US woman arrested over dry lawn

[jks]

Like you're doing just now, but since you're on the other side, it's ok.

No, because I have actual experience in the field, I have a greater understanding of how these situations begin and end.



Oh yeah, "The part where she says he hit her in the face with the cuffs was more than likely an accident resulting from her resisting. as being struck with standard issue cuffs in the face to even a younger, well built man is gonna do more than give her a little cut on the nose and minor bruising, much less a fragile old lady"

See, that's using my experience to come to a reasonable conclusion as to what happened, as opposed to lambasting the officer for what he may or may have not done, I never said 100% either way that he did or didn't use excessive force, just that given what we know from the article the odds are he didn't.

Nice try, though.

 

[Darthphere]

No, because I have actual experience in the field, I have a greater understanding of how these situations begin and end.



Oh yeah, "The part where she says he hit her in the face with the cuffs was more than likely an accident resulting from her resisting. as being struck with standard issue cuffs in the face to even a younger, well built man is gonna do more than give her a little cut on the nose and minor bruising, much less a fragile old lady"

See, that's using my experience to come to a reasonable conclusion as to what happened, as opposed to lambasting the officer for what he may or may have not done, I never said 100% either way that he did or didn't use excessive force, just that given what we know from the article the odds are he didn't.

Nice try, though.

So pretty much you're judging the situation without knowing all the facts. Thanks, I accept your apology.

 

[Jerry!]

I could have come up with that conclusion and I haven't spent years of experience as a cop. But if you aren't sure 100% either way you are still doing the same thing. Thats exactly the point, you don't know the facts.

 

[jks]

So pretty much you're judging the situation without knowing all the facts. Thanks, I accept your apology.

No, I'm judging it with experience based on the facts we know. There is a difference between you saying you were outraged not knowing anything more than you read and nothing about proper procedure, and me having been in situations similar giving some insight as to what probably happened. [see how I didn't once say he was out of line or if he acted correctly, unlike everyone else who seems to be rushing to judgement]



Again, nice try.

 

[jks]

I could have come up with that conclusion and I haven't spent years of experience as a cop.

Unlikely, as you clearly demonstrated by your posts.

But if you aren't sure 100% either way you are still doing the same thing. Thats exactly the point, you don't know the facts.

Read my post above

 

[Darthphere]

So you're judging the situation based on assumptions from your personal experience but not knowing ALL the facts of this situation that you were not a part of. Thanks, I accept your second apology.

 

[Jerry!]

But anyone could have come up with that even without the experience. The point is, you don't know all the facts, but you still judged the situation, and then you came down on other people doing the same thing. Whether they are right or wrong, or outraged at it or calm about it makes no difference. You were being a hypocrite.

 

[jks]

So you're judging the situation based on assumptions from your personal experience but not knowing ALL the facts of this situation that you were not a part of. Thanks, I accept your second apology.

Again, I am not praising him or condemning him for his actions like you have done. I am giving people like you who know nothing about procedure in a situation like this some insight as to what probably happened because I've been there in situations similar to that.


Sorry, that's a swing and a miss for strike 3. You're out!!

 

[jks]

But anyone could have come up with that even without the experience. The point is, you don't know all the facts, but you still judged the situation, and then you came down on other people doing the same thing.

No, I came down on people for flat out bashing the officer not knowing all the facts. The argument you're trying to make would only hold water if I was flat out praising this officer and saying he absolutely did nothing wrong.

Whether they are right or wrong, or outraged at it or calm about it makes no difference.

Condemning him for it or praising him, either way as opposed to what I did DOES make a difference.

You were being a hypocrite.

Simply not the case. If you can't understand the point that was being made, that's your problem.

 

[Darthphere]

Again, I am not praising him or condemning him for his actions like you have done. I am giving people like you who know nothing about procedure in a situation like this some insight as to what probably happened because I've been there in situations similar to that.


Sorry, that's a swing and a miss for strike 3. You're out!!

Again, you're judging what probably happened based on assumptions from your own personal experience but having not been involved with this situation and not knowing all the facts. I accept your third apology.

And please, don't be dumb, you're defending the dude.

 

[Jerry!]

Unlikely, as you clearly demonstrated by your posts. Read my post above

What posts? The only post I had in this thread before you came along was just a joke about Utah not allowing fires. Nice investigative skills officer, I'm sure that was due to the years of experience you have as well.

 

[jks]

Again, you're judging what probably happened based on assumptions from your own personal experience but having not been involved with this situation and not knowing all the facts. I accept your third apology.

Again, I've already made this abundantly clear, I fail to understand what is so confusing about it. Not condemning him or defending him based on what we know is in no way similar to what everyone else, you included, have done in this thread.

You don't get 4 strikes, you're saying the same thing over and over that has already been countered

And please, don't be dumb, you're defending the dude.

Ironic, I clearly stated that I was neither condemning him nor defending him, but because the point you were trying to make has been shot down, you're resorting to namecalling? After that display you have the audacity to call someone ELSE dumb?

Thank you for your concession. Hope to discuss other topics in other threads where you actually have a valid point in the future.

