The news says the police want to be clear that this was a school resource officer, not real police that handcuffed her, and any questions should be submitted to the school board, not the police department.
The board president is claiming this is somehow a setup by other board members as a devious plot to get rid of the superintendent. Does that make sense to anyone? I can't follow his logic.

Makes me think of the guy who videotaped the woman at the Chick-Fil-A drive thru, figuring he would be lauded as a hero for challenging someone who worked for that company. And it backfired and he became unemployed because of his "principles", which was pretty much what he expected of that woman. And then he played the victim. But he brought it on himself, the woman who tweeted about AIDS in Africa is a whole other story.

Now that everyone has the power to self-publish and broadcast just about anything to the entire world I'm seeing the power that it unleashes in others. I posted a comment on an unsolicited news posting in my FB feed, regarding the Pulitzer Prize picture of the black woman holding out her hands to be handcuffed by the police in riot gear. And everyone in the comment section is going predictably teary-eyed and goose pimply over it, with the usual cliches of iconic, defining, inspiring, uplifting, etc.

And I wrote "don't be so easily manipulated, it's stagey and predictable and Kardashians use this shit to sell sugar water." or something like that. My point being that we have gone from prize-winning pictures of the Viet Nam war (e.g.) to the whole process being co-opted by pop culture, like everything and anything else. Of course I got bombarded with claims of racism and people who pitied my soul. And some were musing on whether to try to track down my employer. I deleted my comment, this world has gotten too fucking weird for me.

Andddd you're fired. http://abc7chicago.com/utah-police-officer-who-handcuffed-dragged-nurse-in-video-fired/2517160/

Yes, that's where we differ, because she sure didn't seem to be trying to leave to me, just had an inability to stand still under stress, like many 15 year olds. (And as I've said, it's the macing a handcuffed, secured girl that's out of line imo, the manhandling was just more than needed and was certain to escalate problems rather than solve them, so not smart but on the low end of the scale of acceptability, the macing was a pure assault in my eyes, for no good reason beyond sadism. It was not the right way to get her in the car.)

Keep in mind, she gets on her bike and rides (slowly) with ZERO complaint from the officer she's right in front of, he LET her do it, then got pissed off that she did it. WTF?!
Again, this could have been solved with a simple command to sit down, a command they did not give. Also, detained is not under arrest. You are under zero obligation to submit to detention. If they thought she was leaving the scene, they should have arrested her. Instead, they said repeatedly that they were detaining her for 'cooperation of investigation' (not a crime) and a medical release (something they probably need for their own liability purposes, but not something they can arrest a person for as far as I know).

Yes, the little girl was in the wrong...did my saying exactly that confuse you?

Yes, I absolutely think that if an officer pepper sprayed another officer's child for something the first officer screwed up (like failing to put her all the way in the car) the parent would go ballistic and sue...no matter how their child had acted. Rude behavior is not a threat, the only legitimate reason to use force. I don't think they would see it like you do if it was their child.
Yes, they would also probably reprimand the child too, but bad manners do not excuse assault with a weapon on a handcuffed detainee.

There was no reason to use mace, the proper response is to pull her into the car from the other side.

Your analogy only works if the wolf hounds go after the sheep when there's not a wolf in sight.

Hours? Really? Try an extra 10 seconds to avoid 15 minutes of battle and days of court. "Sit down" doesn't take even that. If they don't have the patience to verbalize the instructions they want followed, they should quit. Deescalation is their job, and they absolutely failed, as they often do.

Remember, they repeatedly say they're only detaining her because she may need medical treatment, then they treat her in a way that ensures she needs medical treatment. If they were really trying to help her, they failed so utterly miserably that they all should quit today...but we know that was bullshit lies, right?

I'm guessing you've never had a gun to your head and a knee on your neck face down in a gutter because an officer made a mistake reading your licence plate and had zero patience for the car thief he was taking down, followed by threats of retaliation if you report them. You might give them less cooperation and leeway if you had.

In America, you have every right to ignore them unless they give a lawful command, which you must obey. They cannot arrest you for silence, or for ignoring a request. I'll take my brother's expensive lawyer's advice over anyone's, and he said the only answer allowed is "ask my lawyer", and to do what they command, but not what they ask.

