The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

A Female Rodney King?

Posted on | September 13, 2013 | 74 Comments

Doc Washburn called my attention to this item at a liberal blog about a woman named Christina West who got arrested for drunk driving and got her face broken by the cops. The liberal blog makes this a case of police brutality, but what I’m seeing is a drunk woman who disobeyed instructions while police were trying to handcuff her. You can watch the whole video, but the key part starts at about the 7:30 mark. The cops ask her to get out of the car so that she can take a breathalyzer test. She has to be told four times, “Get out of the car,” and apparently doesn’t realize they’re going to put the cuffs on her before they give her the test. Problems ensue:

Now, you may want to click over to that liberal blog and see the picture of Christina’s face — it’s pretty bad. The blogger claims the cops made up the stuff about Christina trying to grab their crotches, but listen closely at 8:30 — “Let go of my hand,” the cop says — and then Christina says the cops are going to break her arm.

Ah, the uncooperative suspect!

Anybody who has watched “C*O*P*S” is familiar with this phenomenon: The perp who refuses to comply with police orders, who struggles when they’re trying to put the cuffs on.

Well, guess what, perp? Those cops aren’t playing around, and they’re experts at making perps comply with their commands.

The minute you start struggling, you inadvertently authorize them to employ Advanced Methods of Enforcing Compliance, which tend to be rather uncomfortable for the uncooperative suspect.

At 7:38, one of the cop says, “Stop f–king touching me.”

Yeah, bad idea, Christine. They had you wedged up against the car and now — 7:40 — you’re going to the pavement. Real hard.

Kinda painful, when you don’t cooperate with the cops.

Maybe some liberal bloggers will call this “police brutality.”

I call it, “By God, don’t mess with the Tallahassee P.D.”

To-may-to, to-mah-to.



74 Responses to “A Female Rodney King?”

  1. Quartermaster
    September 13th, 2013 @ 8:57 pm

    Strictly speaking, you are correct. It does, however mean that the Prosecutor has judged it rises to that level and is seeking confirmation of his judgment. The outcome of the trial, however, is what determines if it is criminal in fact, as opposed to judgment.

    My earlier statement, consequently, still stands.

  2. WarEagle82
    September 13th, 2013 @ 9:13 pm

    I am a big law and order guy but this arrest does not pass the smell-test on the first review.

    Frankly, there was way more force used than needed to insure the cooperation of a very small female subject who was already cuffed behind the back.

    Certainly she did herself no favors but that is understandable as she was obviously drunk. But, officers should be expected to use a reasonable amount of force in such situations and on first review of the video, it appears that they used far more force than was required under the circumstances.

    It is quite possible that both parties were over-reacting, but the police were never in danger, and never anywhere near losing control of the situation.

  3. scarymatt
    September 13th, 2013 @ 9:30 pm

    I still say, “What force?” I see them handcuffing her behind her back and her falling. Was handcuffing her to begin with too much?

  4. Unix-Jedi
    September 13th, 2013 @ 9:47 pm

    who was already cuffed behind the back.

    Who had been and who escaped the cuffs.

    People keep saying she was in cuffs, but keep omitting that she had escaped them and when the police discovered that was when the excitement began.

  5. thatMrGguy
    September 13th, 2013 @ 9:49 pm

    A Female Rodney King?

  6. cgable63
    September 14th, 2013 @ 12:34 am

    nope. she wavers between being polite, and belligerent. if anyone heard – her handcuffs were too big, thus she got out of them. i totally agree with you.
    what force?
    for those arguing “police are thugs” should, perhaps, walk a mile (or a beat) in their shoes and then judge.

  7. scarymatt
    September 14th, 2013 @ 8:38 am

    I study martial arts, and we are always looking at ways to throw people onto the ground. Sometimes nicely, sometimes brutally. I just don’t see any of that in this video.

    I see a drunk person who cannot use her hands and arms for balance lose it as she struggles against the officers. In doing so, she falls over, also unable to use her hands and arms to prevent further injury from the impact of the fall. Just like you shouldn’t drive while drunk, you shouldn’t fight while drunk, either. Too many ways to get hurt.

  8. bet0001970
    September 14th, 2013 @ 12:18 pm

    The Constitution exists to protect the individual from the government. It DOES NOT exist to protect the government. The police ARE the government.

    Are you seriously telling us that two armed police officers are not capable of subduing one female (who was already incapacitated), without inflicting those injuries upon her? Those were gratuitous. Which is why the prosecutor is charging them.

    Huge swaths of police officers walk around with the dangerously arrogant notion that they are OWED the automatic presumption of unearned respect from the citizenry. Until recently, the citizenry has gone along with it. And anyone who has dared to challenge that tenet has ended up looking like this woman.

    They’ve been afforded this unearned respect because of the idea that their jobs are inherently dangerous. However, more military personnel die each year, even in peace time than do police officers. Yet military personnel do not treat the citizenry to public beatings. So which group has actually “earned” your respect?

    Now as your rights; you don’t have to talk to a police officer without counsel. EVER. The job of a police officer is NOT to help you. They are there to write you a citation or to put you in jail. Rarely do they ever engage in “helping or protecting” the public. There is no mythical “respect” that they are owed. And anyone who tells you that does not understand why the Constitution exists.

    There may have been a time when police officers were engaged in community policing. That time has long since passed.

