Cops In Florida Beat Up 66-Year-Old Man With Dementia

Alphane said:
Oh man approachyes you , you've been called to a 'knife incident', he may of refused verbal commands to stop.....


what do YOU do ?

Remember your life may depend upon it :eek:
Click to expand...

I certainly don't wait until the person is within striking range after walking from 20m away to think about drawing a suitable defence item.

Again :rolleyes:
 
neil_g said:
I certainly don't wait until the person is within striking range after walking from 20m away to think about drawing a suitable defence item.

Again :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So you'd react with more force than the officer involved... strange statement to make in an 'OMG Police brutality 11!!!!11' thread
 
Shayper said:
Surprise, no replies to my earlier post.

Seems some people just want to troll...
Click to expand...

wait, other than your one word post earlier on, haven't you just jumped in and made a comment about certain posters, designed to get their backs up and illicit a response? Isn't that the very definition of trolling? That could well backfire on you....

Derek W said:
aimed at anyone in particular?
Click to expand...

Can't you find that button? Try the top left corner, normally an arrow pointing left...
 
Shayper said:
Aimed at the people who were defending the police officer. Thought that would be obvious...
Click to expand...

did you read this bit of the quoted article by james?

Assistant State Attorney Wayne Holmes said the use of force, however, “was appropriate,” and that officers do not have to retreat when confronted with the threat of violence.
Click to expand...

right or wrong the american justice system didn't think the officer did anything wrong other than tamper with the camera in his car. No real point in getting upset over it, as like i said, there;s nothing anyone in the UK can do to alter american laws ;)

james.miller said:
Can't you find that button? Try the top left corner, normally an arrow pointing left...
Click to expand...

shut up eh ;) you seem upset
 
For your own good, but carry. It's not like you're adding anything useful to this discussion.

About Wayne Holme's statement:
"Assistant State Attorney Wayne Holmes said the use of force, however, “was appropriate,” and that officers
do not have to retreat when confronted with the threat of violence."

I do find it strange that the cop was reprimanded for turning his video off yet wasn't pursued for using excessive force. You would expect the two to almost go hand in hand like people have already said - why bother trying to cover up if you have nothing to hide? the act of trying to turn the camera off itself would suggest he intended to 'bend' the rules, and the video suggested he did just that. Yet Wayne Holmes decided he didn't.

It's a shame and I'd love cases like this to be reopened and reviewed and people like that cop to be dealt with appropriately. I can see no reason why that kind of behaviour is deemed appropriate. If nothing else, it's sloppy and it wastes time. If the old guy was genuinely dangerous, he would have been tasered and/or he would have been taken down as swiftly and as cleanly as possible. Slapping the guy in the face, and in the stomach, force-able rebounding his skull off the tarmac achieves none of those things.
 
Last edited:
james.miller said:
For your own good, but carry. It's not like you're adding anything useful to this discussion.
Click to expand...

nothing useful to the discussion? can you read at all? everything i stated with regard to the use of force whether you or i think its excessive or not is how the american cops operate and if they feel there is a threat then they act with force. the article you linked stated the use of force was appropriate. Its their country, their laws so you can get your knickers in a twist about it all you want but there's nothing you can do about it whether you agree or disagree with what is acceptable.
 
Derek W said:
nothing useful to the discussion? can you read at all? everything i stated with regard to the use of force whether you or i think its excessive or not is how the american cops operate and if they feel there is a threat then they act with force. the article you linked stated the use of force was appropriate. Its their country, their laws so you can get your knickers in a twist about it all you want but there's nothing you can do about it whether you agree or disagree with what is acceptable.
Click to expand...

unless you see me writing letter's to the government, or holding my own rallies in protest, which I'm pretty sure I'm not, then you can be sure I'm not getting upset about anything. I'm however a bit perplexed at your incessant need to state the obvious. The internet and indeed the world would be a very boring and quiet place if people were not allowed to discuss that which they don't agree with, whatever the infallible american justice system seems to think.

Honestly though, carry on regardless - it's really helping your argument.
icon14.gif
 
Last edited:
james.miller said:
wait, other than your one word post earlier on, haven't you just jumped in and made a comment about certain posters, designed to get their backs up and illicit a response? Isn't that the very definition of trolling? That could well backfire on you....



Can't you find that button? Try the top left corner, normally an arrow pointing left...
Click to expand...

Hardly meant to troll. I was just stating my amazement at people accepting this as necessary force, when it was clear that it was not.
 
Shayper said:
I was just stating my amazement at people accepting this as necessary force, when it was clear that it was not.
Click to expand...

I think it's difficult to asses the situation fairly without the audio track to be honest. Also the knowledge that the victim is mentally impaired may not have been available to the officer at the time.

Theres a myriad of opinions in this thread. Personally I see a mole hill others seem to think it's mount Everest

At the end of the day he was found to be within proscribed guidlines by his profesional oversight and we have to bear in mind the life of an american officer is a much higher risk proffesion than those who serve in the UK.

Also I think people are assumng by his age that he is no threat, but believe me there are 70 year olds who can run a marathon , can you say the same?
 
Alphane said:
I think it's difficult to asses the situation fairly without the audio track to be honest. Also the knowledge that the victim is mentally impaired may not have been available to the officer at the time.

Theres a myriad of opinions in this thread. Personally I see a mole hill others seem to think it's mount Everest

At the end of the day he was found to be within proscribed guidlines by his profesional oversight and we have to bear in mind the life of an american officer is a much higher risk proffesion than those who serve in the UK.

Also I think people are assumng by his age that he is no threat, but believe me there are 70 year olds who can run a marathon , can you say the same?
Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from, but as others have stated, if the officer would have deemed force necessary, surely he would have unholstered a taser or something instead of kicking him in the chest.

As for the marathon, I used to run cross country for my school, and could probably run a marathon given training. I have run in excess of 10 mkiles in one session at least anyway :)
 
As far as I understand it Tasers tend to be used either to bring a chase situation to an end or to incapacitate a suspect that can't be physicaly restrained.

Tasers are not risk free, often bones are broken if the fall can't be custioned, there have been links to death in custody after there use (possibly there effect on a weak heart), seizures have been known.

Basically it's a judgement call but they don't often seem to be used as a 'first line of defence'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom