NYPD officer slams pregnant woman on belly and then tasers her

What slam? Looks to me like she was resisting arrest (you can see her arm get free) and then she tripped and fell. The officer was barely holding her at the time she went down.

Planting a knife on the kid?

What a joke.

 
I don't really see what the big deal is. Sounds like the guy was up to no good, and his mom got in the way.

Everyone got what they deserved.

If they didn't want this stuff to happen, they should stop breaking the law.

 
I don't really see what the big deal is. Sounds like the guy was up to no good, and his mom got in the way.

Everyone got what they deserved.

If they didn't want this stuff to happen, they should stop breaking the law.
So what you're saying is that the cop should be allowed to give that woman an abortion?
 
So what you're saying is that the cop should be allowed to give that woman an abortion?
You are getting more crazy by the day.

Watch the video, does it REALLY look like he slammed her down, or closer to the fact that she lost her footing and fell?

 
You are getting more crazy by the day.

Watch the video, does it REALLY look like he slammed her down, or closer to the fact that she lost her footing and fell?
Yeah...when I lose my footing and fall backwards, I ALWAYS do a 180 like a goddamn ninja and land on my stomach. I'm such a fucking boss that I taze myself while I'm on the ground too. It's not like any fall would require a trip to the ER for the baby muchless getting fucking tazed.

Nah...I'm the fucking loon here...falls and hi-voltage electric shocks could NEVER cause the baby to die.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LMAO...a 180 flip like a ninja. Jesus H. Christ, man. You don't think that's even a little bit of an exaggeration? What I see is her turning around, 100% of her own volition, and then falling. Both of the cop's feet are clearly behind her at that point too, so there's no evidence to support a trip. Go study judo. That is not how you throw somebody. Yes, the cop has a hold of her arms...and does follow her to the ground, but is it not even a little possible that he's trying to cushion her fall and just goes down with her?

Can we not just watch objectively and reasonably assess what you can actually see happen? I don't even really see him straddling her as the report suggests. It's kind of hard to tell because of how dark the video is...but you can see that he props himself up almost immediately, with his right leg full extended to the other side of her on the street. His left leg could possibly be kneeling against her legs to hold her down (which is where you could actually begin to question his actions)...or it could be on the street (thus not touching her at all). Again, it's hard to tell.

As for being tazed in the stomach, has there been any evidence to show that actually happened? I'm sorry, but I can't just take her word for it when the family is also claiming the NYPD is using resources to plot against a 17 year old and plant a weapon on him. If there's evidence of being tazed in her pregnant stomach, then they've got some explaining to do, as I'd be hard pressed to understand why that was necessary. But I'm not going to buy into hysteria and hype alone.

There are bad cops. I will not dispute that. Honestly, the other clip they showed of the fruit vendor being kicked, I can't think of a possible defense for that. He was being restrained by multiple officers and Officer WorldStar jumps in for a cheap shot. I don't know how you justify that. But that's not what I see with this woman.

One other thing that I think is important to remember...some people on this board are actually trying to engage in intelligent discussion. And others are just trying to bait you and get a reaction. If you guys actually enjoy this fanatical style of back and forth, I guess more power to you. But it just seems pointless and immature to me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
LMAO...a 180 flip like a ninja. Jesus H. Christ, man. You don't think that's even a little bit of an exaggeration? What I see is her turning around, 100% of her own volition, and then falling. Both of the cop's feet are clearly behind her at that point too, so there's no evidence to support a trip. Go study judo. That is not how you throw somebody. Yes, the cop has a hold of her arms...and does follow her to the ground, but is it not even a little possible that he's trying to cushion her fall and just goes down with her?

Can we not just watch objectively and reasonably assess what you can actually see happen? I don't even really see him straddling her as the report suggests. It's kind of hard to tell because of how dark the video is...but you can see that he props himself up almost immediately, with his right leg full extended to the other side of her on the street. His left leg could possibly be kneeling against her legs to hold her down (which is where you could actually begin to question his actions)...or it could be on the street (thus not touching her at all). Again, it's hard to tell.

As for being tazed in the stomach, has there been any evidence to show that actually happened? I'm sorry, but I can't just take her word for it when the family is also claiming the NYPD is using resources to plot against a 17 year old and plant a weapon on him. If there's evidence of being tazed in her pregnant stomach, then they've got some explaining to do, as I'd be hard pressed to understand why that was necessary. But I'm not going to buy into hysteria and hype alone.

