Skip to comments.Shocking Moment Cop floored woman with savage sucker punch during parade
Posted on 10/01/2012 3:31:28 PM PDT by Altariel
click here to read article
“During his press conference Tuesday, Ramsey described the incident on the YouTube video as very troubling and, from what he saw in the video, the use of force applied was in excess of what was needed.”
To which Uncle Chip writes: So then the use of force was needed but its application was excessive. No surprise in that statement.
Hilarious. You simply cannot give up, can you? Even now? The cop is being fired.
Yes, the amount of force necessary was “Hey lady, stop.”, not a WWE style smackdown.
Those are "words" not "force".
The use of force was needed but it’s application was excessive.
Is that the way you saw it too???
No, like you, I think he did not apply enough force and he should have shot her with his service revolver where she stood, er, I mean as she was attempting to flee.
That you are holding on to the quote “the use of force applied was in excess of what was needed” as some sort of justification for what Josey did amply demonstrates the weakness of your position. On a scale of force from 0-100, he used a 30 when all he needed was a 1. “Ma’am, stop, I need to talk to you.”
And since, in previous posts, you have mentioned how open minded you are, what more than a summary dismissal from the police force do you need to convince you that Josey was in the wrong?
That you are holding on to the quote the use of force applied was in excess of what was needed as some sort of justification for what Josey did amply demonstrates the weakness of your position.
If spraying silly string at police officers is a detainable offense in Philadelphia, then her detention was justifiable and the Commissioner said so in so many words.
What part of the Commissioner's words do you not understand???
They are also going to have to deal with Josey's lawsuit regarding his dismissal and pension. So they have to travel a very narrow road.
LOL. So now I have to explain sarcasm to you? But I’m still working on trying to get you to understand the word ‘force’, and its non-physical applications in this context.
I think I’m on a fool’s errand in so doing.
May the force be with you.
Note "detain" is not the same as "punch in the face and knock to the ground". To detain is to prevent from leaving, preferably while causing the minimum needed level of damage to the detainee consistent with officer safety. The officer evidently failed to accomplish this last part, hence his firing.
<> hence his firing.<>
Well about that firing:
“Before everyone starts applauding, what Ramsey has done is to ensure this officer will not only get his job back, but also get back pay for the time he is off. Ramsey did the same move with a group of officers when he first arrived and they were all reinstated. Ramsey knows this. What he is actually doing is ensuring this officer doesn’t lose his job for more than a year or so. The FOP is right on this. When a lawsuit is filed the City will lose. For short term good press Ramsey is throwing away the greater long term good. The officer can be successfully fired if the right procedures are followed.”
Philly Senior Posted 5:50 AM, 10/04/2012
Bravo! I was torn between that pic and one of Alfred E. Neuman (What? Me worry?!)
The use of force was needed but it's application was excessive.
Is that the way you saw it too???
No, and you should know that because I already gave you the full quote in post#291 :
"If there was an arrest to be made, you use only the force necessary to affect that arrest. From what I saw that was in excess of what was needed," Ramsey said.
Q: What does "that" refer to???
A: the force necessary to effect "that arrest".
Q: What is "that arrest"???
A: "an arrest to be made".
Ramsey didn't get to where he is without knowing how to parse his words.
Big difference between the two. But thanks anyway.
Cops are more trustworthy than the average person? Really? In what universe?
“And given that police have been caught and fined for lying in court, any judge or jury who automatically takes their testimony as true is foolish.”
Back in the mid 70’s I was called for jury duty...it was a 1st degree murder trial...each of us was called individually into the court room and quized by the attorneys and the judge.
I was asked, ‘Will you believe the testimony of a police officer because he is a police officer?’
My answer, ‘Absolutely not...I will weigh his testimony just like I will weigh the testimony of anyone else testifying in this trial.’
I was seated on the jury.
Who gets to be a cop? (At least, by rules which used to exist.)
Are they people with bad financial records, crushing debt and loan defaults. People who've been arrested and show a disregard for laws? People who use recreational drugs (besides alcohol, but that's another subject.)? People who have a record of dishonesty in lying? In many departments still, people who engage in sexual perversion (homosexuals?)
When I hired on as a police officer years ago, any of these would disqualify you from being a cop.
Some people ARE more trustworthy than others; to say otherwise makes you a liberal.
Of course some people are more trustworthy than others, but that was not the point or my post or yours. The point was are cops more trustworthy than the average person?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.