Jump to content
Paulding.com

How many bad police officers does it take to beat up a woman?


Recommended Posts

Everyone can form their own opinion. Do you think the second he stopped video, he could have lost his self control? Maybe? If he had left the video on and used common sense, he might still have a job.

He did use common sense... he turned off the camera at the appropriate time as is standard procedure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Now I see why you are filled with so much hate when someone disagree's with you. Hopefully the station where this took place can look closely at their policies and make a change.   Now since you we

I really don't understand you being a smartass to me, I see a few you peeps want to have someone to bitch at that has a different outlook on things, there are always to sides to every story. After all

She must have been pretty drunk to to have hit her face directly on the floor like that. Kinda looks like to me she fell more then once. Once on the right side, somehow avoiding directly hitting the

Posted Images

And those injuries could easily be a frustarted cop beating the crap out of a women. No one will every know, because the tape was stopped. Him stopping the tape speaks volumes to me, if he would let it roll he might still have a job.

There are two people that know. Those injuries are classic for what really happened.

 

There are those who hate cops and will ALWAYS post things to discredit them. nuff said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone can form their own opinion. Do you think the second he stopped video, he could have lost his self control? Maybe? If he had left the video on and used common sense, he might still have a job.

 

Doubtful...from my experience he would have stopped the video (since they were leaving the room) and walked back across the room to escort the lady to another area. It is normal to stop the tape because the interview was over since that is not a surveillance camera, its only role is preserving evidence of the DUI arrest testing.

 

Given her prior attempts to physically pull away to free herself I would say it is likely it happened again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JUST so you know, once the lady refused the breathalizer, it is ROUTINE to turn off the camera and save that for evidence. That is the entire reason for the video! In case the person makes a statement or refuses to take it. That was the point the video was turned off. Turning it back on was to document her injuries, that is protocal as well.

 

 

I still say he should have left it on. Or had another officer in the room. He should have used better judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone can form their own opinion. Do you think the second he stopped video, he could have lost his self control? Maybe? If he had left the video on and used common sense, he might still have a job.

I think he lost his job because the entire thing got blew out of proportion because of the media reports. The police chief had no choice at that point. If he had not, the entire department would have lost credibilty along with the chief himself.

 

I think the fact the police ARE NOT PURSUING charges against that officer speaks volumes as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two people that know. Those injuries are classic for what really happened.

 

There are those who hate cops and will ALWAYS post things to discredit them. nuff said.

 

 

Excatly, cops do lose their patience sometimes. As well as any other profession. It happens, I find it better to always be on the safe side and have your words backed up, the video would have allowed him to keep his job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excatly, cops do lose their patience sometimes. As well as any other profession. It happens, I find it better to always be on the safe side and have your words backed up, the video would have allowed him to keep his job.

yep, cops do lose thier patience but it doesn't appear to be that in this case. She looks just like someone who fell directly on her face. The only evidence to back it up is the previously recorded incident. What we don't know is this could be standard practice to remove the tape for evidence while transporting the prisoner. Just so happens that the incident occured after the tape stopage. Her case would be more solid if her behavior didn't convict her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or he should have consulted his crystal ball so he would have known she was going to take a spill.

 

 

I really don't understand you being a smartass to me, I see a few you peeps want to have someone to bitch at that has a different outlook on things, there are always to sides to every story. After all the stories in the media about police officers they need to be careful and on their toes. The world has came to the untiltled syndrome, police officers should always be able to back themselves with proof, which in this case would have been the video.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand you being a smartass to me, I see a few you peeps want to have someone to bitch at that has a different outlook on things, there are always to sides to every story. After all the stories in the media about police officers they need to be careful and on their toes. The world has came to the untiltled syndrome, police officers should always be able to back themselves with proof, which in this case would have been the video.

 

 

I am not being a smartass....I am simply tired of people thinking that just because there is not video that they they can inject anything they want as to what 'possibly' happened.

