Woman Sues Officer, Police Department in Alleged Brutality Caught on Tape

This post was shared by Dan via CopBlock.org’s submit page.

A Chicago woman is suing a nearby village and one of its police officers, claiming she suffered serious injuries after being violently thrown into a jail cell in a shocking incident caught on videotape last year.

Cassandra Feuerstein, 47, said in a federal lawsuit against the Skokie Police Department that the March 10 incident required facial reconstructive surgery and the insertion of a titanium plate to “replace the bones that had been shattered,” the Chicago Tribune reports.

A portion of the alleged incident was captured on jail video cameras, which Feuerstein’s attorney, Torreya Hamilton, released Wednesday.

“The video speaks for itself,” Hamilton told the newspaper. “She does nothing to justify what this male police officer does.”

The video depicts officers searching Feuerstein inside a jail cell, where she was apparently asked to remove her boots and bra before being removed for additional processing. An officer then grabs the woman by the arm and appears to push her back into the cell. She is then shown striking her head and face on a bench before paramedics respond.

“If this was a tavern fight, which of course it wasn’t, it’d be like she got sucker-punched,” Hamilton said.

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, also claims the officer made false statements to other officials in the Skokie Police Department about why he pushed the woman into the cell.

Feuerstein ultimately pleaded guilty to DUI charges. County officials dropped a charge of resisting arrest, the newspaper reports.

“The village of Skokie has not yet been served with any documents,” said Ann Tennes, the suburb’s marketing and communications director, on Wednesday. “When, and if, we are served, our counsel will review them.”

A police spokesman said Skokie’s police chief, Anthony Scarpelli, was unavailable for comment. Skokie officials confirmed that the accused officer, who could not be reached, was still a village employee, the newspaper reports.

The incident, all captured on video, shows the petite 110-pound woman calmly following directions, posing no threat or aggression to her captors. The footage — subpoenaed by Feuerstein’s lawyer — shows the woman being asked to leave the cell, and after a few brief seconds, brought back to the cell and shoved in at full force.

Feuerstein was launched into the cell by Skokie Police Officer Michael Hart. Literally using both hands to shove her, the small woman helplessly sailed into a cement bench… face first. The results were devastating. Her face was shattered.

As a pool of blood began to pool on the floor, officers scrambled to do something. One officer, who Feuerstein described as “kind,” cradled her on the floor as she bled. Her thuggish assailant, Michael Hart, did not seem the least bit remorseful and was described as “totally unapologetic” by the victim.


  • certain

    Regular tough guy, isn’t he………2 obvious things at work here –

    Girls never liked this douche-bag


    He got beat up by just about everybody

    Great makings for a cop, huh?

  • Common Sense

    Get the checkbook out, I’ll say about $250,000. Certainly negligent but its a coin toss on criminal. If you could prove his “intent” was to cause injury, and not just reckless behavior, then it could be battery.

  • Jason Free 123

    I agree he shouldn’t have pushed her like that but what was she fucking doing in jail anyhow? What did she do that the officers went after her? Obviously she broke the law to be there in the first place. Typical fucking bullshit activists. She didn’t post the story on cuntblcok. Some fuck head activist who more than likely doesn’t know what was going on posted it.

    Ron Paul says, “All activists lie all the time everytime”.

  • YankeeFan

    She was arrested for D.U.I and admitted it and entered a guilty plea. From the booking station video cameras the officer became inpatient with her due to her not listening or some failure on her part to follow directions, he then lead her to the cell where he shoved her. The reason she was booked is a different issue from the officers negligent behaviour.

  • Ariel


    I only took a cursory look, but there was a comment at Turley’s blog that if you watch the officer’s feet he places one to make sure she goes down to the floor. I have no idea and really dislike watching these videos of callousness. However, has anyone taken a close look at for that?

    Common Sense,

    See my above to YF. Otherwise, I agree. Though I’d add negligence by way of being a callous son-of-a-bitch.

  • lakewood_in_afghanistan

    No big mystery here. Big brave cops like hurting women.

