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

    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
    • For me, the fundamental problems with these "smartglasses" is that they really don't work well for people with significant prescriptions and massively up the price if you use attached lenses if they have displays, and if they don't, then they're not actually "smart" anything, rather just connecting to your phone and relaying voice to an AI. In a few cases like this, they throw in small cameras to feed video to the AI. All around, these feel like both a solution looking for a problem, and the problems it tries to solve seem more easily solved by different approaches and designs. Oddly, if the rumours are true, Apple may actually have invented something for once and it kind of does this right: put cameras in ear buds and manage the interface to AI exactly as most of us do: tapping on an ear bud and saying "Hey Google" or "Hey Siri." That makes them compatible with almost everyone, can double up as a hearing assist device, an impaired vision assist device, a "smart" device... and answer your phone and play music. That just seems like a better solution all around.
    • Usually the bigger ones with many fixes/changes take a few, theyre an exception to the rule most likely
    • If you don’t get lucky with Valve’s Steam Machine reservation system, you can make your own Steam Machine instead. Valve says that “starting with the SteamOS 3.8 release, you can put together your own Steam Machine using whatever PC parts you want.” SteamOS 3.8.10 launched last week with a slew of updates, including “improved compatibility with recent Intel and AMD platforms.” Alongside that improved compatibility, Valve is giving gamers the green light to install SteamOS on their own desktops. In an interview with The Verge, Valve’s Pierre-Loup Griffais said Valve has been “rolling out improvements to [SteamOS] so it’s more compatible with desktop hardware,” including eventual support for Nvidia graphics. Griffais says Valve has “a growing team” working on Nvidia driver support for SteamOS, adding, “We’re collaborating with Nvidia very closely.” While he mentioned that Nvidia support might not come this year, Griffais emphasized that “it’s certainly something that we’re working on in the background.”     Subscription not needed: https://archive.fo/Tssfc Subscription needed: https://www.theverge.com/games/953411/valve-steamos-desktop-nvidia
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      454
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      162
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      84
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!