The girl wasn't aggressively pushing to me, but she also wasn't complying with a lawful command. If the audio is any indication, she was trying to get her phone out of her pocket while lying down handcuffed. She should have complied, but they also should have put her all the way in like they're trained to do, not 3/4 of the way. It's easy and safe to open the other door and pull her another foot into the car where she can't block anything, and that doesn't result in a lawsuit and more public distrust, but that wouldn't teach her a lesson. Pepper spray is not as safe as that by far.

It's not cool to hate cops, and I really wish they would stop getting caught doing things that foster hatred. I want them to act in a way the public can always support, not the least patient and most aggressive they can legally justify in every situation. It would be good if they could be thinking 'how would I feel if someone did this to my daughter/son under the same conditions.
I doubt any of them would be ok with that happening to their child, tantrum or no. They could have been worse here, but also could have defused it all with a single simple command to sit at the beginning. Don't expect an irrational, young, scared girl to act like an adult...that's beyond the capabilities of most adults.

You can humbly submit to authority if you wish. My forefathers fought and died to secure my rights to not answer questions or submit to the every whim of authority, I'll not disrespect their sacrifices by waiving those hard won rights for authority's, or my own convenience.

It would be nice if 15 year old girls were civil, but few I've known are when cornered. I think that's the real reason for the spraying, but not an excuse imo. To me, the cop's pride needs to give way to reason and logic, or we'll keep paying out multi million dollar judgements.

Yes, and she does "come here", then he lets her get on the bike without telling her not to. It didn't look like an escape attempt to me, but may have to them. That's not the point, the point is they didn't tell her to stay there when she turned around and went back "here". It's clear to me that her problem is being touched by strangers, and had they simply told her to sit, no one would have had to touch her, and things would not have escalated.

Detained is not under arrest, so you can't be charged with resisting detainment. Ignoring the police is totally fine until they give a lawful command....one that doesn't end with "OK?".

Again, you're assuming she was trying to flee and not just being an OCD (ADD?) teenager trying to avoid being touched. That's how she appears to me, spoiled, trouble, disrespectful, yes, but also scared, troubled, confused, and under assault.

I do think they should stop her from fleeing, (if that's what she was trying to do) I just think they should start with "sit down" or "stay right there" before manhandling a child that's just been in an accident, especially if the contention is they are "detaining" her because she might need medical treatment. "Come here" is a command satisfied when she returns "there", it does not command her to stay anywhere, no matter how logical it is to infer that.

As a citizen, you do have the right to arrest her (which they should have done if they thought she was fleeing the scene, not just "detained" her) but you had better be able to totally justify any force you use to hold her...as should the police. The force used must be reasonable, minimal, only what's required to prevent escape, and on par with the crime she's being detained for. They might have 1 out of 4 covered in part if they stretch it.

My issue is far more about the pepper spraying her for not moving her foot rather than the manhandling, but I do think both were wrong and more about disrespect and power trips than trying to calmly handle the accident. ONce she was handcuffed and in the car, she wasn't escaping anything, nor was she a threat to anyone. The pepper spray was totally out of line. The rest is just questionable to me and absolutely not how you make the community support you, but probably not illegal.

If she was trying to escape, she wasn't trying hard. She looked like she was slowly riding circles to me.
When, exactly, do you hear them tell her to stay? I don't here them say anything of the sort before she's handcuffed, not that I think she was trying to leave.

Being detained for cooperation of investigation? You do not have to submit to handcuffing and detention without a suspected crime, and "cooperation of investigation" is not a crime I've ever heard of. Detention is not arrest, so she wasn't resisting arrest.

Because I warn you I'm going to shoot you if you don't do something, that makes it OK if I do? Hmmmm. They can legally use spray and tasers in self defense, but should not be allowed to use them as a coercion technique. She posed no threat seated in the car handcuffed, so there was no legitimate use of force, and certainly no legitimate use of weaponry.

Again, this was only detention, not arrest. I've never heard of anyone charged with resisting detention.

Then doesn't that mean you agree?

If you say they didn't need to spray her, you agree the police escalated to using weapons for no good reason, making them the one's more out of control. You should expect more self control from an authority figure (or 4) than you do from a scared 15 year old girl (with OCD?), should you not?

