcement voluntarily....You've got a pretty warped sense of reality.  

    Parent
    BTW...From your own posts... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Patrick on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 06:25:11 PM EST
    So... how'd the tussle occur if she WASN'T under arrest for curfew violation?  What REASON would she have to attack the officer is she WASN'T under arrest, and thus, was FREE to leave?  WHY was she being handcuffed again that caused her to bite him?

    I presume your arguing that she was under arrest for the curfew violation, no?  

    But less than an hour later you say...

    He didn't arrest her for the curfew violation AND he didn't allow her to leave the scene.

    So which is it?  How do you reconcile those two positions.  

    Parent

    I meant to post the play by play here... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Michael Gass on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 11:47:20 PM EST
    But I messed up... it's at the bottom.

    Oh, and btw... for all of your attacks and demeaning... let me just say, I'm very much correct, and have been...

    Why?

    BECAUSE I WAS A COP AND SAID SO...

    Parent

    Well, I have to say (none / 0) (#154)
    by Patrick on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 11:07:41 AM EST
    Oh, and btw... for all of your attacks and demeaning... let me just say, I'm very much correct, and have been...

    Why?

    BECAUSE I WAS A COP AND SAID SO...

    That's been your best argument to date, but I think I've conclusively shown you were never a cop, and because you refuse to even identify the type of deparment where you once "Worked" your claims are even more dubious.  

    Parent

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#124)
    by cahuila on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 08:56:18 AM EST
    I have seen the tape and the police officer seems to be doing the right thing. The officer is clearing trying to restrain the girl. He obviously was having difficulties with the suspect, and therefor turn on his camera to record the ARREST!!! You can see it when he starts pressing the clicker!!! The teenager struggles and bites the officer in the hand. Now, I don't know if you know this but even with a glove the teenager could have broken skin. The officer punched the girl, NOT retalliation but to stun the suspect. He sprayed her to keep her from bitting him again.
    YEs, the girl was crying, wouldn't you too if you had just been caught by the police with curfew violation and they were going to take you to your parents?? And, PLEASE, DO NOT MAKE THIS A RACIAL THING!! "This is the problem they have in the south..." Cerfew is a problem that happens all the time, but not only to BLACK, it happens to WHITES, HISPANICS, ASIAN, etc. but all of the RESIST ARREST!!!! I am not saying the there is no racism in the country, cause there is. But this is not the case in the arrest. People look at what happend here and think "Poor little girl being handled by this man in just a bad way." Are wrong, I know most of the people up in arms think of there own childeren in this situation. BUT tell me this... If you child was in this situation... 1.Would they even be out after curfew? 2.Would they resist arrest from a police officer? If so... then you have more to worry about then a police officer using excessive force!!!

    she was not charged (none / 0) (#139)
    by Michael Gass on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 05:02:13 PM EST
    with curfew violation...

    So where is the justification for the initial arrest?

    A person is ONLY required to allow themselves to be detained WITHOUT being under arrest for the period of time it takes an officer to REASONABLY determine the ambiguity of the circumstances and determine if a crime has been committed or not.  AFTER that time, which can vary, without being under arrest, a person is free to leave under their own power.

    By the time the girl is arrested, the officer establishes that the girl is guilty of ONE crime... she is out after curfew.  She was NOT charged with that crime.  She was charged with BATTERY.  

    That tells me that the girl was moving to leave and the cop went to restrain her from doing so, and THAT is where everything else that occurred stemmed from.

    If I were a lawyer (which I'm not), I would determine if at the point she tried to leave, had the officer determined that the girl was a minor, and thus, was in violation of that statute?  If so, and he had not informed her she was under arrest, there was no other "ambiguity" for him to determine.  Her carrying "clothes" in a bag is NOT a crime, and without having any indications of a recent robbery, he has no evidence, nor reason, to detain her further for that alone.

    Parent

    You want a "play by play"? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Michael Gass on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 11:41:21 PM EST
    Here is the report:

    1)  This "report" states:

    Curfew arrest of juvenile under suspicious circumstances that resisted violently arrest

    Problem; violation of curfew ordinance is NOT listed under charges.

    Conclusion; the wording here should have been, "arrest of a juvenile who was out after curfew, yet, never charged with such, so, I arrested her for what again?????"

    2)  First four paragraphs of narrative:

    Since this is an image and not able to copy/paste, go read it yourself.  

