S.C. deputy filmed slamming teen girl out of desk, dragging her away

You're delusional if you think there would have been no interference from other students in the hallway.

Clearly there are many people here who have never spent a second in a troubled school. Of course, we could have figured that out from the other threads about ethnic groups.

 

All of this is resorting to violence. Just what do you think would be necessary to prevent her from entering the premises the next day?

"As" the SRO did? No, I doubt I would. But as I said, I would do all I could to drag her ass out of there. That's violence.

You seem to be most offended by the aesthetics of the violence. This ain't professional wrestling. Both parties haven't rehearsed this so that each knows exactly what action is coming and what a reaction will lead to. It's not going to be all scripted and elegant, and sometimes things are going to wind up looking or being way the hell worse than intended.

 

For the record, and because you used my post to illustrate this point, I never said "by any means necessary." I'm definitely not OK with that. I only said that at some point, after talking and warnings of consequence by three different people, the officer was going to have to put his hands on her, hard or otherwise. And once he did, dealing with a defiant and petulant teenager, things are going to escalate in an ugly way that results in flipped desks.

 

What's your point there, sneaky Mr. Limpet?

 

Granted. I was painting this more as a disciplinary issue than as a law enforcement issue. A police officer has the authority to take any number of steps for use of force to enforce the law. This student was not breaking the law when he entered the room. As DQ pointed out, she broke the law when she refused to comply with the officer's order, typically a misdemeanor.

 

In good ole right-to-work South Carolina? Have fun with that.

 

How hard do you think this girl was going to try to get to school? I would be stunned if it took any violence to keep her out of school the next day.

I'm not offended by the aesthetics of the violence, I'm offended by the violence. I'm offended that he threw a 16-year-old girl 8-feet across the classroom when it was clearly not necessary.

 

ThompsonONE, whose post I also quoted, said "any way necessary." For the record, while I think this could have been resolved without the officer ever touching the student, I understand that the desk flip was not intentional. It was the throw across the room that escalated the violence far past what was necessary to detain the student.

 

I've already pointed them out numerous times in this thread.

But once again: An officer is only justified in using force in response to a show of force (threatened or real) from the subject they're dealing with. For departments that follow a use-of-force continuum, such as Richland Co. SD, an officer can only be one level above that which is being shown or threatened by the subject. The relevant portions of the use-of-force continuum for this situation are the steps for verbalization (two steps - first is calm, clear, polite commands; second is forceful words, short commands) and empty-hand control (two steps - soft hands technique, which is putting the hands on the subject, grabbing them, etc.; hard hands technique, which is forceful use of the hands & feet to physically control them).

His actions have not been misrepresented. He initially makes contact by pushing her head forward, then uses his right arm to attempt a lock around her neck. At the same time he is lifting up with his left hand on her thigh, which is going to cause her to come up with the desk and then he drops the whole thing once he's got her elevated. Maybe that's not a "body slam" since he didn't follow her down and slam his body on top of hers, but he certainly and intentionally flipped her backwards while she was seated in her desk.

The officer never had reason to escalate the force to the level he did.

 

I don't disagree with your last point. I think my main point of contention is that it could have been resolved without the officer ever touching her. I've never been a teacher or a SRO, but I have been an asshole teenager. I know that attitude of "I ain't doing shit, so you're going to have to make me." Sometimes all the reasonable methods aren't going to work on a bratty teen who has his or her mind set on doing anything but what is expected of them. So some physical force, perhaps not as excessive as it ended up being, can be necessary.

(This is all based on the assumption that the context we have been given is accurate.)

 

I'm amazed anyone is coming to this cop's defense. There was no justification for touching the girl. He was clearly wrong. He should be fired. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

 

Pollyannish.

Have you ever put your hands on your kids to put them in time out? You're just as bad as the cop if you have.