Jump to content



Photo
washington mental disabilities cell phone dispatcher call taser threat excessive use of force

  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#16 +techbeck

techbeck

    Neowinian Senior

  • 17,891 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 05

Posted 11 June 2013 - 19:06

People always side with the "victim" right away and it is always the police fault. Police said she was threatening, and woman/friend said she wasnt. And friends will more often than not stick up for each other regardless if they are in the wrong or not. Not saying the police are innocent, or vise versa...but to little info to accuse one way or the other.

Regardless, excessive for one person on the police part. But thats how it seems to be more and more. Especially with more police shootings happening now a days.


#17 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,087 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 11 June 2013 - 19:38

People always side with the "victim" right away and it is always the police fault. Police said she was threatening, and woman/friend said she wasnt. And friends will more often than not stick up for each other regardless if they are in the wrong or not. Not saying the police are innocent, or vise versa...but to little info to accuse one way or the other.


It's about the balance of probability. Here we're talking about two male officers inflicting major bruising, swelling and a concussion against a disabled, mentally handicapped woman. Did you even look at the pictures? The woman had horrific injuries, yet the officers were uninjured (one had what could barely be considered a scratch).

This looks like a classic case of police brutality. I can't believe for one second that the degree of force used here was justified.

#18 +techbeck

techbeck

    Neowinian Senior

  • 17,891 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 05

Posted 11 June 2013 - 20:31

This looks like a classic case of police brutality. I can't believe for one second that the degree of force used here was justified.


It wasnt justified. Did you read the last sentence of my post where I said it was excessive force? I even said that in my first post here. I mearly said in a lot of these cases the cops are the ones to always be blamed first. And that we do not know the full story here but again, I have stated it was excessive.

And from the OP, it says there were two officers. The second being a woman that was inflicting the damage. But this will have to be for the courts to decide I guess on which story is true and so on.

#19 Geoffrey B.

Geoffrey B.

    LittleNeutrino

  • 15,846 posts
  • Joined: 25-July 05
  • Location: Ohio
  • OS: Windows 8.1u1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 928 WP8.1

Posted 11 June 2013 - 20:37

that is just stupid that they would immediately resort to violence rather than trying to control the situation.

#20 +Xenosion

Xenosion

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,591 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 07
  • Location: Palm Beach, FL

Posted 11 June 2013 - 20:44

Stupid to resort to violence? So the police should just ask nicely and when that doesn't work ask with vigor and when that doesn't work...?

Please, physical action is required when someone doesn't listen to a lawful order. Now, whether this was the fault of the woman doing something incredibly stupid or the police letting loose on this woman without cause is for the investigation to decide. At this point it's he-said-she-said.

#21 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 15,388 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 11 June 2013 - 20:47

^ There is never a need to punch a suspect repeatedly in the face. Cops are taught how to disable a suspect in seconds, without harming them or themselves. Punching should never have been necessary, at all.

#22 ILikeTobacco

ILikeTobacco

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,789 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 10

Posted 11 June 2013 - 20:52

She was evidently smart enough to drive a car. Every time I hear of someone getting out of there car when stopped, it doesnt end well. Regardless on whether or not you have a disability.

You comment would make sense had she actually been stopped by the police while driving, which she was not.

^ There is never a need to punch a suspect repeatedly in the face. Cops are taught how to disable a suspect in seconds, without harming them or themselves. Punching should never have been necessary, at all.

Exactly. There is only one reason to punch someone in the face and this is to hurt them. Hurting someone on purpose is not a requirement of restraining them. This woman was not hurt because she was resisting. If that was the case, her injuries would have been things like scrapes from sliding on the ground. She was hurt because she was ATTACKED while being restrained. There is not a single situation in which a cop should be punching someone in the face. That is purely assault..

#23 +techbeck

techbeck

    Neowinian Senior

  • 17,891 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 05

Posted 11 June 2013 - 20:53

You comment would make sense had she actually been stopped by the police while driving, which she was not.


OP said she was pulled over. So she was driving and it sounded like the copy was following. She then got out of her car and was ordered to get back in. Which she did not.

#24 Original Poster

Original Poster

    C++ n00b

  • 2,921 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 08
  • Location: my room
  • OS: windows 7, backtrack 5, OSx 10.6

Posted 11 June 2013 - 20:53

She had a valid license in order to drive the car, so in that respect, her hearing and mental status wasn't that impaired.


... you can be 100% deaf completely unable to hear... but still be allowed to drive, just means you cant roll down your windows and head bop to an amazing tune....

also mentality ? I know some people with mental impairments, most of whom would not understand situations like this who can drive...