    How long will it take “t” to pipe up as to how we cannot judge this brave officer until we know how fearful he was for his safety, and on and on.

  • t

    Let’s see….looks like 27 minutes when I started typing.

    Ariel: Wow. Really. You think the officer really plotted that far ahead as to “place one to make sure she goes down on the floor”. Malice aforethought. “I am smart” (still my favorite quote)

    Looks like drunk bitch didn’t want to go with the program so he shoved back into the cell. My guess is they’ll cover her medical cost, maybe a couple of grand more. He’ll get a letter in his file and marked down on his eval. Shell still be a drunk bitch most nights.

  • YankeeFan


    Now you know why they/some rightfully earn the title, Jackbooted Thugs! It was his intent to shove her into this holding room to teach her a lesson. I don’t think he anticipated the end result but that should hardly matter. He lost his temper and engaged in a course of action that caused substantial head injuries to a woman.

    I personally believe he should be charged in the same manner I would be if I shoved someone and they face planted on a curb causing like injuries.

  • YankeeFan


    If you watch the entire video, she was being booked and it appears he became agitated with her in the booking station area. He became angry, walked her to a room and shoved her. This woman received serious head injuries that required reconstruction surgery. Are you saying she deserved it?

    A link to the abc reporting:


    and scroll down to this video on policemisconduct:


  • YankeeFan


    From your comment above:

    Shell still be a drunk bitch most nights.

    Can we say the same about this “drunk bitch cop”


  • certain

    Boy common, you just love to sound so knowledgeable. LOL, even though 9 times out of 10 you’re spewing horseshit.

  • certain

    Ron Paul says – Slappy should be locked up for the good of all goats.

  • t

    YF: Pure accountability. Anything else?

  • YankeeFan

    Yes, there is. Your comment ( Shell still be a drunk bitch most nights) was not relevant. Her drunk status had nothing to do with a temper mental cop who seriously injured her. You made a comment based on pure speculation. Who knows why she was drunk. Maybe she is an alcoholic or maybe she mad a bad mistake at a party. Either way she owned it and handled it. If you watched the video portion from inside the booking station, you can see him get angry with her as she was simply standing there being, to some degree, petulant but was not resisting arrest or being physically combative. Then he moved her to the holding cell and…we all saw what we saw.

  • YankeeFan

    So, making comments to impugn someones character to justify bad behaviour on others part is bad form. This cop in this story fucked up!

  • YankeeFan


    It would appear you missed my point with the story. I personally do not like to speculate about people to justify or rationalize bad behaviour on the part of cops. You did the same thing with the story of the 2 brothers who walked into that restaurant. Your initial comment was something like, I am sure they are both straight A students who deliver meals to elderly shut ins.
    What the hell does that have anything to do with what happened? Not a damn thing. That’s a comment made to make one feel good about bad police interactions, just like in this case. I am surprised that you seem to take light of what happened here. This woman needed facial re-construction surgery as a result of what this cop did. I personally want to say all of them in that holding tank were asshole jackboots but I will not assassinate their characters. At least one cop seemed concerned from the video!!

  • t

    YF: You are acting like he went in there and beat her down. He pushed a drunk ass woman back into the holding cell. Yeak he pushed her hard, but that’s all.

  • t

    As for the story of the two brothers. The pont o my comment the way it was painted here. Extremely rare are the stories that are posted here ever found to contain very much of the story. Good example would be the story recently posted about the about the woman who called for EMS and the 2 officers showed up and shot the suicidal man. The story here contains almost zero “facts”. The 911 call paints a very different picture….but here, somehowthose truths are mmissed.

    Just guess I’d ask you toremeber where you are reading these”articles”. Its a very biased cop hater site. Those that know of this site….and somehow are the ones to encounter these issues with “dirty cops” should seem a little to easy to you. Logic should prescribe skeptisim.

  • steve

    Cop Block administrator you support the troll, he must be your friend. You have no shame.

  • john k

    This asshole did this to her, then he has done this crap before.

