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.

Look at the atrophy of her leg muscles (flat on her back for a month in a cast) and the nasty purple scar along her back at the :44 second mark---about lumbar spine. Looks like she got a set of steel rods on either side of her crushed vertebrae.

You're right; she didn't sever her spinal cord; but she's still lost muscle and has to bring the strength and power back to her back, and develop the ability to start standing again---and the water, I think, floats her to take most of the weight off as she starts to move...

But I could be wrong.

it's probably worth noting that 'broken back' isn't a medical diagnosis. There are a whole range of injuries that could potentially fall into that category with damage to the spinal coord being the most serious. A fractured vertebra/pedicle or a popped disc can have complications including sciatica and variable paralysis of a nerve root which may fully resolve with time and or surgery.

In this case, you can see in the preview she is sitting on the side of the pool with her spine taking the whole weight of her torso/head - so i'm not sure what the 'reduces forces on her bones' means.
While this type of exercise offers fantastic rehabilitation I wouldn't want people to think that you could dump Christopher reeves in there and cure his ailments!

Ahhh, a request for a telling of 'the saga of the broken newt'.

The first time was ridiculous, remodeling my bathroom and lifting a heavy cast iron tub by hand, not realizing it was liquid nailed to the sub floor. I crushed a vertebrae, popped a disk, and severed the nerve that operates below the knee. I was completely paralyzed below the knee for over 6 months, then for about 1 1/2 years I had partial feeling and movement, it was like my leg was completely asleep that entire time....and still is to a small extent (weakness, pins and needles).
The second time, I ran my car into a highway divider head on at 55mph and went airborne. Good thing it was an Acura Legend, a tank of a car, or it certainly would have been far worse. I was already so irreparably broken, I didn't even go get another MRI for that one, which was probably a bad idea. I still have extra back pain from that (6+ years after the fact), but it didn't do new nerve damage (that I know of) so I just accepted it as one more injury to add to the (excessively long) list.
I am accident prone, and don't take proper care of myself. I'm now paying for over 4 decades of that behavior.

You almost never hear of an NHL player being upset (in a litigation sort of way) about injuries they got that resulted from fighting (drop the gloves and throw punches).

In general, the one major incident I am aware of that resulted in legal action being taken against a player was when Todd Bertuzzi checked Steve Moore down the the ice from behind and then drove his head/neck into the ice with his stick in some heavy followup hits. This is mentioned in the wikipedia article @eric3579 posted, and hinted at in the article @RedSky posted from the Economist.

In that incident, Steve Moore (a lower-level player on the Colorado Avalanche) had hit Marcus Naslund (a star level player of the Vancouver Canucks) in a previous game. That hit was a fairly normal hockey hit -- Naslund had the puck, Moore intentionally hit him to try to separate him from the puck, but arguably led with his elbow to Naslund's head. It was a dangerous play, that should have be penalized (it wasn't) -- although I don't think Moore intended to cause injury. It is a fast game, sometimes you can't react quick enough to avoid a dangerous collision like that. Still, I think that kind of play should be penalized to make it clear to players that they need to avoid dangerous plays if possible. Steve Moore didn't have a history of dirty or dangerous play, but still.

Anyway, all of that dovetails in pretty nicely with my previous post, specifically about what leads to a "spontaneous fight". Moore, a 3-4th line guy (lower ranks of skill/ability on the team) hit star player Naslund. In almost ANY hockey game where that kind of thing happens, you can expect that somebody from the star's team is going to go over to the offending player and push them around, probably with the intent to fight them. Usually it happens right at the time of the incident, but here it was delayed to a following game between the two teams.

In the next game between Colorado and Vancouver, Moore got challenged by a Vancouver player early in the first period and fought him. But I guess that the lag time and injury to Naslund (he ended up missing 3 games) had brewed up more bad blood than that so many Vancouver players hadn't gotten it fully out of their systems. Later in the game, Todd Bertuzzi skated up behind Moore when he didn't have the puck, grabbed him and tailed him for several seconds trying to get him into a second fight, and when he didn't respond just hauled back and punched him in the back of the head.

