Live blog, videos: Portland police su...

Live blog, videos: Portland police suspend officer who shot girl, 12, with bean bag

There are 34 comments on the The Oregonian story from Nov 21, 2009, titled Live blog, videos: Portland police suspend officer who shot girl, 12, with bean bag. In it, The Oregonian reports that:

Officer Humphreys has been placed on administrative leave and I have directed the Internal Affairs Division to conduct an immediate and full investigation into whether the use of force was justified under the totality of circumstances and whether the application of the beanbag at close range was consistent with the Bureau's training," 4:16 p.m.: ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Oregonian.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
johanson

Salem, OR

#23 Dec 14, 2009
Librahoppa wrote:
<quoted text>
You poor bastard, you just omitted everything I wrote and made up your own interpretation about what you think I said! lol
That's fantastic. I love it. I can always get a good laugh from topix regular's.
"Using excessive force against a kid who is not mentally developed enough to understand her actions in it's entirety is not a good sound reason to use excessive force."

Sorry, you can't deny it; it is a direct quote from you in post #10. This just illustrates that while you claim to have logic on your side, your statements prove that you really are having trouble grasping the very tenants of logical argument! Your professor will be sorely disappointed.
Jeff O

Salem, OR

#26 Dec 15, 2009
Librahoppa wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with your logic is that they had her down on the ground already. If that isn't under compliance I don't know what is! The PO bean-bagged her AFTER she was down on the ground and being held by the other PO. According to the PPD Internal Affairs Division that's why they are investigating this to begin with! How difficult can this be for you?
Your statement was that the bean bag will not "bring her around" or "do some good" which is an outright lie. The bean bag was not designed to get anything except compliance from her and to get her to stop attacking the officer. She was not in compliance with the officer and if you watch the video you would see that.

Internal Affairs is investigating because the Chief asked them to; pretty they would have anyways since a weapon was discharged.

Since: Aug 08

AOL

#27 Dec 15, 2009
johanson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Using excessive force against a kid who is not mentally developed enough to understand her actions in it's entirety is not a good sound reason to use excessive force."
Sorry, you can't deny it; it is a direct quote from you in post #10. This just illustrates that while you claim to have logic on your side, your statements prove that you really are having trouble grasping the very tenants of logical argument! Your professor will be sorely disappointed.
Once again, you have taken what I said out of context AND you refuse to read the rest of post 10 or any other post I wrote and interpret it the way it was mean't to be interpreted, no surprise. I am tired of writing the same thing to you. Children lack impulse control, so using excessive force isn't necessary, especially since BOTH PO's already had her down on the ground. Once you cuff a person, there isn't any kicking, biting and hitting. They bean-bagged her after they got her on the ground. That's called using excessive force! I am tired of you, go away.

Since: Aug 08

AOL

#28 Dec 15, 2009
Jeff O wrote:
<quoted text>
Your statement was that the bean bag will not "bring her around" or "do some good" which is an outright lie. The bean bag was not designed to get anything except compliance from her and to get her to stop attacking the officer. She was not in compliance with the officer and if you watch the video you would see that.
Internal Affairs is investigating because the Chief asked them to; pretty they would have anyways since a weapon was discharged.
Talk about reading what you want to in this article. WOW!
Come down off those drugs before posting next time. Chief Sizer opened this investigation up because she felt these two officers over-steped their use of force policy, she openly admitted that she felt they did!
Bean-bagging a 12 year old child when you already have her down on the ground is excessive force. So what I said is not an outright lie. You just don't agree with me. You could have said, "I don't agree" ya know. Whatever.
johanson

Salem, OR

#30 Dec 16, 2009
Librahoppa wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, you have taken what I said out of context AND you refuse to read the rest of post 10 or any other post I wrote and interpret it the way it was mean't to be interpreted, no surprise. I am tired of writing the same thing to you. Children lack impulse control, so using excessive force isn't necessary, especially since BOTH PO's already had her down on the ground. Once you cuff a person, there isn't any kicking, biting and hitting. They bean-bagged her after they got her on the ground. That's called using excessive force! I am tired of you, go away.
That was just one of your many illogical statements; now you make up the lie, outright lie, that both police officers had her down, when the video clearly shows her hitting the officer as he tries to control her on the ground.

Yes, she was hit with the bean bag round after she was on the ground, but she was still punching the officer and resisting arrest. Once the officer hit her with the bean bag she complied with the officers orders. Should be simple, even for you.

The last part of your post shows your immaturity; thanks for making it clear for everyone else.
Jeff O

Salem, OR

#31 Dec 16, 2009
Librahoppa wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk about reading what you want to in this article. WOW!
Come down off those drugs before posting next time. Chief Sizer opened this investigation up because she felt these two officers over-steped their use of force policy, she openly admitted that she felt they did!
Bean-bagging a 12 year old child when you already have her down on the ground is excessive force. So what I said is not an outright lie. You just don't agree with me. You could have said, "I don't agree" ya know. Whatever.
Maybe you should learn to read; I said that Chief Sizer asked for the investigation to be opened. Now you make an attack on me, but you fail to address the issue presented; you make the claim that firing the bean bag was designed to "get her to come around" or "do her some good"which isn't what the bean bag is fired for. Firing the bean bag was designed to get her to cooperate with police orders, which she did after being hit with the bean bag.

As for the drugs, how interesting a statement coming from a police hating dirt bag like yourself.