  • John Q Public

    That just looked terrible. She probably will be getting a check after that. There will probably some “pain and suffering” added too. To me, there’s just no excuse for that regardless of the circumstances.

  • Shawn


    Damn, you will justify anything. He clearly lost his temper. And being a cop, he decided he could behave as he wished.

    When are you going to get that her actions, no matter how wrong, do not take away a cop’s responsibility for his actions and choices. He CHOSE to loose his temper. That is on him, and him alone.

  • YankeeFan


    I am only making the point she didn’t get a little booboo! Head injuries are nothing to take lightly. Especially someone who had to have the procedures she did. I am also saying the fact she was drunk is not relevant to her being pushed hard enough to take a forced header into a concrete bed by an obviously pissed off cop.

    I do not take what is posted here as gospel. You can find this story in the main stream news and there is video of what happened prior to her being pushed and all she did was stand there. I agree most of what is posted here is either crap or unverifiable. There are some where with a small amount of googling, one can find main stream reporting and this is one of those stories.
    Remember, I have never tried to lump up and paint all police with the same brush. I read each story and evaluate it on it’s own facts and in this caSe, I see a drunk woman, according to the story not following orders. A cop gets mad, takes drunk woman to a holding tank and shoves her to teach her a lesson or says get your ass in there or something like that and instead of hitting the wall, she takes a header and sustains a serious injury to her head. And in my never to be humbled opinion, this cop is guilty of some form of negligent behaviour as his actions caused an unnecessary injury.

  • YankeeFan


    Also, I know this site is a dope love, cop hate site. This story appeared on policemisconduct and there you always have links with the story to mainstream news reporting so there is going to be more of an element of truth to it than the biased, edited crap we always see. I have always agreed with you and common and 31B more than I have disagreed. I like to research, examine and verify for my own!

  • Shawn


    “Get the checkbook out, I’ll say about $250,000. Certainly negligent but its a coin toss on criminal. If you could prove his “intent” was to cause injury, and not just reckless behavior, then it could be battery.”

    His intent was clearly to punish her for offending him. He knew his force was beyond reason. He also knew that he could injure a person doing that.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    Completely uncalled for. She was drunk so why shove a drunk person into a cell? Escort her in there and sit her down. No need to shove her in the way this officer did.

  • Don Francisco

    What an ass.

  • akkard

    Evidently she said or did something after she left the cell that greatly pissed off the pig that threw her back in. Whatever it was, that treatment was not justified and this little piggie should be brought up on charges of assault.

  • steve

    The problem here is cops are watched by cops. that dude should have been arrested for assault and battery.

  • Common Sense

    The issue is intent.

    Read the IL statute on battery and then read the one about assault. Then read the jury instructions. The words “knowingly” and “intentionally” appear often. Remember that charges have elements that must be proven and then be proven 99.9% beyond a reasonable doubt. The injury suffered afterwards does not prove intent. I doubt 12 members of 16 on a IL grand jury would indict.

    That’s why this will stay civil, the cop will ride a desk, and Miss Drinks Alot, will be able to afford Grey Goose, not Popov.

  • Jason Free 123

    Annonypussy certain – Did you beat the shit out of your mom this weekend? I haven’t had the time to talk to her this weekend. Last week she told me you showed up late at night and was kicking the shit out of her door trying to get in. She told you to leave and she said you were drunk. She also said you smelled like goat shit. When she went outside in the moring, you left goat shit and straw all over her door. You are a sick piece of shit who beats on women. You even said it yourself that you wished your wife would leave you because she drinks. Has she read any comments you have posted on cuntblock? I’m sure you hide it from her so you can continue to torture her. You are a fucking loser.

    Ron Paul says, “All activists lie all the time everytime”.

  • certain

    Come on slaps, come up with something new already. Your schtick is getting boring.

    As for common, there’s at least #1700. Anybody who would watch that cop shove that lady, intoxicated, into a cell with hard concrete everywhere, and say that he had no intent to injure her is an idiot.

