15 yr old girl, beat up by cop?

scott3x said:
Not quite. A 15 year old girl -could- be threatening to a fully grown man.
Click to expand...

We are talking about this specific case, and nothing else. IF and COULD do not apply here. There's been too much general speculation, and not enough focus on the actual individuals.
 
phlogistician said:
scott3x said:
phlogistician said:
I was responding to the points you raised. You got some facts about the case wrong, and seem to think a 15 year old girl could possibly be threatening to a fully grown man. You needed correcting. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Not quite. A 15 year old girl -could- be threatening to a fully grown man. Perhaps there are 15 year old girls who are martial arts experts; if such a teen was pounding on the cop in question -first-, then it could possibly be somewhat justifiable. However, I think that as a general rule, the 15 year old would have to be armed in order to really threaten a fully grown man. She wasn't. She was asked to take off her shoes and, probably because she was already feeling very frightened, she kicked them off a bit too high; it doesn't even look like she hit the policeman in the chin as I believe was claimed. Even if she did, the police reaction was absurd. The cop, as far as I'm concerned, should have been fired immediately. I think an assessment on his mental health should have been done as well to see if he's even fit to be in the general population.
Click to expand...

We are talking about this specific case, and nothing else. IF and COULD do not apply here. There's been too much general speculation, and not enough focus on the actual individuals.
Click to expand...

I would contend that you yourself are the one who began some speculation here, speculation that I didn't agree with. You stated "You got some facts about the case wrong, and seem to think a 15 year old girl could possibly be threatening to a fully grown man." That is the statement I was responding to.

If you'd stated "seem to think that the 15 year old girl had actually been a physical threat to the fully grown man in question, that is, the cop", it would have been another story.
 
Last edited:
scott3x said:
I would contend that you yourself are the one who began some speculation here, speculation that I didn't agree with. You stated "You got some facts about the case wrong, and seem to think a 15 year old girl could possibly be threatening to a fully grown man." That is the statement I was responding to.

If you'd stated "seem to think that the 15 year old girl had actually been a physical threat to the fully grown man in question, that is, the cop", it would have been another story.
Click to expand...

Jesus, context anybody? Preceded by 'The facts of the case' it's pretty obvious I wasn't being general.
 
phlogistician said:
scott3x said:
I would contend that you yourself are the one who began some speculation here, speculation that I didn't agree with. You stated "You got some facts about the case wrong, and seem to think a 15 year old girl could possibly be threatening to a fully grown man." That is the statement I was responding to.

If you'd stated "seem to think that the 15 year old girl had actually been a physical threat to the fully grown man in question, that is, the cop", it would have been another story.
Click to expand...

Jesus, context anybody? Preceded by 'The facts of the case' it's pretty obvious I wasn't being general.
Click to expand...

It was preceded by "you got some facts of the case wrong". Your following statements state that a 15 year old girl could not possibly threaten a fully grown man. The is no clear connection between the first statement and the following ones other then the fact that both involve a 15 year old girl and a grown man; you could have corrected this by simply substituting 'the' for 'a' and 'did not' for 'possibly', as I did in the above quoted passage. Because you did none of those things, I would contend that far from being 'obvious' that you weren't being general, syntactically you were being just that.
 
Mod Hat - The nursery

Mod Hat — The nursery

Right now my inbox is rife with complaints about people's conduct, and no wonder. There's so much crap spattered about I'm having flashbacks to toilet training my daughter.

Sciforums does not have any immediate plans to become a video-conferencing site so that you can simply say :blbl: to one another in real time. As such, I would ask that people either take the juvenilia to video chat in order to flip one another off, stick your tongues out, and wank emptily at the camera, or simply cram it.
 
phlogistician said:
scott3x said:
I can believe that phlog. I'm just saying that what you actually said syntactically meant something quite different.
Click to expand...

You need to learn what commas are used for, they are conjunctions.
Click to expand...

Commas are punctuation marks, not conjunctions:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/comma

Here are conjunctions:
What is a Conjunction?

Anyway, if you'd like to keep on believing the sentence in question properly conveyed what you allege you were trying to convey, fine. I don't think it's worth this much time discussing really.
 
