Police behavior

[Revoltingest]

Well we are given some facts. Your reservation of judgement amounts to an assertion that there is some set of facts that would alter your judgement on whether these police officers handled tje situation appropriately. Curious part is, that you can not offer me any set of facts that would justify this use of force.

So either we have enough facts to make a determination about the appropriate level of force, or we do not. If you are saying we do not, I would anticipate that you can at least explain your reasoning. But you cannot. How does that make any sense?

It seems that I'm really upsetting you by not picking a side.
You won't change things by pestering.

 

[BSM1]

Well we are given some facts. Your reservation of judgement amounts to an assertion that there is some set of facts that would alter your judgement on whether these police officers handled tje situation appropriately. Curious part is, that you can not offer me any set of facts that would justify this use of force.

So either we have enough facts to make a determination about the appropriate level of force, or we do not. If you are saying we do not, I would anticipate that you can at least explain your reasoning. But you cannot. How does that make any sense?

If she were a threat to herself, that child, or others around her I would demand that the police use what ever force necessary.

 

[Curious George]

Or remove the threat....

By becoming a threat?

This is my objection. And time for more speculation: the officers in an attempt to remove a noncompliant woman did not think about the continued escalation of force. They did not realize the danger in which they were placing the baby, simply because they did not think about how they were escalating the level of force or alternatives-they just continued down the path even as they elevated the risk of harm to an innocent citizen.

 

[Curious George]

It seems that I'm really upsetting you by not picking a side.
You won't change things by pestering.

Upsetting? No. I am grasping at understanding ypur point of view thpugh. And it seems like you are unwilling to help me understand.

 

[Revoltingest]

Upsetting? No. I am grasping at understanding ypur point of view thpugh. And it seems like you are unwilling to help me understand.

Lack of info = postponing judgment
I can only help so much.

 

[Curious George]

If she were a threat to herself, that child, or others around her I would demand that the police use what ever force necessary.

(Bold mine)
And tjat is the only reason I can imagine using that level of force. Yet the charge of acting in a manner injurious to a child was dropped. I can only imagine that this means she was not acting this way prior to her resistance of arrest and that the charge against her was brought based on the resistance to arrest.

In other words, there was no reason to escalate force to this level.

 

[Curious George]

Lack of info = postponing judgment
I can only help so much.

Which means you believe there is some set of facts that might justify this use of force. Yet you cannot explain what set of facts might. This is confounding.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which means you believe there is some set of facts that might justify this use of force. Yet you cannot explain what set of facts might. This is confounding.

I'm aware there are things I don't know.
You keep asking me what they are.
I don't know yet.
That's how it is.

I can go on repeating myself endlessly.
(I'm the lean mean posting machine.)
But can you?

 

[Shad]

I am aware that mu assumption might be wrong. Perhaps the officials at the agency did try to resolve the situation.

I think an attempt was made due to escalation involving the cops in the video and the fact cop were called in. I have no idea if the attempt was genuine, fair or even legal. I have a "feeling" the attempt was merely one of orders. Also I doubt the mother is in the best mental health given she appears to be on government assistance, has a young child and has to deal with government. So I think she was more likely vocal and combative than merely someone blindsided. Although that does not justify the cop's actions.

And, I have no idea how the woman treated them. But, the situation doesn't seem like one where the police needed to be involved.

I think the mother more than likely refused to comply and was vocal about it. Staff have no choice but to call the police as they have no authority to remove anyone. I myself have blasted government clerk over stupid government policy involving IDs. I can easily see her stress levels going overboard as I would have myself if I were in her shoes from what I have seen so far. *based on present information*

I would like to think that people are capable of resolving most disputes without resorting to calling the police or using violence. This seems like a perfect example.

Depends on the staff and policy involved. Some government officials are dicks. Some policy handicaps resolution due to protocol and thresholds. Yelling for example could be beyond a staff resolution threshold due to liability or authority. The government assistance office in my city has very strict rules for the public and staff. Only 10 people can be the queue thus inside the building at one time. No yelling. No swearing. No backpacks (stored with the guard).

 

[Curious George]

I'm aware there are things I don't know.
You keep asking me what they are.
I don't know yet.
That's how it is.

I can go on repeating myself endlessly.
(I'm the lean mean posting machine.)
But can you?

Lol, so let me get this straight. You don't know all the facts so you don't want to make a judgement. You believe that some set of reasonably believable facts may justify this level of force, but you don't know what those facts might be.

Is that about the size of it?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is that about the size of it?

