My Community

General Upholstery Questions and Comments => General Discussion => Topic started by: sofadoc on April 08, 2015, 10:20:31 PM

Title: Benefit of the doubt?
Post by: sofadoc on April 08, 2015, 10:20:31 PM
The deputy in this video used to work for me when he was in high school. He was a very polite, even tempered kid. One of the few good helpers that I've ever had. He actually had some potential to become a good upholsterer. But I couldn't offer him that opportunity, so he eventually moved on.

This video has caught nationwide attention. And most people that watch it have already tried and convicted him of repeatedly punching a pregnant woman. The video came from a home surveillance camera that only filmed in 30 second intervals, so only 1 punch is caught on camera. But it is reported that there were multiple punches.

He says that the woman had her hands clenched around his belt, and was getting dangerously close to his gun. So he was punching her hands to make her let go.

CPS officials had a warrant to remove an 18 month old child from the home because of recent domestic violence allegations. The woman was about a week away from having another child.

I known this young man since he was a kid, so I'm inclined to want to believe that his version is plausible. But law enforcement officers seldom fare well in the court of public opinion when these type of videos go viral.

Do you guys see any way that you could accept his version?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJuKlQF0meg

Title: Re: Benefit of the doubt?
Post by: brmax on April 08, 2015, 11:33:23 PM
What I am finding very difficult with the media and their playing of video in situations as this and others with lives lost in law enforcement actions, Is no professional journalism with bringing the story that there is no dam respect for authority anymore.
With someone Older, With business, And above all with an Officer of the Law, OMG when are people going to get it straight.

When an Officer says stop "that means STOP", When an Officer says halt Police "that means Stop all action" also, yet all I see on TV is one sided.
 
If there was no problem there would not be an Officer.

I signed up to Die for this Country and I am also one who "votes consistently" on Citizen topics and Personnel changes in our system.

Why do I elect to have professionals to deal with the problem situations with many dangers, well its not to watch them have a "one sided story",  I am only one and my best option is to purchase with My TAXES a legal Pro to deal with the many problems to keep my az safe or straight if need be (.)

Better Days


 
Title: Re: Benefit of the doubt?
Post by: SteveA on April 09, 2015, 06:07:03 AM
My boys are ...... 2 cops and 1 marine -  brmax comments sound rational to me - it's a tough job with hands tied - something like Rules of Engagement -  laws need to be obeyed - some don't want law enforcement - I'm not making excuses for the small percentage of bad cops - there are a percentage of bad folks in every walk of life- the ranking officers need to deal with bad cops so the media doesn't look for breaks in the system -
As far as the video - there isn't enough there to make determination that bad police tactics were used - my opinion
SA
Title: Re: Benefit of the doubt?
Post by: gene on April 09, 2015, 08:04:20 AM
As our country moves more and more to being a  s o c i a l i s t country where the government controls every aspect of our lives, the police are certainly in the cross hairs of this change.

The police are in the cross hairs because they are the upholders of law and order. A  s o c i a l i s t  government runs on political correctness, political favoritism, political payback, graft, greed, and nepotism. Not law and order.

If you doubt me, just ask Boris Nemtsov, a political opponent to Russia's Vladimir Putin. Oh, wait. You can't ask him. He was recently shot dead while walking with his fiancee.  

The policeman in SC who recently shot a man in the back who was running away was declared guilty by the mayor of that town. I told a friend yesterday that in our lifetime we will see the concept of "tried by a jury of our piers" disappear. We don't need jury trials. We have politicians, bureaucrats, and social activists doing the judging.

If that woman in sofaD's video had obeyed the police she would not have been beaten.

Domestic violence is the most dangerous situation for a police officer to be in. If that pregnant woman acted like that toward the police, can you imagine how she treated her 18 month old child who the police were there to remove from the house. AND SHE IS PREGNANT AGAIN!

Just my 2 cents. If you don't like the police then have some G D integrity and don't call them when you are in trouble.

gene





Title: Re: Benefit of the doubt?
Post by: mike802 on April 09, 2015, 12:30:56 PM
Quote
CPS officials had a warrant to remove an 18 month old child from the home because of recent domestic violence allegations. The woman was about a week away from having another child.

The key word here is "Allegations"  Anybody can make a claim to CPS anonymously!  Thus starting a nightmare ordeal for any family.   CPS has, and can do good, but often they are used by people to get at people they dont like, or have a vendetta against.  In this country we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but so often the opposite is true.  How would any of us act if cops showed up to take our children, especially under false allegations?  Obviously the video is only a small peek into the situation and can not give us the whole story, but that woman sounds like an woman would if cops showed up to take her child away.  I supposed the cop feared for his life, I mean one pregnant woman surrounded by a room full of officers, two of them attending to her alone!  I think the guy should have stuck with upholstery.
Title: Re: Benefit of the doubt?
Post by: byhammerandhand on April 09, 2015, 01:03:48 PM
Meanwhile,  http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/courts/2015/04/08/deters-charges-2-year-old-death/25454737/
Title: Re: Benefit of the doubt?
Post by: sofadoc on April 09, 2015, 02:03:49 PM
The key word here is "Allegations"  Anybody can make a claim to CPS anonymously! 

