Cop Body slams girl

[Splits]

And you want me casterated?

Can I just merely be body slammed?
Please Father Splits?

When I was 12 we went behind the McGattis (sp) across the street from Stevenson, fought it out, went home. Didnt need child abusers to "protect" us. My niece is 12 years old, I could restrain her with one arm. This guy has a bear hug on her and instead of de-escalating the situation performs mass violence that you approve of.

[pgardn]

When I was 12 we went behind the McGattis (sp) across the street from Stevenson, fought it out, went home. Didnt need child abusers to "protect" us. My niece is 12 years old, I could restrain her with one arm. This guy has a bear hug on her and instead of de-escalating the situation performs mass violence that you approve of.

Kids don't fight it out IN school dumb .

Sure.
This is exactly what I approve of. I want body slamming.
Read all my posts and it's clear I approve.

Will I burn in like Scalia ... Father Splits?

[Splits]

Kids don't fight it out IN school dumb .

Sure.
This is exactly what I approve of. I want body slamming.
Read all my posts and it's clear I approve.

Will I burn in like Scalia ... Father Splits?

We occasionally fought in school too. The PE (Hendrcks?) teacher came and broke it up, then we went to detention and made up.

[pgardn]

We occasionally fought in school too. The PE (Hendrcks?) teacher came and broke it up, then we went to detention and made up.

Then you are living in the old world.

I personally watched and aided in the break up of a hit at a school campus. A kid from one gang came on another campus,found the target, crashed through the glass door into administration onto a secretary cutting them all to pieces. The kids fought on top of the secretary while they were all bloddy messes. Friends and myself restrained (choked) both engaged (never forget my arm slipping off the neck and reapplying while cut up) Questioned by police, tested for hep C and AIDS.

Kids DONT fight IN school.

We all have our little stories eh Splits. Kids DONT fight ON campus.
Except during football practice on grass and in pads.

Edit: Almost got sent to alternative until teachers witnessing saved us. You participate, you go alt. That's the rule. So, you don't fight.

[Splits]

Then you are living in the old world.

I personally watched and aided in the break up of a hit at a school campus. A kid from one gang came on another campus,found the target, crashed through the glass door into administration onto a secretary cutting them all to pieces. The kids fought on top of the secretary while they were all bloddy messes. Friends and myself restrained (choked) both engaged (never forget my arm slipping off the neck and reapplying while cut up) Questioned by police, tested for hep C and AIDS.

Kids DONT fight IN school.

We all have our little stories eh Splits. Kids DONT fight ON campus.
Except during football practice on grass and in pads.

That has nothing to do with this situation, or the ones I previously described. Nobody had a weapon. The campus cop should ONLY get involved in that scenario. They are trained in the use of force and saving lives. When two girls are yelling at each other and pulling each other's hair, most cops (especially former Air Force who probably is responsible for hundreds of deaths and is trained in extreme violence) is not trained to diffuse the situation. I personally think in this scenario, that cop should be absolutely PROHIBITED from intervening physically with 12 year old girls, and should call the closest administrator or other person trained in de-escalation to resolve the situation since he is only trained in extreme violence.

I'm not for the militarization of schools, especially with little 10-12 year olds running around. Apparently you're in support.

[pgardn]

That has nothing to do with this situation, or the ones I previously described. Nobody had a weapon. The campus cop should ONLY get involved in that scenario. They are trained in the use of force and saving lives. When two girls are yelling at each other and pulling each other's hair, most cops (especially former Air Force who probably is responsible for hundreds of deaths and is trained in extreme violence) is not trained to diffuse the situation. I personally think in this scenario, that cop should be absolutely PROHIBITED from intervening physically with 12 year old girls, and should call the closest administrator or other person trained in de-escalation to resolve the situation since he is only trained in extreme violence.

I'm not for the militarization of schools, especially with little 10-12 year olds running around. Apparently you're in support.

Then quit brining your own anecdotal situations in. And there were NO weapons in my "little" quite orderly friendly disagreement where we all conferred about descalation while sprawling in a bloddy pile on top of a poor staff member.
We took care of an unmilitarized situation. Then the police showed up.

You don't fight IN school. Get it?
Apparently you are ok with violence between students IN school and don't give a .

And I totally agree with the above if the situation allowed for it and was not a spontaneous bloody mosh pit like I was in. But I was not there. Again, body slam unnecessary. But I can't go into your fine detail as I WAS NOT THERE.