 

Unfortunately in the world of a police officer...we cannot always back ourselves with 'proof' that you can watch from the comfort of you lounge chair. We take an oath and go do jobs that most people will not or could not do. Fact of the matter is....I have been falsely complained on numerous times just for doing my job. Those complaints ranged from simple confusion on the law, exaggerations, to completely made up lies. Every officer I know has went through the same things.

 

So...knowing that, after viewing how the officer was conduction himself and knowing why the officer did certain things I am willing to believe his version of events than I am the drunk girl who was doing everything she could to be disruptive.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not being a smartass....I am simply tired of people thinking that just because there is not video that they they can inject anything they want as to what 'possibly' happened.

 

Unfortunately in the world of a police officer...we cannot always back ourselves with 'proof' that you can watch from the comfort of you lounge chair. We take an oath and go do jobs that most people will not or could not do. Fact of the matter is....I have been falsely complained on numerous times just for doing my job. Those complaints ranged from simple confusion on the law, exaggerations, to completely made up lies. Every officer I know has went through the same things.

 

So...knowing that, after viewing how the officer was conduction himself and knowing why the officer did certain things I am willing to believe his version of events than I am the drunk girl who was doing everything she could to be disruptive.

 

 

Now I see why you are filled with so much hate when someone disagree's with you. Hopefully the station where this took place can look closely at their policies and make a change.

 

Now since you were so honest, I will be. And for the record I am not being rude or any disrespect. you made a choice to be a police officer, you need to own that choice. There will be different opinions that are not going to agree with you, but you throwing up your hands and saying "police are always picked on" isn't going to change anyone's thinking. You are so quick to think I am a cop hater, because I see this as a lesson. I will now bow out, so you and Cowa can continue to ruffle each other's feathers.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I see why you are filled with so much hate when someone disagree's with you. Hopefully the station where this took place can look closely at their policies and make a change.

 

Now since you were so honest, I will be. And for the record I am not being rude or any disrespect. you made a choice to be a police officer, you need to own that choice. There will be different opinions that are not going to agree with you, but you throwing up your hands and saying "police are always picked on" isn't going to change anyone's thinking. You are so quick to think I am a cop hater, because I see this as a lesson. I will now bow out, so you and Cowa can continue to ruffle each other's feathers.

 

 

Oh...I own that choice everyday. I go to work and attempt to make my community a bit safer. However....it is frustrating that people seem to think it is okay to judge, ridicule and pick apart everything we do using hindsight. We make decisions in a seconds that lawyers and judges will debate for months.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The girl should have been a bit more cooperative at the beginning. The body slam to the wall was not needed by the officer and then turning off the tape to me is what I call him hiding the evidence of what he had planned to do to bring her in line. Now it is her word against his.

 

He should have had no reason to turn the tape off... period.

 

He had trouble controlling a 120lb un-cooperative women and that shows his lack of control.

 

He is in control from the point of the hand cuffs on, she did not help things, but he abused his power and is not better then a bully.

 

You really have no clue about dealing with drunk prisoners. Women or men. I have told many that I would drop the charges and take them home myself if they would just be quite for 2 minutes. I have never taken one home, because they can't do as asked. :glare: The worst drunks are the women just because you do not want to hurt or even threaten them with the possibilty of force.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While you may think 'her face was pounded in", repeating it does not make it true. Those injuries could easily be the result of a drunk who has an unbroken fall while handcuffed where her face struck the concrete floor.

 

That could also be the policy violation.....if you handcuff someone who is intoxicated you increase your liability of keeping them from being injured due to their condition. When he had to forcefully restrain her from leaving the room he should have cuffed her and immediately removed her from the room to a secure holding cell.

