Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Who gives a #### whether or not she was an imminent threat to anyone? That may be your criteria for not touching her, but it isn't mine. You guys are acting like we all have an invisible force field around us and police can't and shouldn't touch us. When you are intentionally and fragrantly not complying with basic and simple commands by the police, then you can expect to be forced to comply.
I love how some of you think the classroom should have been emptied out. I'm not clear whether that was before or after they all sang Kumbaya. She's not a special snowflake. Thirty people should never have to put their lives on hold for somebody to have a tantrum. If you're being an absolute tit, you should be treated as such.
And where did this 'but if it was your kid, you'd think differently' crap come from? I've seen it on CP and everywhere else this is being discussed. This is exactly how I would expect myself or my kids to be treated if I/they were behaving like this.
|
He wasn't saying it was HIS criteria, he was explaining the criteria used by police officers and law enforcement officials. As for YOUR criteria, unless your a cop, I don't, and I don't think anyone else, cares. And if you do work in law enforcement, that's disturbing.
The point is force proportionate to the situation. This was gratuitous force. It was confirmed by both his own agency, and the fact that he has been in trouble for excessive force in the past.
Yes, she escalated the situation by not complying. But her actions in no way deserved the response it got. Especially since he is supposed to be trained for situations like this, and is a 'professional' and she is a child.