Recommended Posts

I'm going to say this as simply as I can now, since either you don't have a good grasp of the English language, or you are just reading what you want to see.

 

I did not say the shove was accidental. I know that was on purpose. 

 

The injuries she sustained were accidental I believe, I don't think he would deliberately cause her that kind of injury, especially knowing he was on film. I bet he intended to shove her into the cell and leave, if she'd remained upright like a sober person probably would have, nothing would have become of this. When he saw what had happened, he got her medical attention. 

 

The video does not "speak for itself". The cop doesnt walk in with a sign pointed at the camera that said "I want to cause this woman horrible injuries".

 

He shoved her, she fell. We're discussing whether or not it was intentional that she got hurt. This is something that is open to interpretation. Something the video can't show plain as black and white.

 

OK, I'll reply to you in simplified American English that you can understand, This was not a mistake or an Accident, It was deliberate force and he should be fired.

 

He pushed this drunk female prisoner into a cell with exerted force knowing all too well she was drunk and she couldn't maintain her footing forcing her upon the seating.

 

All prisoners under their care, specially under the influence of alcohol must be treated with care and not abused and the police code demands it.

 

So just to sum it all up for you in case your eyes glazed over, HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE PUSHED HER IN THE FIRST PLACE and took her into the cell and seated her appropriately.

It's no wonder this happens in America frequently with the response(s) here.

  • Like 1

If she just got drunk and slept in her car, I'm sure she wouldn't have been charged for drunk driving.

That's not true. In many jurisdictions it is an offence to be drunk in a vehicle, even if it has not been driven. But that's irrelevant to the point I was making, which is that she wasn't going to kill anyone parked at the side of the road. That's not to excuse her earlier actions, which were illegal and for which she accepted responsibility.

 

You do know what a strawman is right? I don't feel I'm disregarding key parts of your argument. People are in here trying to put across that he deliberately set out to cause harm to her. Even you when you called it police brutality. Brutality meaning deliberate use of excessive, cruel force.

You were refuting points I didn't make, implying that I or others in the thread had suggested the officer only applied first aid to cover his own back and that cops are brutish thugs that get off of making other people suffer. As for brutality, his use of force was clearly excessive and his actions cruel and harsh - that fits the definition.

 

Disagree all you want. People like you will only change your tone when you are at the receiving end of DUI.

You are mistaken. I object to police officers using excessive force when dealing with suspects, especially in a case like this where the attack is unprovoked.

 

In just the other thread you were attacking Boots despite them being right in the eyes of the law. 

That has nothing to do with the discussion here. They stated that people who drink and drive "deserve worse than [their] face smashed", which I disagreed with and also stated was incongruent with the law.

Do the people defending the cop seriously believe that suddenly pushing someone from behind, with considerable force, into a 2m x 1.5m brick-walled cell with a concrete bench at the end of it could possibly end in anything other than serious injury?

  • Like 2

 

OK, I'll reply to you in simplified American English that you can understand, This was not a mistake or an Accident, It was deliberate force and he should be fired.

 

He pushed this drunk female prisoner into a cell with exerted force knowing all too well she was drunk and she couldn't maintain her footing forcing her upon the seating.

 

All prisoners under their care, specially under the influence of alcohol must be treated with care and not abused and the police code demands it.

 

So just to sum it all up for you in case your eyes glazed over, HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE PUSHED HER IN THE FIRST PLACE and took her into the cell and seated her appropriately.

It's no wonder this happens in America frequently with the response(s) here.

 

 

Please stop with the insults and try to at least read and understand what McKay said for goodness sakes.

 

McKay clearly says and I quote, "I did not say the shove was accidental. I know that was on purpose."

 

Her injuries are clearly the result of the excessive force used in pushing the detainee into the holding cell.  I do not believe the officer intended for her to fall into the bench and receive those extensive injuries.

 

McKay states and again quoting, " The injuries she sustained were accidental I believe, I don't think he would deliberately cause her that kind of injury, especially knowing he was on film."

