Ah, in that case, a far more plausible assumption. Although… even it seems a risky one. But that would be a discussion maybe for another time — given it being relevant to the topic at hand? Not so much. Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

When do we learn the results of your theory-testing? I’m looking forward to reading what your opinion of the video is.

You’re kidding, right?

The (simplistic) reason why people are put in there in the first place is that they have, in some form or another, broken rules (read: laws). Therefore why would any officer assume such people will follow the rules just because the surrounding scenery has changed?

As for the video, I don’t think it makes any difference if it has accompanying audio or not. That “little” girl — age irrelevant, as she’s clearly not the size of a five year old — could’ve been mouthing off, saying the most vile things, at the police for hours and it shouldn’t matter in the least. I can’t imagine a scenario in which it’s acceptable to respond to verbal assault with physical assault.

If I consider the female kicking off her shoe changes the dynamics, as in the officer’s physical assault was in response to the girl’s physical assault, I’m left with the opinion that the attacks aren’t equal in comparison. Even if her shoe had flown up and hit the guy in the face — hell, let’s say it broke his nose — based on their positions, the door should’ve been slammed shut on her and she should’ve been charged with assaulting an officer rather than being literally charged. Then she would’ve been half-shod, no one would be questioning the officer’s actions, and Police World wouldn’t be in the hot seat once again.

I believe the officer acted like a man. Don’t get the wrong impression. I mean he acted human, like someone who got pissed off and reacted. The thing is, when he’s in that uniform, he has to exhibit self-control; he has to act like an officer, not a man. The bottom line: if a cop can’t keep his cool, he shouldn’t be a cop.

Sorry for the long-winded reply but I figured I might get away with it on a blog that has “philosophical” in its title.

The problem has always been determining how and when that intervention should take place. In a video like this, the issue will be to determine if the second cop had the time to notice, decide, and intervene, before it was all over.

Cops go in there assuming everyone will follow the rules. It takes the mind some moments to realize someone else is not, and then make the fateful (career-altering) decision to stop them.

And we expect them to do that in less than 3 seconds in a video like this. Tall order.

As I stated, not knowing the full situation before … “The second officer will either get in trouble for not intervening or for not supporting.”

Now that we have partially established that apparently there was no cause for the Primary Officer to take the actions that he did … the second officer should receive some reprimand for not intervening.

He is sworn to uphold the law … she should’ve been protected by the second officer from the assault from the first officer.

Right?

You do make a good point about using punches when a suspect won’t give up their hands for cuffing. Still, even on a larger & more dangerous suspect I’ll usually try something else before punches. I can’t say for certain with this camera angle, but it looks to me like Deputy Schene skipped straight to the fists once she was on the ground. Like I said, I take issue with the punches here but I’m willing to entertain the notion that there’s some justification that I missed.