imported post
camsoup wrote:
What more proof do you need other than the video itself, she throws the woman to the ground, the womens head bounces off the pavement and she starts bleeding from the head wound. If I was to throw you off balance and to the ground and your head bounces off the pavement would you say I did it gently?
Who the hell cares if she used a hip toss or a suplex.... if it was your mother or father would you still feel the officer was justified in her actions?
That officer engaged the old woman for what, a total of about 5 secs before throwing her down. Some crazed lunatic with a gun barricades himself in a room and the swat team will stand by for hours trying to talk him down.
Yet the officer chooses to slam an 84 year old woman to the ground after talking to her for a total of about 5 secs? I understand she was trying to control the knife, but why not control the knife and keep the old lady on her feet, sure busting her head open on the pavement helped the officer gain control of the knife. But was it really necessary??
I think there are people on this board who just don't understand the nature of physical conflict, or the possibilities of a person with Alzheimer's. They don't understand that the term "judo' means, "the gentle way" (even though it looks harsh). They don't understand just how physical these types of situations can be. Hence why some think it's a simple task to disarm someone. I think there are others who don't realize just how dangerous an elderly Alzheimer's patient can be (especially when armed with a knife). Another thing I think people don't take into account are another person's physical capabilities, as well as skill set. If they chose not to listen to reason, so be it.
I once heard someone comment about an SD shooting to the effect of, "He could have just shot the perp in the arm or leg instead of the head." I informed that person that when they make a comment like that in front of people who do understand not only the nature of such an event, but also the consequences, then they themselves sound ignorant because it is clear they have little knowledge of what they speak, and are clearly basing their comments on emotion. That's what's going on here, but unlike the person I mention, some around here don't like facing up to their own ignorance. Their choice I suppose.
You ask me, "if it was your mother or father would you still feel the officer was justified in her actions?". I'll tell you:
My grandfather died of alzheimer's. He died a tiny, frail old man. Throughout his life he was a gentle, kind person full of love. From the start, I have viewed this incident as if it was my grandfather or grandmother this happened to. I know how violent and dangerous an alzheimer's patient can be no matter how small and frail they may appear. I also know a thing or two about take-down techniques. I've been thrown to the deck on numerous occasions. I honestly can't say I would have done things much differently. You can visualize how you are going to subdue a person, but that person can always throw a wrench into your plans causing you to alter them. The take-down the female officer used may have looked brutal, but to someone who has experience in similar matters, and who chooses to view it as objectively as possible, that was a weak take down, and it really did look like the officer was trying to be gentle with the woman. It is also a much better alternative than a Taser or OC, or baton. I may or may not have been able to accomplish the same goal with less injury to the woman, but that is way too dependent upon the evolving dynamics of such an encounter, and it also relies on personal experiences. I'm guessing (based on the way in which the officer took her down) that the officer didn't feel the need (much less want to use) more force. I'm also guessing that that is why the officer went hands on in the first place, rather than a Taser or OC (which would probably have presented a greater danger to the woman).
Let's walk it through:
The officer did the following before attempting the take down:
Talk- This obviously isn't going to work with an alzheimer's patient, but I'm pretty sure it lead to the reason why the officer did not take her down harder. I know I know. Her head bounced off the pavement and she was bleeding. If you can't or are unwilling to understand that there were plenty of harsher ways to subdue that woman, then I don't know what to say to you. Had I never been on the receiving end of such treatment myself (and yeah, it's happened on pavement), I too might think it was a harsh method. However, I have had similar treatment done to me, and I know it wasn't as bad as many people think it is. It's your perception that's skewed, not the officer's decision.
Disarm while standing-The officer tried this and was unable to effect the outcome, causing the encounter to evolve.
Subdue- Taking away a persons legs takes away their mobility. It also takes away your mobility making you vulnerable. The officer took a risk when she went hands on, and furthered it when she went to the ground (one more indicator of the desire to be gentle with the woman). It ended the encounter, and even after the take down they still tried to not harm the woman while disarming her. Had it been someone they were not trying to be gentle with, I'm sure they could have solved the situation much much sooner.
Would I still feel that it was justified if it was my mother or father? I'll give you one better. If it was my grandfather (whom I miss dearly and always have and will love and respect), I'd like to think that I have the upper body strength and skill to provide enough support during the take down so that he didn't bump his head, but there's a good possibility I'd have still taken him down. I can't say I'd do it because that's one of those things that arise out of the evolution of violent encounters (keep in mind that even though this was a 84 y/o woman, she was still armed and dangerous). I'd have used enough force necessary to disarm him without harm to me or him, and I can easily see it leading to that. That is why I feel the officer's actions were not only justified, but also commendable (Even on the ground they didn't use nearly as much force as they would have on a more formidable foe. They exercised restraint. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there).
People can go on the offensive against supporters of this cop all they want, but again I ask, "How should it have been handled differently?" It's not as easy as many seem to think. I remember talking to a manager and supervisor many years ago (and I forget how the subject came up), and they seemed to think that it would be easy to break a man's neck by just grabbing him by the neck or head and wrenching. It struck me as funny, because I'd had it done to me, and seen it done to others enough times to know that they were talking out of ignorance. Too many movies I guess.
Instead of bashing cops, why can't people get productive and try to come up with a manner in which it could have been better handled? I'm guessing it's because they can't, but I'd still like to hear more than hysterical rants and personal assaults. Oh well.