Moore fell to the ice, where Bertuzzi piled on him and drove his head into the ice. A big scrum/dogpile ensued, with Moore on the bottom. As a result of that, Moore fractured 3 vertebrae in his neck, stretched or tore some neck ligaments, got his face pretty cut up, etc. Pretty severe injuries.

So, in comparison:
Moore (lesser skill) hit Naslund (high skill) resulting in a minor(ish) injury, that could have ended up being much worse. But, it was a legitimate hockey play that just happened to occur at a time when Naslund was vulnerable -- arguably no intent to harm/injure.
Bertuzzi hit Moore in a following game, after he had already "answered" for his hit on Naslund by fighting a Vancouver player. Bertuzzi punched him from behind and followed up with further violence, driving his head into the ice and piling on him, initiating a dogpile. Not even close to a legitimate hockey play, well away from the puck, and with pretty clear intent to harm (maybe not to injure, but to harm).


Moore sued Bertuzzi, his team (the Canucks), and the NHL. Bertuzzi claimed that his coach had put a "bounty" on Moore, and that he hadn't intended to injure him -- just to get back at him for his hit on Naslund. Bertuzzi was suspended for a fairly long span of time, and his team was fined $250,000. The lawsuit was kind of on pause for a long time to gauge the long-term effects on Moore, but was eventually settled out of court (confidential terms).

All of this stuff is or course related to violence in hockey, but only loosely tied to fighting in hockey. Some would argue (with some merit in my opinion) that if the refs had called a penalty on Moore's hit on Naslund, and allowed a Vancouver player to challenge him to a fight at that time instead of the following game, it probably wouldn't have escalated to the level it did.

So, at least in my opinion, the league (NHL) needs to be careful, consistent, and fairly harsh in handing out penalties/suspensions to players who commit dangerous plays that can or do result in injuries -- especially repeat offenders. BUT, I think that allowing fighting can actually help mitigate that kind of stuff also -- as long as the league keeps it from getting out of hand and the enforcer type players continue to follow their "code".

If it were done as a single nerve in a direct route, it would be subject to damage from a jerking head motion

That doesn;t make much sense as all nerves start as large bundles and get smaller as they subdivide. In humans the course of the left recurrent nerve is a minor curiosity but when you make the vertebra that much taller and add another 6 feet of nerves going back up the neck then it supports the idea that giraffes and ourselves are from a common mammalian or even more distant species. Clearly the existence of the recurrent laryngeal nerve doesn't seem to cause a discernible weakness that's susceptible to being selected against, however it is ODD because if there are any arguments for supporting the course of the nerve for structural reasons then you would have to ask why are none of the other important structure of the neck supplied recurrently.

As someone who has done plenty of human dissection. I've seen enormous variation in structure. The anatomy books are a general map but by no means applicable to individuals. The coronary arteries of the heart and the cerebral arterial flow of the circle of willis are examples of anatomy that's well illustrated in idealised form but seldom matches up to the textbook on an angiogram.

imperfection is the norm but a lot of it won't cause disease. The idea that you can pick and choose which part of biology a designer intervenes baffles me.

http://www.laserspineinstitute.com/back_problems/vertebrae/t12/

Thoracic number 12. Basically all of your vertebrae are important.

But I'm surprised that's all that happened. He's lucky.

Fuuuuuuckkk.

I was saying that a lot during the first minute and a bit. I don't know what a T12 vertebra is but it sounds bloody important.

Broke a vertebrae?

Good luck to you! Hope that does good things for you =).