    As for the rest of you cops and wannabe cops, I like the way all of you 2-faced fucks completely minimize what he did. If she had shoved the cop and knocked him into the bench, you’d all be calling it intentional felony assault. Fucking bunch of cheese-dicks.

  • BJ

    Common Sense says:
    “The issue is intent.”

    What are you blathering? Intent has nothing to do with it:

    (720 ILCS 5/12-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 12-3)
    Sec. 12-3. Battery.
    (a) A person commits battery if he or she knowingly without legal justification by any means (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.
    (b) Sentence.
    Battery is a Class A misdemeanor.
    (Source: P.A. 96-1551, eff. 7-1-11.)

    (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05) (was 720 ILCS 5/12-4)
    Sec. 12-3.05. Aggravated battery.
    (a) Offense based on injury. A person commits aggravated battery when, in committing a battery, other than by the discharge of a firearm, he or she knowingly does any of the following:
    (1) Causes great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement.

    Common Sense says:
    “That’s why this will stay civil, the cop will ride a desk”

    You’re probably right about that but not because the elements of the crime haven’t been met to convict this POS; but because convicting a government agent of a crime is always an exception to the rule even in the case of a blatant assault and battery as this one.

    Common Sense says:
    “and Miss Drinks Alot, will be able to afford Grey Goose, not Popov.”

    Looking for any excuse and attempting to blame the victim (ever wonder why investigations of law enforcement officers committing assaults against citizens take so long?) by any means available and no matter how asinine the argument is standard operating procedure for you and t. and law enforcement in general. This officer should face charges for the unprovoked, unjustified and unnecessary attack of a person in his custody.

    “Hart filed a false report claiming she resisted authorities in order to justify shoving her.”

    More proof that cops are professional liars especially when their false charges (lies) are levied in order to justify their misconduct with the hope that their often co-conspirators in the DA office will use the promise of dropping those false charges to ensure guilty pleas.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Ariel says:
    October 12, 2013 at 6:16 pm

    “…watch the officer’s feet he places one to make sure she goes down to the floor…has anyone taken a close look at for that?”

    I watched it a couple times and I see no foot placement that will ensure she hits the floor. I did see his left foot lunge forward in a manner that extends the pushing motion and increases the force.

  • Common Sense


    I don’t disagree that his conduct was improper. I don’t think it meets the burden of a criminal charge since you must prove “knowingly.” Knowingly and intentional are often interchangeable. Take some time and find jury instructions for battery and assault crimes. Just think, the jury instructions for Trayvon Martin were 27 pages long. They are important to both the defense and the state.

    There was a Detroit SWAT officer charged with involuntary manslaughter for killing a child during a raid in 2010. Guess what, the jury hung on the definition of “recklessness” since its a key element of the crime. He faces a re-trial later and I bet they will probably get a conviction on the lessor charge of “careless use of a firearm causing death” this time as the state now knows the defense plan. That crime is a misdemeanor with a max of 2 years.

    The issue of the “false report” is really a matter of perception. Her attorney “thinks” the charge didn’t fit and the judge agreed, but it doesn’t make the report “false.” I think YF already said it, but the drunk refused to be photographed. She was hammered and probably acted the fool. Her “resisting” was failing to cooperate with the book in. That’s why that charge was dismissed and she plead to OWI.

    I did see her “pause” at the doorway. What she being belligerent or did the jailer hold her back preparing to launch?

    Also, IL doesn’t have “assault and battery” – it one or the other.

