Cop , punches child in face and peppersprays her

[Guest American Woman]

AW: I do not believe police are automatically correct or righteous. These are simply people doing jobs they get payed for, as such , they are capable of corruption and abuse of the powerful position they hold. This is nothing new or earthshattering.

I don't believe police are automatically correct or righteous either. By the same token, I don't automatically believe they are wrong. Also, while knowing that being black does sometimes make one 'more suspicious' in the eyes of the law, I don't automatically assume that a black person is being taken in for breaking the law just because they are black. I look at the facts, and in this case, the police officer was trying his best to get the girl to cooperate. I do not see her color as an issue.

Again, whether the girl was "charged" with violating curfew or not, it's a fact that she was, and therefore required action by the law. Whether or not she was charged with carrying stolen goods, the 911 call would make it necessary for the officer to check her out. If I were a cop and had received that call and came upon a 15 year old who fit the description, I too would check it out.

Just because she wasn't charged with stolen goods doesn't mean there wasn't 'just cause' for the cop to suspect that she might be in possession of stolen goods considering all the facts. He's not a psychic. He can't tell by looking at a 15 year old if she's guilty, or dangerous, or whatever. In this case, the girl WAS capable of violence, and the tape proves it.

She was 15 years old, out walking the streets at 1:50 am. You have yet to hold her responsible for that. You have yet to hold her responsible for resisting arrest. Whether it was right or wrong that she was being arrested, it WAS wrong for her to resist. We, as citizens, don't have the right to assess whether or not our arrest is 'justified'-- and then resist arrest if we think it's not. That's what lawyers are for. We have to go along with the arrest and then deal with it. We can't hit, kick, and bite the officer because we think we are being taken in unfairly.

Again I ask you. Why would the cop himself tape the incident if his intentions were less than legitimate? Do you believe that by using MORE force, he would not have been able to overpower her? If he didn't care about her, if he wasn't concerned about her safety, why didn't he just do that? He was trying very hard to get her to cooperate. And he was bitten. I've yet to see you hold the girl responsible for that.

He was a cop doing his job; she did the wrong thing, and the cop reacted accordingly.

Edited October 6, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

I get it, your the real "law and order type", but myself, I think the police, and parents, in a community, should operate in a more cooperative manner.

It benefits everyone. The police, parents, and the community at large.

Ummmm...then you don't mind if the police bite the children or their parents? My city runs curfew hours all day long on local cable access....nothing about a free ride home or taxi service for delinquents and their parents....the kind that wants somebody else to do their job.

[betsy]

Well, the first rule when dealing with police is no not utter a single word. Second - if you have a cell phone start the record function immediately (even if you only get sound - as it may come in handy later.

There is no reason why I should step out of my vehicle. If he needs my liscense I can hand it to him through the window.

You may think there's no reason why you should step out of the vehicle....but what if for some reason he thinks you should step out of your vehicle?

Please answer this question. If he asks you to step out of the vehicle, how will you respond?

Some police officers are not nice individuals Betsy - I sure hope you never run into that type - it would be a wake up call for you.

I know about that. They've got a lot of power. It is said that a lot of cops are no better than a lot of criminals.

That is why I'm convinced this 15-year old was not scared at all! This particular cop we're talking about was truly only doing his job. In fact, he showed some patience and restraint.

Did you count how many times he asked her nicely to give her other hand? And he also told her, "I don't want to use force because you're small and it will hurt you. But I will use force if I have to." She was duly warned.

How many cops will go that far? I bet in most cases she wouldn't be asked the third time.

I have VERY little trust in the police - and the level of mistrust I do have is VERY well earned by these so called 'protectors'.

Therefore, your sense of judgement is tainted by prejudice. Obviously you've had a negative experience with cops.

So far the experiences I've had with our local OPP had been very positive. I found them polite, and a couple of them on separate ocassions had even volunteered valuable advice.

Nevertheless, I do not delude myself that therefore all cops are like them. As in all groups, there will be bad apples. And as in all groups, there will be good ones too.

