Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
I'm all for waiting until the case is concluded but my god what in the world makes you think crushing a 12 year old's skull is an appropriate level of force in any situation?
|
Why do you immediately think that that level of force was intentional and/or malicious? I don't know where the 'bear hug' thing mentioned earlier came from but it's certainly a common way to attempt to restrain someone without hurting them. However, one doesn't have a lot of control over the person in the bear hug. And the person being bear hugged generally doesn't care HOW they get out, as long as they DO. Attempting to restrain without injury or with as little injury as possible someone who doesn't care if they get hurt as long as they get away is no easy task, almost regardless of any size difference.
So officer has kid in a bear hug. Kid is flailing around like a slippery eel. Kid tangles feet into officers feet (or officer tangles his feet into the kids, could be either, really), both fall over, officer falls onto child, damage is done. No intention or malice. An investigation needs to happen, and the situation needs to be looked at and examined, without a doubt.
But why do folks instantly go to both extremes: ie, 'skull fractures are an appropriate level of force in defense' and 'this was totally intentional and malicious and can't possibly be anything else' right off the bat without applying a little critical thinking about the situation and what could have happened.
The news outlets almost never get the full story (especially at first blush) but they sure know how to get emotional reactions out of people.