[pgardn]

That has nothing to do with this situation, or the ones I previously described. Nobody had a weapon. The campus cop should ONLY get involved in that scenario. They are trained in the use of force and saving lives. When two girls are yelling at each other and pulling each other's hair, most cops (especially former Air Force who probably is responsible for hundreds of deaths and is trained in extreme violence) is not trained to diffuse the situation. I personally think in this scenario, that cop should be absolutely PROHIBITED from intervening physically with 12 year old girls, and should call the closest administrator or other person trained in de-escalation to resolve the situation since he is only trained in extreme violence.

I'm not for the militarization of schools, especially with little 10-12 year olds running around. Apparently you're in support.

Oh this was an elementary school and not a middle school?

Cause Middle school can be worse than High school.

[Splits]

Then quit brining your own anecdotal situations in.
We took care of an unmilitarized situation. Then the police showed up.

You don't fight IN school. Get it?
Apparently you are ok with violence between students IN school and don't give a .

I'm not okay with any violence. But kids fight. Regardless of upbringing, it just happens. It can't be prevented through threats of violence.

What part of this do you think "the video does not show enough of the before and after"?

0-second: she's completely under control, head down, stumbling as the 175lb Air Force vet now police officer has a calm face and 2 hands on the 12yr olds shoulders. Notice also there's no other commotion. Everyone else is looking like "wtf?"



1-seconds. Complete bear-hug. She's practically falling to the ground, head completely down, no resistance can be seen by the 60lb child. If the 12yr old was really a "threat" he could just push her straight down.



You think "the video does not show enough of the before and after"?

Here's the "after". A ing suplex with her head direct on the concrete. He could have ing killed her.



08-sec: while your hero has just knocked her unconscious, as displayed by her being immobile and her legs not moving, he proceeds to handcuff her as opposed to providing aid



I mean, this is just seriously sick .

[Splits]

Oh this was an elementary school and not a middle school?

Cause Middle school can be worse than High school.

You must have some pretty dumb children if your 12 yr olds are in elementary school.

[spurraider21]

while your hero has just knocked her unconscious, as displayed by her being immobile and her legs not moving

how could her legs move in a still shot

[Splits]

how could her legs move in a still shot

Quit being an idiot. You watched, 4-10 seconds of the video, she's out and he's handcuffing a 12 year old child he just slammed on her head.

Is this another one of your both sides do it, the cops legs aren't moving either ?

[spurraider21]

Quit being an idiot. You watched, 4-10 seconds of the video, she's out and he's handcuffing a 12 year old child he just slammed on her head.

Is this another one of your both sides do it, the cops legs aren't moving either ?

moron

i left my thoughts on page 1 of the thread

but but, spurraider always sides with police! i need him to fit my bull narrative of him

[Splits]

moron

i left my thoughts on page 1 of the thread

but but, spurraider always sides with police! i need him to fit my bull narrative of him

Nothing to do with police/victim. Just breaking the baby in half in general. It's the most annoying/least useful part of a discussion where you never weigh the level of -headedness on either side, they both do it equally I side with one or the other equally .

pretty ridiculous Nice "thoughts"

[spurraider21]

Is this another one of your both sides do it, the cops legs aren't moving either ?

damnit i need you to fit my narrative!

[Splits]

damnit i need you to fit my narrative!

I don't have a narrative but to write you off since your takes boil down to "pretty ridiculous" and think that qualifies as "thoughts".

Splittin' the baby, as in "yeah the cop was wrong but how wrong? we just don't know!" You agree/disagree with both sides, see!

[spurraider21]

i never said we don't know

i called it ridiculous, clearly referring to the cop's action. i'm sorry i dont fit into the narrative you have painted of me

... you and th'pusher literally get mad when i take a stance against the police

[Splits]

i never said we don't know

i called it ridiculous, clearly referring to the cop's action. i'm sorry i dont fit into the narrative you have painted of me

... you and th'pusher literally get mad when i take a stance against the police

No, you called it "pretty" ridiculous. Which is the most generic and non-informative of hedges. But you hedge on everything, so no big deal.

But if you are so desperate for me to assign you a "narrative" (why are you so enamored with my opinion of you?), here goes...

You've probably got this grand idea to be a powerful judge that can shape law based on the "facts". So whenever you finally graduate and pass the bar (how ing long has it been now), you'll start as some low-level prosecutor and make a couple of friends because you're not a total bag. It's easier to start state-side. Then, you'll move into defense and think you can join some big firm because of your "friends", but get shutout and up as some ambulance chaser or practicing insurance law. So you'll fail at both since you have no convictions, won't get that judgeship, and end up some triple-A beisbol league umpire. And you'll love it, cause you're just "calling balls and strikes".

