A good example of why people don't respect or work with cops.
I hope they get sued and she never works again...even though she was in the wrong, this reaction by all officers involved was insanely overboard, abusive, violent, and just created another 1000 cop haters. Without a badge, this would be totally unjustified battery with a weapon...and with a badge it still is.

Remember, the answer to every question, including "what's your name" is "ask my lawyer" or "am I being detained? I would like to leave now.".

Well, I have to disagree. I hate brutality as much as anyone. This girl however was uncontrollable, and all they were trying to do was ask some questions. She was uncooperative, and wouldn't let them even close the car door. (putting her foot in the door).

She wouldn't give her information, and was refusing on scene medical care while under age.

I can agree maybe they didn't need the spray, but she escalated this, not them. She got herself arrested. The police were calm, and collected through the entire ordeal.

She had no reason to loose it, and to be uncooperative.
But wait, maybe she did..., does it say she was also charged with possession. Could be she was freaked out over what her parents were going to say or do - didn't want to get caught by her parents..., unfortunately it was too late for that - she just made it worse on herself.

I'm gonna have to side with Sagemind on this and disagree. First interaction right on video with the officers there is her trying to leave the scene. They tell her to stay, and she just tries to escape anyway. At this point she IS being detained. She fights and struggles against them the entire remainder of the video. That's resisting arrest. Not once do the cops use anything resembling excessive force. Even the pepper spray at the very end is warned 2(3?) times before being used.

Sorry, but the right to actively fight and resist arrest does not exist and I do not believe it should. If you forcefully resist arrest the police not only may, but should use force to make the arrest.

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.

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.

Come here is the very first thing the cop with the body can says to her. She responds with don't f'ing touch me, dodging back around him and trying to ride off on her bike. Officer then physically restrains and tells her she IS being detained. Pretty straight so far in support of the officer unless you think ignoring the police and resisting arrest is cool.

She had very good reason to be detained as from the only report so far, she was fleeing the scene of an accident. Whether she caused it or not, tracking down teenage girl on a bike isn't going to be easy without some manner of identification first. Maybe you and I disagree this fundamentally, but in the case of fleeing the scene of an accident, not only do I think police should physically prevent that, I believe private citizens should have the right as well.

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.

Too funny.. She deserve every bit of police action she received.
When you think you are more important than talking to the law this stuff happens.

Fucking brat. Clearly, her shitty parents didn't teach her much in the way of respect. They left it to the world to do that for them.

Now this is good footage. You see and hear what the cop sees and hears and you actually have context before the incident. This why all cops should wear body cams and why body cam footage should be released to the public.

The cop was entirely justified here. The suspect tried to flee the scene, refused to cooperate or comply with commands and physically resisted arrest. When the suspect repeatedly tried to keep the car door open with her legs, the cops made the correct choice in pepper-spraying her. It's very hard to close a door when someone is aggressively pushing it open. Brute force might have worked but that would have been dangerous and potentially lead to accidental injury. Pepper spray was the safest option.

And newtboy, ignoring the police is not "totally fine." In fact, it's one of the dumbest and most dangerous things you can do. Police are authority figures with the right to detain or arrest you. As such, the best way to deal with police is to listen and cooperate in a civil manner. If the girl had done that, she wouldn't have been cuffed, carried off to the police car or pepper-sprayed. I know it's cool to hate cops (and authority figures in general) but at a certain point, pride needs to give way to reason and logic.

The cops are obviously not very well trained for this sort of situation - but I don't see what else they could have done unless they had a specialized juvenile officer on the scene; but macing a 15 year old girl is way overboard. Good job radicalizing the youth, coppers!

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.

We really do see an entirely different world.

What I see originally happening here is a dispute/conflict between two citizens. The driver and the cyclist. There was a collision that damaged the car and maybe the cyclist. The cyclist is a minor, and the only account we get on video is the driver fairly insistent they were the ones that got hit when the cyclist ran a traffic sign. Blame on that doesn't matter to the video though because the police aren't meant to address blame and never attempt to.

Do we agree on the above preamble view of what happened at least? I think we do, so I'll pick up with that assumed.

The cyclist does not want to cooperate with the required exchange of information for insurance and liability purposes. So presumably the driver got the police get involved. This is exactly what I think we all should want. Rather than expecting the parties involved resort to their own use of force, we want to defer that to trained police officers. This is preferable for either party to simply being victimised with no recourse for injury to the cyclist if the driver's at fault or damages to the car if the cyclist is.

