Jasmine Headley Child ripped from arms during an arrest. (dangerous, move)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Plain and simple. Law of the land. Would you think it is ok to stand in the middle of a major highway if no cars were coming
because you believe you pose no danger to anybody?
If you gave an explanation like that to a police officer there would be a doctor in a white coat asking you many questions very soon. A functioning society sets rules. Breaking the rules is a crime. Do the crime do the time. If someone doesn't care for the
rules I suggest they try visiting other continents to get a taste of the differences in rule of law. Some are harsh, others too lax.
I think our country keeps it just right.
Jay walking with kids? Perfect example of a parent putting children at risk? Comes with consequences.....
I would be more than happy to continue the discourse.
but we would be going off topic.
Let's not lose focus of this incident.
The topic is focused on Jasmine.
Jasmine created an unsafe condition for herself ,her child and others.
Authority stepped in to bring this to her attention.
She refused by becoming violent,using profanity.
Authority stepped into to deescalate but was bitten and using child as a shield.
Authority attempted to remove child to safe environment and make an arrest.
Those are the facts as presented thus far.
You have the right to draw your own conclusions...........
The reason I asked is because in this case of this incident you're saying that the law is the law and this woman (and all of us) just have to follow it, but I'm still not sure if that's your opinion about all of our laws. When I mentioned that Airborne had said that there were laws that he wouldn't obey or enforce that he didn't believe in, you chose not to comment. Is it ok for the police to only enforce the law as they see fit? And are they wrong in your opinion not to enforce the jaywalking laws?
It would be unfair at this time to take sides.
Not all the facts are in but I am following closely.
From what I have been able to peace together
Jasmine is less the victim and more the instigator.
You also took a side from the beginning, fair or not.
The reason I asked is because in this case of this incident you're saying that the law is the law and this woman (and all of us) just have to follow it, but I'm still not sure if that's your opinion about all of our laws. When I mentioned that Airborne had said that there were laws that he wouldn't obey or enforce that he didn't believe in, you chose not to comment. Is it ok for the police to only enforce the law as they see fit? And are they wrong in your opinion not to enforce the jaywalking laws?
Gun laws - all of them - are unconstitutional on their face. Big difference.
Also, with trespassing you have to consider the rights of other involved parties. In this case the HRA authorities responsible for the building and the other patrons waiting for service which she clearly disrupted. The key here is that all necessary steps were undertaken, she was given multiple chances to do the right thing without any penalty of law being incurred.
She alone chose the course of action which saw this situation to the conclusion it eventually reached.
The question you were asked before was entirely valid: at what point do the police either use force to affect the law or just simply walk away? That is the exact scenario presented here when after numerous attempts to gain peaceful compliance a subject continues to refuse to acquiesce.
Also, with trespassing you have to consider the rights of other involved parties. In this case the HRA authorities responsible for the building and the other patrons waiting for service which she clearly disrupted. The key here is that all necessary steps were undertaken, she was given multiple chances to do the right thing without any penalty of law being incurred.
She alone chose the course of action which saw this situation to the conclusion it eventually reached.
The question you were asked before was entirely valid: at what point do the police either use force to affect the law or just simply walk away? That is the exact scenario presented here when after numerous attempts to gain peaceful compliance a subject continues to refuse to acquiesce.
I'd love to give you a specific time frame but I can only say that it depends. If the only choices available are to keep trying de-escalation to tire the lady out or take an action that could potentially injure the baby, then I say wait and try something else. In other words I don't have a simple answer sorry.
Do you have an answer as to a minimum amount of time that the police should have tried to reason with the lady before taking this action? Is there a specific amount of time you are instructed to try de-escalation or does it depend on the circumstances and potential consequences?
The bottom line is that I don't accept that this was the best that our best and brightest could have come up with in this situation.
My hypothetical (more on that later) time from would be until a supervisor determined that no further amount of cajoling or pleading would effect change, or whenever an immediate end to the situation is required due to other circumstances such as the safety of univolved parties.
I say hypothetical because now we know that she had already assaulted a peace officer by biting them. At that point, she has committed a felony and will be immediately taken into custody by any means necessary up to and including DPF.
My hypothetical (more on that later) time from would be until a supervisor determined that no further amount of cajoling or pleading would effect change, or whenever an immediate end to the situation is required due to other circumstances such as the safety of univolved parties.
I say hypothetical because now we know that she had already assaulted a peace officer by biting them. At that point, she has committed a felony and will be immediately taken into custody by any means necessary up to and including DPF.
I don't know what DPF is (google said diesel particulate filter). The people who were upset about the video were reacting to the harsh treatment of the baby by the officers. If I'm hearing you correctly, that your response to these concerns could be summed up to "she deserved it". Correct me if I'm wrong... At the end of the day, I don't think that worse the mother behaves, the harder you pull on the baby.
I don't know what DPF is (google said diesel particulate filter). The people who were upset about the video were reacting to the harsh treatment of the baby by the officers. If I'm hearing you correctly, that your response to these concerns would be something like "she deserved it". At the end of the day, I don't think that worse the mother behaves, the harder you pull on the baby.
Where are you getting your info that anyone was pulling on the baby?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
