Cop Tasers Fleeing Handcuffed Girl, Head injuries put her in vegetative state

[mrdude2010]

this was just an unfortunate accident which was her fault for fleeing

Same question for you then: Is someone taking a step sufficient excuse for murder?

Suspects resist and suspects flee. That's what suspects do. Policemen subdue suspects with minimal violence, and chase them down, that's their job. That's how it works.

"We accuse you, and after that all violence we do to you is always your fault" is not the police. That was the modus operandi of the inquisition.

1. A step? No. The only thing that would justify a police officer responding with lethal force would be if their life was in danger.
2. Murder? He tazed someone who was fleeing the cops while in handcuffs. Tazers are supposed to be non-lethal, it's not like the cop made a deliberate attempt to smash her head into the ground. Also, what else was he supposed to do? Tackle her? Then she would not only have been just as likely to hit her head, but she also would have had a person falling on top of her, which definitely wouldn't be good for her ribcage.
3. She had multiple priors, was wanted for more than one hit and run, and was on multiple substances including cocaine. I don't exactly blame the cop for not wanting to just let her go. Is that really how our justice system is supposed to work, where you just idly watch as a criminal runs away? This is clearly not police brutality, this is an unfortunate accident. Believe it or not, the cops aren't always the bad guys.

 

[Jegsimmons]

i say the cop is innocent, she was coked up, she ran, he acted accordingly.

Yet she fell and went into a vegetative state because SHE WAS A DUMB COKED UP ***** WHO WAS A DANGER TO EVERYONE ON THAT ROAD SHE WAS RUNNING TO.

The cop did nothing wrong. but no, people love to ***** about the 'evil cops' that roam our streets even though 99.99% of them are just doing their jobs and living their lives.
Like the same people who ***** at them.

EAT ME.

Im tired of all this police hate, how about this, dont do illegal shit a make cops fucking taze or spray you!

if an active duty cop is telling you to move, FUCKING MOVE!
If he tells you your under arrest DONT FUCKING RUN.

 

[DeleteThisAcc]

Now think - 45 kg woman vs 117kg fatty. What if he chased her, grabbed her hand and stopped? Worst case - twisted arm, bruised knee.

She would of twisted her torso, broken free from his grip and escape custody.

Seriously, have you ever tried simply 'Grabbing' some one that is running away from you? It doesn't work. The human hand isn't designed to work that way.

Saying 'just grab her' is an idiotic statement and just shows how little you know about the subject at hand.

/facepalm
Have you ever tried to grab someone running away from you? I see that you didn't. I have grabbed and was grabbed while on run in quite few different ways(It's called growing up without video games). You can't just twist your torso to break free when you are grabbed above your elbow while RUNNING. Add that she was handcuffed. Explanation - in grab weakest point is thumb. Grab her left arm above elbow with your right hand. Are you saying your hand will slip because it's hard to hold on something round and fat? Have you seen woman that weights 45kg? SKINNY.

the problem with your statement is that you're basing it off the assumption that the clasp of his hand can fully encase her upper arm. Much like an Adult grabbing a childs arm. But she is a full grown adult. The average Upper arm circumfrance for a female of her body type (less then 100 lbs) would be 23-25 cm. The average maximal grip circumfrance of an adult male of his size (+200 lbs) is aproximatly 18-20 cm and thats being Generious because many other factors come into play.

His hand will slip because it is impossible for him to lock his hand completely around her arm. This coupled with the fact that with loose skin tissue and muscle (the arm is in a relaxed position) it will be impossible to keep his grip on that arm even if he did grab it as any force applied to free it would most likely do just that.

That huge cop would have gotten perfect grip on her hand. BUT! If his hand would have slipped somehow and he released her - she would not have escaped custody - she would have fallen on ground (My guess she would have gotten less injuries from such fall because - well tazer kinda paralyses you muscles for a second and you cant prepare for a fall. On the other hand she was on drugs.).

The individual is Handcuffed in the Front.
No one would of been able to get a 'perfect grip on her hand'...

And no she wouldn't of 'fallen on the ground' from having her arm gripped.

You see, the Upper arm really isn't a good target if you're trying to manipulate some one. A rather solid bone surrounded by muscle tissue which only controls the lower arm. It isn't like the Wrist which if manipulated properly can control the Entire arm and most of the back. And because it is mostly skeletal muscle, it is generally hard to apply a suggnificant amount of pain to incapacitate them.