There was a case here a few years back where a constable on the force was videotaped smashing a girls head repeatedly into the hood of his cruiser. Guess what: he's still on the force after a two hear holiday with pay. (I know this guy's father - sick bastard - son is just the same).

We need civilian oversight on our police and those who are unfit need to lose their jobs immediately.

yes I remember the case. That was clearly police brutality. He even looked about to make sure nobody was watching before he proceeded to smash her head.

And I do agree with you that bad cops should be weeded out of the force.

Edited October 6, 2007 by betsy

[kuzadd]

AW: I have watched the video a number of times,and there is that bag, tied closed, in it.

Because I can see that, it leaves me wondering, what the heck was going on and why the minor was really being arrested.

IMO, you seem to want to ignore that tied closed bag.

The alleged reason for all the suspicion, yet there it is, tied closed.

I can't see why the minor was, therefore ,arrested.

So, since I cannot understand the reason she was actually arrested, bringing on the entire incident, it's difficult, for me to condemn

I also have looked for the info you are providing, wrt 9/11 call and felony charge, can't find it, I googled and keep finding the article I originally posted, regurgitated on various media sites.

Could you give me a link, much appreciated.

Edited October 6, 2007 by kuzadd

[betsy]

AW: I have watched the video a number of times,and there is that bag, tied closed, in it.

Because I can see that, it leaves me wondering, what the heck was going on and why the minor was really being arrested.

IMO, you seem to want to ignore that tied closed bag.

The alleged reason for all the suspicion, yet there it is, tied closed.

I can't see why the minor was, therefore ,arrested.

I also have looked for the info you are providing, wrt 9/11 call and felony charge, can't find it, I googled and keep finding the article I originally posted, regurgitated on various media sites.

Could you give me a link, much appreciated.

Obviously the cop thought she did something wrong otherwise there wouldn't be any need for handcuffs.

The bottom line... minor or not, felon or not, she should've just cooperated nicely...and then, complain later.

[betsy]

are you seriously going to tell me skin colour is a non-issue??

wrt police/law enforcement?

Seriously?

and I said

Doubtful it was a non-issue.

Yes, seriously. Skin color is a non-issue wrt a lot of police/law enforcement. I can attest to that.

You're paintng them all with the same brush!

[geoffrey]

Obviously the cop thought she did something wrong otherwise there wouldn't be any need for handcuffs.

Who knows? Maybe he was trying to scare her into not breaking the law anymore, and just take her home to her folks.

Either way, her response was definitely suspicious and eventually she assaulted the cop. His response was more than justified.

[Guest American Woman]

AW: I have watched the video a number of times,and there is that bag, tied closed, in it.

Because I can see that, it leaves me wondering, what the heck was going on and why the minor was really being arrested.

IMO, you seem to want to ignore that tied closed bag.

The alleged reason for all the suspicion, yet there it is, tied closed.

I can't see why the minor was, therefore ,arrested.

So, since I cannot understand the reason she was actually arrested, bringing on the entire incident, it's difficult, for me to condemn

I also have looked for the info you are providing, wrt 9/11 call and felony charge, can't find it, I googled and keep finding the article I originally posted, regurgitated on various media sites.

Could you give me a link, much appreciated.

I'm not ignoring the closed bag; I've addressed it in regards to the 911 call. I did provide a link already, but will gladly repost it for you.

Link

A 15-year-old girl is facing a felony battery charge from a curfew violation incident in which a city police officer struck and pepper sprayed her after she bit him — actions shown in a police videotape released Thursday.

Gilroy was trying to handcuff Shelwanda Riley, 15, of the 300 block of South 25th Street, for breaking the city’s curfew when she became increasingly violent and bit him, according to the police report.

Gilroy was responding to a 911 call about a suspicious couple walking the area of 24th Street and Boston Avenue with full garbage bags, when he met up with Riley at about 1:50 a.m.

Clearly, in the video, she is carrying what appears to be a garbage bag.

Edited October 6, 2007 by American Woman

[kuzadd]

I'm not ignoring the closed bag; I've addressed it in regards to the 911 call. I did provide a link already, but will gladly repost it for you.