    Problem; at this point, he has not established any crime whatsoever.  

    Conclusion; at this point, the officer is CLEARLY focusing in on the clothes (as I stated up earlier) and feels the clothes are stolen property (AS I STATED EARLIER).

    3)  Fifth paragraph

    The officer establishes that the girl is a minor and out after curfew.  

    Problem; He does NOT place her under arrest for what is now a known violation.

    Conclusion; Having now established that he has a CHARGEABLE crime, he proceeds with the ambiguity of the clothes.

    4) Sixth paragraph

    The officer says she is being "detained" because she is out after curfew (not ARRESTED) and wants to place her in handcuffs while in INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION.

    Problem; placing individuals in handcuffs during investigative detention is for "their safety and yours", NOT because they are under arrest.  

    Conclusion; ONCE AGAIN, AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, she was ZERO threat to him and since this is STILL an investigative detention, his JUSTIFICATION for handcuffing her is ZERO.

    5) Seventh paragraph

    The officer states he will have to FORCIBLY handcuff this JUVENILE while she is in INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION and DRAGS HER TO HIS CAR.

    Problem; Once again, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR HER BEING HANDCUFFED DURING INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION.  ZERO.  NONE.

    Conclusion; the girl REALIZES she is NOT under arrest and, as such, doesn't wish to be handcuffed!  DUH!!!  She SHOULDN'T have been handcuffed IN THE FIRST PLACE since she presented NO THREAT to the officer during his, at this point, STILL INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION.

    6)  Eight paragraph

    The officer tells her to "stop resisting".  The subject did not comply.

    Problem; she was not RESISTING ARREST.  She was RESISTING being handcuffed during an INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION and at this point the officer has ZERO right to do that!

    Conclusion; The officer CLEARLY, BY HIS OWN REPORT, has now escalated this incident to a level it CLEARLY never should have escalated to!

    Oh, and btw... she didn't try to run WHICH I BROUGHT OUT BEFORE I READ HIS NARRATIVE.

    7) Ninth paragraph

    The officer STILL is trying to handcuff the girl FOR INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION and, as the video shows, he's wrenching her arm to do so.

    Problem; SHE IS NOT UNDER ARREST AND HE HAS ZERO JUSTIFICATION FOR FEARING FOR HIS SAFETY OR HERS TO DO SO.

    Conclusion; This cop is an idiot who decided he was handcuffing this black girl whether she wanted to be or not.

    8) Tenth paragraph

    He punches the girl in the face, pepper sprays her, then handcuffs her.

    Problem; SHE IS STILL NOT UNDER ARREST.

    Conclusion; The officer clearly knows he's on camera and that the punch and pepper spray is on film... he NOW has to CYA.

    let's skip down...

    9)  Thirteenth paragraph

    The officer is now BACK to the clothes.

    Problem; SHE IS STILL NOT UNDER ARREST.  He STILL hasn't told her she is under arrest for the curfew violation OR the assault.

    Problem 2; Whether or not he BELIEVES her story is IMMATERIAL, he has ZERO probable cause that the clothes are stolen or that she stole them.  NONE.

    Conclusion; the officer is hell-bent to find something with these clothes.  He SUSPECTS they are stolen and is NOT letting her leave with them so he confiscates them (WHICH I TOLD YOU BEFORE I EVER READ THE NARRATIVE).

    10) The suspect is then transported to DJJ.

    Problem 1; Florida law CLEARLY states that juveniles will be transported to the department FIRST and an attempt to contact the parents made.

    Problem 2; He STILL hasn't placed her under arrest by his own narrative.

    Problem 3; He charged her with the attack while he was trying to handcuff her for detention purposes during a continuing investigative stop.

    Problem 4;...

    Oh hell... I told you all this before I ever read it.

    He had ZERO call to handcuff her during the investigative detention.  NONE.  HE escalated the force, NOT HER, and he got bit because of it.  But, he had a hard-on for that bag of clothes, to which he had NO PROBABLE CAUSE to charge her with possessing stolen property (and didn't), yet, he deprived her of them ANYWAY.

    And you want to sit here STILL and go "but, but, how do you knowwwwww"

    BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN.  

    Because I was in a similar situation when I stopped a suspicious person carrying a vcr after we had a report of a suspicious male walking around an office building.

    Because I had no articulable reason to doubt his word that it was his.