I again would hope we are still on the same page at this point, lets call it point B?

If I understand right, we now diverge in that I believe when office says come here to the cyclist, the cyclist is in the wrong for instead dodging around the officer and trying to take off on their bike. When the officer immediately stops them from that physically and tells them they are being detained, the cyclist is again wrong for actively resisting for the entire remainder of the video.

You seem to think the officers would be angry to see their child in the video, and we agree on that. We disagree on whom they would be angry with though. I'm pretty sure the officers would angry with their kid for consistently resisting the officers and would likely be telling their kid they are lucky the officers were as gentle as they were because they absolutely didn't need to be.

I don't know who to credit the analogy to, but this feels to me like an instance of the police being the wolf hounds protecting the us sheeple. Their use of violence and force looks scary to us and we just wish those mean, nasty and violent wolfhounds would be replaced with more mild mannered sheep. It's not until an actual wolf comes along that all of sudden we wonder were those hounds are because we went to get as close under their shadows as we can.

The reason it comes to mind is because having 3-4 officers spending hours begging, pleading and otherwise trying to non-violently persuade a cursing, kicking, resistant teenager to take accept pretty basic instructions is not what I want. I get the impression you would prefer that, but I do not. I want the officers sitting at nearby coffee shop bored and eating donuts instead. When they come to deal with this incident, I want them back to those donuts as quickly as possible. The reason being, when a wolf somewhere starts up a domestic dispute, or starts beating up someone in the street, or breaking into somebodies home I want the police unhindered and ready to their 'real' jobs.

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.

If you really think this would have been prevented by one simple command from the officer, you are clearly not looking at this objectively. The other officer is talking to her on the bike when the camera-wearer walks up, and she just walks away from the conversation. She had no interest in talking to them and a simple request wasn't going to change that.
"Also, detained is not under arrest. You are under zero obligation to submit to detention."
Wrong. Investigatory detention is a thing, and not always voluntary. When they announced they were detaining her she should have let them cuff her without resisting.

https://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/how-long-can-police-detain-you/

The other person trying to help her who is later warned to back off even tells her "don't make it worse than it is". As the girl began to overreact more and more the cops could have tried to get this man to calm her down and explain how things work and that it was in her best interests to cooperate.

I think the reason they were so insistent on getting her parents down there instead of just her identification was that they are legally required to release a minor to the parents' custody if an injury is possible. They are responsible for her health after detaining her, and if she had a broken vertebrae or something not obviously visible from the crash and they just let her walk away, then they definitely would get sued if there was a later complication. An adult can refuse medical care, a child cannot. Blame the lawyers, not the cops here.

With so many better examples of terrible policing easily found, it's odd that this one is so popular.

I do. If they told her to sit, and she sat, problems solved.
She continuously said "don't touch me". They didn't need to if they told her to sit instead of letting her get on her bike and ride it. She clearly had an issue with being touched, they could have recognized that and used it, instead they exacerbated things.
You are expecting an irrational girl to act rationally. Impossible. That doesn't make her right.

You are also focusing on the part that, while more harsh than necessary imo, was understandable and you're intentionally ignoring the part most people find outrageous, macing her when she posed zero threat. Defend that.

If I'm not under arrest, I'm leaving. I don't talk to cops, so I'll be no help in their investigation anyway, none at all. I hope I get arrested for that, I can use the money.

Again, if her being injured was really a concern, pushing her over her bike, against a wall, to the ground, then carrying her like they did is the worst possible thing they could do...so I think the 'for her safety' thing is pure bullshit.

As for the macing, not using it would require physically man-handling an uncooperative person. I'm sure mace is unpleasant, but the chance of any injury coming from using it are far less than having to physically put hands on an uncooperative person. A taser would have been too much. After several warnings, and the video clearly showing the mace was used for compliance, not for punishment or out of anger, I agree with it. If it was me I would rather be maced than be "taken to the ground" by any cop, no matter how nice.

I don't really understand why you think that ordering her to sit down would have somehow made her cooperate. The video shows her repeatedly ignoring everything the cops say. Her behavior wouldn't just magically change if the cops said "I order you to sit down." You even said yourself that an irrational girl isn't going to act rational.