Link

A 15-year-old girl is facing a felony battery charge from a curfew violation incident in which a city police officer struck and pepper sprayed her after she bit him — actions shown in a police videotape released Thursday.

Gilroy was trying to handcuff Shelwanda Riley, 15, of the 300 block of South 25th Street, for breaking the city’s curfew when she became increasingly violent and bit him, according to the police report.

Gilroy was responding to a 911 call about a suspicious couple walking the area of 24th Street and Boston Avenue with full garbage bags, when he met up with Riley at about 1:50 a.m.

Clearly, in the video, she is carrying what appears to be a garbage bag.

Thanks , I did miss the link, I am not surprised about the 'felony' charge, and it will likely be reduced or dropped all together, IMO.

I saw what you posted wrt the bag, but, it was in her hand, still and tied closed.

If the officer was suspicious of it, why was it in her hand, as he was arresting her?

why was it tied closed?

How could the reason be plausible that he stopped her, for carrying a bag, with tagged clothing, when the bag, in her hand is tied closed and is still in her possession???

If he was placing her under arrest before he opened the bag, what was he arresting her for?

I just find it all to questionable.

[geoffrey]

If he was placing her under arrest before he opened the bag, what was he arresting her for?

You can be arrested on suspicion, that's common.

Assaulting a police officer, or another, is completely unacceptable. This delinquent needs to spend some serious time thinking about what she need, and a she needs to be held to account so that others don't think it's acceptable to attack a cop (or anyone else).

Prison would be wrong for someone that age (assuming she has no prior convictions), but house arrest on weekends for a year or two would send a message.

Not that I'd expect parents to enforce that, they did let there kid illegal out past a curfew and hasn't taught their kid they aren't to bite people and to be a complete asshat when dealing with police.

[kimmy]

How could the reason be plausible that he stopped her, for carrying a bag, with tagged clothing, when the bag, in her hand is tied closed and is still in her possession???

If he was placing her under arrest before he opened the bag, what was he arresting her for?

As has been mentioned several dozen times already, she was violating the local curfew. That gives the officer legitimate reason to place her in custody and investigate.

Nope, this guy used excessive force and could have restrained her in a much more successful way. No need for the pepper spray, no need for the excess force.

While he could have attempted to force her other arm behind her back, and likely could have succeeded, he was clearly trying to avoid doing so up until the point where she bit him. He was extremely patient, and after she bit him he restrained her with a minimal use of force.

I still don't understand why she couldn't have, you know, put her other hand behind her back.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Thanks , I did miss the link, I am not surprised about the 'felony' charge, and it will likely be reduced or dropped all together, IMO.

I saw what you posted wrt the bag, but, it was in her hand, still and tied closed.

If the officer was suspicious of it, why was it in her hand, as he was arresting her?

why was it tied closed?

How could the reason be plausible that he stopped her, for carrying a bag, with tagged clothing, when the bag, in her hand is tied closed and is still in her possession???

If he was placing her under arrest before he opened the bag, what was he arresting her for?

I just find it all to questionable.

The felony charge may be plea bargained at the last minute, as you suggest. But I hope it would be with the understanding that this girl realizes what she did was totally wrong/inappropriate/against the law.

As to why the bag was still in her hand while he was arresting her-- who knows why? I'm guessing if he'd told her to drop it she wouldn't have cooperated. Maybe he felt it best to restrain her first. But I don't think that's an important issue here. There is no doubt that this girl violated curfew. That's not an arguable point. That alone was enough for the officer to take her in to a "holding area," which seems to be the policy in her city.

I've been doing a bit more research and it seems Fort Pierce has a serious problem with gangs; it appears that's a major reason for implementing the curfew. A 15 year old girl would fall right in that age group, and as such, being out on the streets at 1:50 am would be justifiably "suspicious."

I do think the police officer showed restraint under the circumstances. No one can argue the fact that he could have restrained her by using more force, but he obviously chose patience, trying to talk her into cooperating. Once he was bitten, he had no more obligation to continue trying to talk her into cooperating. Using the pepper spray instead of using more force at that point had to have required control on his part.