    Because I was forced to let the guy go on his way, WITH THE VCR, when office personnel refused to even try to ID the suspect and had no clue IF anything was stolen.

    But EVERY cop I talked to was simply amazed that I didn't take the vcr away because "it HAD to be stolen!"  It may have been, and probably was, stolen.  I HAD ZERO ARTICULABLE REASON TO SEIZE IT.  NONE.

    This girl is going get paid... or there will be a SERIOUS miscarriage of justice here.

    oh... and btw patrick... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Michael Gass on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 11:56:42 PM EST
    This report would NEVER have passed my desk as Sergeant.  

    Why?  Because the narrative NEVER establishes when she was under arrest.

    You CANNOT charge a person with resisting arrest when they were NOT UNDER ARREST to begin with!

    Secondly, as second in command of the shift... I'd have recommended this officer be put on administrative leave, then fired, and if he wasn't fired, he would NOT have been on MY shift after that night.  Period.

    Parent

    Don't you get tired of being wrong? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Patrick on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 10:57:12 AM EST
    Why?  Because the narrative NEVER establishes when she was under arrest.

    I submit that the report does.

    You CANNOT charge a person with resisting arrest when they were NOT UNDER ARREST to begin with!

    Clearly your "department" never used the complaint process.  

    Secondly, as second in command of the shift... I'd have recommended this officer be put on administrative leave, then fired, and if he wasn't fired, he would NOT have been on MY shift after that night.  Period.

    Yeah, right...Like a sergeant (And I doubt you ever were) has that kind of power.  Come on, face it.  You've really never been a supervisor in any law enforcement agency.  Maybe a security company or some lesser entity, which explains your rudimentary knowledge, but not a real cop.  

    Parent

    Well, well, (none / 0) (#152)
    by Patrick on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 10:51:25 AM EST
    Where to start....

    I'll admit it's difficult because of your willfull or ignorant misstating of the facts.

    You yourself said the following regarding the arrest for curfew.

    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.

    So what did he resolve?  Not that she was engaged in illegal activity such as murder, or robbery, or even possession of stolen items.  He determined that it was a minor out after curfew.
    - He places her under arrest for a minor infraction (out after curfew).
    No problem.

    Once all your other points have been PROVEN wrong, you suddenly move the goal posts and declare that she was never charged with a curfew and therefore couldn't have been arrested for it.

    Yet the officer states in his report he told her she was being detained for a curfew violation and was able to get one handcuff on her before she started to resist.   In addition his summary states, as you posted, it was a curfew arrest.  There's no doubt in my mind that the facts of the case support a curfew arrest.  However, according to you, since it's not listed on the arrest report, she wasn't charged with it.  

    That the charge isn't listed on the booking sheet is no proof of that, since curfew is not a bookable offense, there's likely no way for officer to put that on the computerized booking record.  It would not be listed under the bail schedule, nor does the DA probably even review curfew cases, unless there's a separate crime associated.  

    There's no law that requires an officer tell someone they are under arrest immediately upon discovering that probable cause exists for that arrest.   I suggest that it's clear, once she starts to resist and he is forced to escalate the level of force that she's being arrested.  

    First four paragraphs of narrative:

    Problem; at this point, he has not established any crime whatsoever.

    Because he's telling the part of the report related to why he responded and what he observed upon his initial arrival.   Is there some law that requires the reporting officer to establish a crime in the first 4 paragraphs of a report?  No, I didn't think so, and he clearly established a crime and probable cause to arrest in paragraph 5.  I wondered why you stopped at paragraph number 4 in your first "point", now it's apparent, because there was no point if you didn't.  Classic out of context remark on your part.

    Fifth paragraph

    The officer establishes that the girl is a minor and out after curfew.  

    Problem; He does NOT place her under arrest for what is now a known violation.

    Conclusion; Having now established that he has a CHARGEABLE crime, he proceeds with the ambiguity of the clothes.

    NO he does not.  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?  The very next sentence says he informed her she was being detained for a curfew violation and tried to handcuff her.  You even note that in your next "point"

    Sixth paragraph
    The officer says she is being "detained" because she is out after curfew (not ARRESTED) and wants to place her in handcuffs while in INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION.
    Problem; placing individuals in handcuffs during investigative detention is for "their safety and yours", NOT because they are under arrest.  
    Conclusion; ONCE AGAIN, AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, she was ZERO threat to him and since this is STILL an investigative detention, his JUSTIFICATION for handcuffing her is ZERO.

