Officer cuts off woman's finger

[Joe Demko]

Frankly, I don't see what you cop-bashers are all so up set about. The officer did nothing wrong. 79 years old? Disabled? Demented? Feh. B-- had a knife, call the coroner. The other woman? Resisted arrest. Seemed like she was armed. B-- is lucky all she lost was a finger. The most important thing is that the officer got to go home safely to his family at the end of the shift.

 

[riverdog]

I keep hearing this stuff about the most important thing is for the officer to go home after his shift, but there are some things he needs to do before he earns that right, such as not bullying citizens who are otherwise minding their own business. Shooting a 79 year old lady in her home was questionable but perhaps can be stretched to be within the scope of his duties. Cutting off a finger because a citizen happened to fight back against a mugger/car-jacker? Inadverdently cut off her finger with a folding knife? That earns you the right to go to your cell, not home.

I'm not a cop basher, I just want a higher standard.

 

[2nd Amendment]

OK, now that was sarcasm.

Mike - OK, accidents I've seen. Worst was a biker who had his left leg torn off in the middle of his thigh. I tried to do a tourniquet till the cops arrived. Not much left to tie off though.

But no, the finger thing I should have been more specific about, I guess. It wasn't an accident. And it wasn't quick. The more I think about it the more I can't imagine how this clown in question here could have even managed it.

 

[cratz2]

Papers! Let me see your papers!

I think that it's about time for the law enforcement that is afraid to do their sworn duties to quit. When were the police officially given the right to use agressive and possibly fatal force against someone that may be armed or may be resisting arrest?

 

[ojibweindian]

One does not "accidentally" cut off a person's finger. It takes a little work. I've seen my share of "nasty" stuff while a corpsman in the Navy, in case one needs to know my "credentials".

 

[Shootin' Buddy]

"BADGES? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING BADGES!!!"

 

[Morgan]

When were the police officially given the right to use agressive and possibly fatal force against someone that may be armed or may be resisting arrest?

You're kidding, right? Police are required to deal with people who might be armed or resist arrest. What're we supposed to do, sit down and discuss the matter over a cup of tea?

Back on topic, it looks like the administration is going to hang this guy out for the woman giving him the finger, and rightly so.

 

[pax]

Two things depress me about this story.

I'm depressed and distressed to realize that the bad cop is not going to pay for this at all. He might, at the most, get fired, because it sounds as though his department is hanging him out to dry. But he won't go to jail for assault, which is what should happen. Instead, the taxpayers will probably have to pay the woman a hefty bunch of money. And that's it.

But the thing that depresses me most about this story is the thing that disgusted me most about the incident with the roadblock in Arizona and the incident with the dog-shooting in Tenessee and the incident with the bars in Virginia, the same thing that disgusts me whenever I read about American citizens being held without trial, without bail, and without access to a lawyer, the same thing that disgusts me when I read about the shenanigans that Jim March is uncovering in the California CCW wars or about some new and outrageous use of ZT policies in the schools.

I'm disgusted every time these things come up, not so much at the individual evidence of police brutality or politicians trampling on the Constitution or bureaucrats spitting on human rights -- though those are disgusting enough. No, the very most disgusting thing about this incident and about most of the others is that no one is surprised by it.

People who still believe in human rights might be unhappy, angry, or even infuriated to hear about things like this happening in America.

But not surprised.

Never surprised.

Isn't that depressing?

pax

If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all! --Rep. Henry Waxman

 

[cratz2]

You're kidding, right? Police are required to deal with people who might be armed or resist arrest. What're we supposed to do, sit down and discuss the matter over a cup of tea?

I am SO not kidding.

Let's see here... you leave a wallet on your car, I'm gonna kill your dog because it might go for my throat. You resist arrest, I'm gonna cut off your finger because you might have some little gun hidden up your sleeve.

Risks, man. You get paid to take risks. These people are innocent until proven guilty in a court regardless of what danger you think you might be in. You don't get paid to cut off innocent people's fingers and kill innocent people's dogs. That's what they do in China and that's what they did in Nazi Germany.

Is it a tough job? Yes. Are 99% of us glad there are people willing to do this job? Absolutely! Does it give any LEO the right to cut off a finger of any person for any reason? No way! No way any person, LEO or not, will say that the right thing to do was to cut off her finger to expedite hand-cuffing her. Would it really have taken that much longer to take her coat off? Like I said on the dog thread, decisions get made and mistakes get made. You cut off someones finger because you didn't want to take their coat off and you aren't allowed to be a cop anymore.

 

[cratz2]

Edited after removing cranium from rectum.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Edited upon Cratz' recovery from Cranial-Rectitis.

 

[Joe Demko]

My dear cratz2,

Unbunch your panties. I seem not to have slathered the sarcasm on thickly enough for you to detect it.

 

[Morgan]

Sarcasm, a wonderful form of humor.

Cratz, I think we're talking different stuff here. I'm saying that, in appropriate circumstances with a non-compliant suspect, force up to and including lethal force is legally and morally okay. Cutting off someone's finger who is passively resisting is not.

