Three Houston school cops brutally tackled Ixel Perez...

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

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

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....

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

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.

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.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Can you prove she didn't have gun?

You, again, are out of your depth.

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

What fucken planet are you on?

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.

[merrylander]

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.

[Zeke]

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

Nothing to see, here.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

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.

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

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Zeke

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

Nothing to see, here.

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

[Rajoo]

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?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

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

Nothing to see, here.

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

[bobabode]

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.