 

Did the officer use excessive force?  Yes

Should he be disciplined?  Yes  (according to the rules, procedures and the laws governing that jurisdiction)

Was she right to file lawsuit? Yes

Should this behavior by law enforcement officials be accepted?  Absolutely not

  • Like 1

Please stop with the insults and try to at least read and understand what McKay said for goodness sakes.

 

McKay clearly says and I quote, "I did not say the shove was accidental. I know that was on purpose."

 

Her injuries are clearly the result of the excessive force used in pushing the detainee into the holding cell.  I do not believe the officer intended for her to fall into the bench and receive those extensive injuries.

 

McKay states and again quoting, " The injuries she sustained were accidental I believe, I don't think he would deliberately cause her that kind of injury, especially knowing he was on film."

 

Did the officer use excessive force?  Yes

Should he be disciplined?  Yes  (according to the rules, procedures and the laws governing that jurisdiction)

Was she right to file lawsuit? Yes

Should this behavior by law enforcement officials be accepted?  Absolutely not

You obviously didn't bother to read what he said if you think i was "insulting" him, given I am not "English".

Just because he thinks the cop didn't mean harm doesn't make him right, the fact was he did cause harm and he had a job to do to protect a citizen, not fling her into a cell regardless of her crime, and I've already said he should be disciplined and lose his job, that is my assessment. Just because i am not American or English, doesn't make my opinion or debate on this matter any lesser than is or you trying to say I'm wrong.

You obviously didn't bother to read what he said if you think i was "insulting" him, given I am not "English".

Just because he thinks the cop didn't mean harm doesn't make him right, the fact was he did cause harm and he had a job to do to protect a citizen, not fling her into a cell regardless of her crime, and I've already said he should be disciplined and lose his job, that is my assessment. Just because i am not American or English, doesn't make my opinion or debate on this matter any lesser than is or you trying to say I'm wrong.

 

I didn't try to say you were wrong. And no one said anything about your opinion being "lesser" than anyone's.  You seemed to misunderstand what McKay was trying to explain and you seem to be overreacting, in fact you still are.  Lighten up!

I didn't try to say you were wrong. And no one said anything about your opinion being "lesser" than anyone's.  You seemed to misunderstand what McKay was trying to explain and you seem to be overreacting, in fact you still are.  Lighten up!

You were trying to say i was insulting someone who already said i had little grasp of the English language then tried to tell me their reply was the one that made sense to you and not me undermining my opinion and reply because they were trying to explain something to me and i couldn't understand it because it was in English and now i should lighten up?

Who's insulting who now?

Anyways, I have stated my disgust and personal opinion on this matter and that will be the end of it.

You were trying to say i was insulting someone who already said i had little grasp of the English language then tried to tell me their reply was the one that made sense to you and not me undermining my opinion and reply because they were trying to explain something to me and i couldn't understand it because it was in English and now i should lighten up?

Who's insulting who now?

Anyways, I have stated my disgust and personal opinion on this matter and that will be the end of it.

 

Wow, suit yourself.  Good, glad that's the end of it.  :/

She can view it as a lesson learned.

 

Remind me to say that to you should you ever be arrested for something and then assaulted by the cops.

 

No one, no matter WHAT they've done, deserves to be beaten by the cops after they've been arrested.

  • Like 1

So the victim should assume no responsibility at all? It doesn't work like that. Just because you're a victim doesn't mean you are absolved of all responsibility for your actions. 

 

She's responsible for her actions of driving her car whilst drunk.  She's not responsible for being tossed across a room and having her face smashing in.

  • Like 1

 

OK, I'll reply to you in simplified American English that you can understand, This was not a mistake or an Accident, It was deliberate force and he should be fired.

 

He pushed this drunk female prisoner into a cell with exerted force knowing all too well she was drunk and she couldn't maintain her footing forcing her upon the seating.

 

All prisoners under their care, specially under the influence of alcohol must be treated with care and not abused and the police code demands it.