The most you could hope for is pinching nerves, but that only deminishes an individuals capacity to fight because it only effects the lower arm (and not all that much mind you). Even with nerve pinching, you would only really do it to free yourself from some type of grapple or hold.

What would of happened is that she would of twisted her torso away, pulling her arm forward. This would hyperextend the hand and arm gripping her. This action would send him off balance and provide enough torque to free her arm from his grip. Even if she did fall, she would of stumbled several feet before acctually falling. The distance between the two would be larger and she would be in a better position to stand up and run again then he would be.

.... to tired to kick all back at you just -
"You see, the Upper arm really isn't a good target if you're trying to manipulate some one. A rather solid bone surrounded by muscle tissue which only controls the lower arm. It isn't like the Wrist which if manipulated properly can control the Entire arm and most of the back. And because it is mostly skeletal muscle, it is generally hard to apply a suggnificant amount of pain to incapacitate them."

grab upper arm TO GET SHURE SHE DOESN'T LAND ON HEAD and not break her bones trying to tackle her like in american "football"(and also because wrist (grab someone by wrist while they are running and if your grip slips they land on side. Quite painfully I might add.) is unreachable - handcuffs in front)

"it is generally hard to apply a suggnificant amount of pain to incapacitate them" You are american aren't you? If someone grabs her upper arm while running she will fall on her knees (because she is running, and not really knees, more like one knee if done correctly) then you can "incapacitate" her. Even if cops hand slips she falls on ground (whole catch and hold is just to make sure she doesn't get hurt) because of her speed.

 

[Pyro Paul]

to tired to kick all back at you just -
grab upper arm TO GET SHURE SHE DOESN'T LAND ON HEAD and not break her bones trying to tackle her like in american "football"(and also because wrist (grab someone by wrist while they are running and if your grip slips they land on side. Quite painfully I might add.) is unreachable - handcuffs in front)

Grab her arm and Tackle her?
Okay you reach out with your Right hand to grab her left arm then tackle her 'like an american "football" player'

First off, you are describing a Sholder Charge or Side Tackle.
It is a manuver used in Rugby(well, RFL... RFU doesn't allow shoulder tackles) and isn't acctually used all that much in American Football. American football generally promotes bumping, dump tackles, or body tackles and you don't really see Shoulder charges because they are difficult to pull off due to the padding American football players wear and the defensive linebacks usually don't have enough room to properly execute such a move.

Second, You are suggesting to Sholder Charge some one from behind?

Aside from that being very dangerious to the target, if you try and do what you just suggested you have a very high chance of snapping your own wrist in the process. Besides that, the success possibility of that is incrediably low and highly dependent on you being able to manipulate the individuals body through their arm.

Again, i will say it.

Grabbing the 'meat' of the arm is one of the stupidest locations to try and grab for in almost every single close combat method out there. Even if the individual is smaller then you the simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't inhibit the target and it acctually puts you at a disadvantage because you then become subject to their momentum which can easily send you off balance.

I have seen a 7 year old make a 43 year old man fall on his face because the 7 year old yanked away while the man grabbed his upper arm.

Having discussed this with several friends, many of which have 2-3 black belts in multipule martial arts and a friend that currently works as a guard for a Federal Prison and Ex-US Marine as well as my own personal knowledge in close combat melee. I can say with out a doubt.

Grabbing the meat of the arm to try and manipulate some one is a Stupid Idea. Any one suggesting such a tactic to try and control some one doesn't know what they are talking about.

I would not suggest such a manuver against a 30 lbs 5 year old nor a 300 pound muscle bound man.

.... You are american aren't you? If someone grabs her upper arm while running she will fall on her knees (because she is running, and not really knees, more like one knee if done correctly) then you can "incapacitate" her. Even if cops hand slips she falls on ground (whole catch and hold is just to make sure she doesn't get hurt) because of her speed.

Yep, from the US.
Where are you from?

A bruised arm, a skid knee, and harsh language... yep that will definatly stop any one in their tracks!

 

[Lionsfan]

Why are you so rude?

Yet every single one of your posts has been personally attacking the policeman and calling him "a fat, obese, slob, sociopath etc etc"

Oh the irony....

