Ex DPS TRP Perez charged

[kurt]

I don't see the trooper did anything wrong. He asked her and ordered her several times to comply. She resisted and looked to me like she jerked and he pulled back to control her and spun her towards the wall. She looked like she stumbled and fell and struck her head on the wall. It did not appear to be intentional to me.

I supposed if she had jerked her arm and gotten loose and stumbled into traffic and gotten crushed by a truck that would also have been his fault?

[gemini]

I don't see the trooper did anything wrong. He asked her and ordered her several times to comply. She resisted and looked to me like she jerked and he pulled back to control her and spun her towards the wall. She looked like she stumbled and fell and struck her head on the wall. It did not appear to be intentional to me.

I supposed if she had jerked her arm and gotten loose and stumbled into traffic and gotten crushed by a truck that would also have been his fault?

I went and watched the video clip again, several times. The dialog I am most interested in (besides the actions of the Trooper):
(0:54) Trooper "You're going to get hurt"
(1:02) Trooper "You're fixin' to get yourself hurt"
(1:06) Trooper "Quit resisting" {resisting what? she was cuffed, face first into a concrete wall}
(1:12) Trooper "Don't get yourself hurt"
(1:17) Trooper "Don't make me put you on the ground"
(1:56-1:57) Trooper slamming a cuffed woman into a concrete wall, face first.

I would bet, if it had been your mother, sister or daughter on the receiving end of
that vicious face plant into a concrete wall ...... well, anyway.....

I agree with the Texas Rangers initial investigation/charge. I also agree with the attorney quoted in the story:
"As a chief felony prosecutor, a county judge, a state district judge, I've never seen anything like it. It's horrific," said Attorney Randy Isenberg. "Clearly excessive brutal force, he snapped. He lost his temper and he hurt her really bad."

You may see the verbal warnings above (about 5 inside of about 15 seconds) as an excuse for excessive force, I see them
as a sign he was losing his temper, and was already thinking about making this poor victim pay for his anger. She was questioning
his authority and he didn't like it.
This whole incident has no good outcome. The woman was obviously injured, the Trooper had to retire with this on his record.
Lose/lose situation if there ever was one.

What's nice about this forum is the varied opinions of it's participants. Many times we agree to disagree.

[srothstein]

I supposed if she had jerked her arm and gotten loose and stumbled into traffic and gotten crushed by a truck that would also have been his fault?

It most definitely would have been. I know of one officer who stopped a suspect for DWI. The man swore he was not drunk and then said something along the lines of "I can prove it, I can walk that straight line" and attempted to do so. The problem was the line was the lane separator on Loop 410 in San Antonio and the man ran in front of another car to get to the line. SAPD paid dearly, and the only thing that really saved the officer was a lieutenant who had stopped to cover him and saw it all.

In all of our discussions about whether or not the police have a duty to protect you, we never seem to mention the one time the court will always find that the police have a well defined duty to protect someone from harm. When the police have the person in custody, they MUST do all they can to protect them from any harm, including the officers near by. Not stopping the Rodney King beating got Sgt. Stacey Koon convicted of civil rights violations in federal court.

And that is why I think the officer did wrong in this incident. All of my opinions in this are based on the video clips provided in the first post, so I could be way off base on many points. I don't think he meant to hurt the woman. I think she provoked him and tried to pull away when he jerked her back to get her under control. But the force used was enough to allow her to get hurt unjustifiably. Actually, even worse, IMO, is the other officer who did not step over and take some action right away when she started to struggle. That is what really sets up things like this. Both officers failed in their duty to protect the woman.

[TexasGal]

I saw a news story on this a few days back. They dropped the drunk charge because there likely was nothing to support it. Bones in her face were broken, a huge gash in her chin was opened up, and she had chipped teeth. She was objecting to an unjust arrest with little more than argument. The officer was very clearly angry at her for doing so. She did not "stumble" and cause her own injuries. She stumbled because the brute swung her with totally uncalled for force as if she were some 250# PCP addict fighting him. I do not condone her arguing with the officer, but that is no justification for being slammed into that wall. If he was strong enough to do that, he was plenty strong enough to continue to escort her to his patrol car as he was already doing. I can only wonder if this guy is married what his wife goes through when he is mad and she has the audacity to backtalk him.
I know others have expressed an opposing view. I respect their right to feel that way, but this is my impression after seeing the tape several times and the photos of her injuries.
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/100510 ... sive-force

