I dunno what this should have to do with him being a police officer. he was already fired. look at the reactions on youtube "f the police" lol, or "this is who is protecting me?" what makes them think that an officer who is FIRED is representative of those still working? It's like we see someone in authority doing something evil and condemn the entire authority; even though it's obvious that people within the authority condemn the person who did this act himself (as apparent by him being fired). Brutality should be condemned in its singular sense, it wasn't the act of a police officer but of a man; there's no actual evidence to support that he was representative of the police at all. It's just easy to do and people love to complain about the government and whatnot.
that's if the beating even happened, I don't trust news reports as they can easily misconstrue evidence, especially when they're missing large portions of it. as someone else said in the youtube comments it's possible that it was only a broken nose from flailing around. she was obviously angry and it's equally as far a stretch as to say "police brutality" as it is to say "self-inflicted injury" especially when she's already yelling, screaming, and obviously extremely angry with the officer.
it's just appealing to say that police are evil and whatnot because it's easy and we trust the news reports more than reasoned thought. notice that cool thing they do where they cut out the scene at 1:00 and say "what happens is a mystery" lol then see her saying "yeah I understand"... yet she was supposedly on the ground bleeding and had to be taken out on a stretcher after the camera resumed. I.e. NOT on the chair. IF there was beating in-between the scenes that occurred at 1:00, they would have seen it because the camera was on the entire time during that period. yet, they still claim not to have seen anything.
this does not logically follow, I just really can't see why the news reporters would cut out material here. we don't know what she's agreeing to (all we hear: "yeah I understand"), we just know that she's agreeing and therefore we're supposed to assume that she was coerced into doing so. but how can we make that assumption when we don't know what she's agreeing to?? and when the reporters CLEARLY cut material out of the video? seriously, how can you trust news reporters who are obviously trying to deceive you into doing so? I've already proven that they have done it once, but they could have easily done it, and it is likely, that they have done it in parts throughout the video.
those are just devious tactics that are done in hopes of us making assumptions. they need to quit being liars and hoping to milk money off of this and show us the entire story so we can make a reasonable decision on the truth of the situation. until then it's just a bunch of angry people getting angry and not caring about what really happened. i just can't stress this enough.
and he should have called for "female backup"?? wow! I laughed out loud here. why? Is it justifiable for a female to beat up a female but not a male to beat up a female? I don't understand this. I'm starting to doubt this police brutality even occurred to begin with, but we can't really know for sure.