 

True. A fall resulting in a broken nose will generally result in black eyes. Heck I looked like that after a soccer practice once. And police trining. that one required 7 stiches. Neither time did someone "pound my face in, but the results were the same. And then again after the surgery that I had to fix my nose from all those breaks. :rofl: :rofl:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, what folks forget to realize, if they don't resist, force will not be neccessary. Plain and simple. However, after watching many years of cop shows, most of those who are combatant early on are the same ones who have had previous run ins with the law. Same goes to those who defend the actions of the "arrested".

I agree with you and Jack Reacher in this case. Some people always look for the cops to be the bad person. That makes my blood boil, I was married to a police officer for 23 years, we are divorced now but believe me what you see in a interview with a drunk or what you hear on the news is almost never as it actually is!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh...I own that choice everyday. I go to work and attempt to make my community a bit safer. However....it is frustrating that people seem to think it is okay to judge, ridicule and pick apart everything we do using hindsight. We make decisions in a seconds that lawyers and judges will debate for months.

And I thank you. I am glad there are people like you out there and I appreciate you everyday for helping to keep my family and I safe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While you may think 'her face was pounded in", repeating it does not make it true. Those injuries could easily be the result of a drunk who has an unbroken fall while handcuffed where her face struck the concrete floor.

 

That could also be the policy violation.....if you handcuff someone who is intoxicated you increase your liability of keeping them from being injured due to their condition. When he had to forcefully restrain her from leaving the room he should have cuffed her and immediately removed her from the room to a secure holding cell.

I see it repeatedly said she was intoxicated. She was not convicted of DUI or DWI. As it turns out she was not intoxicated. She certainly doesn't appear intoxicated. So if a police officer suspects you of being intoxicated you are automatically convicted without judge, jury or trial?

 

You really have no clue about dealing with drunk prisoners. Women or men. I have told many that I would drop the charges and take them home myself if they would just be quite for 2 minutes. I have never taken one home, because they can't do as asked. :glare: The worst drunks are the women just because you do not want to hurt or even threaten them with the possibilty of force.

Hello? She was accused of intoxication not convicted of DUI or DWI. She wasn't intoxicated. I now see how easily misinformation is spread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not being a smartass....I am simply tired of people thinking that just because there is not video that they they can inject anything they want as to what 'possibly' happened.

 

Unfortunately in the world of a police officer...we cannot always back ourselves with 'proof' that you can watch from the comfort of you lounge chair. We take an oath and go do jobs that most people will not or could not do. Fact of the matter is....I have been falsely complained on numerous times just for doing my job. Those complaints ranged from simple confusion on the law, exaggerations, to completely made up lies. Every officer I know has went through the same things.

 

So...knowing that, after viewing how the officer was conduction himself and knowing why the officer did certain things I am willing to believe his version of events than I am the drunk girl who was doing everything she could to be disruptive.

Another one repeating misinformation. The woman was accused of being intoxicated. She was not charged or convicted of any form of intoxication or associated crime. So the bad officer gets the benefit of any doubt in every instance? Sorry I've seen many cases where officers have abused their authority. I don't give anyone a pass because they wear a gun and a badge. I have a police officer in my family and an in-law that is a detective. I don't hate cops. I do think that bad cops that can't handle the stress of the job should find another occupation.

Edited by COWA
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one repeating misinformation. The woman was accused of being intoxicated. She was not charged or convicted of any form of intoxication or associated crime. So the bad officer gets the benefit of any doubt in every instance? Sorry I've seen many cases where officers have abused their authority. I don't give anyone a pass because they wear a gun and a badge. I have a police officer in my family and an in-law that is a detective. I don't hate cops. I do think that bad cops that can't handle the stress of the job should find another occupation.