    Again, there's no requirement to immediately arrest someone.  He still has work to do.  The initial report indicated 2 people out walking.  He's already noted her evasive answers and believes she's being untruthful.  (BTW, your use of robbery in another comment is a dead giveaway) Those things considered handcuffing her is the next logical step, and the one that is the most basic officer safety technique out there.  There's a potential that others are out there with her still in hiding, she's carrying, what a first look , could quite possibly be stolen property, and the officer believes she's being evasive and untruthful.   If in your experience, that isn't enough reason for handcuffing, then you are either a liar with repect you your experience or completely incompetent.    

    seventh paragraph....Problem; Once again, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR HER BEING HANDCUFFED DURING INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION.  ZERO.  NONE.

    Well we've beaten that dead horse.  

    Eight paragraph
    The officer tells her to "stop resisting".  The subject did not comply.
    Problem; she was not RESISTING ARREST.  She was RESISTING being handcuffed during an INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION and at this point the officer has ZERO right to do that!

    Florida's "Resisting" arrest law.

    Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree,

    Now clearly, just like every resisting law I know about, there's no requirement that it be an actual arrest the person is resisting, just a lawful action.   The detention is a lawful action based on the observations that can be independently verified by the video tape...IE she was a minor and was out after curfew.  

    Oh, and btw... she didn't try to run WHICH I BROUGHT OUT BEFORE I READ HIS NARRATIVE.

    She didn't try to shoot him either...So what's the point"  It's still resisting, and your inability to differentiate that is another clue that you are not who you say you are.  

    Ninth paragraph
    Conclusion; This cop is an idiot who decided he was handcuffing this black girl whether she wanted to be or not.

    No the person who said that is an idiot who has no knowledge of how to properly conduct an investigative detention, or what consitutes reasonable suspicion.

    Tenth paragraph
    He punches the girl in the face, pepper sprays her, then handcuffs her.
    Problem; SHE IS STILL NOT UNDER ARREST.
    Conclusion; The officer clearly knows he's on camera and that the punch and pepper spray is on film... he NOW has to CYA.

    Actually, by your own admission he's been trying to handcuff her for some time, and when she bit him he punched her, then pepper sprayed her rather than place himself in jeopardy of being bitten again.  He knows he's on film, you're right there, becuase HE TURNED ON THE CAMERA, to catch it.  He has no reason CYA himself because, unlike a certain commenter, he knows what he's doing.  

    Thirteenth paragraph;

    In the interest of keeping this as short as possible I wont repeat all of your speculation.  

    Yes he's back on the clothes because he hasn't even had the five minutes you said it would take to verify their status. In fact we still do not know their status some days later.  So you do not know whether or not they were stolen, but there is a resonable suspicion to investigate further.  Perhaps additional charges are forthcoming.  

    The suspect is then transported to DJJ.
    Problem 1; Florida law CLEARLY states that juveniles will be transported to the department FIRST and an attempt to contact the parents made.

    That's almost certainly true in cases where the only issue is a curfew violation.   That's not the case here.  Again, something that leads me to question your claim of being a cop.  

    Problem 2; He STILL hasn't placed her under arrest by his own narrative.

    Your absolutely right, he never says in his report he placed her under arrest, however, it's obviously noted that her arrest time was 0155 hours.  

    Problem 3; He charged her with the attack while he was trying to handcuff her for detention purposes during a continuing investigative stop.

    Wow, you're right twice in a row.  Except I don't see this as a problem based on what you now know Florida law on the issue to be.  

    He had ZERO call to handcuff her during the investigative detention.  NONE.

    Yes he did,(I responded above), and repeating it doesn't make your assertion any more true.  

    HE escalated the force, NOT HER, and he got bit because of it.

    He escalated the force because her level of resistance increased.  

    But, he had a hard-on for that bag of clothes, to which he had NO PROBABLE CAUSE to charge her with possessing stolen property (and didn't), yet, he deprived her of them ANYWAY.

    Despite your crude use of terms, it's actually called reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, which would be necessary to actually arrest her for possession of stolen property, which as far as I can tell she has not been.  He can deprive her of them for a resonable time to determine their status.  Yup.  