  9. bet0001970
    September 14th, 2013 @ 12:32 pm


  10. bet0001970
    September 14th, 2013 @ 12:47 pm

    Do you study drunk people too?

  11. Unix-Jedi
    September 14th, 2013 @ 1:54 pm

    Are you seriously telling us that two armed police officers are not capable of subduing one female (who was already incapacitated), without inflicting those injuries upon her? Those were gratuitous. Which is why the prosecutor is charging them.

    Is nobody watching the video?

    They did subdue her. She escaped and thus triggered (quite rightly) a very quick reaction.

    After she was brought back under control – per the video – they didn’t deliver anything “gratuitous” .

    And I can’t see her face to be sure that she didn’t have injuries – from say, an AIRBAG – that’s what happened.

    I can’t believe I’m defending cops here – but this wasn’t an issue with them having an attitude, this wasn’t a beatdown, this was a criminal, in custody, who ESCAPED restraints while becoming belligerent – and they dealt with her in an amazingly professional manner.

    I’m confused what Star Trek Phaser setting you wanted them to use on her, or how they could have been more “courteous” to a drunken ass whose alternatively wheedling and lying and violent.

  12. scarymatt
    September 14th, 2013 @ 2:22 pm

    I resemble that remark.

    Yes, I’m quite familiar with impairment due to alcohol. That’s from direct personal experience and watching others.

  13. scarymatt
    September 14th, 2013 @ 2:26 pm

    I’m saying she was mostly responsible for the injuries. If I thought that they had pummeled her or thrown her to the ground, I would be saying so, and probably in favor of charges against them. Based on the video, I don’t see evidence of brutality.

    I’m not familiar enough with the law or police procedures (or even the full context of the event) to say that they did everything right. I do agree with most of your semi-off topic rant, though.

  14. bet0001970
    September 14th, 2013 @ 2:54 pm

    I watched the video. And as I understand it, the COPS are facing charges. Did you watch the video? Airbag?

    I don’t know what Star Trek phasers have to do with this, but if two grown men can’t deal with a very small, incapacitated woman…sorry, I’m just not buying your argument. And apparently, neither is the DA.

  15. bet0001970
    September 14th, 2013 @ 2:55 pm

    I had a lot more, but I noticed it was going looong.

  16. bet0001970
    September 14th, 2013 @ 3:00 pm

    Your Honor, I’d like to have this man qualified as an expert for the purpose of testimony.

  17. scarymatt
    September 14th, 2013 @ 3:03 pm

    Many people have gotten charged with something. That’s not the same as guilty. Grand juries are horrible things for using to presume guilt (there’s a ham sandwich joke here somewhere). Even if a jury found them guilty of something, it wouldn’t change what I saw in the video.

    I’m not saying that a prosecutor or anyone else couldn’t offer a convincing analysis that is different than what I’ve already said here, but no one has done it yet, and I don’t think they will.

    Are you familiar with physical conflict? People can and will do surprising things. I’m sure they could have subdued her with more force, but they were using an apparently reasonable level to deal with placing handcuffs on her when she got squirrely and did a face plant because she was drunk and couldn’t manage to keep her balance in the awkward position she was in without the use of her hands.

  18. bet0001970
    September 14th, 2013 @ 3:12 pm

    “Many people have gotten charged with something. That’s not the same as guilty.”

    This is absolutely true. Cops charge people with resisting arrest all the time when they gratuitously beat them up. The YouTube videos are awesome.

    BTW, still not buying the argument on this one. The part where they told her they were upping the charges after they face-planted her was classic. I’ll let a jury decide.

  19. scarymatt
    September 14th, 2013 @ 3:40 pm

    I would say (because that’s the sort of a-hole I am 😛 ) that you have bought the argument, since even cops are presumed innocent. I have yet to see anything in the video showing them face planting her.

  20. cmdr358
    September 14th, 2013 @ 8:56 pm

    I take exception to your comment about Piers Morgan.
    In a class all by himself, he may be the Emperor of Idiots but to say he’s “also an idiot” is selling him short.

  21. FMJRA 2.0: Caffeine Zombie : The Other McCain
    September 15th, 2013 @ 7:05 pm

    […] A Female Rodney King? […]

  22. ThomasD
    September 15th, 2013 @ 10:00 pm

    I agree, the takedown was a grievous overreaction that resulted in serious injury – an unwarranted battery. And that is a crime.

    They are supposed to be professionals. She was already in custody, and already handcuffed when she was placed in the vehicle. They may have been following their normal procedure for obtaining a BAC up until that point but once they crossed that point their management of the situation disintegrated and what followed became grossly unlawful.

    When a cop commits an unlawful assault the whole ball of wax starts to unravel, and these creeps need to be shown other employment after suitable punishement.

  23. ThomasD
    September 15th, 2013 @ 10:04 pm

    The video is pretty clear on that part, they rode her to the pavement. The extra force involved clearly contributed to the extent of their injuries.

    The conversations prior to the assault also tend to show that the involved officers were neither familiar with, nor confidant in the procedures they were attempting to employ.
    That night sucked for everyone involved. They are all fuck ups to one degree or another.

  24. ThomasD
    September 15th, 2013 @ 10:09 pm

    I call bullshit.

    If you have any experience in grappling or wrestling then it should be obvious to you that the woman did not fall to the ground on her own weight alone. She was rode the the ground with her hands in such a position as to be defenseless against the pavement.

    She could not even rotate her shoulders to protect her face.

    That was battery.