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

For the second time you've mis-characterized my argument, although I appreciate you restating what you understand me to be saying, because that gives me a chance to correct it.

I've never said that there was nothing that could have happened to justify this level of force. I've said nothing happened to justify this level of force.

Within the realm of could have happened possibilities are many actions on the girl's part that could warrant this use of force. What the three videos show are that none of those things happened. She never acted in a way that would would justify his escalation of force to the level he did.

And yes, we can clearly establish what level of force was applied by looking at that video. The idea that we can't be make a determination of how much and what type of force was used when we've got multiple views of it is nonsense. The girl's body language alone tells us that she was not a threat such that force to that degree was warranted.

 

Seems we have a vocal segment where it's inappropriate to ever put your hands on a child who is throwing a temper tantrum to remove them from the situation. I'd like to learn how to magically empower children to listen while in the middle of a tantrum.

 

So what is the level in between constructive authority and physical force? When constructive authority does not work, what comes next?

 

He gone.

Sheriff fires Richland deputy after altercation with Spring Valley student

 

Substitute the name of any professional wrestling move you want. The point still stands.

Just because he appeared to have gone too far doesn't mean no force was ever justified.

 

Given the disparities in their size and (inferred) strength, absent her brandishing a weapon what could she have done that would have justified it? I'm not trying to trap you with a gotcha! bit, honest. I just can't imagine what she could do to get to the point at which the one-level-up rule, if followed, would lead to this.

OK, so now I want to restate/clarify. The girl could have resisted in ways we can't see. She could have made moves that led to her falling, or tripping, that we can't see. He could have miscalculated how much force he was applying. He could have thought in instance X that she would resist to a certain degree, and when she didn't that led to her flying, falling, whatever, unexpectedly. Again, these aren't professional wrestlers.

If we go back to bigpern's hypothetical, if I come out of the library dragging my screaming (and resisting) 14-year-old, if you take a video of it it's going to look bad.

 

As I asked franticscribe, what comes next when constrcutive authority (verbal commands) do not work?

 

That's your construction of a use-of-force continuum and not one that I've ever seen in my work with law enforcement or from any of the national accrediting agencies. I've previously described - multiple times - the relevant steps on a typical use-of-force continuum.

Empty-hand control follows verbalization. There are different levels within empty-hand control, those include soft techniques. The officer here jumped past that and went to a pain-compliance technique.

 

Which happens first: He gets another job or she quits school?

 

This is why I love this forum. Where else do you have such a gathering of experts in so many areas of life?

 

Moving a child of any size that does not want to be moved isn't going to look pretty to anyone.

Empty-hand control, in this case, wouldn't look pretty, since the student needed to be removed from that chair.

 

I looked it up. Constructive authority, physical contact, physical force, deadly force. That is NJ 2C criminal code.
Here is the National Institute of Justice

The Use-of-Force Continuum | National Institute of Justice

Did he have a weapon in his hand? I do not see one. Thus empty-hand control as you call it or physical force as I said.