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^draak13:
Apologies for the fiery comment earlier; I do prefer an actual discussion as you're marching on with. No beef against physicists, either...I'm an electical/biomedical engineer turned analytical chemist/physicist =).
Sorry to hear about your scoliosis. Apart from a shoulder issue, I don't really have too much that separates me from ideal at this point. Nonetheless, as humans, the good many of us fall within the portion of the distribution that this stuff matters. This is clearly indicated by her results, which are supported by the foundations of countless other experiments many learn about even in introductory psychology courses.
Your comment about us choosing to act differently from our body language is extremely valid on all levels of neurophysiology. For example, a person can lift their arm, or a person can imagine lifting their arm while keeping it still. In both cases, the primary motor cortex lights up the same way, though in the case where the person keep their arm still, the signal is inhibited further down the pathway. That's an example rooted in the old brain, and there are certainly examples within the higher level cognitive portions of the brain. Smiling makes us feel happy, and we often feel happier simply by smiling, but we can choose to be happy while not smiling, or choose to be sad while smiling.
In this case, what was described was a method in which we can bring out dominant behaviors in ourselves through our body language feedback. For those who are do not have a naturally dominant personality, this is an excellent way to step into the shoes of a slightly more dominant self. Continuing with your comment, her 'make it until you become it' conclusion is very much a person choosing to act in a more dominant way, without the need for the postures to make it so. Once those neural pathways are better understood within ourselves, it's much easier to call upon them and make that conscious decision as necessary. Until then, many less dominant people have an easily accessible means to explore themselves with a slightly more dominant attitude.
>> ^criticalthud:
i grew up with a pretty gnarly scoliosis. Body language that wasn't strained or uncomfortable was nearly impossible.
Most of us have distortion in our spines that effects who we are, how we move, and how we present. Perhaps you do not, but ignoring the physical realities of the species to pretend that how we are perceived is mostly a conscious choice, is understating the matter.

and sorry if i came off as a snot.
as to the vid, honestly i find a presentation of "ease" in a person to be the most attractive, rather than dominance.
as for the scoliosis, been working hard at it for 12 yrs and we're over some big practical hurdles. By understanding neurology this way (in terms of pressure and compression), we're quickly gaining on being able to dynamically change the spine.
to explain, in short:
i imagine you are familiar with thoracic outlet syndrome? - basically a compression of the brachial plexus at the clavicle and rib 1, which results in an interruption and weakening of the nervous signal, weakness in the hand, pain etc. To solve it, doctors cut a hole for it. From that, we can take an understanding that compression of neurology is a fairly bad thing.
But if you look at the main branches of neurology, what you'll note is that the nervous system at some point in the body always runs through a bone space (interosseous space). Between vertebrae, between ribs, etc. Over time and trauma these spaces compress, resulting in variances in compression all throughout the body, thus varying neurological feed all throughout the body. The neurological system is a fluid system. As you vary compression, you vary the pressure within the fluid system. These variances in pressure and fluid transfer start dictating our tendencies. How we move, how we look, who we are.
anyway, here's some of it
www.ncrtheory.org
so far, the practical end (manual therapy) is proving the theoretical. I'm just balancing neurological space. pretty unbelievable. today is a big day. wish me luck.

>> ^draak13:

Apologies for the fiery comment earlier; I do prefer an actual discussion as you're marching on with. No beef against physicists, either...I'm an electical/biomedical engineer turned analytical chemist/physicist =).
Sorry to hear about your scoliosis. Apart from a shoulder issue, I don't really have too much that separates me from ideal at this point. Nonetheless, as humans, the good many of us fall within the portion of the distribution that this stuff matters. This is clearly indicated by her results, which are supported by the foundations of countless other experiments many learn about even in introductory psychology courses.
Your comment about us choosing to act differently from our body language is extremely valid on all levels of neurophysiology. For example, a person can lift their arm, or a person can imagine lifting their arm while keeping it still. In both cases, the primary motor cortex lights up the same way, though in the case where the person keep their arm still, the signal is inhibited further down the pathway. That's an example rooted in the old brain, and there are certainly examples within the higher level cognitive portions of the brain. Smiling makes us feel happy, and we often feel happier simply by smiling, but we can choose to be happy while not smiling, or choose to be sad while smiling.
In this case, what was described was a method in which we can bring out dominant behaviors in ourselves through our body language feedback. For those who are do not have a naturally dominant personality, this is an excellent way to step into the shoes of a slightly more dominant self. Continuing with your comment, her 'make it until you become it' conclusion is very much a person choosing to act in a more dominant way, without the need for the postures to make it so. Once those neural pathways are better understood within ourselves, it's much easier to call upon them and make that conscious decision as necessary. Until then, many less dominant people have an easily accessible means to explore themselves with a slightly more dominant attitude.
>> ^criticalthud:
i grew up with a pretty gnarly scoliosis. Body language that wasn't strained or uncomfortable was nearly impossible.
Most of us have distortion in our spines that effects who we are, how we move, and how we present. Perhaps you do not, but ignoring the physical realities of the species to pretend that how we are perceived is mostly a conscious choice, is understating the matter.