[Purplehood]

I saw a news story on this a few days back. They dropped the drunk charge because there likely was nothing to support it. Bones in her face were broken, a huge gash in her chin was opened up, and she had chipped teeth. She was objecting to an unjust arrest with little more than argument. The officer was very clearly angry at her for doing so. She did not "stumble" and cause her own injuries. She stumbled because the brute swung her with totally uncalled for force as if she were some 250# PCP addict fighting him. I do not condone her arguing with the officer, but that is no justification for being slammed into that wall. If he was strong enough to do that, he was plenty strong enough to continue to escort her to his patrol car as he was already doing. I can only wonder if this guy is married what his wife goes through when he is mad and she has the audacity to backtalk him.
I know others have expressed an opposing view. I respect their right to feel that way, but this is my impression after seeing the tape several times and the photos of her injuries.
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/100510 ... sive-force

When do you condone arguing with an Officer, especially if you are absolutely and honestly convinced that you are being detained or arrested without cause?

[TexasGal]

I personally think it is foolish to argue with any officer. It does not really matter if I am being arrested by mistake or not. If that officer has decided I am going to be arrested, I can only make it worse for myself and him/her by arguing. I don't need "resisting arrest" added to my charge or a video that looks that way that can be played in court. Its going to be up to the court to decide the issue. Police have to deal with dangerous, hysterical, and angry people every day. Obviously, a few of them get so tired of it, the temptation to serve some payback can be overwhelming. What is more unclear is just what can you do in the rare situation you are truly being injured for little reason? Beg him to stop? That didn't work for the kid who was beaten by two young Dallas officers after they stopped his half hearted flight on a motorcycle. He tried to avoid them after being caught riding it on a sidewalk (must deserve a beating apparently). Fighting back would feed the situation. Do you just lie there and take it no matter what? I guess you must and hope justice is served later. I see no alternative. Notice after hitting the wall, she does not cuss him out, she simply says; "Oh My God, That was not necessary" I guess he taught her to be more respectful and cooperative.

[dac1842]

Well, after watching the video several times I will speak from the position of a former LEO, 15 years on the street.
1- Her speech, level of tone, and her walking are consistent with that of a person under the influence. I wasn't there, naturally I can't say.

2- He had warned her repeatedly prior to starting to the car that if she did not walk she would be taken down.

3- She is obviously verbally abusive

4- As they are walking to the car she does pull away, this constitutes resisting arrest. ( When he says quit resisting the first time I see no resistance other than her running her mouth)

5- He took the action to take her down, a trained response to a suspect pulling away from you. The intent of this move is to take the suspect to ground, pin the shoulders as the saying goes, control the shoulders, control the person. The wall blocked the suspect from being taken to the ground hence the injury

6- The part the bothers me the most is the partner did nothing. This could have been easily avoided had the partner, recognizing the abusive nature of the suspect assisted in escorting her to the car. Watching the partner was harder then anything else and he too should be disciplined for he lack of action.

It will be interesting to see this go to trial. I believe and I may be proven wrong in the end, that he will be found not guilty. The main reason being the suspect makes an obvious move to pull away from the trooper. Time will tell.

In the past when I had a handcuffed suspect do the same to me I always use the foot sweep to take the suspect down. It allows more control of the suspect, takes less room to manipulate and the suspect does not have a violent impact with the ground. When you start spinning around to use your body to pin the suspect with a wall around things can go wrong as we saw. There are many techniques to take a suspect to the ground, the trooper IMHO used the wrong technique given the circumstances. But it is real easy to sit here and Monday morning quarterback it.

I do believe there is some accountability here on all three parties in the video. However the bottom line is had the suspect complied with instructions nothing would have happened. Her actions dictated the outcome. The trooper with the extensive background he had should have had better control, and the partner should have been involved.
Lastly for those of you that have never been in Law Enforcement find an agency that permits citizen ride alongs. Get out there first hand and see what it is like. Most of you would have a different opinion on many issues concerning the police if you were out there see things as they happen.

[gemini]

dac1842: 5- He took the action to take her down, a trained response to a suspect pulling away from you. The intent of this move is to take the suspect to ground, pin the shoulders as the saying goes, control the shoulders, control the person. The wall blocked the suspect from being taken to the ground hence the injury

In taking down a handcuffed, female, weighing about a buck twenty five, wearing high heels,..... is there only one level
of force a Leo would use? That being the same amount of force used to take down a handcuffed, male, out weighing the arresting Leo by 65#, and obviously a body builder ? Or the same amount of force used to take down a handcuffed, minor child, weighing 70#?
My point being, ExTrooper Perez used excessive force. If, with all his experience, he needed to swing the woman into the concrete
wall to "control" her........ wow.
I believe a simple back hand chop to the throat or maybe some well deserved stick time might have been just as efective on this
unruly woman.........j/k
I watched the clip again and my opinion remains the same. The ExTrooper was out of line. That's what is nice.... we can have
different opinions and see things from more than one point of view.

[Winchster]

Get out there first hand and see what it is like. Most of you would have a different opinion on many issues concerning the police if you were out there see things as they happen.

Absolutely nothing I could see on a ride along would change my mind that this trooper was mad from the start and INTENDED to hurt this lady. He found a way to make good on his threat. I'm glad the Capt. saw fit to recommend his firing, I'm happy the Ranger investigation recommended charges, I'm disappointed the Dallas DA decided it was only a misdemeanor case, but justice should have her way and this guy should go to jail. We shall see.

[dac1842]

I dont see anything that indicates the trooper intended to cause any injury. But what we all have to keep in mind is there is video we have not seen. The actual stop, initial suspect contact, the actions that led to her being handcuffed. The video we have not seen may play a role in what led up to all this. We wont know for some time.

[Winchster]

I dont see anything that indicates the trooper intended to cause any injury. But what we all have to keep in mind is there is video we have not seen. The actual stop, initial suspect contact, the actions that led to her being handcuffed. The video we have not seen may play a role in what led up to all this. We wont know for some time.

gemini » wrote,
I went and watched the video clip again, several times. The dialog I am most interested in (besides the actions of the Trooper):
(0:54) Trooper "You're going to get hurt"
(1:02) Trooper "You're fixin' to get yourself hurt"
(1:06) Trooper "Quit resisting" {resisting what? she was cuffed, face first into a concrete wall}
(1:12) Trooper "Don't get yourself hurt"
(1:17) Trooper "Don't make me put you on the ground"

Ok, maybe you don't see a pattern here, but to me... He warned her he was going to hurt her at least five times before he did it. In my mind that speaks to intent.

[Purplehood]

Her actions dictated the outcome.

That really bothers me.

[wally775]

dac1842 wrote:
Her actions dictated the outcome.

As did TRP Perez's actions.

[C-dub]

Most if not all drunk drivers do not intend to kill anyone either. I don't think the Trooper intended to do the amount or kind of damage he did, but he still did it and it was unnecessary and excessive.

As far as her resisting by pulling away, why should the Trooper be allowed the normal reaction of jerking back when she pulls, but she is not allowed when he pulls her? Maybe he pulled a little too hard initially and caused her some pain that caused her to react. She was subdued and in custody with no real ability to cause this trooper any harm.

[OldCurlyWolf]

I dont see anything that indicates the trooper intended to cause any injury. But what we all have to keep in mind is there is video we have not seen. The actual stop, initial suspect contact, the actions that led to her being handcuffed. The video we have not seen may play a role in what led up to all this. We wont know for some time.

gemini » wrote,
I went and watched the video clip again, several times. The dialog I am most interested in (besides the actions of the Trooper):
(0:54) Trooper "You're going to get hurt"
(1:02) Trooper "You're fixin' to get yourself hurt"
(1:06) Trooper "Quit resisting" {resisting what? she was cuffed, face first into a concrete wall}
(1:12) Trooper "Don't get yourself hurt"
(1:17) Trooper "Don't make me put you on the ground"

Ok, maybe you don't see a pattern here, but to me... He warned her he was going to hurt her at least five times before he did it. In my mind that speaks to intent.

Mine too. That he really didn't want to use more force than he was already using. BTDT. How many others posting to this thread can truthfully state the same?