CHP Viral Video

[Long Relief]

This video has been making the rounds. My big takeaway from it is that the woman was checked out at the hospital and wasn't injured in the least. So, either she has a iron jaw or he wasn't striking her as hard as it may have looked to some.

The woman appeared irrational and emotionally disturbed and those types can be very strong and unpredictable. Couple that with the fact you don't want some long and drawn out struggle on a freeway.

Sure, it looks bad, but she broke the law, didn't obey a lawful order and was taken into custody without injury to her or the officer. Of course, the liberals will probably get the officer's badge over it nonetheless.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Family-Of-Woman-Hit-By-CHP-Officer-Plans-to-File-Lawsuit-265981301.html

[reils49]

The video doesn't look good. But my question is what happened before the video was taken? What prompted the officer to act this way? Did she attack him? Go for his gun? I don't know.

[Max K]

The video doesn't look good. But my question is what happened before the video was taken? What prompted the officer to act this way? Did she attack him? Go for his gun? I don't know.

I think those are the right questions to ask. Notice that the news story does not ask these questions. The reporting is slanted towards the idea of "police brutality": that is what is expanded upon, that is what is given the most airtime. As far as balanced reporting, all the reporter says is: "still a lot of unanswered questions". Yeah, like basic information: what happened there? The reporter talks about how the family of the woman was contacted, what the family had to say, and what the lawyers had to say: how is any of that relevant to what happened? For example, the TV station could put up an 800 number for witnesses to call. But I'm afraid the TV station doesn't want to hear any such witness accounts: they already have what they need to sell this story as "outrageous police brutality".

Also, I noticed the officer hit the woman multiple times, but not with full force: presumably he was trying to gain compliance using the minimum effective level of force. Then the other guy arrives and immediately helps to restrain her (because apparently it took two people to restrain her even after the beating).

[Iowa #1603]

The video doesn't look good. But my question is what happened before the video was taken? What prompted the officer to act this way? Did she attack him? Go for his gun? I don't know.

Video often "doesn't look good" due to the fact that it is shot from a single angle and most of the time you have no context to show what happened prior to the camera starting.

I still would rather have video available to back my actions even if it is "bad" video

Also what looks "bad" on video still is often good procedure.

I had a UOF situation that really looked like crap ------------My boss, my boss's boss and the Attorney General's office agreed that not only was I within policy (and state law) guidelines, but I did a commendable job under difficult circumstances.
.
The video still looked crappy and rather than take the issue to court when sued ----the state chose to settle out of court. Everyone was sure the verdict would have been high.

Also, I noticed the officer hit the woman multiple times, but not with full force: presumably he was trying to gain compliance using the minimum effective level of force. Then the other guy arrives and immediately helps to restrain her (because apparently it took two people to restrain her even after the beating).

People can be much more resilient than you think. It is not usual for a single officer to fight for their lives against a "small person" a "little old lady/man" or " a young boy/girl".

The problem is ---------until a person has been there it is VERY hard to explain why certain things are done and why they are done in a certain way. It still can LOOK bad even if it is not (see my post above) AND PERCEPTION can/will mean a lot in public and court

[Smokeythebear06]

I noticed during the entire encounter that the officer was only striking with his right hand. Maybe she was biting or attempting to do so? Maybe she was grabbing or attempting to grab his family jewels. Or as noted above he may have been fighting over his firearm or tazer. I just love how the witness stated that the officer was striking her with both hands when the video clearly shows he wasn't.

[IAM Rand]

It is like blood in the water for sharks. Those attorney's smell a payday without having to enter a courtroom. All they have to do is a couple of interviews and let the internet do the rest. No matter how justified the officer is or what the woman did it will still be a payday. She could have grabbed his gun and it wouldn't matter. The daughter is so full of horse manure. Why was her momma on the side of the road to begin with. The family was most likely passing her around because they couldn't deal with her crazy a55. They only became concerned when they saw the dollar signs with every hit. How long with it take before Jesse and Al show up. Of course they will expect a donation from the family. Wink wink.