Another one "spreading misinformation" would be you COWA. You keep insisting the cop was a "bad cop". The only things we know was he turned off the tape when she refused to take the breathalyzer. At that point he was following procedure. HE TURNED THE CAMERA BACK ON WHEN SHE FELL on her face. That was to record her injuries. AGAIN, he had had done that WHY would he turn the camera back on?? That ultimately is what got reported. So, it is "misinformantion" for you to assume in your mind he beat her up causing the problem. Many here have told you that exact same thing would happen if you fall on your face. I would post the pic of my Dad's face when he fell at the hospital trying to get out of bed, but I don't think he would want me to. It looked almost exactly like this lady's face, black eyes, stitches and all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one "spreading misinformation" would be you COWA. You keep insisting the cop was a "bad cop". The only things we know was he turned off the tape when she refused to take the breathalyzer. At that point he was following procedure. HE TURNED THE CAMERA BACK ON WHEN SHE FELL on her face. That was to record her injuries. AGAIN, he had had done that WHY would he turn the camera back on?? That ultimately is what got reported. So, it is "misinformantion" for you to assume in your mind he beat her up causing the problem. Many here have told you that exact same thing would happen if you fall on your face. I would post the pic of my Dad's face when he fell at the hospital trying to get out of bed, but I don't think he would want me to. It looked almost exactly like this lady's face, black eyes, stitches and all.

Thank you satisfied for trying so hard to show an irrational person where they are wrong. We've tried for months to no avail but your efforts are commended. Stay strong in reality and keep posting the obvious. Maybe one day, the light will be on for those in the dark. :drinks:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand you being a smartass to me, I see a few you peeps want to have someone to bitch at that has a different outlook on things, there are always to sides to every story. After all the stories in the media about police officers they need to be careful and on their toes. The world has came to the untiltled syndrome, police officers should always be able to back themselves with proof, which in this case would have been the video.

 

Maybe if folks stopped breaking the law and being a dumb@$*^% then police officer's wouldn't be put in positions like this one. It is a shame how quick people put the blame on cops. I suppose you think Lt. Vogt was murdered and it was his fault as well?! RIDICULOUS!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether she was legally drunk or not, she obviously had been drinking, and she was frankly acting like a total ass. The officer tells you to sit down and answer questions - you DO IT. After, you ASK for a call. If they deny you your rights, you take it up with a lawyer LATER. You don't flop and flip around like an 8 year old from the ghetto who's after "da man".

 

Since I have ZERO tolerance for drunks, I could care less if this chick lost a few teeth, even if the cop did do it. I personally love to see drunks feel some pain for their stupidity. Maybe if anything this might teach Darla-Mae to lay off the booz when she's driving around (though I doubt it). But I do agree there should have been more than one officer in there and the tape shouldn't have been shut off, if he wants to prove he didn't do it if he didn't. While I might take great joy out of smackin' a drunk, an officer does have certain codes to go by, and if he did break any of those (even if I think they were justified given the subject), he'll have to answer for them. This would be a great argument for the use of a stun gun, too. Zap - she's down. End of story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether she was legally drunk or not, she obviously had been drinking, and she was frankly acting like a total ass. The officer tells you to sit down and answer questions - you DO IT. After, you ASK for a call. If they deny you your rights, you take it up with a lawyer LATER. You don't flop and flip around like an 8 year old from the ghetto who's after "da man".

 

Since I have ZERO tolerance for drunks, I could care less if this chick lost a few teeth, even if the cop did do it. I personally love to see drunks feel some pain for their stupidity. Maybe if anything this might teach Darla-Mae to lay off the booz when she's driving around (though I doubt it). But I do agree there should have been more than one officer in there and the tape shouldn't have been shut off, if he wants to prove he didn't do it if he didn't. While I might take great joy out of smackin' a drunk, an officer does have certain codes to go by, and if he did break any of those (even if I think they were justified given the subject), he'll have to answer for them. This would be a great argument for the use of a stun gun, too. Zap - she's down. End of story.

 

And it is fun to watch. :rofl:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it repeatedly said she was intoxicated. She was not convicted of DUI or DWI. As it turns out she was not intoxicated. She certainly doesn't appear intoxicated. So if a police officer suspects you of being intoxicated you are automatically convicted without judge, jury or trial?

 

 

Hello? She was accused of intoxication not convicted of DUI or DWI. She wasn't intoxicated. I now see how easily misinformation is spread.

