Officer caught on video slamming student against the floor and dragging them across the room - Polidicks

Like I can't understand how anyone can defend this. The officer was way in the wrong.

[QUOTE=Laferio;49002445]Damn you sound pretty proud[/QUOTE] Considering how many officers have gotten off without indictments for much worse actions lately, yeah, I'm proud for such a quick response and the PD should be proud for realizing how ridiculous this was and taking action without any delay. It might just be confirmation bias, but I feel like there's a trend of more officers getting fired/indicted for the unethical shit they do. Which is great.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49002479]Like I can't understand how anyone can defend this. The officer was way in the wrong.[/QUOTE] Cop was excessive, but people like the girl are literally the fucking worst. I experienced it 5 times in highschool where they don't comply and hold everyone up. The teacher has to enforce the rules period.

Yes he was a little excessive, he could of grabbed her arm but the little shit obviously was not taught respect and now got hit for it. Now she'll probably get a nice lawsuit and won't learn her lesson. I don't think him being fired was necessary just not allowed to work at schools

[QUOTE=dragon1972;49000876]Liability. A teacher can lose his or her job for getting physically involved like this. If the student won't leave, there's little else we can do to resolve the situation. The school can suspend the student, but how do they get her out of the classroom if she won't leave on her own accord?[/QUOTE] That actually entirely depends on the school and on the type of classroom she was in. I've seen teachers physically pick students up who refused to leave their desks and sit them and their desks outside.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;49003161]Cop was excessive, but people like the girl are literally the fucking worst. I experienced it 5 times in highschool where they don't comply and hold everyone up. The teacher has to enforce the rules period.[/QUOTE] Sure. But there's no way this, or anything like this is "enforcing" rules.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49002060]The officer was fired. He broke his training. If you support the officer, just realize that not even the police trainers agree with it[/QUOTE] Source? Because usually it takes a lot longer to "fire" police officers.

[QUOTE=meatwad253;49004027]Source? Because usually it takes a lot longer to "fire" police officers.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/28/us/south-carolina-school-arrest-videos/[/URL] [url]http://abcnews.go.com/US/sc-officer-fired-classroom-confrontation-video/story?id=34792908[/url]