Refusing on scene medical care is reason for arrest?!? In what world? That's just insanity, even for a minor. I'm lucky that wasn't the case when I was a kid. She sure didn't seem to need medical attention...until they got hold of her that is.

They say "you're being detained for cooperation of investigation", which is not a crime, and neither is not cooperating. They should not have let her back on the bike, and should have told her to sit if they needed her to stay until they contacted a guardian, they didn't say that until after pushing her around and handcuffing her. Even then they don't give a lawful command, they ask..."...OK?". If a cop ends his command with "OK?" it's not a lawful command, it's a request. They know this. It's at least their responsibility to give the command before attacking her for not following one, imo. She didn't seem to be trying to escape to me, but she shouldn't have been allowed back on the bike at all.

I saw no need to grab her, push her around, handcuff her, and continually escalate a battle with a 15 year old to use of pepper spray because she wouldn't move her foot. That was totally uncalled for, and was use of force for contempt of cop because they were feeling disrespected, not for their safety.

I do agree, she was seemingly in the wrong in the accident and not acting like an adult....but she isn't one. They are. They were FAR from calm or collected, evidenced by the repeated violent manhandling of a girl 1/2 their size, and spraying her for trying to comply with their earlier request instead of following the current one (listen, she's saying 'let me get my phone to give you my mom's number' when they spray her...twice). I think that's the part that will bite them in the ass, because she was not a threat in any way when they sprayed her, just annoying.

Pardon me, shots. It was a criminal level of incompetence. Yet neither the Commander who gave 'conflicting statements'(lied) nor the Officer have been charged with anything, even at this late date. Additionally, something else I forgot was that they let the victim bleed while handcuffed for 20 minutes without providing any first aid or making it a priority that he was treated. It was lucky that he didn't bleed out or go into shock.

But this is the type of thing I am talking about and was referencing to @bareboards2. I mean, I'm white and of Italian descent, so I could do damn near anything to an officer and not be killed. I even conceal carry, although they know that as soon as they see my license or run my plates. Yet we have people of color that are being run rampant over, be it racism or fear of a different culture/people. Like in that video where the guy was shot and the female officer's husband was in the pursuit helicopter saying that he looked like a mean black dude. We simply can't keep this up.

I accept your appology. ;-)

I understand. I was not condoning it, I was decrying a situation where that is a reasonable response in self defense. I do not condone, nor do I wish for cops being shot/killed any more than I condone or wish for them to kill others...which is not at all, or barring that, only when absolutely necessary to save lives.

Not having sympathy for a group's pain is not the same thing as advocating more pain infliction. I understand the misunderstanding, I'm often unclear. I am not sympathetic for the losses of a group that causes 30 times the killings they receive....but I want them to kill fewer, not for more of them to be killed.

Yes, and no. You could say I 'dehumanize' them, but really I humanize them. Dehumanizing them would be elevating their position IMO...I have a terrible estimation of humanity, so dehumanizing someone is being nice. ;-)

No, I'm a LOT twisted. ;-)

Again, no I don't think more dead cops fixes anything....but I do see it as a likely outcome of this behavior....and understandable. If you honestly believe any member of a particular group is likely to attack and kill you without provocation, with recent evidence provided daily to reinforce that belief, any reasonable person would act in self defense.

As it turns out, according to his superior, you are correct....he intended to kill the autistic man. That makes the triple handcuffing even more curious, to put it mildly. They now admit he was NEVER a suspect, but have not offered any reasoning behind handcuffing him or not offering any medical attention for an unreasonable time.

Just so I'm clear, had you used '....' instead of "....." to paraphrase what you thought I was saying, I would not have taken offence at the misunderstanding. I only got upset because using quotation marks indicated I said exactly what you mistakenly thought I meant.

To be clear, the situation appears to be as follows:

The police get a call about a person that may be mental wielding a gun.

Multiple police arrive on scene, where they find a black male and hispanic male.

The hispanic male is clutching something.

The extremely lucid and reasonable sounding black male identifies himself as a caregiver for the hispanic male, clarifies that the hispanic male is autistic, and that the item the hispanic male is carrying is a toy truck.

