Ugadawgs98

Other news reports say she was charged with DUI and hit and run. I personally do not mind when a drunk refuses the test. It is usually a slurred "I ain't drunk and I ain't takin no test". I always explain to them if they take the test they would have scientific proof to back their claims and show just how wrong I am. They usually just have a blank stare because their intoxication prevents them from thinking logically....they usually just continue their ramblings. The jury always sees right through it.

If there was I am sure it would be out.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

So we have to decide if we believe a confrontational, verbally abusive, physically resistant drunk or an officer who conducted himself professionally throughout the entire portion of the encounter which was on video.

Yup....that is not the normal thing to do if you are trying to hide something.

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.

Exactly...they are not looking for him to be charged for committing a criminal act....on damages in the civil arena for the "policy violations" which resulted in her injuries.

I read a few other articles and the PD says it is because of "policy violations", there is no mention or accusation of a criminal act like she is alleging. If he did violate policy, even a minor one, it is probably the department hanging him out to dry. When it goes to court they can say the officer acted "outside of SOP" and attempt to absolve themselves from the lawsuit.

Hindsight is 20/20. It 99.9% of cases it would have simply recorded them walking out of the room and continued to record an empty room. This was an anomaly the officer did not plan for. We have all made mistakes. I have turned my camera off when I thought things were over only to miss a spontaneous confession. It sucked but I could not change it.

Haha.....there is only one way to control people who are combative....force. It does not matter if they weigh 100lbs or 350lbs. Force never looks pretty and it usually results in injuries...period.

That video is there to record the evaluations as evidence to be presented to a jury. If that department is like all others I know of once the test is complete/refused the inmate is moved to a secure holding cell to await booking. It is very possible he turned off the video because the evaluations were over and he was leaving the room with the inmate.

Yup....she thought she got "her phone call" just like she saw on TV. It is a fine example of a the problems that arise when one is drunk and cannot think logically. ...and they did exactly what they should do with someone with head injuries. Keep them on the ground and as still as possible until EMS arrives.

Sam's

My fingerprints are in the 'system' and I have never been arrested or convicted of a crime. You can add plenty of other LE, military , teachers and numerous other people to that list.

Ahh....but DNA is about identity also....just a different form. Those fingerprints taken at arrest are compared against those left at crime scenes to develop suspects as they have been for decades. I see the differences but the principle is the same, only a new technology exists that did not 20 years ago.

I am aware of that....it would be similar to finger prints since they are both unique identifiers. However....that match alone does not prove guilt just like when fingerprints are matched to a scene...it is still up to a jury after they are presented all of the facts.

Of course...on the other hand what may have set the officer off was the hatefulness he received from the elderly person over such a simple request. It says nothing of his initial request being rude...his response of "because I said so" came after her outburst.

I do not really see how this has anything to do with 'innocent until proven guilty'. DNA is just as likely to clear someone of a crime as it is to convict unless it is actually your DNA that is being matched for a crime.

Sounds like 2 a**holes met up. The officer probably had a lawful reason to ask her to move since most cities have ordinances to prevent people from loitering in front of businesses. She presented an attitude and he responded with the same instead of handling the issue professionally. Had he handled the issue like a professional, calmly explained the reason (even though it is not required) and repeated his lawful request then she would have been convicted and he would not have these problems. Also...she is insinuating racial profiling. How can a black officer racially profile people i

I love it. It gives another week to go on a trip that is not during the holidays or the spring break madness. I hate trying to plan all the trips over the summer. There is nothing better in the cold of February than a cruise to the Caribbean.

No...we do not need some stupid law that a legislator is putting his name on to get some attention in the media. We have a great system..the constituents get to elect people to handle those things.