Excessive force?

[Wrangl3r93]

http://www.cbs46.com/news/14279508/detail.html?rss=lnta&psp=news

As far as I can tell the cop did nothing wrong. Maybe a cop on here can correct me but you don't have to read the suspect their rights before you detain(not arrest) them do you? He was attempting to detain her for suspicious behavior, being out after curfew and carrying a full bag of new clothes with the tags still on them. Watch the video and you can see the 15 year old was resisting arrest. If it's excessive force to pull the suspects hands behind their back to put handcuffs on them then this world is doomed. I couldn't be a cop, If she had bit me her face would have eaten my hood a few times. Sad thing is he's gonna be suspended at the least and possibly lose his job.

 

[KrazyJeeper]

Hard call but I think the dude is toast. The vid shows me that he hit her out of anger because of the bite to the arm, not for fear of his life. In other words, police are held to a higher standard. It sucks, and it probably was instinct on his part, but I bet they go after him nonetheless. I wonder of the clothes were stolen or not.

 

[dandoc]

What you see in the news video and in the dashboard camera video is NOT the whole story. It is (unfortunately) what the MEDIA wants us to see to make that officer, and in turn, all police officers, appear to be the bad guys and "rights violators".

Red93, to my knowledge, a person only needs to be read their Miranda rights before they are to be interrogated. This does vary from one police department to another, as some departments may read the rights before or during all arrests. Generally before interrogation is the only time you will hear the Miranda rights being read.

Questions to ponder: What were the events that led up to the footage seen on the dashboard camera? What other dialogue transpired between the officer and girl? Did she try to run away? Were the clothes in the garbage bag paid for in full, or were they stolen?

From my perspective after seeing the video:
Fact- The girl did resist being placed under arrest by the police officer, as evidenced by her squirming and trying to pull her arm away from the officer several times.
Fact- The girl did bite the officer on the arm. (A charge of assaulting a police officer may be filed against her)
Fact- The officer did strike the girl one time in the head or right shoulder region. (Perhaps this was done to prevent further immediate attack from the girl's mouth. Perhaps done, as KrazyJeeper said, out of anger and not for fear of his life. That official determination is for the officer's superiors to make).
Fact- The officer did spray the girl with pepper spray/mace.

In my view, the media is making a big stink about this minor incident, and I suspect the girl's relatives will as well, by trying to extract a financial windfall from the officer/police department/city. Hopefully this police officer will keep his job without any black marks on his record over this over-blown incident. Best wishes to him, his family, and his department.

Any remarks from current LEO's on the board? Dropseys and any others?

 

[Wrangl3r93]

Yeah that's what I was thinking Dan. There had to be some previous footage, or maybe it wasn't on tape what happened before that. Cops don't just pull you off the street and throw handcuffs on you for being suspicious. There had to be some reason he was detaining her that the media isn't telling.

 

[Bounty__Hunter]

I can tell you through first-hand experience to not underestimate somebody based on gender or size. Some of the smaller people I've arrested, and many female, have had the most fight.

I've been in that situation, and as far as I'm concerned the use of force was justified to prevent the further use of force by the suspect. In Law Enforcement, we're allowed by law to go one step higher on the force continuum to prevent further injury and to make an arrest.

 

[currupt4130]

Here's the whole tape, with audio. The officer clearly warns her multiple times and makes every attempt to subdue her calmly. I hate the media because they do crap like this. The officer told the girl 16 times to put her hands behind her back. She's an idiot and the officer was only doing his job.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/6414.html

BTW, go to Pirate and read the thread on this.

Here is the best part of the whole thread, the guy wrote a letter to the media and they wrote him back.

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7339524&postcount=46

Here's the whole thread: http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=619247

 

[laxpug19]

The Miranda rights must be read before being arrested. It doesnt depend on the station, nation wide it must be read. My view is that the cop was doing what he was trained to do. Liberal media kills me.

 

[Wrangl3r93]

I love how he tried to calm the girl down telling her if she didn't comply he would be forced to use more force to handcuff her, then she proceeds to fight more and bites him. Not being racist, sexist, anything if I was arresting someone like that under those circumstances and she bit me the line would end there. If she broke skin I'd be at the hospital having tests run. Ten dollars says the parents try to collect money on racial issues.

 

[dandoc]

Regarding the Miranda issue and when a suspect is to be Mirandized.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
Read specifically the part titled "Confusion regarding use".

Laxpug's comment

The Miranda warning must be read before being arrested. It doesnt depend on the station, nation wide it must be read.

is one of apparantly a national misunderstanding on when a person is to be Mirandized. I have worked at a police station alongside sworn police officers, and even helped with arrests. Only on a rare occasion did they read a person their Miranda warning... typically when they were about to interrogate at the police station. Go to the Wikipedia link above for a better understanding of the Miranda warning.

 

[Bounty__Hunter]

The Miranda rights must be read before being arrested. It doesnt depend on the station, nation wide it must be read.

Misinformation. Two conditions must exist (nationwide) to require the reading of Miranda Warning. Custody and Interogation. If they're not in custody, you can ask anything you want without the warning. They can be in custody for an undetermined amount of time without having the warning read to them, up to the point they are asked questions (interogated). Make sense?

The general public does not know this, which is why many (usually drunk) offenders think thier rights are violated because they weren't read the miranda warning after being arrested. Chances are, they weren't interogated.


Now some agencies may go a step beyond what the Supreme Court requires per Miranda and require officers to read a suspect the miranda warning immediately upon arrest. This is procedural and goes beyond the minimum nationwide requirement.

 

[judge09]

The local news (this happened near me) said Jessie Jackson is in town for a "Big Announcement" this morning.

 

[Bounty__Hunter]

Oooh, I can hardly wait :lol:

 

[dropseys]

Thanks for clearing that up Bounty. I know I have actually done interviews over the phone and they still didn't require miranda since they were detained, and were free to hang up if they so choose. A really good way to do interviews sometimes for those who are afraid to come in.

 

[dropseys]

Oh yeah, and There is all sorts of talk about getting rid of the miranda law due to the fact that everyone knows there rights (or so they think), it is common knowledge. I always loved trying to get name/dob/address etc and getting told their rights were violated because of miranda wasn't read. Sorry, but it doesn't apply to basic identifying info.