But the bottom line is that she was violating curfew; she violated the law. That alone was enough for the officer to take her in.

Again. SHE was wrong. She started this chain of events by being wrong-- by violating curfew. She further antagonized the situation by resisting arrest, which was another wrong on top of the first wrong. Finally she committed an assault, a felony, by biting the officer. Most definitely another wrong.

I can't understand how everyone can't see that, and hold her responsible for her actions-- as she should be.

Edited October 7, 2007 by American Woman

[Drea]

if there is a curfew for kids... and kids are just as responsible for their actions as adults... shouldn't the curfew be extended to adults as well?

There is a reason that there is a difference between adult and juvenile court. Kids are not 100% responsible for their actions and can be "forgiven" (hence the anomoly of the sealed juvenile record).

Is she an adult or a child?

The officer was patient in the beginning but eventually lost his cool. Are police officers not trained in how NOT to lose their cool in difficult situations?

[Moxie]

if there is a curfew for kids... and kids are just as responsible for their actions as adults... shouldn't the curfew be extended to adults as well?

What utter nonsense.

There is a reason that there is a difference between adult and juvenile court. Kids are not 100% responsible for their actions and can be "forgiven" (hence the anomoly of the sealed juvenile record).

She is responsible for her behavior, and when she refused to comply with the officer she suffered the "Consequences" something to many youth don't face because of lazy, weak parents.

Is she an adult or a child?

She's a young adult, old enough to have known better but chose to disobey a police officer.

The officer was patient in the beginning but eventually lost his cool. Are police officers not trained in how NOT to lose their cool in difficult situations?

He did not lose control in a difficult situation, in order for him to protect himself from further bites from the little ditch he struck her. I'd of driven her face through the hood and had it connect with the radiator. She is no victim, contrary to the bleeding heart apologist. She got what she deserved, maybe next time she'll obey a police officer's request.

[ScottSA]

He did not lose control in a difficult situation, in order for him to protect himself from further bites from the little ditch he struck her. I'd of driven her face through the hood and had it connect with the radiator. She is no victim, contrary to the bleeding heart apologist. She got what she deserved, maybe next time she'll obey a police officer's request.

You go girl!

[Guest American Woman]

if there is a curfew for kids... and kids are just as responsible for their actions as adults... shouldn't the curfew be extended to adults as well?

There is a reason that there is a difference between adult and juvenile court. Kids are not 100% responsible for their actions and can be "forgiven" (hence the anomoly of the sealed juvenile record).

Is she an adult or a child?

The officer was patient in the beginning but eventually lost his cool. Are police officers not trained in how NOT to lose their cool in difficult situations?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. We aren't saying we should lock this girl up and thrown away the key. I'm sure she will get her records sealed, etc., just like every other minor. But just because there is a difference between adult court and juvenile court doesn't mean kids aren't expected to be responsible for their actions; that they aren't expected to be obey and respect the law. If they weren't, there wouldn't be any juvenile court.

And yes, the officer was very patient in the beginning, just as you said. He became less patient only after he was bitten. I'll tell you another thing. If a 15 year old shot at a cop, he'd shoot back. Kids need to learn that there are consequences to their actions for their own good.

Edited October 7, 2007 by American Woman

[segnosaur]

if there is a curfew for kids... and kids are just as responsible for their actions as adults... shouldn't the curfew be extended to adults as well?

There is a reason that there is a difference between adult and juvenile court. Kids are not 100% responsible for their actions and can be "forgiven" (hence the anomoly of the sealed juvenile record).

Is she an adult or a child?

What you have given is a sort of false dichotomy.

In our society, we do not have any sort of firm 'dividing line' between when someone is a child and when they are an adult; instead, we have a series of gradual increases in rights and responsibilities. The age where someone can vote, drink legally, drive, get married, etc. all may happen at different ages. the same with criminal responsibility; children below a certain age are always assumed to be not responsible for their actions; however, as a child gets older more rights and more responsibilities are given.