COWA, becuase you keep repeating this, I re-watched the video. Do you know who said she wasn't intoxicated? Her lawyer. Of COURSE he's going to say that. She refused a breathalyzer test. Then she fell, busted her face on the concrete floor and broke her nose. She already had an injury to her lip - at the beginning of the vidoe, she is holding a rag to her lip. If they finally got to do a test of some sort, by the time they were able to do it, I am sure her levels were within the legal limit since she acted a fool at the station, had to be carried off in an ambulance, etc.

 

Here is an example from WebMD of what it looks like when you have a broken nose. Trust me, I have seen them way worse then this, too.

post-37666-126659231799.jpg

Edited by MrsB
Link to post
Share on other sites

The officer believed her to be intoxicated, she was acting as many intoxicated individuals do. The story does say that she was not but that doesn't change the fact that the officer believed her to be, based on her actions.

 

She wasn't denied her rights. Just because you're allowed to make a phone call doesn't mean you're allowed to make it whenever you want ... no matter what you see on TV.

 

Anyone who believes the black eyes aren't a normal occurrence with a broken nose has clearly never seen anyone with a well broken nose, or anyone who has had a nose job, for that matter.

 

It would be nice if you knew what the policy violation(s) was. No way do I believe that she was beaten by the officer or she and her attorney would be shouting it from thee rooftops. My guess it that it was a policy along the lines of getting another officer to assist with a belligerent suspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The officer believed her to be intoxicated, she was acting as many intoxicated individuals do.

 

As a matter of fact I would have insisted that I was intoxicated. I wouldn't want anyone watching that video to think I was actually such an idiot while sober. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

COWA, becuase you keep repeating this, I re-watched the video. Do you know who said she wasn't intoxicated? Her lawyer. Of COURSE he's going to say that. She refused a breathalyzer test. Then she fell, busted her face on the concrete floor and broke her nose. She already had an injury to her lip - at the beginning of the vidoe, she is holding a rag to her lip. If they finally got to do a test of some sort, by the time they were able to do it, I am sure her levels were within the legal limit since she acted a fool at the station, had to be carried off in an ambulance, etc.

 

Here is an example from WebMD of what it looks like when you have a broken nose. Trust me, I have seen them way worse then this, too.

That reminds me of a cute little nursery rhyme

 

Nose on the ground,

Nose on the ground,

Looking like FOOOOOOL,

Wicha nose on the ground.

 

 

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Edited by Blazing Saddles
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe for one minute that lady got those injures from falling on her face...

 

just by the way the officer was handling her before he turned the tape off.

 

what is the use of having the recording stopped? he should have left it on period.

 

 

if it is policy to turn it off after a certain time, then the policy needs to be changed.

 

to protect the person in custody and the officer..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe for one minute that lady got those injures from falling on her face...

 

just by the way the officer was handling her before he turned the tape off.

 

what is the use of having the recording stopped? he should have left it on period.

 

 

if it is policy to turn it off after a certain time, then the policy needs to be changed.

 

to protect the person in custody and the officer..

 

Just some thoughts.

 

1. When a person strikes someone in the face and causes such damage (or any boney portion of the body), it not only leaves marks on the Hitee, but the hiter, for lack of a better term. :D

 

2. People in custody don't typically hesitate to claim they have been struck, beaten or whatever people decide to call it. I'm still in the dark about that because it wasn't in the youtube video. In the interst of the officer's department, I believe it VERY likely they would have either tried to support or denounce such a claim by AT LEAST examining the officer's hands. Now, if he did indeed strike the arrestee, and this is important...WHILE SHE WAS RESTRAINED, then that would have been a very good reason to terminate him.

 

3. Unfortunately, not every movement of the officer and arrestee can be on video unless someone follows them around with a camera. From what I underestand, the officer still had to transport her to the jail. There is no camera pointed to the back seat of the vehicle, so if he was bent on "teaching her a lesson", there would have been a better opportunity for it than deliberately shutting of the recording, slugging her and then turning it back on. That itself raises more questions than it's worth.