There are bad cops. I will not dispute that. Honestly, the other clip they showed of the fruit vendor being kicked, I can't think of a possible defense for that. He was being restrained by multiple officers and Officer WorldStar jumps in for a cheap shot. I don't know how you justify that. But that's not what I see with this woman.
The questionable actions starts with the cop strong-arming a woman that's 6 months pregnant. I need to study judo??? EL OH fucking EL. How about we strap on a 20lb watermelon to your waist and see how well balanced you are. Next, assuming you're straight and have a wanted pregnancy with your wife/gf, let's have her trip on the ground and not even land on her stomach to see what her OB would say about that. Or if you're feeling lucky enough, let's have her actually land on her stomach.

Do I think it's remotely possible that the cop tried to break her fall? I'd say it's about the same possibility that Rodney King was diving face first into the fists and feet of the cops beating...errr I mean diving face first into their appendages that were held out in a non-aggressive manner. You can clearly see that the cop was trying to maneuver her into a more controllable position with his arms restraining hers at the elbow, at which point she pivots, because she's pregnant and therefore off balance while partially restrained, and he takes her down.


One other thing that I think is important to remember...some people on this board are actually trying to engage in intelligent discussion. And others are just trying to bait you and get a reaction. If you guys actually enjoy this fanatical style of back and forth, I guess more power to you. But it just seems pointless and immature to me.
Sorry, but if you want to have an intelligent discussion, you're going to have to start with some actual knowledge first and not just man-splain your way through it. Oh and if you're going to trot out terms like "objectivity" and "reasonably assess," you should at least make sure your reading comprehension is on point. Maybe it's because I'm not as objective as you, but nowhere did I mention anything about the cop tripping the woman and/or attempting a textbook judo flip/throw/salad toss.

Like I implied in the other thread, looking into your own thought processes could reveal biases that you don't think you have. Things like justifying why a cop is given the benefit of the doubt when strong-arming a pregnant woman to the point of causing her to fall and then calling it being objective doesn't make it objective.

Btw, thanks for lecturing me on forum etiquette, pops! Now if you could chide the worse offenders, I'd REALLY appreciate it. Don't let your pesky "objectivity" get in the way.
 
The questionable actions starts with the cop strong-arming a woman that's 6 months pregnant. I need to study judo??? EL OH fucking EL. How about we strap on a 20lb watermelon to your waist and see how well balanced you are. Next, assuming you're straight and have a wanted pregnancy with your wife/gf, let's have her trip on the ground and not even land on her stomach to see what her OB would say about that. Or if you're feeling lucky enough, let's have her actually land on her stomach.
I'm sorry. I thought we were discussing being "180 flipped like a ninja". Not losing someone's balance and falling. Of course the latter is possible simply by being pregnant. Where is the shoving motion? Please point it out for me.

Also, my wife would never mouth off to an officer and put herself in a position where she needs to be restrained, endangering her unborn child. But I guess we shouldn't expect people to act responsibly while pregnant.

I would never in a million years suggest that it was ok for her to fall on her stomach (common sense, no?). But to me, based on what I actually see...with my eyes...in the video...is that it looks like it was her own fault and the cop did nothing to "180 ninja flip" her.

Do I think it's remotely possible that the cop tried to break her fall? I'd say it's about the same possibility that Rodney King was diving face first into the fists and feet of the cops beating...errr I mean diving face first into their appendages that were held out in a non-aggressive manner. You can clearly see that the cop was trying to maneuver her into a more controllable position with his arms restraining hers at the elbow, at which point she pivots, because she's pregnant and therefore off balance while partially restrained, and he takes her down.
Yup...totally the same. You are not exaggerating even a little bit.

Sorry, but if you want to have an intelligent discussion, you're going to have to start with some actual knowledge first and not just man-splain your way through it. Oh and if you're going to trot out terms like "objectivity" and "reasonably assess," you should at least make sure your reading comprehension is on point. Maybe it's because I'm not as objective as you, but nowhere did I mention anything about the cop tripping the woman and/or attempting a textbook judo flip/throw/salad toss.

Like I implied in the other thread, looking into your own thought processes could reveal biases that you don't think you have. Things like justifying why a cop is given the benefit of the doubt when strong-arming a pregnant woman to the point of causing her to fall and then calling it being objective doesn't make it objective.

Btw, thanks for lecturing me on forum etiquette, pops! Now if you could chide the worse offenders, I'd REALLY appreciate it. Don't let your pesky "objectivity" get in the way.
*sigh* Exceptional. No shit, Sherlock. I didn't bring up the possibility of a trip because you or anyone else said something about it. I mentioned it as I was considering both sides of the story and trying to legitimately assess if the police officer could have played any role in "taking down" this woman. It was just brought up as a potential factor, that I dismissed. Nothing more.

And yes, I'm the biased one. The one who has found fault in both the victims AND the police officers. The one looking at these videos second for second, analyzing subtle movements, listening intently for verbal communication. I am biased as fuck. You have cracked the case.
 