 

So just to sum it all up for you in case your eyes glazed over, HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE PUSHED HER IN THE FIRST PLACE and took her into the cell and seated her appropriately.

It's no wonder this happens in America frequently with the response(s) here.

 

First off, I'm not American. Secondly, Have I ever said he should have pushed her? No. I know he shouldn't have pushed her. You're like the 4th person in here trying to imply I've said things that I haven't. 

 

You really think he deliberately meant to smash her face in? In a cell with CCTV? Knowing full well it would be viewed upon her lawyer seeing her injuries? He pushed her in the cell and turned right around and left, didn't stay to see her in pain, when he noticed her in the condition she was in he sought medical help for her. 

She's responsible for her actions of driving her car whilst drunk.  She's not responsible for being tossed across a room and having her face smashing in.

I wish people would read the rest of the comments before replying to one half way through a discussion. I'll repeat this again so yet another person hopefully sees it and doesn't take my post out of context. Again.

 

I was referring to victim blaming in general, that in many scenarios the victim is partly responsible. I didn't say it applied in this case. 

Well that huge shove did not look justified in any way, if we could see video from outside the cell it may show that the suspect was being violent and thus that is why she was shoved like that to get her into the cell. She would have not been in that predicament if she had taken a cab, but that does not justify from what we can see on this video as right action by the police. 

 

Hey it is just my two cents....

Again he didn't want to force her into the cell right? he just made an accident by using his full weight to throw a drunk scrawny 110lb woman through a cell door and walk away leaving his colleagues to mop up her blood. He "knew" she was unstable (DUI after all) and as a cop knew exactly what he was doing, he's not 10 years old.

 

He *knew* no such thing. He assumed she was unstable, whereas the reports indicate she was being calm, quiet and completely cooperative.  Therefore his actions of throwing her into the cell were totally disproportionate.

I don't think I defended "this guy."

 

However, when you do something that puts EVERYONE you pass in the road at risk, you deserve worse than your face smashed.

 

Incorrect parking causes inconvenience at most. Drunk driving kills.

 

It's a good job she decided NOT to drive and park up to sleep it off then, right?

 

DUI is illegal and rightly so. She deserves a fine, her license to be revoked, and possibly minor jail time.  Proportional punishment for the crime committed,  She doesn't deserve her face being smashed, or even worse.

  • Like 1

Partakes in drugs.

Then decides to break the law and drive.

Gets caught.

Gets shoved into a cell and smashes her face in.

 

a la Trayvon fans..."SHE DIN DO NUFFIN"

 

It's almost as if people are born these days with no concept of common sense, self respect and doing the right thing.

 

Lucky for us this model citizen didn't plow into someone else or innocent bystanders while doing nuffin. Far from slagging off the police for perceived rough treatment...in cases such as these it should be par for the course. Dole out a kicking. Go right ahead.

 

Well, seeing as you can't even bother to get the basic facts of the case right, you're clearly trolling.

  • Like 2

This would of never happend if she hadn't got into a car and drive knowing she was still drunk.

So the cop was ok to shove her because she was drinking? like the video says he is not the person to be dishing out the punishment.

 

She'd been drinking. Its difficult to gauge how stable they are upright. 

Oh well shove as hard as you can then I guess...

  • Like 1

And she wouldn't have been shoved at all had she not been driving drunk.  Fault = entirely hers.

I guess if I am abused by the cops for anything then it's all my fault as it wouldn't have happened if I hadn't left the house this morning

  • Like 2

Watched the video again several times again.

There is no way she could have been expected not to fall down face first onto the bench.

The ex-cop who pushed her is lucky he is not being tried for manslaughter -- she could easily have broken her neck or cracked her skull open.

  • Like 2

So the cop was ok to shove her because she was drinking? like the video says he is not the person to be dishing out the punishment.

 

Oh well shove as hard as you can then I guess...

 

I give up, I'm washing my hands of this thread, everyone seems to be coming in, reading my first comment or 2, and then replying to those instead of reading the rest of the thread. 