 

In these cases as in criminal cases, there is usually far more to the story than is made known to the public. It's possible the officer was terminated for this incident alone, but as Paul Harvey may say..."The Rest of the Story" would be intersting.

 

It was the late 70's when I lived up north, but I recall seeing the report of a local TV Host and his picture looked far worse than this lady. The report said he had been wearing tight jeans and walking down the street in Cincinnati with his hands shoved in his pockets. He tripped and fell one the sidewalk, striking his face. His jaw and nose were broken. It's VERY easy for me to buy the fact that this woman did not remain seated, got up and fell flat on her face.

 

Again, just my thoughts. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some thoughts.

 

1. When a person strikes someone in the face and causes such damage (or any boney portion of the body), it not only leaves marks on the Hitee, but the hiter, for lack of a better term. :D

 

2. People in custody don't typically hesitate to claim they have been struck, beaten or whatever people decide to call it. I'm still in the dark about that because it wasn't in the youtube video. In the interst of the officer's department, I believe it VERY likely they would have either tried to support or denounce such a claim by AT LEAST examining the officer's hands. Now, if he did indeed strike the arrestee, and this is important...WHILE SHE WAS RESTRAINED, then that would have been a very good reason to terminate him.

 

3. Unfortunately, not every movement of the officer and arrestee can be on video unless someone follows them around with a camera. From what I underestand, the officer still had to transport her to the jail. There is no camera pointed to the back seat of the vehicle, so if he was bent on "teaching her a lesson", there would have been a better opportunity for it than deliberately shutting of the recording, slugging her and then turning it back on. That itself raises more questions than it's worth.

 

In these cases as in criminal cases, there is usually far more to the story than is made known to the public. It's possible the officer was terminated for this incident alone, but as Paul Harvey may say..."The Rest of the Story" would be intersting.

 

It was the late 70's when I lived up north, but I recall seeing the report of a local TV Host and his picture looked far worse than this lady. The report said he had been wearing tight jeans and walking down the street in Cincinnati with his hands shoved in his pockets. He tripped and fell one the sidewalk, striking his face. His jaw and nose were broken. It's VERY easy for me to buy the fact that this woman did not remain seated, got up and fell flat on her face.

 

Again, just my thoughts. :D

 

Earl Lee isn't the Sherriff over there (where this video was shot)is he? :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

3. Unfortunately, not every movement of the officer and arrestee can be on video unless someone follows them around with a camera. From what I underestand, the officer still had to transport her to the jail. There is no camera pointed to the back seat of the vehicle, so if he was bent on "teaching her a lesson", there would have been a better opportunity for it than deliberately shutting of the recording, slugging her and then turning it back on. That itself raises more questions than it's worth.

 

 

 

Even though it has been explained several times...people still do not seem to understand what the camera is for.

 

It is not a surveilance camera he turned off, it is a camera which is used to record the DUI tests for evidence. When that test is over or refused as in this case, the tape is taken as evidence as you leave the room to preserve the chain of custody. Since she refused the test and had to be placed back into handcuffs you would presume they were preparing to leave the room. It is only logical for him to remove the tape to take with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though it has been explained several times...people still do not seem to understand what the camera is for.

 

It is not a surveilance camera he turned off, it is a camera which is used to record the DUI tests for evidence. When that test is over or refused as in this case, the tape is taken as evidence as you leave the room to preserve the chain of custody. Since she refused the test and had to be placed back into handcuffs you would presume they were preparing to leave the room. It is only logical for him to remove the tape to take with him.

 

If it was like the tapes we used to use, we had to take them with us. Put them in whatever car was assigned and everything. Other than that they were locked up. It was assigned to that officer and no one else had anything on it.

 

But I do wonder if there is another tape from inhouse security cameras?

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...