[QUOTE=Mattk50;49001110]Yeah, it was the same as the students who were protesting then got pepper sprayed in the face by that now infamous officer who stood there spraying the shit in their eyes like a big man does to peaceful protesters. Do you think that helps your argument? [/QUOTE] There seems to be this assumption that "peaceful" equates to legal, and it doesn't. Those protesters were on private property, the School wanted them removed, they refused to leave of their own accord and actively resisted being removed by interlocking themselves, so police applied pepper spray to attempt to stop them from resisting. The IA investigation cleared that officer of wrongdoing (though he was still fired): [url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/02/uc-davis-pepper-spray-officer[/url] Here, let's use an analogy. Let's say someone "peacefully" decides to camp on your porch. They aren't hurting anyone, but they still refuse to leave your private property. Do you just go "oh, welp, can't do anything then" or do you call the police who, if the person continues to refuse, physically restrain the person and place them under arrest? [editline]29th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=MisterMooth;49001717]Even with the police department itself admitting it was excessive I'm sure people will continue to defend him.[/QUOTE] Correct. The Sheriff is an elected office. I'll wait for the federal investigation.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49002275]I have no beef with cops, I have beef with the idea that cops can do no wrong. I am fully supportive of police in a general sense. My criticisms are over the frequent lack of accountability for the few bad apples among the bunch, and with the policies and practices that damn low income areas and/or minorities.[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone will disagree with you on any of these points. The majority of claims I've seen you argue have been along the lines of: 1. We don't know the big picture, which is always critical to making informed decisions. 2. The cop probably did use excessive force. 3. The girl was certainly in the wrong because there is an attitude that not complying with officers is okay. You likened this to victim blaming, and in a sense, you're not wrong. However, keep in mind even good officers make mistakes when presented with a stressful situation, and the legal system exists to fight wrong decisions made by police officers. 4. Complying with officers will reduce the amount of physical altercations, period. I am not a die hard fan of the police, but the general attitude towards them seems to be unfair. If I, as a US citizen, am innocent until proven guilty, I like to return the courtesy. Ultimately situations like this are complicated. That said, excessive force or not, situations like this are also usually avoidable. Only the worst of the worst officers will resort to physical harm immediately.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49004686]There seems to be this assumption that "peaceful" equates to legal, and it doesn't. Those protesters were on private property, the School wanted them removed, they refused to leave of their own accord and actively resisted being removed by interlocking themselves, so police applied pepper spray to attempt to stop them from resisting. The IA investigation cleared that officer of wrongdoing (though he was still fired): [url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/02/uc-davis-pepper-spray-officer[/url] Here, let's use an analogy. Let's say someone "peacefully" decides to camp on your porch. They aren't hurting anyone, but they still refuse to leave your private property. Do you just go "oh, welp, can't do anything then" or do you call the police who, if the person continues to refuse, physically restrain the person and place them under arrest? [editline]29th October 2015[/editline] Correct. The Sheriff is an elected office. I'll wait for the federal investigation.[/QUOTE] So to you, not following his training is being a good, respectable officer?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49005084]So to you, not following his training is being a good, respectable officer?[/QUOTE] Because I said that at some point? One person, who is in a cushy elected position (he was making $144,702 a year in 2011), said "I do not feel that the proper procedures were used at that point,". He also made other statements like [quote]"I wanted to throw up; it makes you sick to your stomach," Lott said about his reaction to a video of the arrest, in which one of his officers flipped a young woman's desk backward before dragging her across the floor in a classroom. "You can't watch the video without having those feelings."[/quote] Which, to me, is just there to sound more caring and win the hearts of the outraged parties. I don't care about what he "feels", I care about the facts from a proper investigation, like the one--to my understanding--the FBI is carrying out. Further, there is, at times, gap between within department policy and within the law. The latter is more of what I care about, though the former is obviously easily reason for the officer to be fired. That said, let's be honest, these debates aren't about what's lawful, it's about what each individual morally feels is acceptable or not, given the situation. Some watch that video and think "how awful, that should have never happened" and others think "acceptable"; very few, if anyone here, looks at it objectively as "is this acceptable under the law". In that way, these debates are like several other topics where there is always disagreement because it's a subjective matter. Or maybe that's just me.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49005633]Because I said that at some point? One person, who is in a cushy elected position (he was making $144,702 a year in 2011), said "I do not feel that the proper procedures were used at that point,". He also made other statements like Which, to me, is just there to sound more caring and win the hearts of the outraged parties. I don't care about what he "feels", I care about the facts from a proper investigation, like the one--to my understanding--the FBI is carrying out. Further, there is, at times, gap between within department policy and within the law. The latter is more of what I care about, though the former is obviously easily reason for the officer to be fired.[/QUOTE] you clearly didn't really listen to what he said. He CLEARLY talks about what his officers in charge of training thought of the matter and they felt that he had broken his training, which is why he was fired. He didn't do what he was trained to do. You're defending this guy like he did nothing wrong, so I have to believe that you don't think this was excessive, therefore, you think this was how the situation should be handled. Now, if the people who train the officers think it was wrong, I have to ask, as you've already stated you're above elected officials, are you above the trainers too? Do you outrank them sir?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49005671]you clearly didn't really listen to what he said. He CLEARLY talks about what his officers in charge of training thought of the matter and they felt that he had broken his training, which is why he was fired. He didn't do what he was trained to do. You're defending this guy like he did nothing wrong, so I have to believe that you don't think this was excessive, therefore, you think this was how the situation should be handled. Now, if the people who train the officers think it was wrong, I have to ask, as you've already stated you're above elected officials, are you above the trainers too? Do you outrank them sir?[/QUOTE] I stand corrected. I hadn't listened to his speech I was going off of the quotes in the news articles.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;48999433]Truancy is illegal and police normally deal with that sort of thing. 15 days is a fucking lot.[/QUOTE] Then the "right" to education doesn't really become a right if you can't refuse that right, don't you think? If anything it should be classified as a freedom if it can't be refused.