I give up, I'm washing my hands of this thread, everyone seems to be coming in, reading my first comment or 2, and then replying to those instead of reading the rest of the thread. 

 

People tend to respond to posts in the order they make them (including me). Don't forget, different time zones and all...

People tend to respond to posts in the order they make them (including me). Don't forget, different time zones and all...

 

If I'm new to a thread and I see a post I want to respond to, I'll hit multiquote and carry on reading. For all I know at that point, someone or several people might have asked the same questions or made the same point I was about to make.

Remind me to say that to you should you ever be arrested for something and then assaulted by the cops.

No one, no matter WHAT they've done, deserves to be beaten by the cops after they've been arrested.

This was not a beating it was a shove. I've seen kids shoved harder than that playing in our front yard. That she was falling down drunk probably has more to do with her face plant than anything. A person with half normal faculties could have stayed vertical or landed on the bench.

FYI we have a legal standard called Contributory Negligence for split responsibility incidents, and in this one I'd give her about 70% of the responsibility.

Sorry Doc, but can't agree with you there. Without the shove, she may very well never have fallen over.  The cop shoved her pretty hard, therefore it's clearly 100% his fault. In face, rewatching the video, it's not even a fall. She's clearly thrown across the room into it; even a completely sober person would have had trouble staying upright with that much of an unexpected shove.

