I am not dismissing anything. I am debating and refuting what you are saying. You are the one dismissing things. You also haven't got a clue about debate and refutation.
Except you have not refuted anything. Let me demonstrate to you how to refute an argument.
- The police don't need a photograph of the suspect or a video of the crime to arrest someone.
No one ever said they need a photograph, They do, however, need probable cause. You do not even know what the ploice knew when they pulled up. You are assuming that they had all the information available in the 911 calls. They didn't.
- She was identified not by miscellaneous passers by, but by her mother.
Even if the person there was her mother, the police had no way of knowing that when they arrived. Even if the woman said "My daughter just tried to kill me," all police no is that she is a woman making some sort of claim. They are not psychics, they don't know anymore than you did when you first watched the video. In fact, they knew less, because they did not see the fight in which the girl they knocked to the ground was losing.
- Who was on the ground after the girl walked away, despite the fact you all say it was the mother assaulting the girl.
We did not say the mother was assaulting the girl, we said the girl was loosing the fight. Since the woman in the video, if it was her mother, outweighed her, and had the advantage of strength, it only makes sense that she was winning the physical confrontation.
- In that case, why was the mother left on the ground when the girl walked away.
Left on the ground? I couldn't see where the woman was because there was a car in the way. Since that same car also blocked the girl from view even though shoe, obviously, stood up and walked away, there is every possibility that the woman was also standing out of view behind the car. You really should stop dramatizing the facts unless you have an ability to see through cars on videos.
- She had been identified by the school who reported her and probably gave a description, including her clothing.
The school described what she was wearing? Do you have proof of this? Even if they did, how do you know they got it right? Do you have any idea how often two eyewitnesses provide the same description of the someone when they are asked to do so?
I will give you a hing, it is less than once in the entire history of police asking for descriptions.
- They knew who the suspect was, and she was told to stop.
Because they were, as you already demonstrated, psychic, and knew for a fact that the people who were standing around were not accusing an innocent person. You still have not demonstrated how they knew this, but they did.
- She didn't, which gives them the right to use the means necessary to take her into custody.
You got that half right, then completely wrong. First, she didn't stop. Personally, I wouldn't stop either if someone yelled at me from behind, which is why people have actually had to chase me down to return things I dropped. That said, she actually turned around to see who was calling her, perhaps because the police officer used her name, and got a shoulder in her face as a result.
By the way, police do not have the right to do anything to apprehend a suspect. They have the authority to use reasonable force to do so, and have the responsibility to make sure that they are not putting themselves, the public, or the people they are trying to apprehend, into unreasonable danger. Given the fact that the review board recommended a 4 day suspension after reviewing all the facts, including the ones you are making up, I would say that this officer did not fulfill his responsibily.
- She was pushed, that's all, pushed.
She was tackled. That is a lot more than a push, I used to play football, I know the difference.
- And fell to the ground, was then tackled and cuffed.
She was knocked to the ground. She was not tackled after she was on the ground, watch the video.
- Not much different than happens everyday on the practice football field at any high school.
The difference is that on a football field people expect to get tackled, don't fall onto concrete, and still get injured, even though the people hitting them are comparable in both age and size. This was a teenage girl getting slammed by an adult male who had at least 25 kilos on her without the gear and the Kevlar vest he is wearing.
No injuries that they are aware of is not the same thing as no injuries.
- No injuries, so it was not as brutal and violent as people want to make out.
Ever watch a an MMA match? Those rarely result in injuries, but no one ever comes away from one thinking they are not violent. This was brutal and violent, her lack of injuries just means she was lucky.
- It was not the act of a police state.
It was the act of a cop who exceeded his authority and ignored department policy.
- It was reasonable given the circumstances.
If that were true there would have been no suspension. In fact, I am willing to bet that this particular officer has a long history of excessive violence, because it usually takes a clearly defined pattern of escalating problems before a review board will recommend a suspension. Yet you are defending him, and trying to argue that his use of force was justified, even though I can clearly prove it wasn't.
_______________________________
That, Esmeralda, is how you refute something. You don't refute me by repeating specious arguments that have already been refuted, and then claim you are not dismissing my position because you keep repeating things that are are already disproven.