 

[SickBritKid]

1. Braindead =/= dead.

Braindead = dead. Everyone knows that.

2. You have no fuckin' idea what you're talking about. "Sociopath?" "Kill?" A cop DOING HIS GODDAMN JOB is murder to you!?

Why are you so rude? Obviously a policeman killing someone is clearly not doing his job. A policeman voicing his eager anticipation of killing more helpless people if he gets the chance, to the national media, is clearly a sociopath. Because that's what you are if you enjoy murdering people.

3. What rules? The guy followed procedure by the book: When you in a situation where you might lose a suspect, the safest option is to draw your taser and incapacitate them.

Uhm, no. What you do if someone runs, is run after them. And even if the US police rulebook says 'If they move a muscle, no more warnings, MURDER THEM!' (like it obviously does considering this case and several summary executions of unarmed suspects), even if the rulebook says that, it doesn't make it right.

A common American mistake that, to think all laws and rules are always right, and are always self-justifying.

4. "Got away"? SHE WAS RUNNING FOR A BUSY INTERSTATE!

So what? You pretend she was suicidal. There's no sign of that. She's running away from a lengty prison sentence over a small infraction. A sensible thing to do in her case, and pretty much how the game is played. If the fat obese slob of a cop had let it go, it would've taken them ten minutes to catch her at most. An hour if she hides. Everybody gets caught, or report themselves because living like a fugitive sucks.

You don't murder someone for taking a few steps.

You heard it here, folks: Two hit-and-runs and being coked up to your eyeballs are "small infractions."

I'd set about tearing about the rest of your pathetic argument apart, but the fact that you had the gall to say a woman who was coked to hell and committed/was wanted in connection with two hit-and-runs shows which side of the fence you're firmly going to Armchair Judge from.

Edit: I'm pretty damn sure, after a reread, that you're either a troll or an idiot. And while this IS the Escapist, which I honestly only have an account on so I can level my American-brand counter-snark at Yahtzee, I'm pretty damn sure that you're not an idiot.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Cop shouldn't of had to tase someone who was handcuffed, but I'm a big believer in cause and effect.

She did a crime (Maudsley was arrested for her alleged involvement in two hit-and-run crashes and driving without a license.) then after she was handcuffed she ran. If she just did what the cop told her to do she would be fine. Better yet not she shouldn't of gone out and risk other far more innocent lives.

 

[Pyro Paul]

1. Braindead =/= dead.

Braindead = dead. Everyone knows that.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/man_makes_miraculous_recovery_from_brain_death_after_accident/

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/feb/08021508

Also, legally she is not 'dead' because she is not brain dead.
She is currently diagnosed as being in a Persistant Vegatative State (PVS) which is not covered under any statues or laws to fit the classification of 'death'.

Why are you so rude? Obviously a policeman killing someone is clearly not doing his job. A policeman voicing his eager anticipation of killing more helpless people if he gets the chance, to the national media, is clearly a sociopath. Because that's what you are if you enjoy murdering people.

Except police are allowed the possiblity to respond with deadly force to a clear, present, and imminent danger to themselves or others around them. Further more, individuals whom are deemed guilty and thus sentenced to death or are imprisoned for life with out the possibility for parole are also 'killed' by police. (Falls under the jursdiction of the Department of Justice)

also.

A sociopath is a psychopath whom lacks social behavior and social moral standards. They are commonly anti-social individuals whom can not properly gauge the larger effect their individual actions hold. They don't think of any one other but them selves, and commonly are also very narrsisstic in nature.

Socio- Social. from Socius, latin for 'companion'
-path Suffers. from Pathos, latin for 'to suffer'

Uhm, no. What you do if someone runs, is run after them. And even if the US police rulebook says 'If they move a muscle, no more warnings, MURDER THEM!' (like it obviously does considering this case and several summary executions of unarmed suspects), even if the rulebook says that, it doesn't make it right.

A common American mistake that, to think all laws and rules are always right, and are always self-justifying.

Acctually no.

If some one runs off a cliff it probably isn't the best idea to follow them.

The police have to assess the situation, use their judgement, and choose the best course of action for the situation at hand. That is because they have to not only think about the suspect and themselves, but also innocent bystanders.

As such, Running towards a busy highway full of cars travelling in excess of 60 miles per hour with the intent to try and run across to lose said police is an example of a clear and present danger to themselves and others. The usage of a higher degree of force (less-then-lethal) is deemed proper in order to incapacitate and/or stop the individual before they can place themselves in a harmful situation.