Since: Aug 08

AOL

#32 Dec 17, 2009
johanson wrote:
<quoted text>
That was just one of your many illogical statements; now you make up the lie, outright lie, that both police officers had her down, when the video clearly shows her hitting the officer as he tries to control her on the ground.
Yes, she was hit with the bean bag round after she was on the ground, but she was still punching the officer and resisting arrest. Once the officer hit her with the bean bag she complied with the officers orders. Should be simple, even for you.
The last part of your post shows your immaturity; thanks for making it clear for everyone else.
I didn't see her punching and kicking when she was being bean-bagged on the ground, don't know what it is you saw, don't care!
Point is, Both those officers had her on the ground but refused to cuff her right away and instead used excessive force. We don't agree with each other, so stop trying to convince me of your point of view. I don't buy it and you failed to back up your view's with anything that sounds reasonable to me, so be it. As far as immaturity goes, I think I have stooped to your level enough. You don't seem to get it that I don't care!

Since: Aug 08

AOL

#33 Dec 17, 2009
Jeff O wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should learn to read; I said that Chief Sizer asked for the investigation to be opened. Now you make an attack on me, but you fail to address the issue presented; you make the claim that firing the bean bag was designed to "get her to come around" or "do her some good"which isn't what the bean bag is fired for. Firing the bean bag was designed to get her to cooperate with police orders, which she did after being hit with the bean bag.
As for the drugs, how interesting a statement coming from a police hating dirt bag like yourself.
WTF???
Not only have you misread the ENTIRE article, now you keep interpreting my posts wrong. I NEVER made the above claim, YOU JUST DID AND CLAIMED I MADE IT, STFU!!!! In fact if you had read my post you would know I said the opposite. You are wanting to fight with me. You must be a dirt bag cop yourself, your logic sounds familiar!
johanson

Salem, OR

#34 Dec 17, 2009
Librahoppa wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't see her punching and kicking when she was being bean-bagged on the ground, don't know what it is you saw, don't care!
Point is, Both those officers had her on the ground but refused to cuff her right away and instead used excessive force. We don't agree with each other, so stop trying to convince me of your point of view. I don't buy it and you failed to back up your view's with anything that sounds reasonable to me, so be it. As far as immaturity goes, I think I have stooped to your level enough. You don't seem to get it that I don't care!
Ah yes, the old you can't back up your views with logic so you blame the other person! Typical of the immature mind like yourself. What I have proven over and over again is that you claim to have logic on your side, but your posts are illogical, filled with half-truths, circular logic, and slippery slope rhetoric. You obviously have an ax to grind with the Portland Police, which is your right. But you don't get a free ride here in Topix! You have exposed your yourself for all to see!
johanson

Salem, OR

#35 Dec 17, 2009
Jeff O wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should learn to read; I said that Chief Sizer asked for the investigation to be opened. Now you make an attack on me, but you fail to address the issue presented; you make the claim that firing the bean bag was designed to "get her to come around" or "do her some good"which isn't what the bean bag is fired for. Firing the bean bag was designed to get her to cooperate with police orders, which she did after being hit with the bean bag.
As for the drugs, how interesting a statement coming from a police hating dirt bag like yourself.
It won't do you any good; Librahoppa has an ax to grind with the Portland Police and is using this forum to attack. He/she/it keeps making nonsensical statements in defense of this little hoodlum who got what she asked for.

Since: Aug 08

AOL

#36 Dec 18, 2009
johanson wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yes, the old you can't back up your views with logic so you blame the other person! Typical of the immature mind like yourself. What I have proven over and over again is that you claim to have logic on your side, but your posts are illogical, filled with half-truths, circular logic, and slippery slope rhetoric. You obviously have an ax to grind with the Portland Police, which is your right. But you don't get a free ride here in Topix! You have exposed your yourself for all to see!
Whatever weirdo!

Since: Aug 08

AOL

#37 Dec 18, 2009
johanson wrote:
<quoted text>
It won't do you any good; Librahoppa has an ax to grind with the Portland Police and is using this forum to attack. He/she/it keeps making nonsensical statements in defense of this little hoodlum who got what she asked for.
I don't have any ax to grind, your just pissed off at the world or women in general when they don't agree with you and your looking for someone to take it out on. So have at it dude.
johanson

Salem, OR

#39 Dec 18, 2009
Librahoppa wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have any ax to grind, your just pissed off at the world or women in general when they don't agree with you and your looking for someone to take it out on. So have at it dude.
Now that might be one of the most illogical statements; how would I know if you were a man or woman? I would have guessed child by the content of your posts.

This claim from you, that I am pissed off at women, however, does shed a new light on why you hate these police MEN.

You and your anti-police rhetoric are getting old and boring.
Perplexed

Charlotte, NC

#40 Jan 5, 2010

Yes this girl was 12 and was 5'8 or so and weight about 160 and was swinging on the cops. So if you think this was a sweet little girl full of sugar and spice you are wrong.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gresham Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Kayla Rood Jimmy Willingham endangering minor c... (Sep '07) Feb '18 Jimmy 8
News Postcards from the past (Feb '16) Oct '17 Cindy 3
ISO kayakers visited Broken Group Islands Canada (Sep '17) Sep '17 Beachkeeper 1
Ember Graham (Jan '17) May '17 Curious Cat 2
News Latino immigrants suddenly avoiding the DMV (Aug '08) Feb '17 Trumpem 692
View Portland Mugshots (Mar '13) Jan '17 Ivan 4
Gresham traffic cops (Jan '09) Dec '16 dumbass 18

Gresham Jobs

Personal Finance

Gresham Mortgages