    But EVERY cop I talked to was simply amazed that I didn't take the vcr away because "it HAD to be stolen!"  It may have been, and probably was, stolen.  I HAD ZERO ARTICULABLE REASON TO SEIZE IT.  NONE.

    Sometimes that happens...but sometimes it happens because the officer doesn't know what he or she is seeing, or lacks experience to articulate reasonable suspicion.


    Parent

    a two-fer (none / 0) (#155)
    by Michael Gass on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 04:02:13 PM EST
       Why?  Because the narrative NEVER establishes when she was under arrest.

    I submit that the report does.

    No, it doesn't.  It states that he informed the girl that she was being DETAINED for the curfew violation.  There is no place in the narrative where the word "arrest" appears, thus, it is never established at what point she was under arrest, or, for what charges.  Now, I'm sure with you being Mr. "20+ years, done it all" you know that if it isn't in the narrative, it never happened, because the FIRST question you'll be asked is "if it happened, why isn't it in your report?".

       Secondly, as second in command of the shift... I'd have recommended this officer be put on administrative leave, then fired, and if he wasn't fired, he would NOT have been on MY shift after that night.  Period.

    Yeah, right...Like a sergeant (And I doubt you ever were) has that kind of power.  Come on, face it.  You've really never been a supervisor in any law enforcement agency.  Maybe a security company or some lesser entity, which explains your rudimentary knowledge, but not a real cop.  

    LMAO... as second in command of shift, I could most CERTAINLY make a recommendation to the Department that the officer be removed from duty, and I most CERTAINLY could, with the backing of my Lt., have the officer removed from shift.

    Once all your other points have been PROVEN wrong, you suddenly move the goal posts and declare that she was never charged with a curfew and therefore couldn't have been arrested for it.

    Actually, the REPORT moved the goal posts.  I would have NO PROBLEM, if his narrative read, "I informed the girl that she was being placed under arrest for curfew violation".  It doesn't and he didn't.  You even state the same here:

    Yet the officer states in his report he told her she was being detained for a curfew violation and was able to get one handcuff on her before she started to resist.

    Being DETAINED is not being UNDER ARREST.

    In addition his summary states, as you posted, it was a curfew arrest.  There's no doubt in my mind that the facts of the case support a curfew arrest.  However, according to you, since it's not listed on the arrest report, she wasn't charged with it.

    I'm not arguing there were no facts to support an arrest for curfew violation.  There clearly was.  I'm saying he did not establish at what point she was under arrest for that violation.  As for his summary stating it was a curfew arrest, there is no mention of her being issued a charging document  (UTT, or Uniform Traffic Ticket, for you) for that violation at all in the narrative, and, AS I STATED, the narrative never establishes that he did, in fact, arrest her for such, only detained her for it.  

    Again, there's no requirement to immediately arrest someone.  He still has work to do.
     

    I never said there WAS a REQUIREMENT. I said he STILL HASN'T done it.  I CONTINUE to state that throughout the point by point because, ONCE AGAIN, he NEVER clearly establishes at what point she was under arrest.  That a detention turns into a de facto arrest at some point is not in contention.  It is that without him clearly expressing at what point she was under arrest, he moved through the investigative detention TO a de facto arrest.

    The initial report indicated 2 people out walking.  He's already noted her evasive answers and believes she's being untruthful.  (BTW, your use of robbery in another comment is a dead giveaway) Those things considered handcuffing her is the next logical step, and the one that is the most basic officer safety technique out there.

    Yes, it IS a basic SAFETY technique... when there is a THREAT that can be REASONABLY articulated.  In this case, that threat was not there.  This is not a single officer out with two adult male subjects, it is an officer out with a single female juvenile who is out after curfew acting suspiciously.  Thus, the NEED to handcuff her during the investigative detention for SAFETY reasons is not there.

    There's a potential that others are out there with her still in hiding, she's carrying, what a first look , could quite possibly be stolen property, and the officer believes she's being evasive and untruthful.  If in your experience, that isn't enough reason for handcuffing, then you are either a liar with repect you your experience or completely incompetent.

    First off, he should have patted her down for weapons long before he ever tried to handcuff her if he believed she was carrying, so, that argument goes right out the window.  The narrative does not state he did so.  Secondly, if being evasive is all it takes to slap cuffs on someone for you, much less a 15 year old girl, you've got serious issues.  Lastly, if the officer was so afraid that the other person was laying in wait, why was he alone on the stop and didn't have backup?