So what? You pretend she was suicidal. There's no sign of that. She's running away from a lengty prison sentence over a small infraction. A sensible thing to do in her case, and pretty much how the game is played. If the fat obese slob of a cop had let it go, it would've taken them ten minutes to catch her at most. An hour if she hides. Everybody gets caught, or report themselves because living like a fugitive sucks.

You don't murder someone for taking a few steps.

You pretend she was rational.
there is no sign of that either.

The fact that she fled from a police station and thought it a valid path to try and cross a busy highway with cars travelling in excess of 60 mile per hour shows a clear disregard for ratonal thought and the preservation of life. Exspecially considering that at this point and time, the counts of 'hit and run' where mearly accusations and she was to be transported to a larger facility which could then properly process her and present her to a judge to see weither or not these accusations where true or false.

This is supported by her tox report which denotes high amounts of Cocaine in her system.

Accute after effects of cocaine usage includes parinoia, delusions, and halucinations. Considering she stayed in said police substation for nearly 40 minutes before she decided to flee out the back door supports the idea that she was 'crashing' from her cocaine high.

If the cop had 'let it go' she probably would of ran through the highway and caused multipule car wrecks as drivers abruptly try and avoid hitting this woman, in turn losing control of their cars.

Taser one girl that is running away with the possibility she might harm her self...
or let her go with the possibility of her causing a multi-car pile up and the possibility countless injuries and deaths.

 

[Wushu Panda]

Source: http://patdollard.com/2012/02/dashcam-video-florida-highway-patrolman-tases-girl-causing-her-to-now-be-brain-dead/
She was running from the police, got tasered in the back, fell and slammed her head into the pavement, and is in the hospital suffering from brain injuries

the article you linked said she looses consciousness on the video 2mins after being tasered. the video is only 47secs long, where the heel is the video that actually shows this?

im stuck between. lazy cop, or shitface involved with hit and runs.

 

[GoaThief]

Honestly... I would rather go to Mexico than say... America. I would feel a lot safer in Mexico.

Wake up ye myopic defenders of the law.

 

[Tanner The Monotone]

well on the bright side we know no one will ever have to worry about her committing a hit and run again less her mom gets drunk while pushing the wheelchair...

.......that's horrible. She's a vegetable, she won't be pushed in a wheelchair!

 

[Tanner The Monotone]

well on the bright side we know no one will ever have to worry about her committing a hit and run again less her mom gets drunk while pushing the wheelchair...

.......that's horrible. She's a vegetable, she won't be pushed in a wheelchair!

You know what, I actually feel bad about this comment.

 

[senordesol]

It's truly interesting how often the word 'murder' is thrown around for something that was clearly an accident. The cop made a bad call, yes. A bad within the execution of his duties as an officer of the law in the charge of a recklessly dangerous prisoner who was -quite literally- out of her mind. A bad call made in the mere moments between 'Holy Shit, she's running!' and 'How do I catch her?'. A bad call made with every intention of apprehending the suspect, which turned tragic by little more than the way she ended up falling. That's not murder, that's not even incompetence. That is a mistake.

However the perp made several worse calls than he did, she is the one who chose to partake in a controlled substance. And it was luck alone that the cars she ran into were either not occupied, or occupants remained uninjured.

 

[Pyro Paul]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/man_makes_miraculous_recovery_from_brain_death_after_accident/

Catholic news agency? Think again.

Braindead is dead, period. Can't go calling in the occasional freaky misdiagnosis of waking up after years as a way to get that obese officer out of a manslaughter charge.

and misusing the word 'brain dead' to describe some one in a persistant vegatative state from brain damage is not a way to get an officer that followed protocol into manslaughter charges.

Persistant Vegatative State =/= Brain dead.

She is in a Persistant Vegatative State.

your accusations of murder are baseless.

Except police are allowed the possiblity to respond with deadly force to a clear, present, and imminent danger to themselves or others around them.

Good, so we can agree that was not the case here at all, and thus killing that girl so he didn't need to take a few steps was manslaughter.

That isn't the point.

the point is to disprove your statement that 'Cops don't kill people!' when infact they do. it is proving you wrong and your statement stupid.

