So if I follow your logic, you would say that since this cop was caught using excessive force he should man up and receive the consequences for his actions; however, if no one videotaped the event he should get off scot free. Correct?
unbelievable watch this
- Thread starter isurock
- Start date
So if I follow your logic, you would say that since this cop was caught using excessive force he should man up and receive the consequences for his actions; however, if no one videotaped the event he should get off scot free. Correct?
No. If the students and staff come out and say this cop was in the wrong, he deserves all the punishment he receives.
I believe in this weird thing, which most of this country fails to do, in which those in trouble are innocent until proven guilty.
...Unless they are a defenseless teenage girl in study hall. Then they are OBVIOUSLY guilty. No need to ask further questions. Its amazing to me that you think using your own cell phone at school should get you handcuffed, but throwing a teenager girl to the ground is okay.
Your lack of reading skills amazes me.
I never have said that having her cell phone out warranted her getting handcuffed.
Her ignoring her teacher and assistant principal, and the SRO, is what warranted her getting handcuffed.
As for throwing her to the ground - clearly verbal actions were not enough. Could it have been done in a nicer way? Sure. But she deserves to be in cuffs. And getting thrown to the ground hopefully teaches her a lesson.
Hmm I wonder what lesson she learned? Also I can't believe that you think refusing to give your cell phone to your teacher should land you in handcuffs, but that a grown man body-slamming a teenage girl is okay.
She was guilty and disobeying the school rules. People are putting WAY TOO MUCH emphasis on the damn phone (just like the flashing lights in the thread a week ago) and not enough emphasis on the person being a ****. I guess she just needed a few hugs, maybe sing a little kumbaya, and everything would be OK?
I would stick around to debate you more, but then I remembered the old saying: "Don't try to reason with unreasonable people."
I read it. You said she should be handcuffed for not giving the teacher her cell phone.
She was guilty and disobeying the school rules. People are putting WAY TOO MUCH emphasis on the damn phone (just like the flashing lights in the thread a week ago) and not enough emphasis on the person being a ****. I guess she just needed a few hugs, maybe sing a little kumbaya, and everything would be OK?
I would stick around to debate you more, but then I remembered the old saying: "Don't try to reason with unreasonable people."
So by your logic, every time someone refuses to follow a rule they should be brutalized. Got it.
I keep seeing you bring up the fact that she's a teenage girl.
I really don't think gender makes a difference. Would you have been okay with it had it been a teenage boy? Is that teenage girl less dangerous than a boy? We really know NOTHING about what kind of school that is or what kind of girl that is. Maybe she was deemed a problem student and always getting into trouble? Based on the stories I'm reading about her, she had a big problem with authority.
I am curious as to how you would have solved this. If she was asked to leave numerous times by the teacher, administration, and SRO, and then threw punches at the SRO, what would have been your next move?
Yeah, a ******* man throwing a girl on the ground!??? You bet that makes a difference; and no I would not be okay with it either if it happened to a boy. The male on female violence just makes it next level. And what the do you mean by she is dangerous? You just seem to be making up facts about this student that we know nothing about.
If I was her teacher I would have acted like I actually cared about her and would NEVER have let a cop throw her to ground and handcuff her. A real teacher would always protect their student, no matter what "rule" they broke.
If that girl physically assaults you, do you still ask them politely to get on the ground? Or, is it still not right?
And where did I say she was dangerous?
Did you watch the video? Did you read eye witness accounts of the incident? The only assault that occurred was a grown man throwing a teenage girl to the ground.
When you use words like "We don't know what kind of school this is...or maybe she was a problem student" you are suggesting that she is dangerous and should be treated like a threat.
She got what she deserved. Taxpayers will have to support her the rest of her life. If she acts that way towards school officials and police no way she will ever be able to hold a job.
Yes, I did watch the video and read the stories and they say she hit the SRO. Unless, you don't count hitting as assault? Well, I guess technically it's battery.
And when you read this:
the first thing that seriously pops into your head is "She must be dangerous!!"
Seriously? To me when I read that the first thing that pops into my head is, "We don't know what kind of school it is, it could be a great school with very smart kids or it could be a bad school with a lot of idiots. This student could have been an idiot, but she also could have been a great student." However, based on her actions and having insubordinate issues from 3 superiors including the SRO, I'm leaning towards idiot with her.
So its okay to body slam idiots? What ******* crazy *** world am I a part of?
First of all, she didn't hit; and secondly does a grown *** man need to body slam a teenage girl if she starts hitting him?
Can you stop being over dramatic and saying body slam?? Whenever I think of body slamming, I picture this:
This says the student hit the SRO.
http://abc7chicago.com/news/video-shows-student-hit-officer-sheriff-says/1054318/
shouldn't a police resource officer be able to handle this situation a little better?
if you don't think so you're an idiot.
if you don't think so you're an idiot.
