Three Houston school cops brutally tackled Ixel Perez...
 

...and knelt on her head. Discuss.

You probably have the story from CNET, here: http://www.cnet.com/news/cops-forcef...up-cell-phone/

The Daily Caller also ran with the story a couple of days ago, but they have the number of cops as 2, not 3, from what I see in google. Didn't read their story.

The notable thing is the 70-lb was violently subdued for 'failure to comply.' She had done no violence and threatened no violence. The police had been called to the school because the girl had refused to surrender a cell phone. They allegedly went to painful violence as their first response to the situation, with no dialog whatsoever.

This seems to me to reflect either an irrational habit of violence on the part of the officers, or perhaps a goal of physically punishing the girl, summarily, for her defiance. Either way, the potential for serious injury inherent in a forcible takedown, as well as the physical insult over a petty discipline issue, argue that such practices by the police come to a screeching halt. If the girl does not physically resist, there is no justification for physically assaulting her.

Yes...Only two police restrained the girl. A 3rd was present at the scene. My comment on three was alluding to the exaggerations in the accounts of the story. I suspect the 70-lb thing is also an exaggeration. There's also the story that one of the police was kneeling on Ixel's head.

The student was forced to the floor, held down, and handcuffed. The student had not offered or threatened violence.

Is there any exaggeration in this description, to your knowledge? If not, I stand by my previous comments.

The exaggerations are not in that sentence. They're in the other information offered in the various accounts. The facts that she was forced to the floor, held down, and handcuffed are bad enough. The exaggerations are about the number of police, the size of the girl, the knee to the head, and most likely the events that led up to the arrest.

Why a fine?

I don't have a problem with taking them away.

They would take away shit from us back in the day too.

We didn't have phones of course, usually it was pocket knives if you got caught playing with them. But we never had to pay a fine when they gave them back. I swear to God everybody has their hands out for money these days. :mad:

Cops are out of control.

We need some tough federal legislation to put a stop to this shit.

Check this video out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXw9pYuU02g

Video is everywhere. Maybe the cops who do these things feel invincible.

Or that they have been phoned by a rightful authority which has already been defied?

Remember: simple compliance with an advertised (and reasonable) societal request brought police into the picture. Escalation is caused by the offender. Situation rectified is caused by involving police.

Distasteful? Perhaps.

Justified by entitled dumbassery on the part of the populace? Almost always.

Comply or be subdued. Intellectually, there can be strategic reasons to not comply. Phone rights aren't one of them.

Would folks be so upset if this was a 270 lb male? As the responding officer, you don't get to choose what you're dealing with, only that you have a job to do.

We can debate what that job is, but Step One is compliance. Serious: what if she had a gun?

You just don't know and this is a school, right? :rolleyes:

So treat a little 10th grade girl with a cell phone in the same manner as a 270 lbs. Dude with a gun? :rolleyes:

One thing I'll say about you Zeke, you're always predictable.

Why are cell phones being confisicated. They do not do that out here in California where I live. The bottom line is that people under 18 do not the same rights adults have. Just think of all the kids being funnelled into juvenile detention for stupid stuff.

1. It was a rhetorical query.
2. The answer is "yes," until compliance.
3. Anyone who has actually dealt with such things... :rolleyes:

That's the point: you never know.

Compliance first, questions later.

Yes...one can say she should have just complied and all would've been fine. That's not always how a young brain works. A 270-pound guy needs to understand the reality of his situation. A police officer dealing with a high school girl needs to understand his.

He does, which is that she could -- readily -- be as dangerous as a 270 lb guy.

They are confiscated for being used during class, texting is what used to be passing notes in class.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Like I said you cops are out of control.

We need some tough federal legislation to bring you back into line.

Hopefully, with the proliferation of video the public will get enough of your shit and demand that something be done.

1. You know nothing about me or otherwise.
2. This problem 100% starts with the student.
3. It 100% ended with police enforcement of school policy.

If you take umbrage, blame the policy or the student.

Actually I do.

You've shown your ass plenty of times on this forum.

If by "ass" you mean points you ineffectively, at best, refute...

If a police officer inside the confines of a school campus has to react to a school girl as if she's is potentially armed and dangerous when all she is doing is resisting having her phone taken from her, the police don't get how to be a human being.

I can see where cell phones can be pretty disruptive in a classroom.

I would hope that the teacher would start with "please turn your phone off and put it away while class is in session" Then if the kid didn't comply I think taking it away temporarily until the end of the day is appropriate. I don't agree with having to pay a fine to get it back.

So I need to refute your argument that a small (I'm gonna say 90 lbs, I think 70 was a bit low) high school girl with a cell phone can be just as dangerous as a 270 lbs. Dude with a gun?:rolleyes:

What's she gonna do?

Use that cell phone to detonate an IED like they do in Iraq and Afghanistan?:rolleyes:

I will be rather surprised if the girl's parents don't bring a civil lawsuit.

Sure he is, we're all assholes around here but at least Zeke doesn't lead with his chin, no offense intended. ;)

Your point has validity but -- in today's society -- you don't get to be a human being in law enforcement.

That's why some folks get out of the job.

Can you prove she didn't have gun? :rolleyes:

You, again, are out of your depth.

Against whom?

1. The school policy?
2. Enforcement of that policy?

The issue here is lack of compliance prior to and at the arrival of requested enforcement.

None taken.

I can take a punch. :)

As can I.

No issues, here.

What fucken planet are you on?:rolleyes:

Unless you have actual evidence, she's as dangerous as a 270 lb guy with a gun only in your imagination.

So it's your position that a cop's imagination justifies violence against a subject? Well, might he imagine she had razors hidden under her fingernails, coated with deadly curare poison? And she could, couldn't she? He'd therefore be justified in stepping back out of reach and shooting her down!

Good shoot, right? She COULD have posed an immediate and deadly danger....:eek:

I dispute the idea that the smallest, non-violent, lack-of-compliance requires and justifies an immediate violent response.

The cop might at the very least have said "surrender your phone or you will be arrested."

If she didn't surrender the phone, he might at the very least have said "turn around and put your hands behind your back."

Then he can start getting physical, if she didn't comply with that instruction, that is, forcibly position her and apply the cuffs. But not 'throw to the floor and subdue' unless she actually takes some positive action to assault the officer, eg striking, kicking, biting, or attempting to access a possible weapon.

The 'takedown' as described, could and possibly did cause serious injury. It should not be done just because one can imagine the subject offering danger. It's justified only if they actually DO offer danger.

The planet where the officer is justified in shooting the girl, unless someone can prove she didn't have poisoned razors under her fingernails, and the officer knew it. :(

Face it our police are getting out of control. I notice that no one started a thread on the three part expose WaPo did on Desert Snow, where the police seize any large sum of money they find on drivers when the pull them over for a traffic violation. Then the poor sod have to sue to get it back so the lawyer takes a big chunk out of it. All of this shit started with the no knock warrant.

A submission maneuver is applied for everyone's safety to generate compliance.

Nothing to see, here.

Maybe she was hiding a Glock in her bra? Or tucked in the back of her panties.:)

Geez Zeke did someone piss in your cornflakes after I left?:confused:

Is every citizen disobeying or violating any rule or law is deemed to be armed and dangerous according to this logic? So the police can pretty much do whatever and justify every physical action. Isn't that a police state? Is that where this is heading?

Oh yes there is. Dehumanized techno-cop jargon is on display.

submission maneuver = slamming a high school girl to the floor

generating compliance = hurting a person until they do what you want

At least no one has one has gone nuclear like they did in the BAP on this topic. One poster invoked the Nazis, I guess they hadn't heard of Godwin.