http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_re_us/deputy_suspended;_ylt=Av24mzhTiRPkfQ.uUbn7HSlH2ocA
2007-05-03 07:29:07 · 6 answers · asked by nom de paix 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
I've learned to take what the media posts with a grain of salt, as the stories are usually one sided. The question we should ask is what else the woman did to deserve to be in handcuffs. Either way she doesn't have a reason to commit a traffic violation, and must wait for law enforcement to release her before she can go. She violated the law by trying to leave and then failed to comply. Regardless of her reason, father or not, she did not have the right to act the way she did. Officers are not required to be sympathetic. Personally, although the officer could have been a little more sympathetic, all she had to do was be calm and respectful to the officer. But from the moment she failed to comply, she was responsible for everything else that happened. My support until further facts are known, falls with the officer, and not the lady.
2007-05-03 07:52:58 · answer #1 · answered by speedysundevil 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. The officer was well within his rights to stop her for the initial speeding offense. The woman drove off while the officer had her stopped, which is another offense. While most anyone could sympathize with the woman for wanting to see her father, it still was no excuse to break the law. When the woman was stopped the second time, the officer had every right to take her into custody for fleeing from him. From what I read in the article, it seemed that he used an appropriate amount of force. The article mentions no injuries to the woman.
While a lot of officers would have given her a break on the initial speeding charge due to the circumstances, it is within their discretion to do so. This officer decided, in his discretion, that she deserved a ticket. She was breaking the law, after all. She should have taken the ticket and plead her case in court later and hope for a sympathetic judge. Instead she chose to run. I some states this could be considered escape, but is illegal everywhere.
2007-05-03 09:38:26 · answer #2 · answered by LawDawg 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No
The act of arresting something by the very nature of the act is kind of brutal.
She should have handled the situation better and the officer would not have felt forced into arresting her.
He was doing his job- she was not putting a whole lot of thought into her actions.
2007-05-03 07:58:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is NOT police brutality. It is minimum force necessary to make an arrest.
What it IS...is an officer who has been told so many lies from other violators...that he declined to listen to her situation. This is why the officer was suspended.
2007-05-03 07:53:04 · answer #4 · answered by KC V ™ 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
negative, the right amout of force was used
2007-05-03 08:39:45 · answer #5 · answered by mike g 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Possibly,as this may be as well http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=3091742&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1
2007-05-03 08:22:34 · answer #6 · answered by SMEAC 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