Nobody is assuming that the kid in this case should be treated exactly as an adult. However, they do have some added protection (e.g. sealed juvenile records, lower criminal penalties), at a cost of some loss of freedom (such as being subjected to a curfew). However, at the age of 15, most people should understand the difference between right and wrong, and should respect the law.

[segnosaur]

Well, the first rule when dealing with police is no not utter a single word. Second - if you have a cell phone start the record function immediately (even if you only get sound - as it may come in handy later.

Hey, I'm all for more document evidence about what happens between cops and civilians. However, from the sounds of it, it looks like had the start of the incident been fully recorded, it would have been worse for the girl. Any attempts by her to resist arrest (prior to the cop turning on HIS camera) would have been captured for all to see.

There is no reason why I should step out of my vehicle. If he needs my liscense I can hand it to him through the window.

Just out of curiosity, exactly how far would you take that argument?

If, for example, you had just run over a pedestrian, or had just been given a breathalizer test which showed you were drunk, would you accept the cops would be justified in demanding you exit your vehicle? Or is your sense that you never have to leave your car absolute, regardless of the circumstances?

There was a case here a few years back where a constable on the force was videotaped smashing a girls head repeatedly into the hood of his cruiser.

I'm sure there ARE plenty of cases of unjustifiable police brutality out there. But trying to turn every event where a police officer touches a victim into a case of horrible assault is counter-productive. It ends up overwhelming cases of true brutality, and you run the risk of having all the bad cases getting dismissed by the public because they've heard (and rejected) so many cases before.

We need civilian oversight on our police and those who are unfit need to lose their jobs immediately.

Last time we checked, we had:

- A constitution (both in the U.S. and Canada), developed by civilian politicians, covering people's basic rights

- Judges, either elected directly or appointed by elected officials who interpret laws and can dismiss cases where cops have overstepped their authority

- Police forces subject to local, provincial or national political organizations

Sounds like pretty good civilian oversight to me.

No system is perfect, and I'm sure there will always be cases of unjustified police brutality; however, its also possible for civilian organizations to 'micromanage' police actions, which can put society at greater risk.

[moderateamericain]

Hey, I'm all for more document evidence about what happens between cops and civilians. However, from the sounds of it, it looks like had the start of the incident been fully recorded, it would have been worse for the girl. Any attempts by her to resist arrest (prior to the cop turning on HIS camera) would have been captured for all to see.

Just out of curiosity, exactly how far would you take that argument?

If, for example, you had just run over a pedestrian, or had just been given a breathalizer test which showed you were drunk, would you accept the cops would be justified in demanding you exit your vehicle? Or is your sense that you never have to leave your car absolute, regardless of the circumstances?

I'm sure there ARE plenty of cases of unjustifiable police brutality out there. But trying to turn every event where a police officer touches a victim into a case of horrible assault is counter-productive. It ends up overwhelming cases of true brutality, and you run the risk of having all the bad cases getting dismissed by the public because they've heard (and rejected) so many cases before.

Last time we checked, we had:

- A constitution (both in the U.S. and Canada), developed by civilian politicians, covering people's basic rights

- Judges, either elected directly or appointed by elected officials who interpret laws and can dismiss cases where cops have overstepped their authority

- Police forces subject to local, provincial or national political organizations

Sounds like pretty good civilian oversight to me.

No system is perfect, and I'm sure there will always be cases of unjustified police brutality; however, its also possible for civilian organizations to 'micromanage' police actions, which can put society at greater risk.

The issue I have with it is how hard is it for I would guess around a 200 to 225 pound man to hold down a 115 pound girl. I eaten meals bigger than that little thing.

[segnosaur]

The issue I have with it is how hard is it for I would guess around a 200 to 225 pound man to hold down a 115 pound girl. I eaten meals bigger than that little thing.

Yeah, but how often do your meals turn around and bite you?

I'm taking martial arts classes... Not an expert by any means, but it does give me an idea what is needed to disable/control someone, and what damage can be done. A 115 pound girl is more than capable of seriously injuring someone much larger than themselves. Personally I'll save my sympathy for people who might get wrongly arrested/accused, and who DON'T try biting the cops.