Betrayer0fHope said:
Liebling said:
William Grigg and Station KOMO:
Our Domestic Torture State: Hero Cop Beats Teenage Girl in Seattle
Posted by William Grigg at February 28, 2009 01:11 AM

Deputy Paul Schene of the King County Sheriff's Department, an eight-year law enforcement veteran, was videotaped beating a 15-year-old in a holding cell last November. The video was pried out of police hands just days ago by a Seattle television station that filed an official request under Washington's open records law.

After being arrested and booked on a charge of auto theft (the car belongs to her parents, and she was a passenger, not the driver), the teenager displayed a "lippy" disposition toward Schene and another officer. As the door to her cell was being closed, she was ordered to remove her shoes. She complied by kicking one of them in Schene's direction.

Perhaps Schene is well-versed in Arab culture and perceived this to be a grave insult to his masculinity, such as it is. In any case, he charged into the cell, kicked her in the stomach, slammed the girl's head against the wall, threw the girl (who weighed roughly half of what he did) face-first to the floor, and -- with the assistance of his fellow tax-feeder -- handcuffed her while striking her twice to the back to the head.

Once she was shackled, the girl was pulled to her feet and dragged out of the cell by her hair:

In his official report, Schene did what police almost always do in such circumstances: He lied, in the serene (albeit misplaced) confidence that nobody would review the video from the holding cell, or at least take it seriously.

Schene claimed that the girl "provided resistance and failure to comply with instructions"; in fact, it was her compliance with instructions that precipitated the beating. The deputy wrote that his response was merely to "place" her in handcuffs, while omitting mention of kicking her in the stomach, beating her head against the wall, hitting her twice while she was prone and pinned down by two men twice her size, and then dragging her out by her hair.

He also reported that the shoe hurled by the detainee injured him so severely that he -- fragile, delicate creature that he is -- had to be treated at a nearby hospital. If that injury occurred, it was entirely self-inflicted: The video shows him banging his shin against the toilet as he attacked the terrified girl.

The video record documents that after the assault the girl, who understandably had difficulty breathing, required medical treatment. Schene described the treatment as necessary to deal with a "panic attack," a dishonest way of describing the reaction of a traumatized teenage girl to being gang-beaten by two adult males.

The video was discovered weeks later by a detective assigned to investigate the auto theft. Schene has been charged with fourth-degree assault, a gross misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of one year in jail.

Several years ago, Schene shot and killed an unarmed, mentally disturbed man following a traffic stop that degenerated into a "knock-down, drag-out" fight. The shooting was ruled "justifiable." Shortly after that incident, he was stopped for driving under the influence (apparently of prescription medication). He was given a deferred sentence and placed on probation, so that he could continue to bless the people of King County with his singular professionalism.
Click to expand...

Police officer is a real winner. I'm still looking at info on what she did to get there.
Click to expand...

That's some bullshit reporting.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm wasting my time with the likes of you, but what draws you to that conclusion?
 
A matter of context

Betrayer0fHope said:

That's some bullshit reporting. Whoever wrote that should be fired. Anyone who takes that seriously is an idiot.
Click to expand...

It's not reporting. It's commentary. Mr. Grigg is a "Christian libertarian" blogger from western Idaho. See Pro Libertate.
 
Tiassa said:
Betrayer0fHope said:
That's some bullshit reporting. Whoever wrote that should be fired. Anyone who takes that seriously is an idiot.
Click to expand...

It's not reporting. It's commentary. Mr. Grigg is a "Christian libertarian" blogger from western Idaho. See Pro Libertate.
Click to expand...

So he took the work from other reporters and commented on it. Tiassa, are you saying that there is something in Mr. Grigg's article you don't agree with?
 
Orleander said:
so have criminal charges been filed against the officer?
Click to expand...

See, -this- is the type of thing that I simply couldn't find out on google. It seems that there's lots of interest in the event itself and a bit of backstory; and none in terms of what happened afterwards.
 
Stupid Cop.

Should have shot her in the head. Brains on that walll would have made for better TV.

Maybe then he could have giggled and began nibbling at the contents of her head. That would have been AWESOME!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top