The black male does all of this, as well as trying to de-escalate the situation, while laying prone on his back with his hands in the air.

The police move in, at some point the black male is shot in the leg.

The police have full control of the situation, both parties are handcuffed.

Medical aid is not provided to the black male for more than 15 minutes. Not even an attempt by an officer to staunch the blood flow.

When the black male asks the officer why he was shot, the officer supposedly responds, "I don't know."

Now, let's examine this closely.

A gunshot wound to the leg could easily have nicked the femoral artery. I doubt the officers were trained to identify this. You can bleed out from seconds to minutes after your femoral artery gets damaged. A reasonable person might take off their shirt and compress the wound or use a belt as a tourniquet.

Before we consider that, really, we should look at one factor. If you choose to be a fireman, a policeman, or be in any other dangerous job, you need to be prepared to face actual danger. Being so scared that you might somehow, maybe, possibly get hurt that you proceed to jumpscare shoot someone who is fucking prone, is not being willing to face danger. It means someone joined the force to be 'better' than the rest of us plebes and not to face an iota of danger.

Also, if it was a white male, laying on his back and doing the same thing, do we expect him to be shot? The likely answer is no. I can't even believe that this was a likely shooting situation. At first, I suspected it might have been one shot that was accidentally discharged. That, while not acceptable, would have been plausible due to nerves. Three shots means three separate trigger pulls, that speaks to intent to shoot.

Luckily this man is going to live. He will likely sue and get a good chunk of money. If he had died, blood would have likely ran in the streets in Florida because one cop got scared that he 'might' be in danger. As far as that cop? He might lose his job briefly. Cop unions will do their best to get him back his job and will likely succeed. Let's be real about the possible ramifications of him going before a grand jury though. Even if he does, he will walk because the prosecutor will throw the case.

Yes, and that's why I display such contempt and distrust of them.

As I understood it, yes, 3 pairs of cuffs, all 3 attached to his wrists, not a chain of 3 pairs to make him comfortable. I mean, why is he cuffed at all? WTF?!? He's not 500lbs, the only time they use more than one pair in a chain is when the perps hands can't fit behind their back, NEVER for comfort....that's simply not what cuffs are about...EVER.

Yes, this level of 'incompetence' (if that's what it was, and I don't concede that) MUST be intentional. It falls so far below the bar we have set as reasonable, or the standards that police MUST meet through testing, that the only way it could actually be his incompetence rather than intentional negligence is if his supervisor intentionally falsified his test results to keep him on the force....so it's either HIS intentional negligence or his supervisors, but either way, it's intentional. No question in my mind that SOMEONE along the chain of responsibility intentionally allowed this behavior...or this level of incompetence that it's clear would lead to this behavior. There was intentional negligence, no way around it.

It actually seems to indicate a lack of a reason for shooting in the first place to me.

I've seen a dozen videos about this. Numerous times they mentioned an over 15 minute wait before he was seen by medics, during which time they had him handcuffed, bleeding in the street, but not charged with any crime or even suspected of one....why the cuffs?

I think that there is a point where negligence is SO intentional, and the results of that negligence SO foreseeable that it's indirect intent. Cops shoot to kill...period. If they shoot inappropriately, like at someone not posing a threat, that's attempted murder IMO. Period. They intend to kill, it's not accidental. Wounding him was accidental and clearly incompetence, which should be another charge IMO, unsafe discharge of a weapon...at least twice for those times he missed completely....and attempted murder 3 times.

(Side note...how in the hell do you miss from that close with a rifle?!? That, as much as anything else, should have people up in arms, that an officer is so non-proficient with his weapon, but still allowed to carry and use it. WTF?!? I want every officer with a firearm to be reasonably proficient with it...really any person with one, but that's another discussion. Police have to train, and prove proficiency with their weapon....how can this possibly happen without intentional skirting of the standards/rules/law?)

The biggest problem IMO is there's rarely any justice at all, even in those cases where there's incontrovertible evidence of guilt. Instant justice would be nice, but delayed justice would be FAR preferable to no justice, which is the current situation. How many recent killings of unarmed men have gone completely unaddressed? Far too many to count.
The system is set up in such a way that those charged with prosecuting police have personal and professional relationships with them that deny impartiality in almost every case. That is why there's rarely any prosecution, and even when there is (usually because they are pressured into it by public outcry) they blatantly throw the case in the toilet with no consequence....and there's still no justice.