[QUOTE=Cocacoladude;49001720]A cops job isn't to be your fucking buddy. If they give you an order, don't argue with it. That can be done later, just listen and deal with it later. That said, force was on the excessive side.[/QUOTE] what am i supposed to do this? thanks i know, cops are dangerous [QUOTE=catbarf;49001735]It's pretty sad how you are literally incapable of understanding a hyperbolic example when other people do it ('Will they let her stay after closure? Where does it end?') after you've been making a shitposty analogy about throwing a toddler out the fucking window for refusing to eat vegetables. That's on top of continuously and deliberately misrepresenting damn near anything anyone has said to you. Someone says they don't see it the way you do, [i]clearly[/i] they're defending the use of judo against children as SOP. Someone says it's a bad idea to physically fight back against a cop, [i]clearly[/i] they're a police brutality and rape apologist. A++ trolling right there. I didn't even disagree with much of anything you're saying, this cop was clearly in the wrong, but you are being such a colossal prick that I almost want to disagree with you just on principle.[/QUOTE] he was joking and they were fucking serious about the cop being in the right about fucking suplexing a girl for being pouty stellar grade objectivity from you too man

[QUOTE=valkery;48998255]Eh, fuck her. She didn't want to go willingly, so she got dumped and cuffed. Guy used as much force as was warranted.[/QUOTE] I think the force was used before the type of desks they use, they are pretty hard to get out and destroy your back.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49004686]There seems to be this assumption that "peaceful" equates to legal, and it doesn't. Those protesters were on private property, the School wanted them removed, they refused to leave of their own accord and actively resisted being removed by interlocking themselves, so police applied pepper spray to attempt to stop them from resisting. The IA investigation cleared that officer of wrongdoing (though he was still fired): [url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/02/uc-davis-pepper-spray-officer[/url] Here, let's use an analogy. Let's say someone "peacefully" decides to camp on your porch. They aren't hurting anyone, but they still refuse to leave your private property. Do you just go "oh, welp, can't do anything then" or do you call the police who, if the person continues to refuse, physically restrain the person and place them under arrest? [/QUOTE] I shouldn't need to break out the history books to communicate that peaceful yet unlawful protest has been extremely important to the advancement of our society. Why you assume i equate peaceful with lawful is beyond me. Today we have the publicization of private property such as in malls, (some open) university grounds, many places that act as public until it's favorable for people to be removed. I would suggest changes to the laws surrounding such public yet not spaces. This would separate them from "someone protesting on your porch". At some point, if you allow private property to run unchecked you'll get into situations where large self contained areas owned by private entities are more or less enforcing their own laws. Scale it up a tad past mall and into "city", we get the plot of countless dystopian fictions. Boil it down, and it stems from the basic incompatibilities of pure democracy and pure capitalism.

I dont get how a passive aggresive, strawmanning wanker like BDA gets to be a mod when he always uses massive hyperbole and makes every argument into some emotional trap where anything you say against him turns into you becoming some kind of psychopath/racist/xenophobe whatever. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

[url]http://madworldnews.com/applaud-termination-officer/[/url]

Honestly, I don't give a fuck what anyone says anymore. The officers in charge of training officers said he didn't do it right. If you're above them, good for you, but no one here, or on the internet, really is going to be above them, so nope, I think it's pretty clear cut what the case is, if the people who train him, know best.

There are many ways to deal with a student not getting up from her desk. He chose the absolute worst thing to do imo. You wonder why she had issues respecting a cops authority, and then a cop does THAT to her?