Almost.
You seem to believe that I've considered this more
thoroughly than I actually have. If or when there's
more info, I'll put more energy into it.

 

[Curious George]

I'm aware there are things I don't know.
You keep asking me what they are.
I don't know yet.
That's how it is.

I can go on repeating myself endlessly.
(I'm the lean mean posting machine.)
But can you?

How about this, at what point can you make a judgement since you can never know all of the facts?

 

[Curious George]

Almost.
You seem to believe that I've considered this more
thoroughly than I actually have. If or when there's
more info, I'll put more energy into it.

What info would be sufficient?

 

[Revoltingest]

How about this, at what point can you make a judgement since you can never know all of the facts?

I don't know.

 

[Revoltingest]

What info would be sufficient?

I'll know when I see it.

 

[Curious George]

I'll know when I see it.

How?

 

[wandering peacefully]

Lack of info = postponing judgment
I can only help so much.

This was one article explaining what happened. The woman was wrong for not moving out of the way when asked. And she has no business having a kid. Any mother that would carry on that way while holding their baby is a jerk and most likely an unfit mother.

On the other side, the police should have stood back until the situation settled instead of thrashing around like a bunch of out of controlled jerks looking for a fight and endangering a child.

Both are completely at fault but the cops are supposed to be professionals. I would conclude the police were wrong.

That's my official postion and opinion from the evidence and should be listened to and accepted as the completely correct and opinion on the whole truth of the matter. Or not.

"....
Police also said that office staff and security guards at the benefits office made multiple attempts to get Headley to leave “due to her disorderly conduct towards others, and for obstructing the hallway.” When that failed, they called Officers who arrived at the scene then told Headley to leave the office, police said. When she repeatedly refused, the security guards brought her to the floor. She continued to resist as police officers arrested her, according to the statement. It’s unclear whether Headley or her 1-year-old was hurt in the process — police said that she refused medical treatment for herself and for her son. No officers were injured."


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...arms-welfare-office-prompts-an-investigation/

 

[Revoltingest]

How?

I'll know that when I see it.

 

[Revoltingest]

This was one article explaining what happened. The woman was wrong for not moving out of the way when asked. And she has no business having a kid. Any mother that would carry on that way while holding their baby is a jerk and most likely an unfit mother.

On the other side, the police should have stood back until the situation settled instead of thrashing around like a bunch of out of controlled jerks looking for a fight and endangering a child.

Both are completely at fault but the cops are supposed to be professionals. I would conclude the police were wrong.

That's my official postion and opinion from the evidence and should be listened to and accepted as the completely correct and opinion on the whole truth of the matter. Or not.

"....
Police also said that office staff and security guards at the benefits office made multiple attempts to get Headley to leave “due to her disorderly conduct towards others, and for obstructing the hallway.” When that failed, they called Officers who arrived at the scene then told Headley to leave the office, police said. When she repeatedly refused, the security guards brought her to the floor. She continued to resist as police officers arrested her, according to the statement. It’s unclear whether Headley or her 1-year-old was hurt in the process — police said that she refused medical treatment for herself and for her son. No officers were injured."


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...arms-welfare-office-prompts-an-investigation/

That sounds like a pretty reasonable assessment.

 

[Curious George]

This was one article explaining what happened. The woman was wrong for not moving out of the way when asked. And she has no business having a kid. Any mother that would carry on that way while holding their baby is a jerk and most likely an unfit mother.

On the other side, the police should have stood back until the situation settled instead of thrashing around like a bunch of out of controlled jerks looking for a fight and endangering a child.

Both are completely at fault but the cops are supposed to be professionals. I would conclude the police were wrong.

That's my official postion and opinion from the evidence and should be listened to and accepted as the completely correct and opinion on the whole truth of the matter. Or not.

"....
Police also said that office staff and security guards at the benefits office made multiple attempts to get Headley to leave “due to her disorderly conduct towards others, and for obstructing the hallway.” When that failed, they called Officers who arrived at the scene then told Headley to leave the office, police said. When she repeatedly refused, the security guards brought her to the floor. She continued to resist as police officers arrested her, according to the statement. It’s unclear whether Headley or her 1-year-old was hurt in the process — police said that she refused medical treatment for herself and for her son. No officers were injured."


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...arms-welfare-office-prompts-an-investigation/

I don't think it is questioned whether the mother was wrong not to comply. I think that is given. I am more concerned with the police behavior when confronted with this situation.

Do you think the number of police present contributed to their inability to change track during this arrest?