Well, the level of incompetence required for this to be 'accidental' is SOOO incredibly high that it's not reasonable to assume the police are that incompetent....but if they are, that's intentional on the part of their supervisors, no? So still the responsibility of the police as a whole.

There IS doubt that they could have killed him and made it look unintentional. He shot 3 times, and only hit once. Clearly, he's not a good enough shot to kill on the first shot, because cops ALWAYS shoot to kill, and he failed, no matter which target he was aiming at.

We can assume that because he said "I don't know" when asked why he shot the caregiver....not "I missed", or "I wasn't aiming at you" or any other mitigation. If, as you suggest, he was firing at the sitting, unarmed, severely mentally challenged man (also completely inexcusable, btw) then the negligence in discharging his firearm with an innocent victim between him and the target is not just gross negligence, it's intentional negligence. Shooting someone because you don't care that they are between you and your target makes you an attempted murderer. Period.

Um....if a cop was shot in the foot, medical care would be instant, there would be no handcuffing, much less TRIPPLE handcuffing. What was reported was they didn't call for medical attention for >15 minutes while the victim lay handcuffed bleeding in the street (probably with officers standing on top of him). Medical care was provided while the shootings were still happening in Dallas, so "the scene wasn't secured yet, we couldn't allow medics in safely" falls completely flat as an excuse anymore and won't even be considered by me.

That level of incompetence from a police officer MUST, by definition, be intentional. They are well trained and equipped to avoid exactly this kind of fiasco. Ignoring that training is intentional, and that must be prosecutable if there is to be any effect. I don't have to ascribe intent to murder to claim culpability. That is not the metric by which the law is applied. If your actions are grossly negligent and end in near death of another, which is the absolute least criminal possible interpretation of the actions of this officer, that's criminal attempted murder/manslaughter1. Because (inappropriately) using a firearm is not unintentional, and officers ONLY use them to kill, this was not attempted manslaughter, which only applies when the intent is NOT to kill, it was an attempted murder.
Either way, that's a question for a jury to answer, not his superior, not the DA that he works with daily.

Sweet Zombie Jesus.

Those cops damn well better be convicted of attempted murder. If they aren't, it's going to be totally open season on anyone in blue. What unbelievable murderous fuckers.

Why in the fuck did they pull their guns on them? Black man in public?
There was never a gun, no cop ever saw a gun, no cop saw him move, no cop helped him after he was shot 3 times, instead they handcuffed him for being shot and withheld treatment (in the hope he might bleed to death?). I saw at least 2 men there that did have guns, and they absolutely used them to try to murder another person....why is no one shooting them, if 'man with gun' is a reason to shoot someone, shoot them.

Shoot first, ask questions later. That's the clear unambiguous MO of the cops....if they ever ask questions at all...so that's how people should be responding to cops, (right?)...shoot first, then handcuff them, then let them bleed out on the street.....if they survive, blame them for the shooting and claim self defense, after all, they are armed and clearly dangerous. (Sounds pretty terrible put that way, huh?)
It's at the point where I understand why cops are outright murdering any cop killers and not even trying to arrest them, they know that no jury will convict a black man of cop killing, it's arguably self defense every time. I also totally understand the feelings of the ambushers. Cops have brought this on themselves with their own actions, and complete lack of action prosecuting their own crimes. At this point, it's kill or be killed, so totally understandable to shoot first if a cop shows up.

If they don't take severe action against every cop involved in this instance, there's going to be more cop killings. It's a certainty, and actually appropriate IMO. Self defense is the right of every citizen, not just cops. I have zero sympathy for recently murdered cops, and won't until there's more cops killed than there are unarmed citizens killed by cops.
I would never convict a cop killer in today's climate....and I'm not alone. Cops are begging for a race war, and doing all they can to ensure one starts.

Seems after reading the complaint, this is SoP and is mandated by the officer's superiors. Of course, a decent human being would respectfully say "Fuck you, SIr, I ain't handcuffing kids!" so I can't show any sympathy for the deputy.