and sorry if i came off as a snot.
as to the vid, honestly i find a presentation of "ease" in a person to be the most attractive, rather than dominance.
as for the scoliosis, been working hard at it for 12 yrs and we're over some big practical hurdles. By understanding neurology this way (in terms of pressure and compression), we're quickly gaining on being able to dynamically change the spine.
to explain, in short:
i imagine you are familiar with thoracic outlet syndrome? - basically a compression of the brachial plexus at the clavicle and rib 1, which results in an interruption and weakening of the nervous signal, weakness in the hand, pain etc. To solve it, doctors cut a hole for it. From that, we can take an understanding that compression of neurology is a fairly bad thing.

But if you look at the main branches of neurology, what you'll note is that the nervous system at some point in the body always runs through a bone space (interosseous space). Between vertebrae, between ribs, etc. Over time and trauma these spaces compress, resulting in variances in compression all throughout the body, thus varying neurological feed all throughout the body. The neurological system is a fluid system. As you vary compression, you vary the pressure within the fluid system. These variances in pressure and fluid transfer start dictating our tendencies. How we move, how we look, who we are.
anyway, here's some of it
www.ncrtheory.org
so far, the practical end (manual therapy) is proving the theoretical. I'm just balancing neurological space. pretty unbelievable. today is a big day. wish me luck.

This coming from Swedish girls isn't by accident, Sweden is soaked in radical feminism, have a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yta55u2zP2U
There's a big difference between anonymously talking shit on the internet and talking shit in a wining short sponsored by General Electric. Now, was it so important that they'll bring up misogyny, where they so oppressed by hoards of men that they needed to put it in a short about a bicycle helm? Allow me to doubt that.
Also, that invention looks like might be able to break your collar bone or squash few vertebrae if not just snap your neck.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Confucius:
skip to 2:35 to see the actual product and avoid listening to them tell you how spectacular they are especially because they are women and all men think that women are incapable of even the most basic technical abilities.....
Also....trading a bike helmet for a sweaty neck brace.....maybe not so awesome. I would have to argue that a dorky and guaranteed bike helmet > a dorky, expensive, probably heavy, not 100% guaranteed function & definitely sweaty neck brace.
Practicality for anywhere that gets above 70 degrees F = 0.
Still....its undeniably neat.

I think they're entitled...all I hear about is how shit women are from men on the internet. Just because it doesn't describe you doesn't mean their own personal experiences with men doubting them aren't valid.

I think that those that don't see a problem with the action the policeman takes fail to see the potential damage that could have been done to the girl. Obviously if she was told to stop and she didn't, then some force may be necessary, however she was next to a concrete wall, and fell onto concrete, she could have very easily had her head split open or suffered very serious cervical vertebra damage from the whiplash. What happened was perhaps justified if the person walking away was much larger than the cop and it was in more of an open area - however it wasn't, so it shows a clear lack of responsibility on behalf of the cop, he simply didn't think before he acted, it was all adrenaline.

Also, do those that use the excuse 'it's worse in other countries' mind if justice went the way of countries such as China? I think not...