As for her posing "zero threat," that's not true at all. She was throwing a tantrum and kicking the cops. They needed to detain her because she was a suspect in a crime and she was physically resisting, posing a threat to others and herself. Just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean they are harmless.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. You may have the legal right to ignore a cop that isn't officially arresting you but from a practical standpoint, that's a pretty stupid thing to do. It makes much more sense to be civil and cooperative, just like in any other interaction with human beings.

The fact that you proudly proclaim that you don't talk to cops shows a pretty clear bias against cops. Then you say you hope you get arrested so you can make money. With that mentality, it's pretty clear that you aren't interested in peaceful resolutions.

So some of you Americans honestly believe this is the correct way to police a neighborhood community? Or are you all trolls?

This is close to incarceration for jaywalking or shooting someone for wearing a hoodie and being black.

Look at how many officers and what effort and time it takes to solve the case of a scratched car at a crossroads scene and how they manage to make a meal of it.

At 3 minutes into the video they are exactly one competent cop, two calm sentences and one phone call to parents away from not having to deal with the ensuing fracas. Even if they did everything by the book they will be remembered as assholes.

The message the girl gets is she should have tried harder to get away sooner because cops are pigs (even when they try to do things right and have a camera).

Policing a community is much easier (or only possible?) if people want to cooperate and trust the policemen to not be arrogant douchebags waiting for 15yr old girls to "make their day".

Possession of marihuana - she should be glad to be alive. Go watch Fort Apache, the Bronx one more time.

If they tried and she didn't sit, fine, take the next step. They didn't try, they just went for escalation. She comes back when he told her to....she just didn't stay. After they grab her is when she stops following directions.

In the car, when and where they maced her, she's no threat and kicking no one.

If you believe they are there just to help you, cooperate. The prisons are full of people who did just that. They are not normal humans, they are authorities looking for infractions.

Funny, I've managed peaceful solutions even when assaulted at gunpoint because a cop made a mistake, and every other interaction I've ever had with them too. These days I don't speak, though, except to tell them I won't speak with them. That's civil enough, and serves me well.

Moving this video to Mordhaus's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Looks like this kind of video has replaced cat videos as the most shared and commented. I'll wait until I'm called for real jury duty instead of Internet jury duty before I weigh in.

*beg

Sending this video to Beggar's Canyon to plea for a little attention - beg requested by original submitter Mordhaus.

I would just like to say to both sides of the "who escalated first?" argument, that I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that if police, in general, didn't have (far too many) proven and documented instances of excessive force and corrupt behaviour afterwards, the girl would have been far less likely to have acted the way she did.

It's time for "the police police the police" to mean something correct and right, and not be a derogatory catechism. The police need to uphold the law. Period. Whomever breaks it.

A great job done by the police.

Horrible girl lacking all manner of respect and decency toward police.

Where did she learn these bad manners?
Why do some people think they can disrespect the police.


Once again Newt you see wrong behavior as correct behavior.

Maybe you'd have to walk in her shoes for 15 years to find out.

Only you, Bob, could read what I wrote and claim "she was in the wrong" means she's displaying "correct behavior".
*facepalm

Unless you know what you're looking for it can be hard to tell the police from the person wearing the uniform.

She was given every opportunity of respect from police.

What was clearly shown was proper respect b the action of the police. She made the situation worse and received the results.

Quit making excuses for wrong choices.

"They are not normal humans, they are authorities looking for infractions." Newt -ism


You bias is on full display and it clearly shows that you resent police.

No. the black man in the background was correct when he said the police let the badge go to their heads.

He could have been an asset to the police in calming the girl down if the police saw and took the opportunity.

With good reason she was very afraid to be in the situation she was in. She needed someone she could trust and it may have very well been the bystander who the police told to stand back.

The mace was certainly uncalled for. They could have pulled her in from the otherside of the car.

Quit looking for reasons to punish. Their job is to protect her. That's why they tell criminals to "watch your head" getting into the car. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

BTW, I was raised by a good cop and Marine.

Lol. As usual, when argument one falls apart like a tissue paper submarine, you just move on to stupid dishonest red herring argument number two without pause.

In context, I was explaining why one shouldn't answer questions by police as if they were just trying to help and as if answering truthfully is never going to hurt you, which is a position any half decent lawyer would agree with....and what I said was
"If you believe they are there just to help you, cooperate. The prisons are full of [innocent] people who did just that. They are not normal humans, they are authorities looking for infractions."

Your dishonesty is on full display and it shows clearly you are nothing but a troll.