Trying to stop the cops from arresting your convict son is a reason to be restrained, trying to resist while being restrained (especially when pregnant) can lead to a fall. No "slam" is shown, just an idiot trying to resist when she should be docile for her baby's sake. Should the law not apply to pregnant woman? No video of the tasering seems odd. The fruit vendor kick video was waaaaay out of line though.

 
The mother has a 17 year old son and is six months pregnant herself... sounds like she has the system figured out pretty well

 
I'm sorry. I thought we were discussing being "180 flipped like a ninja". Not losing someone's balance and falling. Of course the latter is possible simply by being pregnant. Where is the shoving motion? Please point it out for me.
OH I get it now! Your problem is reading comprehension! That's something that I can't help you with, unfortunately.

Also, my wife would never mouth off to an officer and put herself in a position where she needs to be restrained, endangering her unborn child. But I guess we shouldn't expect people to act responsibly while pregnant.
And if your wife DID happen to mouth off, you'd be ok with her being STRONG-ARMED like the woman in the video? It sure as hell sounds like you are. She should've kept her damn whore mouth shut if she didn't want to get tossed/thrown/slammed/slip on the ground when a cop is trying to restrain her.

Seriously, what makes you think that it would be impossible for you, your wife, or any seemingly reasonable person to not snap and mouth off to cops? Between the hormones and added stress of pregnancy, you'd be surprised at what kind of stuff pregnant women will snap at and it isn't even their fault. I absolutely love how people like you say how easy something is because they've never had to deal with that thing. Instead of thinking about how someone might be blowing out of proportion, you should be thinking about how lucky you are that you don't have to deal with it and at least pretend to show some empathy.

I would never in a million years suggest that it was ok for her to fall on her stomach (common sense, no?). But to me, based on what I actually see...with my eyes...in the video...is that it looks like it was her own fault and the cop did nothing to "180 ninja flip" her.
I love how someone so objective turns hyperbole into literalism. It's not like the cop had ANY influence on the woman falling on the ground. He wasn't even touching her, right!

Yup...totally the same. You are not exaggerating even a little bit.
When I try to prevent someone from falling, I ALWAYS lean into them. Always. Sometimes, I even give a little swinging action to end their fall quicker! Don't hate on me for throwing out ridiculous scenarios when you try to play your own off as being possible.

Or how about this scenario: she was trying to get away from the cop because she knew that he would try to fuck her shit up once he got a hold of her and therefore trying to protect the baby by getting away? Sounds a hell of a lot more realistic than trying to break her fall when getting her shit fucked up is EXACTLY what happened. It's not like he just sat her down and gave her a stern talking-to; he cuffed her.

*sigh* Exceptional. No shit, Sherlock. I didn't bring up the possibility of a trip because you or anyone else said something about it. I mentioned it as I was considering both sides of the story and trying to legitimately assess if the police officer could have played any role in "taking down" this woman. It was just brought up as a potential factor, that I dismissed. Nothing more.
Or maybe being in a neighborhood that has increased police attention, cops should be calling for back up knowing that there are always a ton of them around the corner when handling sensitive situations, like a highly agitated pregnant woman, instead of trying to go at it alone.

The fact of the matter is that the cop shouldn't have even let it get to the point where he's trying to restrain her, which is a big factor in the fall. If there's anything in my post that you should be paying attention to, THAT was it.

And yes, I'm the biased one. The one who has found fault in both the victims AND the police officers. The one looking at these videos second for second, analyzing subtle movements, listening intently for verbal communication. I am biased as fuck. You have cracked the case.
Truth is exactly in the middle and since both parties did things, we should just call everything square. It's not like cops should be fucking trained to deal with these types of situations with minimal physicality. A woman trying to protect her son is somehow unreasonable(misguided or not) because she's pregnant and the cop should be able to strong-arm her into submission. So if any harm comes to the baby, the cops aren't liable despite having training to deal with these things.

Yeah man...that's straight up the most objective shit I've ever read. Maybe I should just slap the shit out of my kid when she's screaming in my ears because people shouldn't be screaming in other peoples ears, right? Size differences, strength, and power dynamics should simply be irrelevant! That should be your theme song.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Or how about this scenario: she was trying to get away from the cop because she knew that he would try to fuck her shit up once he got a hold of her and therefore trying to protect the baby by getting away? Sounds a hell of a lot more realistic than trying to break her fall when getting her shit fucked up is EXACTLY what happened. It's not like he just sat her down and gave her a stern talking-to; he cuffed her.
The fact that this is an acceptable thought to you illustrates how warped and twisted your perception is. That embraces an anti-law enforcement belief before things even get started or taking into consideration any actual facts. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to engage in rational thought with you.