It can be a violent world, and violence can be a necessary tool.

 

[Cal4D4]

"Soldiers kill with simple will, I've seen them fall fast and steady"
Corrosion of Conformity

 

[DeltaElite]

Golgo,
I must admit I missed the sarcasm also, you see I still have to work with some people who think that way.
Sighhhhhhhhhhhh
I was afraid you were one of them, since you mimicked their argument so well.

 

[cratz2]

Golgo,
I must admit I missed the sarcasm also, you see I still have to work with some people who think that way.

I think that's my problem as well. With the internet, it's sometimes hard to detect what is scarcasm and what is serious, esp when you're already fired up.

So, no hard feelings Golgo, consider my panties officially unbunched.

 

[Betty]

Edited after removing cranium from rectum.

Good - you edited before I did.

 

[sm]

pax

Again you bring up a good point.
Dehumanization perhaps?
The "me me" thinking?
Yeah its sad, depressing...
I can't even get my own sibs to get concerned about mom's phone beening busy for 6 hours, no pc, no internet. I call sibs and state I'm driving over to check. No concern did she fall, get home invaded...nah just a yeah ok we're gonna watch a movie-bye.

Tamara, in this case no reason to cut finger off.

terrible car wreck, some other really weird circumstance maybe lose a limb to save a life. Seen where seat belts cut away from accidents, clothing might get cut...no ...not in a situation as this lady involved in.

 

[Powderman]

This might just be inexperience talking, but..............

So far, in my limited tenure in Law Enforcement, I have yet to see or think of ANY arrest scenario where a knife has to be used. For seat belts, yes--my primary reason for carrying a Spyderco Endura. As a utility tool, yes.

As a means to effect a lawful detention or arrest? Not no, but HELL no.

"To get her coat out of the way?"

Yeah, right.

 

[Tamara]

Powderman,

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out which Police Academy movie this cuffing technique came from. Or maybe it was a Tarantino flick...

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I wonder which super-tactical Spyderco or Cold Steel knife he did this brilliant piece of police work with.

 

[Coronach]

Sigh. MSIE just ate my last attempt to post.

Lets try this again.

1. The knife:

He was...trying to handcuff her...with a knife out?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

Oh...he was trying to cut off her sleeves?

Uhm...

Alright, thats not gonna fly.

Absent some pretty unusual circumstances (as in, I can't even imagine what those might be), this is not a good reason to have your knife out during handcuffing.

2. The stop:

You need to have marked units for stops, absent exigent circumstances.

3. The shooting:

I'm getting a little annoyed with posters objecting to the position that we cannot state whether a shooting was justified or not unless you were A. there or B. have all the facts that would be presented during an investigation or hearing. If you take a moment and flip the script, you can see how silly these objections are.

For instance, lets say you as a private citizen CCW holder get involved in a shooting. The news media does its usual hack job of reporting, and the attorney for the guy you capped is, of course, loudly proclaiming his version of events to all and sundry. Lets say you log onto an internet discussion forum and witness a bunch of people who were not there Monday-morning QBing your actions. Just how far afield is the discussion gonna stray from the actual facts of the case?

A. Far.
B. Really far.
C. Really darned far.
D. So far you can't see it from here.
E. So far the USS Enterprise would have to go on a 5-year mission to get there.

I'll take E, thanks.

Now, getting back to the shooting (the facts of which are not exactly well-reported)...

Can an elderly woman with dementia and a knife be a threat worthy of lethal force?

Absolutely yes.

Can an elderly woman with dementia and a knife be a threat that upon which only a fool would use lethal force?

Again, yes.

And none of us here know, based upon the facts reported of the case, which it was...though I will freely admit that the same officer's later misadventure with a bladed weapon and handcuffing makes me more likely to lean toward the latter than I normally would.

Oh, and this:

trained police are supposed to be able to disarm a suspect using hand-to-hand combat, are they not?

No, we're not. At least not in the manner you imply.

Back on task...bottom line? Sounds like a dufus.

Mike

 

[Tamara]

Coronach,

The only relevant fact on his previous shooting is that, when presented with all the facts that you and I don't have, 12 good men and true (plus one judge) decided that the DPD owed the next of kin a sizeable chunk of change. Not only was the officer allowed to continue to roam the streets without adult supervision after this, he was moved to plainclothes instead of to the meter maid unit. The results of that brilliant personnel decision kinda speak for themselves...

 

[Coronach]

Well, I won't argue your latter point, in light of my agreement with it.

Your former point, though...was it a settlement or a jury decision? I'm not exactly willing to go to bat for this clown, but settlements mean nothing. Up until recently, our PD settled every case in which it was sued. Were officers wrong in some of them? Of course. But ALL?

Still, we are in agreement, more or less. Dufus, by the looks of it.

Mike

 

[Blackhawk]

Geoffrey Fieger is representing the woman. The City of Detroit is going to compensate her handsomely for her fingertip....