    (720 ILCS 5/4-4) (from Ch. 38, par. 4-4)
    Sec. 4-4. Intent.
    A person intends, or acts intentionally or with intent, to accomplish a result or engage in conduct described by the statute defining the offense, when his conscious objective or purpose is to accomplish that result or engage in that conduct.
    (Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

    (720 ILCS 5/4-5) (from Ch. 38, par. 4-5)
    Sec. 4-5. Knowledge. A person knows, or acts knowingly or with knowledge of:
    (a) The nature or attendant circumstances of his or

    her conduct, described by the statute defining the offense, when he or she is consciously aware that his or her conduct is of that nature or that those circumstances exist. Knowledge of a material fact includes awareness of the substantial probability that the fact exists.
    (b) The result of his or her conduct, described by
    the statute defining the offense, when he or she is consciously aware that that result is practically certain to be caused by his conduct. Conduct performed knowingly or with knowledge is performed wilfully, within the meaning of a statute using the term “willfully”, unless the statute clearly requires another meaning.
    When the law provides that acting knowingly suffices to establish an element of an offense, that element also is established if a person acts intentionally.
    (Source: P.A. 96-710, eff. 1-1-10.)

    The only charge that remotely applies is “assault” based on the “fear” element, but her being so hammered and argumentative, I bet she didn’t fear anything as she couldn’t follow direction. “Agg assault” doesn’t apply at all and “battery” and “agg battery” is doubtful as well since you have to prove he had knowledge that his action would case serious injuries.

    His conduct was careless but not criminal. But hey, maybe I’ll be proven wrong and he’ll get charged. I doubt it, but oh well, at least she won’t trip the metal detector at the O’hare or Midway.

  • Jason Free 123

    Annonypussy certain – You mom told me you were trying to break into her house when she wouldn’t let you in. She said you were fucking drunk and smelled like you were having sex with goats. She said you threatened to beat the shit out of her if you didn’t let her in. Well, she didn’t let you in. I suppose you will go over their when you are drunk again making threats all the while smelling like goat shit and shame. You are a fucking sick puke.

    Ron Paul says, “All activists lie all the time everytime”.

  • BJ

    More BS from CS

    Intent and knowledge are not elements that must be met to prove guilt as they are not included in the statute. That’s a typical red herring tactic used in the attempt to diffuse the culpability of this POS officer. What you are quoting is a definition page for words that are not included in the statute for battery and aggravated battery. And by the way, no where in this video or the longer version was the woman acting “the fool”, “belligerent” or “resistant” to the officers but I don’t expect someone like you or any law enforcement officer that believes that “furtive movements” and “de-humanizing stares” are perfectly acceptable reasons for physical assaults to acknowledge that. Luckily in this case the cover-up charge was seen for what it was and dropped. It’s just too bad (and typical) that a physical assault by a POS officer under color of authority that causes great bodily injury will be adjudicated in a civil court while criminal charges are not brought. The taxpayers will most likely take it in the shorts once again while the thug responsible for the payout gets a slap on the wrist.

  • Common Sense


    See, that’s why I said to review what how the statute reads, and then how the jury instructions read. Two different but similar things that must be met for a conviction. And if you review, both statues clearly state “knowingly” in their text. You may gloss over it, but defense attorneys will not.

    Think of the jury instructions as a deeper explanation of a statue and its elements. Once again, what does “knowingly” mean? In the other example cited, the SWAT officer who shot and killed a child, the jury hung on the what was meant by “recklessness.”

    And also remember this. The statue has a burden of proof, “probable cause” to charge and go to trial but once there, that burden rises to “beyond a reasonable doubt” and most prosecutors, regardless of the charge or the defendant, are not going to push a prosecution without being confident of a conviction.

    No one hates losing more that a prosecutor, except maybe the Yankees.

    Its important to remember those things because that’s what the defense will focus on to cause doubt and once doubt occurs, then the burden of proof cannot be met and then, that is as they say, that.

    And, I’ve said before, I do think this could pass the burden in a civil trial (preponderance of the evidence – 51%) but just not at the high level of a criminal trial, 99.9%.

    I will throw you a bone, just this once, so maybe you will learn something about how things actually happen in the real world.


  • t

    Shawn: I didn’t minimize anything. You are acting like he ran in there and beat her with a baton. He shoved her drunk butt back in the cell and she fell. Yeah, he shoved her hard. But then what happened? Gomahead and watch. Its right there on the tape. I’ll wait….. ……. ….. ……. ……. …… Done? Oh, they rushed in there to help her.

