Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Balog on September 20, 2013, 04:48:18 PM
-
A few years back we talked quite a bit about this case, King County Sheriff's deputy who beat a 15 y/o girl for kicking her shoe off at him. Turns out he was tried for (misdemeanor!) assault, but two juries hung 11-1. Apparently kicking, slamming into a wall, and punching in the back of the head a teen girl is considered appropriate police procedure. I'll always remember this case because 1. it was so egregious that even CS&D agreed the cop was in the wrong and 2. apparently some folks will literally let cops get away with anything.
I'll also note that the guy perjured himself in his written statements but no one ever charged him for that.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2012317057_schene10m.html
-
i noticed second jury was 11-1 for aquittal and even one of first jurors 11-1 other said he used proper procedure
-
I'm far from a cop hater, but they do generally get off lighter in courtrooms. Which isn't right.
-
i noticed second jury was 11-1 for aquittal and even one of first jurors 11-1 other said he used proper procedure
Makes you wonder if the prosecutor was really trying.
-
If you attack a cop you deserve a beat down. She's lucky he didn't shoot her punk ass. Everybody knows that.
Hardly anyone seems to know that the police aren't actually supposed to be allowed to beat people.
-
Makes you wonder if the prosecutor was really trying.
or if there are facts not on youtube :facepalm:
-
I wonder how many more people will get beat as a direct result of this and the fact that this proves to cops that they really can get away with anything.
-
i noticed second jury was 11-1 for aquittal and even one of first jurors 11-1 other said he used proper procedure
I believe you are incorrect, the article is badly written but my understanding is that both juries were 11-1 for conviction.
or if there are facts not on youtube :facepalm:
Please, tell me what facts you envision that make the actions shown on that tape reasonable.
-
I believe you are incorrect, the article is badly written but my understanding is that both juries were 11-1 for conviction.
Please, tell me what facts you envision that make the actions shown on that tape reasonable.
The facts that made even the first jury say he followed procedure.
Did your link die. Or is my iPad wonky? I was gonna quote the article on the jury splits
never mind it was the ipad heres the quote
Schene's first trial ended in January with jurors split 11-1 in favor of conviction, while jurors in his second trial deadlocked 11-1 last week to acquit him.
heres a second source same thing http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/No-third-trial-for-ex-deputy-accused-of-jail-886478.php
Jurors who voted 11-1 to convict in Schene's is first trial believed he followed accepted training techniques, but the majority ultimately concluded he did not need to use those techniques in the first place to subdue Calhoun, the chief juror said in an interview in February.
As jurors left the courthouse after a mistrial was declared, a male juror, who did not give his name, said of Schene's conduct, "It was a very strong show of force, but the fact she was not injured during the process shows he followed the techniques he was trained to use."
maybe if they looked at the youtube vid like you they woulda got it your way but they were bothered by all that peasky evidence testimony and such. it gets in the way of a good agenda sometimes
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Like I said it's poorly written, but it merely indicates that the second jury deadlocked 11-1, thus acquiting him. Doesn't say it was 11 to acquit vs one to convict.
And again, what evidence and testimony are you referring to? I'm very curious what you think justifies that response. She kicked a shoe at him, he kicked the *expletive deleted*it out of her. The fact that one person on a jury thought he was following procedure doesn't really mean anything to me. A fairly large portion of Americans think the TSA feeling little kids up is ok because it's part of their procedures. As your own quotes indicate, he may have used acceptable techniques to subdue a violent and unruly prisoner but that doesn't mean he was justified in using those techniques on a girl for being lippy.
So, instead of some silly appeal to authority, tell me what YOU personally think justifies what he did.
-
Like I said it's poorly written, but it merely indicates that the second jury deadlocked 11-1, thus acquiting him. Doesn't say it was 11 to acquit vs one to convict.
And again, what evidence and testimony are you referring to? I'm very curious what you think justifies that response. She kicked a shoe at him, he kicked the *expletive deleted* out of her. The fact that one person on a jury thought he was following procedure doesn't really mean anything to me. A fairly large portion of Americans think the TSA feeling little kids up is ok because it's part of their procedures. As your own quotes indicate, he may have used acceptable techniques to subdue a violent and unruly prisoner but that doesn't mean he was justified in using those techniques on a girl for being lippy.