How's that for a narrative? How far off am I?

[spurraider21]

No, you called it "pretty" ridiculous. Which is the most generic and non-informative of hedges. But you hedge on everything, so no big deal.

But if you are so desperate for me to assign you a "narrative" (why are you so enamored with my opinion of you?), here goes...

You've probably got this grand idea to be a powerful judge that can shape law based on the "facts". So whenever you finally graduate and pass the bar (how ing long has it been now), you'll start as some low-level prosecutor and make a couple of friends because you're not a total bag. It's easier to start state-side. Then, you'll move into defense and think you can join some big firm because of your "friends", but get shutout and up as some ambulance chaser or practicing insurance law. So you'll fail at both since you have no convictions, won't get that judgeship, and end up some triple-A beisbol league umpire. And you'll love it, cause you're just "calling balls and strikes".

How's that for a narrative? How far off am I?

eh

i'm in my 2nd year of law school, to answer your "how ing long has it been now" question. as for what law i want to practice? the only thing i do know for certain at this point is that i want to be in trials... and yes criminal law is a much quicker route to that than civil. contrary to what you may or may not believe, if i was going to work for the state, at this point i think i'd prefer public defense to working for the DA. not that i have any mral reservation to working on a particular side, but i find defense work much more appealing. in fact i've got a mock trial next week in a criminal defense case. (pretty interesting: https://www.dropbox.com/s/d5bsa6bqhg...0FILE.pdf?dl=0)

that said, i am going to be externing for the DA's office come this fall (big advantage for students working for DA over PD because only for the DA do they actually let student externs argue in prelims). to this point i've worked at a PI firm, labor/equity department at the superior court, and currently externing for a judge who works exclusively civil jury trials. will be at a workers comp firm in the summer, so i definitely wanted to sneak in a semester working on the crim side of things before graduating

is judgeship appealing? yeah. would i prefer being a judge making ~170k over working in some big firm or my own practice making twice that? (not that i can ever guarantee to make more than that, but hypothetically) i think down the line the answer would be a yes, but that is a ways away and not anything i can really plan for. i dont need to be making ridiculous amounts of money to live happily. many people in my class have no desires to be a judge, i'm not one of them. that being said, there are a lot of politics involved, and prosecutors have an easier route to judgeship, so it's something to consider. still, at this point i prefer criminal defense.

personal injury can pay bills, but i hate the work. refuse to go to school and pass the bar so i can spend my day on the phone with doctors and insurance companies, only to have 98% of my cases to settle. my calling is to be in a courtroom, not behind an office desk

[Splits]

eh

i'm in my 2nd year of law school, to answer your "how ing long has it been now" question. as for what law i want to practice? the only thing i do know for certain at this point is that i want to be in trials... and yes criminal law is a much quicker route to that than civil. contrary to what you may or may not believe, if i was going to work for the state, at this point i think i'd prefer public defense to working for the DA. not that i have any mral reservation to working on a particular side, but i find defense work much more appealing. in fact i've got a mock trial next week in a criminal defense case. that said, i am going to be externing for the DA's office come this fall (big advantage for students working for DA over PD because only for the DA do they actually let student externs argue in prelims). to this point i've worked at a PI firm, labor/equity department at the superior court, and currently externing for a judge who works exclusively civil jury trials. will be at a workers comp firm in the summer, so i definitely wanted to sneak in a semester working on the crim side of things before graduating

is judgeship appealing? yeah. would i prefer being a judge making ~170k over working in some big firm or my own practice making twice that? (not that i can ever guarantee to make more than that, but hypothetically) i think down the line the answer would be a yes, but that is a ways away and not anything i can really plan for. i dont need to be making ridiculous amounts of money to live happily. many people in my class have no desires to be a judge, i'm not one of them. that being said, there are a lot of politics involved, and prosecutors have an easier route to judgeship, so it's something to consider. still, at this point i prefer criminal defense.

personal injury can pay bills, but i hate the work. refuse to go to school and pass the bar so i can spend my day on the phone with doctors and insurance companies, only to have 98% of my cases to settle. my calling is to be in a courtroom, not behind an office desk

So I was basically right

I don't mean to demean, I've always liked you, you obviously have a future, but you're probably half my age, and I like to spout off and give advice. Taken or not (and I don't come from law/politics, just been paying intricate attention since the late 90s), so for whatever it's worth...

Law is no longer non/bi-partisan and co-mingling of law and politics is at one of the highest points in recent history, and that will not change anytime soon. Most elected officials have law degrees; all are political. Parties disagree on 80% of their policy views, but there is overlap (i.e. in the current climate, criminal justice reform, tax the rich).