  • Shawn


    From any moral perspective, he might as well have used his stick.

    Asshole, she didn’t simply fall. He deliberately used extreme force to shove her in. He was pissed and wanted her to know it. You are minimizing his crime with your comment.

    As for helping her? He was pissing himself. He knew he screwed up. He deserves no credit for helping her.

    I suppose you think someone with such obvious anger issues is a fine cop?

  • t

    YF: Her being drunk may very well have a lot to do with it. It would being interesting to see what happened in the hallway and before the holding cell. Her behavior during the stop, arrest, ride to the jail, processing (blow). I bet there is video of a lot of it, including the hallway just outside the cell. You can’t just look at the end and ignore the rest of it.

  • t

    31: Note that it wasn’t Ariel that said that. He has no original thoughts….he “quoted” someone else’s thoughts. It was still stupid, but he didn’t think it up.

  • ThirtyOneBravo


    You’re right. I should have noticed it lacked originality. That’s what I get for being too interested in my cigar.

  • BJ

    The semantics of the jury instructions wouldn’t make a difference in a case such as this with clear video evidence but who are we kidding. The officer will never be charged with the applicable aggravated battery he committed and were charges filed, the case would never be heard before a jury anyway because a bench trial before a sympathetic judge would be requested. There is no doubt this officer intended to commit battery and the crime rose to the level of aggravated battery due to the injuries suffered but the only one that will ultimately be held accountable for this crime is the taxpayers through a civil judgement while you and your brethren laugh at the double standard LEOs enjoy.

  • BJ

    t says:
    “Her being drunk may very well have a lot to do with it. It would being interesting to see what happened in the hallway and before the holding cell. Her behavior during the stop, arrest, ride to the jail, processing (blow). I bet there is video of a lot of it, including the hallway just outside the cell. You can’t just look at the end and ignore the rest of it.”

    And you bring all of that up, why? Would any of her previous behavior justify this officer’s actions. It’s amazing to me how far you reach to justify officer misconduct with the “totality of the circumstances argument”.

    Here’s an interesting experiment and everyone else gets to play along too: What is the over/under on how many words it takes t. to answer 1 yes or no question? (line = 30) (prop bet = 8 misspelled)

    If you witnessed a man violently assault a woman by way of shoving her to the ground causing great bodily injury, would you charge that man with (I’ll throw you a bone here) even simple assault.

  • YankeeFan


    Ill keep it simple on my end. The 4 min 25 sec video that ABC aired, doesn’t show the woman doing anything that warrants what she received. All the video is police station video. It shows her at the photo station and appears she isn’t following instructions. The officer then grabs her and leads her down the hall where the camera swaps to the in cell view and you can clearly see her facing in the room where she is shoved hard.

    Unless there is missing police footage, the portions we do see, show a calm albeit drunk woman not following instructions getting pushed into a concrete bed by an obvious angry officer, Her being drunk has nothing to do with him pushing her that hard from behind. that was in no way justifiable or warranted. In my never to be humbled opinion. I happen to agree with Common Sense on this in that this isn’t criminal but negligent behaviour!

  • t

    YF: I’m just saying that I bet there is a lot more video.

  • Shawn


    T will excuse anything.

    Every action he took was a deliberate choice to abuse a prisoner. Last I heard, that alone was criminal. He knew what he was doing, and that he could harm her doing it.

    T, this guy’s anger issue will strike again. Is that what you want?

  • Ariel


    However, you are stupid. My comment was an if with an implied then. I said nothing about it other than a commenter at another blog wrote he saw that, and then I asked if anyone here did. That very question means I had doubt, which was followed by me agreeing with common sense.

    Here are the ifs followed by thens: if someone here saw it, can verify the foot placement by time in, then yes he did it with malice; if not, then no he didn’t and the commenter was wrong.

    I wondering if in your world cops never lose their temper and do anything with malice? In mine they’re just people.