The allegations came from an older step-son who gave his account to his school teacher. According to his account, the woman had been engaged in a heated domestic quarrel that put the 18 month old in danger. 3 step-children had already been removed from the home earlier in the week.

You certainly can't blame a "Mama bear" for protecting her cub. And I agree that 2 grown men should've been able to subdue a pregnant woman in her 9th month without resorting to any kind of punching. But I'm positive that none of it would've been necessary if she had just cooperated. I think this whole thing would've never come to light if they hadn't discovered that they had a money maker on their home security camera footage.
Title: Re: Benefit of the doubt?
Post by: Mojo on April 09, 2015, 06:08:37 PM
There are good cops and there are bad cops. Consider the SC officer that shot a black guy the other day running from him. He shot him in the back. That used to automatically mean murder charges and a public hanging back in the 1800's. That cop lied and said the guy took his tazer and tazed him and he feared for his life. Then the video was released. Busted. Hello, the guy was running from him when he unloaded on him.

Consider the officer who shot a naked man high on PCP a few months ago. The guy was wigged out from the PCP and was flipping out. He had nothing in his hands, was completely naked, outside and the cop shot him dead. He said he feared for his life. Really ?? If the cop is that big of a wimp he shouldn't have ever signed up as a cop. That is part of the job and you will have moments you will fear for your life. Fear and direct threats from subjects with weapons are two different things. All he had to do is taze the dope head, call for back up and then cuff and stuffed the idiot.

I wonder about some of the cops being hired now days. This " I fear for my life " crap is getting out of hand. Unless a subject is pointing a gun or knife at them or have them on the ground kicking their brains in then lethal force is not called for. Mace or taze the jackass and call for back up. But shooting a naked unarmed psycho tripped out on PCP who was making a move towards the officer from 20 ft away is ludicrous.

I ran around with alot of cops. Many were very close friends that I spent alot of time with. One of them said he never pulled his gun in the line of duty ever. They have all said that some of the young cops they are hiring now days are adrenaline freaks who get themselves into situations and cannot handle the pressure and the adrenaline high you get during bad situations.

Then again there are bad guys out there that, for a lack of a better term, need to be shot. They are truly putting cops in danger, with weapons and can be lethal if not taken out. A naked man unarmed, a guy running from you are not excuses to shoot and kill someone. Chase him down and kick his ass. better yet let a K-9 dog loose and let the dog take him down. But shoot and kill him ?
 
In this video I wont pass judgement. I cannot see the woman or what is going on. It would be unfair to say the cop was in the wrong without seeing what was truly going on. But I do agree that the footage is going to make Momma some money as the city/county will write a check to shut her up and make her go away.

Chris
Title: Re: Benefit of the doubt?
Post by: mike802 on April 09, 2015, 07:34:17 PM
This article says the woman was handcuffed when the cop punched her.

http://rt.com/usa/248125-texas-woman-punched-police/

The maker of this video says the shooting of a black man in the back by a white officer is fake.  He makes a good point that I did not notice, but I thought this video was odd because of how the man getting shot reacts.  I consider myself a rather tough individual in good shape that can take some abuse, but If I got shot in the back with a 45 ACP yea I'd drop like a stone, this guy doesn't. ?

https://youtu.be/ZZkNIZzv8lY
Title: Re: Benefit of the doubt?
Post by: sofadoc on April 09, 2015, 09:24:46 PM
This article says the woman was handcuffed when the cop punched her.
The woman says that she was already handcuffed. The deputies say no. Depends on which article you read.
Title: Re: Benefit of the doubt?
Post by: brmax on April 09, 2015, 11:08:26 PM
I guess I could not see it very well as it seemed the woman was getting or trying to have handcuffs put on and I thought facing away from the Officers. a Sad note

I think most all law enforcement changed from the .45 after the military did and went 9mm in 80s IMO not good.
There was an excuse for everything imaginable to get something new?, though the Elite forces as the norm use what the want.
At that point in the 80s I believe the feds were trying to adopt the 40 or 41 and 10mm for the same reason smaller = more ammo carry, and less worry on thin walls, So many agencies went different directions and the composite 10mm was put in service a lot also.
Im still old school and if needed will stick with both .45 calibers, the John Browning 1911 Auto, and the other Historic .45 Colt.
These are slower as are trains and dozers and ships, and our Country has went back to the 1911 more than once for a reason, Close Combat Man Stopper .
Title: Re: Benefit of the doubt?
Post by: CW on April 16, 2015, 12:24:39 PM
This is the problem with a portion of a video with limited visibility, it doesn't tell or show the whole story and can be interpreted to fit someones narrative. Based on the comments under the video, it is pretty obvious that that information isn't important. In fact, if she had been punched anywhere other than her hands, I would imagine there would be pictures of her person showing any bruises or other signs of being punched, but that isn't available either.