And by partisan I don't mean alliance to a party (Dem/Rep), I mean alliance to a cause (authority/non-authoritarian principles).

All judges are elected or appointed; that is primarily political but can also be partisan given a certain political climate or location. The Garlands of the world are an election-year slush-mush anomaly only because everyone knows he's DoA. At the highest level, the Kennedy/Souter/O'Conner nomination days, where the President/Governor making the appointment doesn't know the appointee's positions, are the past. No politician (at any level) is going to appoint judges that don't ally to most of their core partisan beliefs lest be voted out next election.

It's fun to be wiled-eyed and dreamy when you're young, to listen to your professors and the John Roberts "blls and striks" arguments, but the vast majority of decisions are partisan (I'll give on both Roberts ACA decisions being legacy, as he did not want to start off his court as the most activist ever, overturning the other 2 branches on arcane legal questions).

It doesn't mean there can't be shades of grey; you can offer differing opinions on the margins, but, in my opinion, to be successful, you've gotta go all-in from the outset and massage it on the inset. You've got to pick a side. You're either the authority, and want to make your name by punishing as harsh as possible, or non-authoritarian and side with the little guy who always gets ed over.

If you go private, you've got to be hyper-partisan on both political sides. ( I find it the ACLU defended the KKK, confederate flag, Westboro Baptist Church along with all the civil liberty groups based on partisanship)

If you go public, you've got to be hyper-partisan on the authority side.

It's messy. But you can't split the baby. You'll end up the AAA umpire, imho. And initial salary should be down the list when considering where to go. Pick a side, work your ass off, the money in law/politics is endless. You don't need to earn off the bat unless you got kids or some . Just eat and get a studio.

Anyways, it's 2am here in India and I'm rambling while drunk so this probably made no sense, so I'm going to sleep after I with Capri some more.

[spurraider21]

And initial salary should be down the list when considering where to go. Pick a side, work your ass off, the money in law/politics is endless. You don't need to earn off the bat unless you got kids or some . Just eat and get a studio.

no ... i did say Public Defense is the area i'm most interested in working in off the bat, clearly not chasing money there.

[CosmicCowboy]

no ... i did say Public Defense is the area i'm most interested in working in off the bat, clearly not chasing money there.

FWIW it's much more lucrative to work as an assistant DA for a few years and then segue into private practice. The connections are invaluable.

Right now you may think money doesn't matter but don't kid yourself. It's damn nice to have money. Gives you lots more lifestyle options.

[spurraider21]

FWIW it's much more lucrative to work as an assistant DA for a few years and then segue into private practice. The connections are invaluable.

i'm aware, its a better political move to work for the prosecution

Right now you may think money doesn't matter but don't kid yourself. It's damn nice to have money. Gives you lots more lifestyle options.

i didnt say it doesn't matter. it shouldn't be the primary concern of my first job in the field, though. besides, if all goes to plan, my (future) wife will be making more money than me anyway. she'll be starting med school in a year

[CosmicCowboy]

i'm aware, its a better political move

More practical than political. There are lots of starving attorneys in private practice. Going straight there out of law school is nuts. Law school does NOT prepare you to litigate right out of the gate. Make good grades, get on with the DA's office and get paid to learn.


i didnt say it doesn't matter. it shouldn't be the primary concern of my first job in the field, though

No, but making the right career choices to cash in later should be a primary concern if you think money will eventually matter

[CosmicCowboy]

I literally know at least ten St. Marys grads that are practically starving. They have to live off the crumbs that established attorneys throw them, then have to give back half their fee+ after doing all the work.

[pgardn]

That has nothing to do with this situation, or the ones I previously described. Nobody had a weapon. The campus cop should ONLY get involved in that scenario. They are trained in the use of force and saving lives. When two girls are yelling at each other and pulling each other's hair, most cops (especially former Air Force who probably is responsible for hundreds of deaths and is trained in extreme violence) is not trained to diffuse the situation. I personally think in this scenario, that cop should be absolutely PROHIBITED from intervening physically with 12 year old girls, and should call the closest administrator or other person trained in de-escalation to resolve the situation since he is only trained in extreme violence.

I'm not for the militarization of schools, especially with little 10-12 year olds running around. Apparently you're in support.

You must have some pretty dumb children if your 12 yr olds are in elementary school.

Read again what you wrote dumb .

What grade are 10 year olds in Moron?

Where the did you come up with 10 year olds? Why not 12-14 year olds.
Disingenous fake righteous preacher man keep preaching.