14 Responses to “Former Cop Found Not Guilty Of Battery”

1. Mark on February 19th, 2013 10:58 am

   You know what I say? SCREW that so called “victim”!

   If a peace officer gives you an order, you follow it! If you “think” it is an illegal order, then you take them to court and sue their pants off AFTER THE FACT!

   You do not argue about “your rights” to the police. I could NEVER be a cop because the first time someone gave me lip, I would beat the heck out of them with my nightstick.

   People are always worried about those BEING ARRESTED, and they have no concern for the arresting officer. If you cannot tolerate the laws of the state you are in or our country, then MOVE! No one is forcing you to live here. Go to Mexico, or Canada.

   Point is, if anyone remotely “resists” arrest, the cops should be free to put a beating on them until the stop resisting.

   People need to learn to RESPECT the law and quit being idiots around cops. Remember that woman at Wal-Mart on black Friday? Perfect example of “keep your damn mouth shut and do what you are told”.

   Problem is, people think they are above the law, or the law does not apply to them.

   So you back-talked a cop questioning you and lost 7 teeth because of the nightstick cracking you across the mouth? Guess you’ll learn to keep your mouth shut next time!

2. 429SCJ on February 19th, 2013 4:27 am

   It appears that it would have been simple enough to sweep her legs out from under her and put her on her face, but then I was not there so I cannot say.

   She is lucky that the officer came along. If the denezins of the night that prowl that area had gotten hold of here, her ordeal could have been much worse, more drawn out, more final. I would think that at the age of 29, Ms Bonds is getting along in her years to be out getting sloshed and then driving?

   I would certainly not want the headaches of law enforcement. Good Luck.

3. mickey powell on February 18th, 2013 5:43 am

   I don’t blame him one bit. We need more like him. Just think back a few months ago when one of your Escambia Co. Fl. deputy was shot responding to a domistic call and will never be able to work again or pay taxes or the 5 police murdered a couple of years ago in a resturant one morning in the state of Washington. I wouldn’t pussy foot one minute on any situation call like he had to take care of. Blame all this on the ACLU, Judges, Lawyers, Insurance salesman, Doctors and the been in office too long Public Servents)

   Mickey Powell
   Flom aton Al.

4. David Huie Green on February 17th, 2013 4:57 pm

   This if why you should give strong consideration to a jury trial, especially if the facts are against you.

5. Henry Coe on February 17th, 2013 10:51 am

   @bagdad, That my take as well. My thinking is that he should have walked over and said , “you can sit down in your car or I can put you in hand cuffs and put you in the back of my car?”
   It shouldn’t be personal for the officer and in this instance, IMO, he was perceiving her behavior as a personal affront to his “authorit-i”‘ .

6. fred on February 17th, 2013 8:02 am

   @molino jim
   I agree that the edited video is inflammatory, because it gives the impression of repeated blows against the side of the car, and makes it look like he gave her a rather severe beating. I don’t base my opinion on that, however. It is clear from the unedited video, where he forcefully put her on the car that, to me, indicates excessive force. All of us have to remember that it is not the police officer’s role, nor within the officer’s scope of duty to met out street corner justice, or give anyone “what they deserve”. He can only use the force necessary to subdue the subject and gain compliance, which is generally a step greater than the amount of force being used to resist or combat the officer. The video gives the appearance of an angry officer punishing a non-compliant subject, rather than just gaining compliance or control. This gives law enforcement a bad reputation for being ruffians and thugs, and really is uncalled for. If she had made an aggressive move, such as trying to hit him, or continued active and energetic resistance, more force is necessary. I just don’t see that here. He was acquitted of assault, so maybe there was more evidence than we have seen. I hope so. I am all in favor of harsh tactics when necessary, but I just don’t see the basis for it in this situation.

7. bagdad on February 17th, 2013 6:58 am

   From what I saw, in the non edited version, she was standing still beside the car and he whirled her around into the car. A little too much… I think so. Now in his defense, she should have gotten back in the car like he asked her to. But I don’t think it had to go that far. Our judicial system sucks…a man gets 25 years for killing a dog while an officer gets nothing for using excessive force.

8. Willis II on February 17th, 2013 2:27 am

   Once again mislead by an edited version of the video by the evil media!

9. Mikey on February 16th, 2013 9:47 pm

   Cops have a difficult and unfair job; don’t give people what they deserve. This disrespectful, non-compliant drunk felon deserved to have her face bashed into the car, but it was completely unnecessary force. You could not pay me enough to attempt to be a cop.

10. molino jim on February 16th, 2013 5:26 pm

    @Adam- I hope I’m on the civil case also. She’ll find no “deep pockets” from me. For those who are basing their opinion on the “EDITED” copy of the clip– please look at the other clip. The “edited” would make one think that the officer pushed the woman into the side of her car several times, not true. Try this as an idea. The drunken woman was pulling away and her feet hit the curb and true she hit the side of the car. The P.D. in a big rush to be so PC that their knee jerk reaction was to fire the officer as soon as possible. I wonder if their internal affairs section did much of an investigation. The jury saw the evidence (or lack of it) and found the officer not guilty. If you trust every thing that the media edits and puts out, I have to feel sorry for you.

11. Adam on February 16th, 2013 3:37 pm

    Of course she had already caused a serious collision and tried to escape. The only reason she stopped was because her car died. She did not care if the people she hit was hurt or dead. The officer should be very leery of her. She had already committed a couple of felonies.

12. Henry Coe on February 16th, 2013 10:06 am

    I don’t see how the officer was not guilty. She was up on the curb when he first grabbed her. He turned her in such a way that she stepped off the curb, drunk and wearing heals, then he accuses her of trying to pull away from him when really he pushed her off the curb, then he proceeds to slam her into the car.
    In this video, full length, the curb is blurred out.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNALrpzdRUY
    In this short edited video, you can see the curb.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k1Ai9eEbio

13. Adam on February 16th, 2013 10:02 am

    I also saw the video. What I saw was a drunk woman resisting every command he gave her. When he tried to control her and pulled towards the cruiser, the drunk stumbled and fell into the car. If I get picked for the Civil suit, the only thing she will get is to pay court cost.

14. fred on February 16th, 2013 7:50 am

    Really? If it’s the same video that was on the news, and I think it was, he clearly used excessive force. I don’t see how slamming her head against the side of the car isn’t battery. Civil suit to follow, I’m sure…