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.