A sociopath is a psychopath whom lacks social behavior and social moral standards.

Openly professing to looking forward to killing a peacefull arrestee wearing handcuffs? Even if you want to contest it, looking forward to killing people is more than a little disturbing, and a clear sign that obese slob isn't fit for a job as a police officer.

1. Fleeing from a Police station is not 'Peaceful'.
2. find a doccument where he openly professes to 'killing'.
3. the desire to kill is not disturbing at all. it is acctually quiet common amongst humans which is a predominant reason why we wage war amongst our selves quiet often as a species. Modern psychology will tell us when this desire crosses the bounds of fantasy to the bounds of reality and when an individual can no longer tell the diffrence between the two is when it is a sign that an individual is 'unfit' for a specific job or service.

You pretend she was rational.
there is no sign of that either.

Person faces years and years in prison under bad to barbaric conditions, or freedom if running away because her captor is an obese slob who's unfit for duty, and runs away.

Perfectly rational. I don't see how you can question that. Little did she know she'd be killed because the fat slob who arrested her has no clue about proportionality and would rather murder someone than let them get away.

I don't agree with that sort of 'rather ten dead innocent people than one convict getting away' logic though.

Except not.

The charges leveed against her for two hit and run counts, driving with out a lisence, and Driving Under the Influence in the state of Florda racks up to about 1 year probation, commitment to a drug treatment center for no less then 6 months, and/or a 2-10,000 dollar fine and the surrendering of her drivers license.

At most, she would probably spend 1 week in jail if at all.

the assumption that she will be thrown in jail for years and years or in a maximum security prison is not only Irrational, but also baseless and border-line retarded.

Accute after effects of cocaine usage includes parinoia, delusions, and halucinations. Considering she stayed in said police substation for nearly 40 minutes before she decided to flee out the back door supports the idea that she was 'crashing' from her cocaine high.

If people go weird because they're right on coke, they do so during the high, not after it goes away. None of the footage suggests that to be the case though. And coke fiends are VERY obvious in their symptoms, you can see it coming from miles away.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC181074/

Paranoia occurs in 68% to 84% of patients using cocaine. Cocaine-induced paranoia can be transient, lasting a few hours or as long as days or weeks

Medical Science disagrees with you.
care to try again with that statement?

Oh... and obvious?

... research has shown that this cognitive domain relates primarily to the functional integrity of the prefrontal lobe. This area of the brain also regulates impulse control. The resultant effects would be poor judgment in an individual experiencing impulsivity..

Poor judgement in impulsivity.
Not very obvious when the person acts on impulse in an erratic way...

The fact that she fled from a police station and thought it a valid path to try and cross a busy highway with cars travelling in excess of 60 mile per hour shows a clear disregard for ratonal thought and the preservation of life.

Huh? What? Are we talking about the same case here? I saw a woman with her hands cuffed behind her walk into view, take maybe five steps at a slow running pace before being brutally killed by a obese slob in a police uniform.

No highways anywhere to be seen, let alone a clear intent to cross one and cause an accident.

Just a fat slob of a police officer who'd rather murder someone than run a few metres, and thus should be sacked, and charged with manslaughter.

Apparently not...

considering the woman doesn't have her hands cuffed behind her and that road in the Background that she is running towards is Florda Highway 19.

but you have some kinda fetish for the fat police officer since you won't get off that subject. And funny thing, The officer is acctually all that fat. Oup, he has a round belly and weighs in excess of 200 pounds! Fatty!

 

[cameron112497]

It seems like blahblah keeps on bringing up that cop's statement after the scene. He paints it as if the cop is saying "yah, I would totally kill that person again!" I think it is much more reasonable to assume he is trying to say "I did what I thought was right and would do it again because I still think it was the right thing to do, despite the unfortunate accident." but ofcourse the completely overblown version is much more convienient for his argument.

This is barely a discussion but more like a few people trying to disprove blahblah's attempts to demonize (fatty, slob,)the cops (because, hey, screw the police!) and glorify the woman who was injured.

A cop did what he thought was right at the time, considering he didnt have much time, and a woman got killed from a mixture of her stupidity, the cop's descision, (again, it was the best decision at the time that didnt involve picking apart every single possible way and outcome to disarm a person, I mean holy fuck people the cop doesnt have fucking wikipedia installed in his brain and the ability to freeze time) and pure bad luck.