[QUOTE=ColdAsRice;49009692]I dont get how a passive aggresive, strawmanning wanker like BDA gets to be a mod when he always uses massive hyperbole and makes every argument into some emotional trap where anything you say against him turns into you becoming some kind of psychopath/racist/xenophobe whatever.[/QUOTE] Except that's not what he's doing? If you have a problem with his arguments then counter them, and if you have a problem with him as a mod then report him :v: [editline]29th October 2015[/editline] Like you're literally no better than what you're claiming he's doing

[QUOTE=Keychain;49009838][url]http://madworldnews.com/applaud-termination-officer/[/url][/QUOTE] The article misses the point that two wrongs don't make a right. Both were in the wrong from the view of the Sheriff, and it was said as much. [editline]29th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=ThePanther;49009965]There are many ways to deal with a student not getting up from her desk. He chose the absolute worst thing to do imo. You wonder why she had issues respecting a cops authority, and then a cop does THAT to her?[/QUOTE] I think there's a big difference between respecting police and respecting the authority the police have, in that the authority police have exists inherently if they are acting in a lawful manner (and even if they aren't, better to comply anyway and go to court). If an individual wants to pretend the police don't have that authority, then it leads down this physical confrontation road. I really don't understand the mindset of seeing all of these cases where people have been hurt or killed because they don't obey police (right or wrong) and still choose to put themselves in a similar situation. Whatever point you're trying to make isn't worth suffering a permanent injury or dying over.

8 pages of people saying the cop choke slammed her and it's not even in the video. You guys need some WWE in your life.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;49011256]8 pages of people saying the cop choke slammed her and it's not even in the video. You guys need some WWE in your life.[/QUOTE] All cops should now attend WWE stage training and carry quick-deploy tables with attached turnbuckles to power-slam suspects through.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49005633]Because I said that at some point? One person, who is in a cushy elected position (he was making $144,702 a year in 2011), said "I do not feel that the proper procedures were used at that point,". He also made other statements like Which, to me, is just there to sound more caring and win the hearts of the outraged parties. I don't care about what he "feels", I care about the facts from a proper investigation, like the one--to my understanding--the FBI is carrying out. Further, there is, at times, gap between within department policy and within the law. The latter is more of what I care about, though the former is obviously easily reason for the officer to be fired. That said, let's be honest, these debates aren't about what's lawful, it's about what each individual morally feels is acceptable or not, given the situation. Some watch that video and think "how awful, that should have never happened" and others think "acceptable"; very few, if anyone here, looks at it objectively as "is this acceptable under the law". In that way, these debates are like several other topics where there is always disagreement because it's a subjective matter. Or maybe that's just me.[/QUOTE] Love how that quote says "You cant watch the video without having those feelings" And im just sitting here laughing at the girl cause i know how fucking stupid she was, Do not resist a officer, follow what they or the teacher says, and you wont get hurt, easy as that, It makes me smile that the officer did that, Am i a prick and a asshole, pretty much yea, but atleast i have common sense to follow authority when it is needed.

I find it bizarre that a police officer even had to be called. We used to have situations exactly like this in my old school pretty regularly with misbehaving students and no one ever had to call any police officers. Also truthfully I do feel like people on facepunch seem to attempt to justify police actions very aggressively. like, I'm not anti police in any way, but no matter what the police do when it ends up here, people will refuse to entertain for a second that the police officer committed any wrongdoing. I just find it odd that after the history of corruption and malpractice in police forces, people still refuse to entertain the possibility. I understand not assuming the police are wrong every time, but people on Facepunch seem eager to defend police without even properly looking at the facts, the exact sort of thing they criticize the opposite side for. Surely the correct approach would be to take neutral ground and wait for facts?

Has this been posted yet? Remember, more info is always nice. [video=youtube;SmP-KuHHMnI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmP-KuHHMnI[/video]

[QUOTE=Fort83;49000429]what happened to respecting authority and complying with an officer instead of refusing and resisting lmao[/QUOTE] this isn't some new fad lmao. Teenagers have pretty much always resisted or resented authority, it's a huge part of growing up. Due to the rapid changes you're undergoing around that time, and the general desire to be more independent, you're going to see "fuck tha police" kind of thoughts in teenagers. Not even taking into account their lack of fully developed reasoning, it takes a few more years for a teenage to develop the mental capacity to actually understand that their actions could have consequences that go against them fully. There's a reason teenagers usually do dumb, reckless shit, it's because they are mentally incapable of foresight of the negative outcomes of a lot of things. This is why we have legal consent ages, because kids and teenagers will do some dumb fucking stuff without being able to contemplate the consequences fully as a rule of thumb. Consequential thinking is a sizable area of research for psychologists.