#25 +Xenosion

Xenosion

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,591 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 07
  • Location: Palm Beach, FL

Posted 11 June 2013 - 20:55

^ There is never a need to punch a suspect repeatedly in the face. Cops are taught how to disable a suspect in seconds, without harming them or themselves. Punching should never have been necessary, at all.

Well, you are right about deliberately punching someone. If a suspect is resisting enough that you are punching them to get them to comply, I imagine a taser would be a better option. I was responding in general to controlling a situation with physical restraint.

#26 SirEvan

SirEvan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,393 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 03
  • Location: Santa Clara, CA
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: HTC One (AT&T)

Posted 11 June 2013 - 20:58

Ok devils advocate time. First of all. Article says she had "Mental disabilities" as well as "hearing disabilities". While vision is the most important thing to have, you also need to be able to hear while driving, to listen for horns, emergency vehicles, etc. If she had mental disabilities, depending on what they were, why was she allowed to drive?

Secondly, you NEVER EVER get out of the car. The cop doesn't know what you're going to do, you could have a gun or other weapon and want to kill him. Traffic stops are probably the number one way cops die, so if she got out of the car he didn't know what she was going to do, and if she was mentally handicapped, she may not have been able to control herself.

Bottom line she shouldn't have been driving, or should've had an assistant or care taker or something with her.

#27 ILikeTobacco

ILikeTobacco

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,789 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 10

Posted 11 June 2013 - 21:02

OP said she was pulled over. So she was driving and it sounded like the copy was following. She then got out of her car and was ordered to get back in. Which she did not.

That is not what the OP said. "Moments after the woman stopped the car, a police cruiser drove up behind her with its lights flashing." She parked her car. A police officer pulled up after the fact.

Ok devils advocate time. First of all. Article says she had "Mental disabilities" as well as "hearing disabilities". While vision is the most important thing to have, you also need to be able to hear while driving, to listen for horns, emergency vehicles, etc. If she had mental disabilities, depending on what they were, why was she allowed to drive?

Secondly, you NEVER EVER get out of the car. The cop doesn't know what you're going to do, you could have a gun or other weapon and want to kill him. Traffic stops are probably the number one way cops die, so if she got out of the car he didn't know what she was going to do, and if she was mentally handicapped, she may not have been able to control herself.

Bottom line she shouldn't have been driving, or should've had an assistant or care taker or something with her.

For your second point, you never ever get out of your car... when you are pulled over by a cop. She wasn't pulled over by a cop.

A friend of mine has a drivers license and he has a severe mental handicap. He had a stroke last year and is no longer able to full comunicate. It has no effect on his driving as his motor funtions and mental ability overall is unchanged. Being 100% deaf is also no a valid reason to deny a drivers licence. There is no difference between someone who is 100% deaf and someone who is blarring music so loud that the other cars on the road get to enjoy the music.

#28 HSoft

HSoft

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,926 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 08

Posted 11 June 2013 - 21:03

Deaf woman who claims she was unable to hear the polices orders, yet "Graham was under the impression that the officer spotted her using her cell phone while driving." - So was she calling someone or texting?
Apart from that why call 911 if you can't hear what they are saying? A whole lot doesn't seem to add up here...

#29 ILikeTobacco

ILikeTobacco

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,789 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 10

Posted 11 June 2013 - 21:05

What I want to know is why he was flashing his lights to begin with. Unless he thought she was drunk, there is no reason for a cop to be flashing his lights at a parked car.

Deaf woman who claims she was unable to hear the polices orders, yet "Graham was under the impression that the officer spotted her using her cell phone while driving." - So was she calling someone or texting?
Apart from that why call 911 if you can't hear what they are saying? A whole lot doesn't seem to add up here...

There are different levels of deafness. Could be shes deaf in one ear?

#30 +Xenosion

Xenosion

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,591 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 07
  • Location: Palm Beach, FL

Posted 11 June 2013 - 21:14

What I want to know is why he was flashing his lights to begin with. Unless he thought she was drunk, there is no reason for a cop to be flashing his lights at a parked car.

What?! I'm sorry but you are really trying here. Lights should be flashing anytime a cop is actively investigating. I've actually been "pulled over" in a very similar situation. A cop was simply following me (not conducting a stop yet). I ended up getting to my destination (an auto parts store). I parked, got out of my car, and then the cops turned on their lights and directed me to get back in my vehicle. I did, and it was all over with without me getting roughed up. Imagine that.

If you are in a vehicle, that most likely means you are on public roadways or an area that leads directly onto public roadways. It doesn't matter if you are moving, already stopped, or whatever. I've also been "pulled over" parked in a parking lot sleeping in my car for a bit. Lights were flashing. Cops orders are lawful no matter.

Simply put there is no reason to nit-pick whether the light bar should be on or off.