With that said, I don't believe everything someone says (especially the media), and tend to side with police officers first. Not saying there aren't any bad cops but when a complete investigation has been done and all the information included, then I'll form a complete opinion. It just seems insane to convict someone with public opinion when so little information has been offered.
Title: Re: Benefit of the doubt?
Post by: Virgs Sew n Sew on April 18, 2015, 06:59:34 AM
I haven't watched the video and won't.  I think the problem is that there seems to be a new shooting/beating surfacing every day.

It is easy for us to sit here at our computers and say "they should not have been running" or whatever but since none of us have walked even a step in their feet, it is too easy to judge. 

I think that race relations have gone back years since we elected a black President.  The number of hate groups is rising astronomically.  I don't pretend to understand why or have answers.  All I'm saying is that being raised black in a project or tenement or whatever the correct term for slums today is something that none of us have a clue about what it is like.  If you were raised to distrust police, your mindset is totally different than ours is.

I have never had a problem with a police officer.  I consider them to be "friends", in that they perform a very important job.  I don't want to live in a society without police officers.  I also recognize that there are bad police officers.  I've been fortunate in that I've never had any issues with officers of the law.  Grand Island is still "small townish" in that we wave at police when we are out walking and they wave back.  I'm not sure that happens in larger cities but I find it comforting.

Virginia
Title: Re: Benefit of the doubt?
Post by: sofadoc on April 18, 2015, 10:32:23 AM
I haven't watched the video and won't.  I think the problem is that there seems to be a new shooting/beating surfacing every day.
It is easy for us to sit here at our computers and say "they should not have been running"...........  it is too easy to judge.

Exactly. The reason that I posted this is because I know the guy. And I know that he isn't the type of man who would beat someone out of sheer cruelty. He may not be cut out for police work, but he isn't a criminal.

But 90% of our society WILL watch the video and rush to judgment. He has already received many threats from brave souls behind a keyboard.

I think that these type of videos should certainly be used by the police and court system to solve a crime, I don't think they should be made available to the general public. But we've already opened that "Pandora's Box" in our society, and there's no closing it now.
Title: Re: Benefit of the doubt?
Post by: JaneNYC on April 26, 2015, 07:11:16 AM
But 90% of our society WILL watch the video and rush to judgment.

The byte makes good news: "Cop punches pregnant woman".  Journalists used to investigate on behalf of the people and report to the people.  Forget that today.  Journalists are CELEBRITIES who play for popularity, not truth.

My take on the vid:

Pregnant-freaking-schmegnant: if she has her hands on a cop, there's a possibility she'll get the gun.  And a cop needs to do whatever he must to prevent that kind of deadly escalation.  In the vid, there are two cops right in front of her and the room was small and crowded: she could have harmed a few people if she'd gotten that gun.  And, indeed, the cop is punching downward: it certainly looks like he was punching her hands.  I would have punched her in the brain.

I was raised in a house where we did NOT regard cops as "Officer Friendly".  Instead, we learned, "Where the cops are...you AIN'T".  HOWEVER, we were also taught that if a cop tells you to halt, YOU halt.  And you don't argue with a cop, even if you didn't do anything -- that is an argument you cannot win.  You go quietly, get his shield #, and call Mom and Dad as soon as possible.

Why is this so freaking HARD?  I'll tell you why: because some people are nuts.  And some people are pregnant and nuts.

Okay I'm done.  Back to Dining-Room-Chair Hell...

j.
Title: Re: Benefit of the doubt?
Post by: Darren Henry on April 26, 2015, 09:17:23 AM
Quote
Pregnant-freaking-schmegnant: if she has her hands on a cop, there's a possibility she'll get the gun.  And a cop needs to do whatever he must to prevent that kind of deadly escalation.  In the vid, there are two cops right in front of her and the room was small and crowded: she could have killed a few people if she'd gotten that gun.

I've just reviewed that vid for like the umpteenth time and have made two observations: Listen to the sound track and hear the way she is responding to the officers. Then watch the way the deputy on the left jumps back before the punch is thrown.  That is not consistent with " trying to get a better punch in", that body language says she had a hold of something he didn't want her grabbing.

The officer was in a very volatile situation---he had no protection from behind [they were busy with the kids]---the woman who keeps screaming that she is pregnant continues to resist arrest ---and she made him jump like that. INMO he would have been "authorized" to use his tazer or more force to handcuff the woman.

Kudos deputy---bird droppings sensationalist media.