    As for your REPEATED attacks... they are getting truly boring.  I've held MANY people cuffed during investigative detention.  At NO TIME did I feel my safety was in jeopardy when I was out with a single female, much less a single female who was a JUVENILE.

    This officer's narrative should be able to be totally destroyed by a good attorney.

    • He never establishes when she was under arrest, or for what, so he allows the investigative detention to turn into a de facto arrest.
    • Since he never establishes that the girl is under arrest when he moves to handcuff her, the question of "heavy-handed" tactics comes to the forefront of the argument.
    • He never states if he patted her down for weapons in the narrative, which then tosses the whole "safety" issue out the window because, obviously, he didn't feel she was a threat enough to worry about her having a weapon.
    • His narrative never establishes that she is charged with a curfew violation despite it claiming it was a "curfew arrest" in the summary.  The narrative never mentions her being issued a summons for the curfew violation, nor is a copy provided with the report.
    • His narrative never establishes if he did, indeed, even try to establish if her curfew violation was her first or more.
    • The narrative never establishes what happened AFTER he transported her DJJ.  Did he TRY to contact the parents at all?

    Now... IF his narrative would have stated these things, there would be little to argue except his punching her (which was clearly excessive in my opinion).  His actions and narrative should have gone in this order:

    • He arrives on scene and establishes the intial facts (her age, etc).
    • Upon establishing that she is a minor out after curfew, he then determines if it is her first violation.  If not, she is then informed she is under arrest, and arrested for such and the narrative reflecting the charging document issued (by number).
    • That during her ARREST for being out after curfew, she resisted.
    • The use-of-force used and actions he took during and after such force.
    • The additional property (clothing) was then seized as her personal property with an investigative supplemental that the clothing COULD have been stolen property and should be FURTHER investigated as such.
    • The juvenile was then transported to the Police Department, her parents attempted to be contacted, and when THAT failed, she was transported to DJJ.

    THAT is the BASIC of how his narrative SHOULD have read (and actions he SHOULD have taken).  It can be fleshed out from there.

    But, any good attorney has already established now that:

    • The officer's in-car camera was NOT functioning properly as the time/date stamp is wrong.
    • The narrative never establishes if this curfew violation is her first violation, which directly relates to the next point established.
    • The officer transported the juvenile directly to DJJ.  The state law reads:

       877.22  Minors prohibited in public places and establishments during certain hours; penalty; procedure.--

        (3)  A minor who violates this section shall receive a written warning for her or his first violation. A minor who violates this section after having received a prior written warning is guilty of a civil infraction and shall pay a fine of $50 for each violation.

        (4)  If a minor violates a curfew and is taken into custody, the minor shall be transported immediately to a police station or to a facility operated by a religious, charitable, or civic organization that conducts a curfew program in cooperation with a local law enforcement agency. After recording pertinent information about the minor, the law enforcement agency shall attempt to contact the parent of the minor and, if successful, shall request that the parent take custody of the minor and shall release the minor to the parent. If the law enforcement agency is not able to contact the minor's parent within 2 hours after the minor is taken into custody, or if the parent refuses to take custody of the minor, the law enforcement agency may transport the minor to her or his residence or proceed as authorized under 1part II of chapter 39.


    • The narrative NEVER establishes that these actions did, in fact, occur AFTER he arrested her other than being directly transported to DJJ.  Did he attempt to contact the family?  When?  How?
    • The department released the full report (probably voluntarily) without redacting her name and address (whether or not that is legal remains to be determined, but, is clearly bad form regardless).

    This is all BEFORE the actual punching her in her face!

    All the cop did was show up, find out she was a minor out after curfew, so he tried to slap cuffs on her, which then led to her resisting and him punching her, spraying her, and taking her to DJJ.

    A good attorney should be able to rip this case apart simply BECAUSE the officers actions, inactions and subsequent report leave too many holes in it for an attorney TO punch through.

    Parent

    oh... and btw... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Michael Gass on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 04:06:14 PM EST
    Despite your crude use of terms, it's actually called reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, which would be necessary to actually arrest her for possession of stolen property, which as far as I can tell she has not been.  He can deprive her of them for a resonable time to determine their status.  Yup.

    All it takes for you to arrest is REASONABLE SUSPICION????  What country do you live in?