    You keep making shit up thinking it’s real, I thought it was just reading comprehension, I’m now thinking it is malice. The problem for you is others can read…

  • Keith

    t, again, showing why he is a coward and pussy. Not issues at all with this piece of shit shoving a tiny woman like that. What a bitch, and i’m sure one of t’s bed buddies. You sir, are a fucking sack of shit.

  • t

    Keith: k

    Ariel: No. You commented and “quoted” someone because you want to put forward that you agree with the idea…..otherwise there is t any reason to put it forward. Wow, now you won’t even stand up for the thoughts of others that you stole. Still saving the world 1 chemical sale a time huh? What a joke.

    Shawn: Bet there is way more. That of course will not matter to you. Heck, you can’t even see that I never defended his action. I just said that he just shoved the drink girl.

  • Ariel


    No I didn’t. The words are quite plain, or I wouldn’t have agreed with common sense which was my sense of it. I wrote an if-then, two in fact. implied. Most of our understanding of the world, at least in this area, is an if-then. The problem is when we don’t recognize the if. And that’s what you did, you ascribed to me your misunderstanding.

    I put it forward, even though I didn’t see it, to ask if others did. If they did, and I would want the time on the video because I won’t take “yes he did”, then that commenter was correct and the officer acted with purpose and malice. If it couldn’t be found, he didn’t.

    As for ideas stolen, education is about incorporating ideas from others to better understand the world, an understanding one can’t reach on one’s own because there just isn’t enough time (your very claim leads to if you read anything anyone else has written, and use them, that would be stealing their ideas). You’ve incorporated ideas from others, if you haven’t you truly live in a vacuum. If you think you haven’t, there lies pathology.

    Me, I like pithy and profound quotes. I am, however, lousy at koans.

    I’ll leave you with a definition for you to find the word: “the art or process of correct reasoning”. It has nothing to do with conclusions. In fact, the art or process can lead to different conclusions.

  • t

    If you insist guy. I need some triclorethane. Can you get me some?

  • Common Sense


    Actually the semantics matter a quite a lot.

    Like I said the case in Detroit, the jury of 12 everyday people couldn’t agree on what “reckless” meant.

  • Ariel


    It’s known as 1,1,1-trichloroethane or just 1,1,1, never triclorethane or even the correct spelling (because trichlorethane is also 1,1,2 but never 1,2,2). There’s no such thing as trichloroethane without specifying where the chlorine atoms are. A great replacement for Perc(h) or trichloroethylene in vapor degreasers, so long as it was properly inhibited because the steric hindrance of 3 Cl on one C leads to the formation of HCl for obvious reason. It was available at Home Depot, you might check there.

    Don’t try to be a smart ass when you just make yourself out to be a dumb ass. I’ll add “triclorethane” to the list of your stupidities,

    Admit it, you ran out to get a monitor for wall or ceiling to protect you from dihydrogen monoxide. Monoxides are dangerous after all.

    Leaving the chemistry, are you so afraid to address something head-on that you have to make these silly and ignorant diversions? And this one is almost your zenith of stupid. Are you such an intellectual pussy that you can’t address a refutation? Are you that big a pussy? I thought cops were alpha males, not beta pussies.

    I purposely gave you a definition for a word that is an accepted definition but you won’t get by search without going deep. If you knew the word, you’d recognize the definition.

    What an intellectual light-weight you are. If you weren’t a light-weight, and actually honest, you would have addressed my comment by point. Light-weights make fun but usually show their ignorance when they do. It’s what light-weights do.

    I’ll add triclorethane to: feet on the ground; only one argument in the 2nd; 85% because it’s real world; and they test theories. I’m waiting for your pronouncements on entropy and the 2nd Law. I’ll likely split my 55 year old hernia scar when you explain that one. Please don’t go there.