 

[jks]

What posts? The only post I had in this thread before you came along was just a joke about Utah not allowing fires. Nice investigative skills officer, I'm sure that was due to the years of experience you have as well.

Because if you could have, you would have

 

[Kelly]

No, because I have actual experience in the field, I have a greater understanding of how these situations begin and end.



Oh yeah, "The part where she says he hit her in the face with the cuffs was more than likely an accident resulting from her resisting. as being struck with standard issue cuffs in the face to even a younger, well built man is gonna do more than give her a little cut on the nose and minor bruising, much less a fragile old lady"

See, that's using my experience to come to a reasonable conclusion as to what happened, as opposed to lambasting the officer for what he may or may have not done, I never said 100% either way that he did or didn't use excessive force, just that given what we know from the article the odds are he didn't.

Nice try, though.

No, I'm judging it with experience based on the facts we know. There is a difference between you saying you were outraged not knowing anything more than you read and nothing about proper procedure, and me having been in situations similar giving some insight as to what probably happened. [see how I didn't once say he was out of line or if he acted correctly, unlike everyone else who seems to be rushing to judgement]



Again, nice try.

Unlikely, as you clearly demonstrated by your posts. Read my post above

Again, I am not praising him or condemning him for his actions like you have done. I am giving people like you who know nothing about procedure in a situation like this some insight as to what probably happened because I've been there in situations similar to that.


Sorry, that's a swing and a miss for strike 3. You're out!!

Wow, can I be just like you.........you're so cool.

 

[Darthphere]

Again, I've already made this abundantly clear, I fail to understand what is so confusing about it. Not condemning him or defending him based on what we know is in no way similar to what everyone else, you included, have done in this thread.

You don't get 4 strikes, you're saying the same thing over and over that has already been countered

Ironic, I clearly stated that I was neither condemning him nor defending him, but because the point you were trying to make has been shot down, you're resorting to namecalling? After that display you have the audacity to call someone ELSE dumb?

Thank you for your concession. Hope to discuss other topics in other threads where you actually have a valid point in the future.

I can say I have a purple thumb, doesn't mean it's true. You're defending his actions because the people on here are bashing the cop because "we think hating authority is cool". So please, again, don't be dumb and own up to your stance.

 

[Darthphere]

Wow, can I be just like you.........you're so cool.

I'd like to add his initial quote:

*sigh*


1. Don't blame the cop for enforcing laws/statutes/ordinances that may seem stupid, we have to, that's our job. Blame the idiots who put those laws/statutes/ordinances into place.

2. She was being placed under arrest and turned to go inside. That's fleeing no matter how elderly someone may be.

If that's not him defending the guy, especially with point #2 since the 70 year old lady was clearly a flight risk, I don't know what is.

 

[Jerry!]

Throughout this entire thread I haven't once expressed any opinion supporting the old woman or the cop. You were defending the cop, and in essence you were doing the same thing everyone else was doing, but you were coming down on them and I called you out on that. I don't know all the facts, so thats why I haven't supported either side. You were telling everyone not to blame the cop.

 

[jks]

Wow, can I be just like you.........you're so cool.

I know I rule.

 

[jks]

I'd like to add his initial quote:



If that's not him defending the guy, especially with point #2 since the 70 year old lady was clearly a flight risk, I don't know what is.

When the officer tells you you're under arrest, you're not allowed to turn around and go back into the house to call whoever for whatever reason. If you attempt to, you're fleeing, no matter how elderly you are.

Strike 5. I get it, you're trying to play a whole inning.

 

[Kelly]

These are the "facts" I find interesting...

But she was let go when police realised there were "other ways" of finding out her identity without jailing her, a police spokesman said

The arresting officer has not been named but has been placed on administrative leave, he added.

 

[Darthphere]

When the officer tells you you're under arrest, you're not allowed to turn around and go back into the house to call whoever for whatever reason. If you attempt to, you're fleeing, no matter how elderly you are.

Strike 5. I get it, you're trying to play a whole inning.

She's 70. How fast can a 70 year old woman go? Seriously. It's not like she was going to run inside and grab a gun over a ****ing dried up lawn. You have to see the whole picture here, not just jump to defend your cop buddies.

 

[Jerry!]

If the cop didn't do anything wrong would he still been put on leave? And whats with the act of arresting anyways? If he was just there to caution her about watering her lawn, how does arresting her play a part in that? This is what I am talking about when I say you don't know all the facts.

 

[jks]

These are the "facts" I find interesting...

1. It's gonna cost a lot more to jail her than the city would make off her paying a fine.

2. It's standard for an officer to go on ad leave whenever they are involved in a physical confrontation where injuries result while the investigation is ongoing.

 

[Darthphere]

These are the "facts" I find interesting...

Please, she was fleeing the scene of a dried up lawn. She's lucky they didn't get the nightsticks on her.

 

[jks]

She's 70. How fast can a 70 year old woman go? Seriously. It's not like she was going to run inside and grab a gun over a ****ing dried up lawn. You have to see the whole picture here, not just jump to defend your cop buddies.

Don't even have to type much

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=12127297&postcount=69

Just change strike 5 to 6, and 2 outs in the inning.