I'll explain what gung-ho means to those who don't know; it means being excessive.
'a bit' = a moderate amount... put it all together and it means;
The cop was moderately excessive in his means of controlling/restraining the girl; who was resisting said control.
Good, any more vernacular lessons? I'm pretty sure I'm saying what he did was partially wrong, he used too much force but he still had to control/restrain someone resisting. Which is what I believe MOST people in this thread are saying...
My god, troll, troll, troll your boat....
Wow.
Countries really do get the police forces that they crave I guess.
It's bloody bizarre. What would a fitting term be...Domestic jingoism?
This means they have already laid hands on the person as they were doing something that warranted it.
What would an officer in your country do to someone who is resisting like that? Keep in mind, you MUST respond from the moment the video starts since that's all we have to go off of as well.
This means they have already laid hands on the person as they were doing something that warranted it.
Thats a pretty massive assumption.
no no no and another emphatic no.
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/02/18/teen-girls-assault-peel-police-officer-on-camera.html
so many billy badasses here. it's totally cool to body-slam a 12 year old girl. Totally ok. She was resisting so I thought it was best her head met the ground. See how docile she was after that? perfectly acceptable.
so many billy badasses here. it's totally cool to body-slam a 12 year old girl. Totally ok. She was resisting so I thought it was best her head met the ground. See how docile she was after that? perfectly acceptable.
No its not, don't evade the question.
No its not, don't evade the question.
Totally different circumstances, female officer, 2 girls against 1 cop, she seems pretty generous with that pepper spray and probably gets herself with it. Lastly article says another officer arrives to help, how did that go down? No video of that.
NO ONE has said it was ok for the cop to do what he did. Actually everyone has said it was excessive. Reading comprehension.... get some.
Yes it is.
Your train of logic appears to be; the cop slams the girl, if the cop slams the girl the girl must have done something to deserve slamming, if the girl did something that deserves slamming then why shouldn't the cop slam her?
it's not my fault.
when i google "cop assaulted ontario"
it's only about cops sexually assaulting people.
not my fault.
What kind of messed up logic is that? You're starting the from the end point, I'm starting from the beginning.
The girl did something at the school that warranted the school calling the police. Police show up and do <insert unknown info here>. Something happens and we see the officer carrying a combative girl out of the school. Due to her struggling (guessing here) he flips her to the ground to gain compliance. He should've done something less forceful that would still gain compliance but this is what happened.
Its about gaining compliance, you're implying he slammed her because.. why not? Its not arbitrary that he did something to gain compliance, you're making it out like that.
I'm sure if you tried different searching techniques you wouldn't necessarily find the worst of the worst. Confirmation bias right there.
Blue Max said:Yep. We've empowered teenagers to the point where teachers will receive strict punishment for saying NO to the little prince/ss - that they can be completely rude little turds with no fear of punishment. Then along comes an even-higher authority figure they also refuse to respect and then do what the 'progressives' have taught them to do - cry "victim" when punished for their own misbehaviour.
PokerGuy said:We'll have to disagree on that one. The context matters a ton, and I can think of plenty of situations where a cop has to take decisive immediate action to get something under control right away. There might have been other threats involved as well.
Why? If a kid refuses to do something (like leave the classroom when they are told), how would you suggest they resolve the matter? I agree it shouldn't be the first resort, but ultimately, if talking doesn't bring about a resolution, then it's really no different for a kid in school versus one outside on the street doing something they shouldn't: you will be forced to comply, one way or another.
Linux23 said:she was resisting and kicked him in the nads. good shoot, er, i mean slam.
VtPC83 said:Looks bad but need more information. No info on what happened, she was clearly resisting and making it difficult for him to remove her from the location but that looks like a bit much.
It is clear you have no concept of what goes on in schools these days. What teachers have to contend with in regards to students.
Call the parents? HAH, half the time the parents don't care and are the reason the kids are this way. To them School is a daycare.
Move the class? You seriously offering to move the class because 1 child is causing this problem? What are you teaching the child causing the problem and what are you teaching the other kids suffering from it?
This is about the worst thing you can do in this case. If it means body slamming some kid who is being an absolute punk rather than teaching a classroom full of kids that they can do what they want and others will adjust I'd rather take the body slam.
My god, some people in this forum. No concept of the real world at all. Just want it to be all daises and butterflies.
Tolerance and patience are 2 VERY different things.
I have an INCREDIBLE amount of patience, but no, I have almost no tolerance.