 

[DeleteThisAcc]

to tired to kick all back at you just -
grab upper arm TO GET SHURE SHE DOESN'T LAND ON HEAD and not break her bones trying to tackle her like in american "football"(and also because wrist (grab someone by wrist while they are running and if your grip slips they land on side. Quite painfully I might add.) is unreachable - handcuffs in front)

Grab her arm and Tackle her?
Okay you reach out with your Right hand to grab her left arm then tackle her 'like an american "football" player'

First off, you are describing a Sholder Charge or Side Tackle.
It is a manuver used in Rugby(well, RFL... RFU doesn't allow shoulder tackles) and isn't acctually used all that much in American Football. American football generally promotes bumping, dump tackles, or body tackles and you don't really see Shoulder charges because they are difficult to pull off due to the padding American football players wear and the defensive linebacks usually don't have enough room to properly execute such a move.

Second, You are suggesting to Sholder Charge some one from behind?

Aside from that being very dangerious to the target, if you try and do what you just suggested you have a very high chance of snapping your own wrist in the process. Besides that, the success possibility of that is incrediably low and highly dependent on you being able to manipulate the individuals body through their arm.

Again, i will say it.

Grabbing the 'meat' of the arm is one of the stupidest locations to try and grab for in almost every single close combat method out there. Even if the individual is smaller then you the simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't inhibit the target and it acctually puts you at a disadvantage because you then become subject to their momentum which can easily send you off balance.

I have seen a 7 year old make a 43 year old man fall on his face because the 7 year old yanked away while the man grabbed his upper arm.

Having discussed this with several friends, many of which have 2-3 black belts in multipule martial arts and a friend that currently works as a guard for a Federal Prison and Ex-US Marine as well as my own personal knowledge in close combat melee. I can say with out a doubt.

Grabbing the meat of the arm to try and manipulate some one is a Stupid Idea. Any one suggesting such a tactic to try and control some one doesn't know what they are talking about.

I would not suggest such a manuver against a 30 lbs 5 year old nor a 300 pound muscle bound man.

.... You are american aren't you? If someone grabs her upper arm while running she will fall on her knees (because she is running, and not really knees, more like one knee if done correctly) then you can "incapacitate" her. Even if cops hand slips she falls on ground (whole catch and hold is just to make sure she doesn't get hurt) because of her speed.

Yep, from the US.
Where are you from?

A bruised arm, a skid knee, and harsh language... yep that will definatly stop any one in their tracks!

that's it my dear troll. Until you learn to read don't reply/quote me.

"...grab her left arm then tackle her 'like an american "football" player'"
HOW MANY MORE TIMES MUST I WRITE THAT TACKLING LIKE AN AMERICAN "FOOTBALL" PLAYER IS WORST IDEA WHEN TRYING NOT TO HURT SOMEONE. I wrote that after you grab hand you stop and pull her towards you.

"to their momentum which can easily send you off balance.

I have seen a 7 year old make a 43 year old man fall on his face because the 7 year old yanked away while the man grabbed his upper arm. "

Their momentum? Not when weight is that different. And I call BS on your 7 yo kid story. Unless 43 yo man was standing on one feet.


"Any one suggesting such a tactic to try and control some one doesn't know what they are talking about"

CONTROL? No! Only STOP. (Once again I explained that was not to "control" in my last post which you DID NOT READ / UNDERSTAND)


"A bruised arm, a skid knee, and harsh language... yep that will definatly stop any one in their tracks!" BECAUSE THAT SOMEONE WILL BE KNEELING ON GROUND WHILE YOU WILL BE STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO HIM/HER (and don't forget weight differences).


"Where are you from?" Mars. I don't want to live on earth after reading american logic.

 

[Pyro Paul]

that's it my dear troll. Until you learn to read don't reply/quote me.

Dear ill educated individual,
Please learn how to properly use english before you reply on a forum.

Because this run-on sentence:
grab upper arm TO GET SHURE SHE DOESN'T LAND ON HEAD and not break her bones trying to tackle her like in american "football"

Is not read the way you think it is read.
The way it is read is:

grab her upper arm, to make sure she doesn't land on head and not break her bones, trying to tackle her like an american "football".

Because 'and' usually connects points rather then start sentences. So the point 'not break her bones' it in quick succession to the statement 'doesn't land on head' it is deciphered as being connected to it through 'and' as represented above.

of which your standing statements in the sentence is:
Grab her upper arm trying to tackle her like an american football.
Get shure she doesn't land on her head and not break her bones.

If you wanted it to be read as how you are now implying it should of been written.

You should just grab her upper arm to make sure she doesn't land on her head. Not break her bones trying to tackle her like an american football player.

but since you didn't write it like that, that isn't the message you got across.

Now i'm not saying use proper grammer and spell check everything, because i don't personally believe that amount of effort should be put forth on a simple forum. Individuals do not talk properly in a public forum between other individuals, so why should a text forum be so diffrent?

But you should at least understand the basics of the language your using to try and at least get the correct message across. Other wise, you just look like a daft idiot.

I wrote that after you grab hand you stop and pull her towards you.

again, horrible english.

'grab hand'?

Her hands are restrained infront of her.
in order to grab her hands from that position he would have to push his arm through her lower back and out her stomach.

Of course i try and decrypt that as 'Grab her arm' or 'grab her' to which i reply.

What level of training in martial arts do you have?
what knowledge in close combat?
what fighting styles do you use?

You're making a statement which has been proven as ineffective.

You physically wouldn't be able to cuff your hand around the individuals arm. So it would be near physically impossible to 'stop' her or shift her momentum in your favor.

"to their momentum which can easily send you off balance.

I have seen a 7 year old make a 43 year old man fall on his face because the 7 year old yanked away while the man grabbed his upper arm. "

Their momentum? Not when weight is that different. And I call BS on your 7 yo kid story. Unless 43 yo man was standing on one feet.

weight does not equial momentum.

I know a 120 pound girl that can throw a 340 pound man.

Not because she picks him up and tosses him, but she uses his own momentum against him to force a movement she directs.

It is common to see in any one that knows martial arts.

and it is entirely possible for small children make their parents and other adults trip and fall because the childs impulsive and unprodictable movement shifts the parents momentum in a way they didn't forsee.

discounting it because of the weight diffrence just shows your lack of comprehension in the subject.

"Any one suggesting such a tactic to try and control some one doesn't know what they are talking about"

CONTROL? No! Only STOP. (Once again I explained that was not to "control" in my last post which you DID NOT READ / UNDERSTAND)

It is hard to read and or understand anything you're saying because it is so contrived and uses such odd punctuation usage.

that point aside.

Okay, you grab her arm and stop.
You do not have control of the situation.

She-
Twists her arm breaking your grip and escapes.
Stops, turns and kicks you in the nuts, then escapes.
twists her body outside, then sholder bashes you, snapping your wrist and knocking you over.
continues running and the potential energy of her momentum throws you off balance.

You don't have control of the situation any of the things above can occur.


I assumed you where not stupid enough to simply believe that 'Grabbing her arm and stopping' would of acctually worked... but i guess i was wrong on that count.

"A bruised arm, a skid knee, and harsh language... yep that will definatly stop any one in their tracks!" BECAUSE THAT SOMEONE WILL BE KNEELING ON GROUND WHILE YOU WILL BE STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO HIM/HER (and don't forget weight differences).

I see you can't read sacrastic remarks.

You see, By grabbing her arm and stopping the most advantagious position you would be put in is that the two of you would fall to the ground because her momentum would of pulled you down with her. Of course that is basing off the assumption that you have the grip strength equial to the bite of a bear.

You expect that in that position where she skids her knee and you probably fall face first into the pavement that she'll simply give up?

She won't fight your grip? bite your hand? pull away? Roll opposite the joint?

I don't think you understand basic human nature if you truely think she'll just stay there or that you'll be in any position to gain the upper hand in that situation.

Your statements thus far just show that you're an illeducated idealistic idiot. You don't understand basic medical science, you don't understand basic fight science, you don't even understand basic human nature.


I'll go back to my first post.

'Just grab her and stop' is an idiotic statement and simply shows how little you know.
Until you have an idea of what you're talking about might i suggest stop talking...

"Where are you from?" Mars. I don't want to live on earth after reading american logic.

American Logic...
So when the science is supported by british medical studies, the psychology is supported by german research, the fight knowledge is supported by asian and south american fight techniques that makes it 'american logic'?

It pains me to see some one so uneducated as yourself acctually having access to the internet.