But since this is all you ever really look for in any discussion you participate in anyway, here you go...you win the internet. Good job. You must be an absolute joy to be around...being right about everything you ever open your mouth about. It's truly impressive. You are seriously the definition of loudest voice in the room.

Go ahead. Get the last word. I know you need to. :lol:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Or maybe being in a neighborhood that has increased police attention, cops should be calling for back up knowing that there are always a ton of them around the corner when handling sensitive situations, like a highly agitated pregnant woman, instead of trying to go at it alone.
Wow. In a singular sentence, DD manged to both make a snide comment about too many police while insisting that there needs to be more police involved. Impressive.
 
The fact that this is an acceptable thought to you illustrates how warped and twisted your perception is. That embraces an anti-law enforcement belief before things even get started or taking into consideration any actual facts. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to engage in rational thought with you.

But since this is all you ever really look for in any discussion you participate in anyway, here you go...you win the internet. Good job. You must be an absolute joy to be around...being right about everything you ever open your mouth about. It's truly impressive. You are seriously the definition of loudest voice in the room.

Go ahead. Get the last word. I know you need to. :lol:
Don't mind if I do! Sorry if I don't jerk you off like other CAG's would when you're being obtuse. Nice to have your permission though.

Here's the abridged version:

OH I get it now! Your problem is reading comprehension! That's something that I can't help you with, unfortunately.

...

Or maybe being in a neighborhood that has increased police attention, cops should be calling for back up knowing that there are always a ton of them around the corner when handling sensitive situations, like a highly agitated pregnant woman, instead of trying to go at it alone.

The fact of the matter is that the cop shouldn't have even let it get to the point where he's trying to restrain her, which is a big factor in the fall. If there's anything in my post that you should be paying attention to, THAT was it.
Out of ALL that I typed up, you decided to respond to something that touched a nerve on your hang up on "anti-law enforcement" when the next two paragraphs clearly states the point I'm trying to make? Like I point RIGHT AT IT and you still don't get it? I might be loud, but I'd rather be loud than thick.

You're absolutely right: this IS fucking pointless because you can't understand what you're reading. "Rational thought" and "objective" my ass. Just World Theory, much?

Funny thing is that we should at least have been able to agree that the cop should've exercised better judgement when dealing with pregnant women considering the resources available to him(like I said in my quote), but nope! You let your biases and ego get in the way. Good on you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its funny people would mouth off to other people but yet coward in the face of authority...

I guess people only have balls when the other person can't do anything to you.

Good to know we live in Nazi America, hail the SS guards who stand guard, hail China Communist police who keep order

Scary to know

 
Don't mind if I do! Sorry if I don't jerk you off like other CAG's would when you're being obtuse. Nice to have your permission though.

Here's the abridged version:


Out of ALL that I typed up, you decided to respond to something that touched a nerve on your hang up on "anti-law enforcement" when the next two paragraphs clearly states the point I'm trying to make? Like I point RIGHT AT IT and you still don't get it? I might be loud, but I'd rather be loud than thick.

You're absolutely right: this IS fucking pointless because you can't understand what you're reading. "Rational thought" and "objective" my ass. Just World Theory, much?

Funny thing is that we should at least have been able to agree that the cop should've exercised better judgement when dealing with pregnant women considering the resources available to him(like I said in my quote), but nope! You let your biases and ego get in the way. Good on you.
Its ok DD, I find you to be loud and thick. Thanks for the amusement.

 
So what you're saying is that the cop should be allowed to give that woman an abortion?
If he were 17 years earlier, this probably would not have happened.

The mother has a 17 year old son and is six months pregnant herself... sounds like she has the system figured out pretty well
Exactly. She didn't raise her first kid with enough sense to not be a criminal. Maybe the next won't be as bad.

The fact that this is an acceptable thought to you illustrates how warped and twisted your perception is. That embraces an anti-law enforcement belief before things even get started or taking into consideration any actual facts. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to engage in rational thought with you.

But since this is all you ever really look for in any discussion you participate in anyway, here you go...you win the internet. Good job. You must be an absolute joy to be around...being right about everything you ever open your mouth about. It's truly impressive. You are seriously the definition of loudest voice in the room.

Go ahead. Get the last word. I know you need to. :lol:
That's how it is with the Liberals. All of his tactics are pretty much right out of "Rules for Radicals." That is how they fight. The ridicule people who think differently, they promote a double standard between us and them, they promote negatives until they can turn it into a positive, and if you catch them in a lie, they try to change the subject, and attack the person who said they were wrong.

This is all in Alinsky's book, and that is the Liberal's version of the Bible.

Wow. In a singular sentence, DD manged to both make a snide comment about too many police while insisting that there needs to be more police involved. Impressive.
The man has talent.

 
bread's done
Back
Top