    Parent

    police (none / 0) (#159)
    by vikings01 on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:56:31 AM EST
    u know that shows u how much of a woman he is and his capt. stands behind her i refuse to call her  a man because no man has to do all of that to restraine a 15 year old girl black or white ill bet u any amount of money if u see him in a store and jump at him he'll scream like flanders on the simpsons. he's a coward ,punk,sissy,fagg, all of the above and i youread this or anybody that knows him please try me like that and you know what a man is

    Her fault. (none / 0) (#161)
    by bugguts on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:37:53 AM EST
    She shouldn't have resisted arrest. If she hadn't she would be fine. people like her is the reason the put curfew on towns.  

    Her fault 2 (none / 0) (#162)
    by bugguts on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:43:02 AM EST
    Also she tried to bite him thats why he punched her. The cop was just doing his job. She needs to respect the law.

    officer did his job (none / 0) (#163)
    by r0b21 on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 10:40:27 PM EST
    The officer was in line and did his job. She was past curfew, he was cuffing her to take her home. She BIT him (battery) while resisting arrest. he followed procedure and actually was easy on her. When you cuff someone in front they can still assault you and possible run, it is procedure to cuff the hands behind the person. People need to let officer's do their jobs!

    ummm.. no... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Michael Gass on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 10:55:07 PM EST
    She was past curfew, he was cuffing her to take her home.

    First, he was not cuffing her to "take her home".  He was cuffing her during an investigative detention which was for his safety and hers... which, btw, is ludicrous.  She was zero threat to him.

    She BIT him (battery) while resisting arrest.

    She did not bite him while resisting arrest... she bit him while he was trying to cuff her during an investigative detention, which, btw, is not the same as an arrest.

    he followed procedure and actually was easy on her.

    Until we know EXACTLY what the Fort Pierce PD policy states concerning juveniles, we have no idea if he followed procedure or not... and he was hardly "easy" on her.

    When you cuff someone in front they can still assault you and possible run, it is procedure to cuff the hands behind the person. People need to let officer's do their jobs!

    Far be it for me to bring out the obvious, but, obviously a person can "assault" you with an arm twisted up behind their back and layed out over a police car, no?  So, what does handcuffing in front or behind has to do with having the ABILITY to "assault" someone by the standards that some push?  Oh, and they can run too, btw.  He didn't shackle her ankles.

    Let them "do their jobs"?  Sure.  I'm all for cops doing their jobs.  I'm also all for them doing it REASONABLY.

    Parent

    I thought we went over this... (none / 0) (#166)
    by Patrick on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 10:32:17 AM EST
    He was cuffing her during an investigative detention which was for his safety and hers... which, btw, is ludicrous.  She was zero threat to him.

    No one knows who is a threat or not.  Like I said before, there was a likelihood that there was at least one more person out there, whose status is unknown.  Handcuffing is appropriate.

    She did not bite him while resisting arrest... she bit him while he was trying to cuff her during an investigative detention, which, btw, is not the same as an arrest.

    Did you watch the same video?  She was clearly resisting when she bit him.  We already know that "resisting arrest" is a bit if a misnomer, and actually means resisting an officer in the lawful performance of any duty.  Clearly he had the duty to detain her, you even admit such in earlier posts on this thread.    

    Until we know EXACTLY what the Fort Pierce PD policy states concerning juveniles, we have no idea if he followed procedure or not... and he was hardly "easy" on her.

    Of course we do.  From your own post on 10/9/07 @ 11:48..Which according you, and I have no reason to doubt, is a statement from the FPPD Chief.  

    "It is shocking to see that a police officer has had to use that level of force against a child," Baldwin said Thursday night. "But ... my opinion is he responded appropriately and in accordance with our policies.

    And yes, I think the Chief of Police speaks with authority on this matter.  

    So, what does handcuffing in front or behind has to do with having the ABILITY to "assault" someone by the standards that some push?  Oh, and they can run too, btw.  He didn't shackle her ankles.

    Clearly, proper handcuffing reduces the ability of most people to mount and effective attack against a police officer.  Proper handuffing is done with the person's hands behind their backs with their palms facing outward.   I'm not sure, but by the tone of your post it seems you disagree with that.  In general, cuffing a person in front offers them much more freedom of movement to assault or escape, including running.   It's easier to run with your hands in front of you than behind.  

     

    Police Pepper Spray Teen Over Curfew Violation | 160 comments (160 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment