So you consider "witness statements" to be facts?
No, I consider witness statements to be considered factual until some actual evidence counters them. That is the way it works, and yes, a lawyer or judge will tell you the same. That is why we get people on the witness stand and ask them what they saw (when appropriate), to help establish the facts of a case. That you fail to understand the process is rather telling.
One witness (our poster) felt that things were under control, but two others (the two teachers) obviously did not share that opinion.
Actually you don’t know that, as you don’t have the statements of the two who interfered. And of course you have conveniently left out the person that matters the most, the officer making the arrest.
No evidence except that the subject was not subdued until the two teachers entered in to the fray.
You keep making that assumption, but there is nothing to support it in any of the facts available to us. And the statements that we do have contradict that claim.
You do a really poor job of cherry picking the "facts".
Perhaps that is because I don’t pick them, I simply take what is there and do not indulge in these flights of fantasy you seem to want to go on.
This is possibly the dumbest thing I have read lately.
That you would consider it dumb says volumes about your lack of understanding. Of course, the fact that you have taken it out of context to try to make a point also shows your dishonest. Let’s look at the ENTIRE statement: “The fact is that personal claims are considered factual (such as eyewitness testimony) until or unless contradicted by evidence. So yes, the statement by the SRO and the witness can be considered as facts.”
Read the original text again...their is no mentioning of the suspect being cuffed when the two teachers joined in.
Perhaps you should do the reading. The BG was cuffed. I didn’t say he was cuffed before or after anything. The BG was cuffed. Period. Because of that, we cannot know if he would have been cuffed without the interference of the two other men. But he was cuffed. If he had never gotten cuffed that would be some evidence that the SRO did not have control.
I'm now convinced that you don't have much of a grasp on the definition of the word "fact".
Fine. Feel free to explain where any of the facts I have offered should not be considered as facts. Until you manage to do so, I’ll assume you are just tossing around statements without anything to support them, as we have seen you do regularly here.
If it is so lame, you should be able to point out where it is factually wrong. So far, you haven’t done that.
but I guess that does not count since I was not actually "arresting" them, right?
It might count for something, but it has no bearing on “You apparently have never made an arrest, have never cuffed someone as the result of an arrest, and so on.” If you’ve ever made a single-person arrest where you have had to wrestle with a suspect and cuff him, let us know. Until then, you are only playing in your own imagination.
The SRO was wrestling a school kid...not "fighting a BG".
LOL!!! You might want to check the facts. I know you don’t like them, but they are there. To quote, “...our SRO (School Resource Officer) had to take a 19 year old student into custody. The student was on some type of drug and halfway down the hallway attacked the SRO in front of me.” Attacked by a 19 year old on drugs. Sounds like a BG to me. Of course, if it was just “wrestling with a school kid” it sort of demolishes this idea that the two other teachers needed to interfere also, doesn’t it? You need to figure out what your argument is.
Are you saying that a safety resource officer in a school is under NO obligation to try and NOT injure a child that he is attempting to take into custody?
No, I didn’t say that. You might want to try to address what was said instead of making things up.
And it's obvious that you don't understand ALOT of things.
Very true. However, the dynamics of arrest, custody and control are one of the things I have a pretty good grasp of.
I have to ask...how old are you?
And then I will ask...how old are you, and why does it matter? I realize that you are desperately trying to discuss anything except the actual evidence and facts available in this scenario, but that seems out of place even for you.
I don't handle bedpans and I don't give sponge baths.
If you say so. Maybe your the janitor. Or a clerk. Heck, you mght even be teh Head of Surgery. It doesn’t much matter. You also don’t make arrests or know much about them, apparently.
It's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.
Again, anytime you wish to regale us with a discussion of your LE experience, I’ll be glad to listen. I can at least address this topic from a position of experience and training, as opposed to just reading about it on the internet. Of course, the fact that you find it obvious that I don't know what I'm talking about is just further evidence of how little you understand the issue.
BTW, any chance you could get back to discussing the topic instead of trying to discuss me??