  • Like 1
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Amazon Prime Day slashes Samsung's newest Galaxy Watch Ultra by 45 percent by Karthik Mudaliar Samsung’s flagship Android smartwatch has received one of its steepest Prime Day cuts. Amazon has dropped the 2025 Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra in Titanium Blue to $357.24, saving buyers around $292 from its $649.99 list price. That's a 45 percent discount (purchase link below). The 47mm Galaxy Watch Ultra uses a titanium casing and a 1.5-inch Super AMOLED display with a resolution of 480 x 480 and peak brightness of 3,000 nits. It includes LTE connectivity, Bluetooth 5.3, Wi-Fi, NFC, and dual-frequency L1+L5 GPS for more accurate outdoor route tracking. The 2025 model has 64GB of storage, a 590mAh battery, sapphire crystal glass, 10ATM water resistance, IP68 protection, and MIL-STD-810H durability testing. Its health and fitness tools include heart rate monitoring, sleep coaching, Energy Score, Running Coach, body composition analysis, temperature sensing, and ECG support, where available. This model is best suited to Android users who regularly run, hike, cycle, or train outdoors and want cellular access without carrying a phone. The larger battery, rugged construction, bright display, and dedicated Quick Button also make it a stronger option than Samsung’s regular Galaxy Watch models for extended workouts and demanding environments. Grab the Titanium Blue Galaxy Watch Ultra before the Prime Day price resets: Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra (2025) [Sold and Shipped by Amazon] Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Google begins rolling out its post-Epic Play Store billing model next week by Karthik Mudaliar Google has confirmed that its redesigned Play Store billing and fee structure will take effect on June 30, 2026, in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Economic Area. The changes will let eligible developers offer their own payment systems or send users to an external website for purchases, while separating Google’s platform service fee from the cost of using Google Play Billing. The rollout puts concrete dates and detailed rate cards behind the broader Android policy overhaul Google announced in March. That announcement followed a proposed settlement with Epic Games intended to resolve their long-running disputes over app distribution and payments, although the U.S. portion of the agreement still requires court approval. Under the new billing choice program, developers selling digital content or services can display an alternative payment option alongside Google Play Billing. They may also direct users to their own websites to complete a purchase. Developers can use Google’s standard payment-choice screen or design one that complies with the company’s user-interface rules. Choosing another payment processor does not eliminate Google’s cut altogether. The company will continue charging a service fee for transactions associated with apps distributed through Google Play, regardless of whether payment is handled by Google, an alternative provider, or a developer’s website. Google argues that this fee covers the value and infrastructure provided by Android and the Play Store. For developers earning up to $1 million annually, the service fee will generally be 10 percent. That rate also applies to auto-renewing subscriptions. When Google Play Billing is used in the U.S., U.K., or EEA, Google will add a separate 5 percent billing fee, and developers processing payments elsewhere will not pay that additional charge. This means Google’s familiar flat 30 percent commission is disappearing, but developers will not necessarily see a dramatic reduction on every transaction. An in-app purchase from an existing user processed through Google Play Billing can still reach a combined 30 percent. The biggest savings are likely to come from subscriptions, smaller developers covered by the $1 million tier, and companies able to move customers to their own payment infrastructure. Google is also offering lower rates through its Apps Experience and revamped Games Level Up programs. Apps and games that satisfy the company’s requirements can qualify for 15 percent service fees on new-install transactions and 20 percent on existing-install transactions. The criteria include performance and reliability standards, support for additional Android device categories, and selected platform features. Those program rates are scheduled to become available in the initial markets and Australia on September 30. For consumers, the immediate effect will depend on whether developers adopt alternative payments and pass any savings on through lower prices. For developers, however, June 30 begins a more flexible but considerably more complicated Play Store economy in which distribution, billing, install dates, revenue thresholds, and program participation can each affect Google’s final cut. Google is also separately developing a Registered App Stores program designed to simplify the installation of qualifying third-party stores. That initiative is expected to arrive with a major Android release later in 2026 and will launch outside the U.S. first. Google says the rest of the world will receive the changes by September 30, 2027, although billing rates for markets outside the US, UK, and EEA have not yet been announced.
    • 38% off a super insane price is still an INSANE price.
    • 1TB Samsung T9 and Samsung 9100 PRO SSDs are now selling at great prices by Fiza Ali Amazon is now offering the 1TB variant of Samsung T9 and Samsung 9100 PRO SSD at great prices with limited-time 38% and 39% discounts, respectively, so you may want to check them out if you have been looking to upgrade your storage solution. The Samsung T9 connects via a USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 (20Gbps) interface and delivers sequential read speeds of up to 2,000MB/s and sequential write speeds of up to 1,950MB/s, making it suitable for transferring large files, backing up data, and handling high-resolution media content. When it comes to the security features, the SSD includes AES 256-bit hardware encryption to help protect sensitive data. Designed for portability, the drive is reportedly resistant to drops from heights of up to 3 metres. Furthermore, it operates within a temperature range of 0°C to 60°C and can be stored at temperatures between -40°C and 85°C. Samsung Magician Software is included for drive management, firmware updates, performance optimisation, and health monitoring. Finally, the T9 is certified to multiple international standards, including CE, FCC, UL, UKCA, and RoHS 2 compliance, and is backed by a five-year limited warranty as well. 1TB Samsung T9 SSD: $179.99 (Amazon US) - 38% off The Samsung 9100 PRO uses the M.2 2280 form factor and connects through a PCIe 5.0 x4 interface with NVMe 2.0 support. Built with Samsung V-NAND TLC flash memory, an in-house controller, and 1GB of low-power DDR4X cache memory, the 9100 PRO is engineered for high-performance computing and gaming workloads. Furthermore, the SSD delivers sequential read speeds of up to 14,700MB/s and sequential write speeds of up to 13,300MB/s. Random performance is rated at up to 1,850,000 IOPS for reads and up to 2,600,000 IOPS for writes, depending on system hardware and configuration. The drive supports TRIM, S.M.A.R.T monitoring, automatic garbage collection, and device sleep mode to help maintain performance and efficiency over time. In terms of security features, it includes AES 256-bit encryption, TCG Opal support, and IEEE 1667 compliance. The 9100 PRO operates within a temperature range of 0°C to 70°C, is rated for 1.5 million hours MTBF, and can reportedly withstand shocks of up to 1,500G for 0.5 milliseconds. Finally, Samsung Magician Software is also included for firmware updates, performance monitoring, drive management, and optimisation. 1TB Samsung 9100 PRO SSD: $206.99 (Amazon US) - 39% off Alternatively, you can also check out other SSD deals here. Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
    • One Year In
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      463
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      81
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!