So, instead of some silly appeal to authority, tell me what YOU personally think justifies what he did.
you didn't see the second link i added? sorry i found it late
-
Huh, if that's true it's unfortunate.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how a teen girl kicking a shoe justifies her being kicked in the stomach, grabbed by the hair, slammed into a wall, thrown to the floor, and then punched twice in the back of the head as the deputy knelt on her back.
Please, enlighten me as to how that's justified.
-
Related question: if your girls (when they're teens) were to kick a shoe in your direction would you be justified in using this level of force against them? Or do only cops get to do that?
-
Huh, if that's true it's unfortunate.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how a teen girl kicking a shoe justifies her being kicked in the stomach, grabbed by the hair, slammed into a wall, thrown to the floor, and then punched twice in the back of the head as the deputy knelt on her back.
Please, enlighten me as to how that's justified.
i take it you still haven't read the second article?
i think the juror addressed that in the link you missed. i only had the you tube vid to work off. they had a lil bit more.
oops the link i posted was wrong one try this
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2012317057_schene10m.html
As jurors left the courthouse after a mistrial was declared, a male juror, who did not give his name, said of Schene's conduct, "It was a very strong show of force, but the fact she was not injured during the process shows he followed the techniques he was trained to use."
The prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that unreasonable and unnecessary force was used, the juror said.
Jurors who voted 11-1 to convict in Schene's is first trial believed he followed accepted training techniques, but the majority ultimately concluded he did not need to use those techniques in the first place to subdue Calhoun, the chief juror said in an interview in February.
Schene could have shut the cell door or yelled at Calhoun, the juror said.
Satterberg, in explaining his decision not to try Schene a third time, noted the "combined score" of 12 to 12 over two trials, saying sometimes a "no-decision is still a decision."
While people have formed their own opinions about what they saw on the videotape, jurors were careful in reaching their own decisions, Satterberg said.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2012255285_schene02m.html
-
if my teen girl did that to me? i'd be screwed. i doubt i could hit mine? teen boy of mine? i'd hit him like a grown man.
now if my girl kid stole a car? then got loud and proud tried to break bad physically and got thumped? i'd see red at first but play grown up stupid games win grown up prizes. that might even get her a back hand from me. i hope and pray never to find out.by 15 the die is pretty much cast. that lil darlin is likely screwed.
-
I believe you are incorrect, the article is badly written but my understanding is that both juries were 11-1 for conviction.
Please, tell me what facts you envision that make the actions shown on that tape reasonable.
If this forum had a "thanks" feature, I would have used it. Lacking that: Thanks.
-
If this forum had a "thanks" feature, I would have used it. Lacking that: Thanks.
I second that emotion!
-
rofl
you think both articles in 2 different papers were wrong? i guess the were both badly written? and the quotes were also badly written?
you think all those jurors were wrong and you were right from watching a youtube vid? heck we don't need costly jury trials youtube for the win
-
After having that high capacity assault shoe kicked in his general direction he had to stop the threat. He even brought help to even the odds. It's just lucky for us all that there's enough C&SD's in the jury pool for prosecutors to pick from. Otherwise our betters would be treated like any other citizen & suffer real jail time.
-
if my teen girl did that to me? i'd be screwed. i doubt i could hit mine? teen boy of mine? i'd hit him like a grown man.
now if my girl kid stole a car? then got loud and proud tried to break bad physically and got thumped? i'd see red at first but play grown up stupid games win grown up prizes. that might even get her a back hand from me. i hope and pray never to find out.by 15 the die is pretty much cast. that lil darlin is likely screwed.
So you consider kicking a shoe in your direction "breaking bad physically"? So if your daughters ever "get lippy" and try to "break bad physically" by doing something that under no possible circumstances could cause you injury it's their own fault if you beat them? But you'd try to keep it to just a good slap? I feel sorry for your kids. Thankfully you're putting all this out there for the prosecution to find after it happens...
And I read the quotes. Some people are boot licking authoritarians who think cops can do whatever the hell they want and "bitch had it coming." You yourself being a prime example. I fail to see what that proves, aside from my deep and abiding belief in the fundamental depravity of man.
-
if my teen girl did that to me? i'd be screwed. i doubt i could hit mine? teen boy of mine? i'd hit him like a grown man.
now if my girl kid stole a car? then got loud and proud tried to break bad physically and got thumped? i'd see red at first but play grown up stupid games win grown up prizes. that might even get her a back hand from me. i hope and pray never to find out.by 15 the die is pretty much cast. that lil darlin is likely screwed.