Teachers and students do not deserve to tolerate behavior like that. The source of that behavior needs to be removed.
Girl was resisting, that is clear. She deserved to be controlled. Cop was a bit too gung-ho in his controlling, my guess is didn't judge her weight correctly in the heat of the moment. Bad outcome for both.
My guess is there is still more to the story than that one article.
Schools suck at disciplining their students, bullies or not. A lot are scared of lawsuits, etc.
HamburgerBoy said:Headfirst slam not found. She clearly makes contact with the right side of her body first (unless her neck is seriously labile). She probably deserved it.
DAPUNISHER said:"The 12-year-old girl did not offer resistance to the police detainment" That is in direct contradiction to the video, in which she is clearly seen kicking her legs and struggling.
""roid raging bully now cop, takes out small dick aggression on 12 year old girl" is more appropriate headline." There is nothing appropriate about such a headline. Accuracy is more debatable.
We'll have to disagree on that one. The context matters a ton, and I can think of plenty of situations where a cop has to take decisive immediate action to get something under control right away. There might have been other threats involved as well.
We don't have the context, of course, but most folks would be surprised how ridiculously strong (and resistant to pain, etc.) people can be when strung out on drugs, etc.
Looks like we don't know yet, she could've had drugs or weapons. So until more detail comes out, can't judge it. Just because someone is 12 doesn't mean they aren't dangerous to their peers or the authority figure.
Wellp, the proof is in the posts. 'Ere ya go; lads saying it's either a bit much, or that she deserved.
A bit much. Lord almighty, what you'd rather have him do, slam her so she's facing upwards? Would that be about right?
That explains it. You are taking the context of those comments and throwing them out. I'm not sure if you even understand what you are doing.
They are talking about justification of reactions and or punishments because so many here are saying she did nothing wrong. She did not do something to deserve the action he took, but she was also not innocent. Their comments are clearly about doing something, just not that something from what the video showed.
Look at the 2nd comment you quoted. You do not address the fact that he is making an argument for action, but not this specific action.
I agree it shouldn't be the first resort, but ultimately, if talking doesn't bring about a resolution, then it's really no different for a kid in school versus one outside on the street doing something they shouldn't:
Its no wonder you seem so upset. You dont seem to realize that people are arguing for action, but not the action the guy took.
Sorry, that was confusing, not your confirmation bias, the media's. They don't report anything that doesn't make them more money and the worst of the worst is what makes them money. You'd have to be careful to search google to not get junk since that is what sells.
That explains it. You are taking the context of those comments and throwing them out. I'm not sure if you even understand what you are doing.
Pot, Kettle, meet Mr. Black.
They are talking about justification of reactions and or punishments because so many here are saying she did nothing wrong. She did not do something to deserve the action he took, but she was also not innocent. Their comments are clearly about doing something, just not that something from what the video showed.
You're going to gloss over the "A bit much" putty that the lads have been playing with?
Really?
Look at the 2nd comment you quoted. You do not address the fact that he is making an argument for action, but not this specific action.
Its no wonder you seem so upset. You dont seem to realize that people are arguing for action, but not the action the guy took.
They're bloody saying that she either deserved it, or that the officer was just a tad overly aggressive.
You have people here saying there's a chance it's justified. A 12 year old girl vs a trained police officer, and a body slam is how the trained officer restrains her. Some speculating she's on drugs, but I'm the person here with comprehension issues. Gotcha.
We'll have to disagree on that one. The context matters a ton, and I can think of plenty of situations where a cop has to take decisive immediate action to get something under control right away. There might have been other threats involved as well.
We don't have the context, of course, but most folks would be surprised how ridiculously strong (and resistant to pain, etc.) people can be when strung out on drugs, etc.
Looks like we don't know yet, she could've had drugs or weapons. So until more detail comes out, can't judge it. Just because someone is 12 doesn't mean they aren't dangerous to their peers or the authority figure.
So many commenting on the action being wrong and pointing out to us saying we are in the wrong saying action was needed.
WHAT do you suggest should have happened? Not one of you has said anything about that. You're just saying, 'it was wrong, i wouldn't have done that'. Well, what is right?
And please don't say 'well not that'... clearly not that, that isn't in dispute.
....
See how the guy was carrying her away, before he slammed her?
That first bit, alright, fair enough.
But that latter bit, where he slams her? That's fucked.
And please don't say 'well not that'... clearly not that, that isn't in dispute.