  • Redoubt

    It seems that this thread is dominated by a few “Old Hands” that are knowledgeable, argue from a different perspective and are used sparing with each other. With the exception of one troll this has the feel of true exchange ideas and POV. I am not knowledgeable of the fine points of the law and what really goes on in the courtroom, so I won’t embarrass myself by chiming in on legal matters. I will only bring up some observations and questions in the hope that by so doing others may comment and move the discussion along.
    I note the victim received at least 3 different injuries, to the neck, arm and face. Obviously the face injury was the last to occur but when and where did the other 2 injuries occur and who inflicted them? Would the first 2 injuries indicate an escalation of violence culminating in the final assault and would this be an indication of the officers state of mind at the time of the final assault? I also note that the victim is almost completely in the cell when the officer thrust her into the bench. She did not seem to be fighting or twisting and the officer appeared to push her down as well as forward. Do these actions of the officer make this appear to be an intentional act? There is a gap in the video between the time when the woman was peacefully removed from the cell and the assault. How long is this gap and did the other injuries occur at that time? Thank you for your comments.

  • t

    Dude, it’s was a joke. Kinda like most of your comments.

  • Ariel


    It isn’t sparring it’s intransigence, usually shown by not addressing points but by the first or second sentence including “obtuse”, “joke”, etc. It’s a way of ignoring the argument because they don’t know how to address the argument, but think they win by labeling it.

    Really low intelligence behavior.

  • t

    Well, when you present a cogent arguement…..something based within reality, something YOU came up with, some sort of original thought…..I’ll consider answering it.

  • Redoubt

    This is not what I was hoping for.

  • t

    Redoubt: well…..you can see the video right? You see the part where she is standing there?Any sisign of any injury? The little that we see in the hallway…..any sign of any injury? Any “assault”? No? Hmm. K. So then you see her get pushed. She hit her neck? Her back? No? Hmm. Maybe her claims if additional injury are what is called a fib. Her lawyers are more than likely claiming everything under the sun trying to get both sympath and hoping for more money.

  • Ariel


    The force with which he pushed her, combined with the fall from standing to the height of the bench, could easily cause a number of injuries. Having looked at that disgusting video again, I think he obviously meant to cause harm by the force he used, but was just too stupid or angry to realize how much harm he could cause. Another fine example of gratuitous violence.

    However, anyone believing they can determine anything regarding earlier injuries from this video are just prone to shallow hubris. The 4:25 video elsewhere (Turley, ExCop-LawStudent) shows the officer forcefully grabbing and twisting her arm to take her to the cell at 1:48. At 1:54-55 he does appear to have a leg/foot in front of her left, but I think that’s just him bracing for/from the push.

    Anybody here really proud of a guy that thinks doing this to a much smaller person, especially a woman, is okay? All he had to do is release her into her cell, but instead believed this an acceptable way to express his emotions.

  • NotAZombie


    Are you some sort of mormon or religioius fanatic that you don’t drink alcohol at all? Because if you do, by your logic, not only are you a bitch yourself but will always be a drunk bitch apparently. I usually don’t wish harm on anybody but I really hope that someday you or a loved one run into a cop like this with a bad temper and say one wrong thing so you can see through the eyes of the majority of the world now while you get the shit kicked out of you. You think any of them care about you? You justify police actions like they wouldn’t do the same to you if you have a bad day.

    You are a disgusting, pathetic excuse of a human being and I honestly hope you become a victim of those you fight so hard and so ignorantly to defend.

  • Ariel


    “Are you some sort of mormon or religioius fanatic that you don’t drink alcohol at all? Because if you do, by your logic, not only are you a bitch yourself but will always be a drunk bitch apparently.” I seriously doubt the former, but the latter is near certain.

  • grounded

    I am always amazed how the thugs look at a video like this and dissect it frame by frame to see something that they think absolves and vindicates what is clearly a sociopath in their ranks. Ever notice how often ” alledged” is used when one of their own is accused and yet that same basic courtesy is not afforded to anybody outside the ranks? The thugs have little or no respect for this site. The difference between this site and Police One is they are allowed, even encouraged, to post on this site. Police One has no interest in debate. It’s a cyber circle jerk of egos that loathe scrutiny. They even dump on the few of their own that do try to be honorable and have moral courage.