Ummm... I am generally willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, C&SD, but you're quite off base here.
If my little girl or boy did that to me, I'd tell them to go pick up the shoe and HAND it to me like a grown up. Not storm into their room and drop them to the ground.
Did you watch the video? That was not a physically threatening act. She didn't kick the shoe at him with force. It may have been simply the automatic response to "Take your shoes off." At worst it was childish defiance. You don't respond to childish defiance with overwhelming force.
Unless, apparently, you are a police officer, in which case it's perfectly acceptable.
-
Ah yes the video. Not to be confused with any other evidence that 24 jurors looked at.
damn phone
-
Ah yes the video. Not to be confused with any other evidence that 24 jurors looked at.
damn phone
Sometimes the video should be enough. Are you suggesting that the police edited the video?
-
Ah yes the video. Not to be confused with any other evidence that 24 jurors looked at.
damn phone
The prosecutor felt it was enough to press charges. 11 people thought it was enough the first trial.
Tell me again what you think is happening iutside the video that justifies it. I'm waiting.
-
Sometimes the video should be enough. Are you suggesting that the police edited the video?
'
'no i did read what the jurors said
-
The prosecutor felt it was enough to press charges. 11 people thought it was enough the first trial.
Tell me again what you think is happening iutside the video that justifies it. I'm waiting.
and 12 of 24 jurors told him to pound sand or you still pretending about how the second trial went?
according to both juries they believed he followed sop and thought the fact our young heroine wasn't hurt was proof
jury one believed he shoulda just locked door and waited outside well 11 of em did
jury 2 went the other way
they had the benefit of hearing about both partys behavior before the video
-
Again, I don't care what the jury decided. All the quotes prove is that half the folks there thought that beating a teen for no good reason is ok if that's the official SOP of the cops. "He followed the techniques he was trained to use." Which rather misses the point that he shouldn't have used those techniques in the first place.
So, again. You personally. What do you think happened before the video that justified what happened in the video? Or are you sticking with your position that being lippy and kicking a shoe in someone's general direction is justification for use of force?
-
I have no idea, personally. I am , unlike you,limited to reading what folks testified to. From that i understand they hsd been going at it verbally for some time. I suspect the young heroine was less than truthful in her story . I believe that when the shoe hit he took advantage of chance to subdue her. His mistake. I think he will prevail in arbitration
"in his general direction"? Really? You did better with your misinterpretation of the articles
damn phone
-
Oh gosh, I'm so sorry. "After she viciously attacked him with an assault shoe of doom."
That better?
And I agree, I'm sure she was a huge verbal pain in the ass and he just took the slightest excuse he could find as a pretext to attack her. So we agree on what happened, just on whether or not it was ok. Gotcha.
-
Oh gosh, I'm so sorry. "After she viciously attacked him with an assault shoe of doom."
That better?
And I agree, I'm sure she was a huge verbal pain in the ass and he just took the slightest excuse he could find as a pretext to attack her. So we agree on what happened, just on whether or not it was ok. Gotcha.
We agree? Hardly. Its been hard to interject facts into the fantasy
Hecj two juries saw it differently.
They did agree on 2 points.
Sweety wasn't hurt.
And he followed sop
It easy to get excited over a video isn't it
damn phone
-
Ok, here are the facts.
Teen girl in a holding cell kicks her shoe off at a cop. It strikes him in the shin.
Cop kicks her in the stomach (possibly hip), grabs her head, slams it into the wall, throws her face first to the floor, kneels on her back, punches her twice in the back of the head.
Tell me what part of that is fantasy. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Now, it's very possible that he folowed SOP in doing the above, but if so that really just makes matters worse.
-
Back in the day when I was an MP, we were trained to use the minimum force necessary. Doing unto lippy teenagers kicking shoes at us, the maximum amount of force we would have been allowed to use would have been "The Command Voice". Had I been Officer Friendly's commanding officer, he'd be re-classed to another MOS (job) so fast his courts martial paperwork would have to catch up with him, and you can bet your sweet bippy that a courts martial would have found him guilty.
But then again we were better trained and disciplined. And our SOP did not make everyone not wearing an MP Brassard (or blue uniform) the enemy.
Assist, Protect, Defend.