Duluth Poliec officer on another power trip

[Big J]

and battery

Close

View: TOC | Full
Previous O.C.G.A. § 16-5-23.1 Next
Text Only
Return to Search Results

O.C.G.A. § 16-5-23.1 (Copy w/ Cite)
Pages: 3

O.C.G.A. § 16-5-23.1

GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2006 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.

*** Current through the 2006 Regular Session ***

TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5. CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 2. ASSAULT AND BATTERY

O.C.G.A. § 16-5-23.1 (2006)

§ 16-5-23.1. Battery


(a) A person commits the offense of battery when he or she intentionally causes substantial physical harm or visible bodily harm to another.

(b) As used in this Code section, the term "visible bodily harm" means bodily harm capable of being perceived by a person other than the victim and may include, but is not limited to, substantially blackened eyes, substantially swollen lips or other facial or body parts, or substantial bruises to body parts.

(c) Except as provided in subsections (d) through (l) of this Code section, a person who commits the offense of battery is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(d) Upon the second conviction for battery against the same victim, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten days nor more than 12 months, by a fine not to exceed $1,000.00, or both. The minimum sentence of ten days for a second offense shall not be suspended, probated, deferred, stayed, or withheld; provided, however, that it is within the authority and discretion of the sentencing judge to:

(1) Allow the sentence to be served on weekends by weekend confinement or during the nonworking hours of the defendant. A weekend shall commence and shall end in the discretion of the sentencing judge, and the nonworking hours of the defendant shall be determined in the discretion of the sentencing judge; or

(2) Suspend, probate, defer, stay, or withhold the minimum sentence where there exists clear and convincing evidence that imposition of the minimum sentence would either create an undue hardship upon the defendant or result in a failure of justice.

(e) Upon a third or subsequent conviction for battery against the same victim, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years. The minimum sentence provisions contained in subsection (d) of this Code section shall apply to sentences imposed pursuant to this subsection.

(f) If the offense of battery is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons living or formerly living in the same household, then such offense shall constitute the offense of family violence battery and shall be punished as follows:

(1) Upon a first conviction of family violence battery, the defendant shall be guilty of and punished for a misdemeanor; and

(2) Upon a second or subsequent conviction of family violence battery against the same or another victim, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years. In no event shall this subsection be applicable to reasonable corporal punishment administered by parent to child.

(g) Any person who commits the offense of battery in a public transit vehicle or station shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "public transit vehicle" has the same meaning as in subsection (c) of Code Section 16-5-20.

(h) Any person who commits the offense of battery against a female who is pregnant at the time of the offense shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(i) Any person who commits the offense of battery against a teacher or other school personnel engaged in the performance of official duties or while on school property shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both. For purposes of this Code section, "school property" shall include public school buses and public school bus stops as designated by local school boards of education.

(j) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (e) and paragraph (2) of subsection (f) of this Code section, any person who commits the offense of battery against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(k) A person who is an employee, agent, or volunteer at any facility licensed or required to be licensed under Code Section 31-7-3, relating to long-term care facilities, or Code Section 31-7-12, relating to personal care homes, or who is required to be licensed pursuant to Code Section 31-7-151 or 31-7-173, relating to home health care and hospices, who commits the offense of battery against a person who is admitted to or receiving services from such facility, person, or entity shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

(l) Any person who commits the offense of battery against a sports official while such sports official is officiating an amateur contest or while such sports official is on or exiting the property where he or she will officiate or has completed officiating an amateur contest shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, the term "sports official" means any person who officiates, umpires, or referees an amateur contest at the collegiate, elementary or secondary school, or recreational level.

HISTORY: Code 1981, § 16-5-23.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1987, p. 1010, § 1; Ga. L. 1991, p. 971, §§ 7, 8; Ga. L. 1996, p. 449, § 1; Ga. L. 1997, p. 907, § 2; Ga. L. 1997, p. 1064, § 9; Ga. L. 1998, p. 128, § 16; Ga. L. 1999, p. 562, § 4; Ga. L. 2000, p. 16, § 1; Ga. L. 2004, p. 621, § 3.


View: TOC | Full
Previous O.C.G.A. § 16-5-23.1 Next
Text Only
Return to Search Results

O.C.G.A. § 16-5-23.1 (Copy w/ Cite)
Pages: 3


LexisNexis® About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions
Copyright © 2007 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[Big J]

^u've obviously never been maced

CS tear gas in the Army, never mace. The point being mace is approved, pulling hair like two high high school girls fighting is a bad move.

[Brick]

Yanking her out of the car, fine. Pulling her hair, wrong (and notice, he did it for about a second and let go- still wrong though). Throwing her on her stomach to cuff her, fine. Calling her a bitch, fine. She verbally refused to follow his orders numerous times and resisted when he went to pull her out of the car. If she was sober and following orders I bet she wouldn't have plopped her ass on the ground so hard. She continued to resist when he was cuffing her. I'd probably call her a bitch too after driving drunk, refusing to comply, and resisting me....and I bet you would too. Only thing I saw wrong was about a second of hair pulling.

[Brick]

CS tear gas in the Army, never mace. The point being mace is approved, pulling hair like two high high school girls fighting is a bad move.

CS cannot compare to OC. I've had both and I'll take CS any day. OC in that situation wouldn't have been a good idea, good risk for him to contaminate himself. Hands on was the way to go, minus the hair pull.

[d993s]

There is absolutely NO NEED to get that aggressive with a female.
Fucking pig. He'll get his one day; good thing it was made public who he is.

[Big J]

he clearly has his hand on her hair between 15:37 and 15:45 on the video. For the use of restraint I could see using the hair, but to attempt to drag her away from the car is wrong.

Why did the initial incident occure off camera?

[Brick]

There is absolutely NO NEED to get that aggressive with a female.

You ever fought a female that was drunk or on drugs, angry, and knew she was going to jail? I've seen more force than that used- very justifiably, you'd be surprised what females are capable of.

[d993s]

he clearly has his hand on her hair between 15:37 and 15:45 on the video. For the use of restraint I could see using the hair, but to attempt to drag her away from the car is wrong.

Why did the initial incident occure off camera?

Because the fucking pig probably told her to drive off so he'll have ample reason to get her for DUI. Typical entrapment.

[Brick]

he clearly has his hand on her hair between 15:37 and 15:45 on the video. For the use of restraint I could see using the hair, but to attempt to drag her away from the car is wrong.

Why did the initial incident occure off camera?

I see one good tug between 35-40. The number of seconds is debatable. Either way, it was wrong to do no matter how much it was.

[d993s]

You ever fought a female that was drunk or on drugs, angry, and knew she was going to jail? I've seen more force than that used- very justifiably, you'd be surprised what females are capable of.

Sure, I see your point, but it's obvious this was NOT the case here.

[Brick]

Sure, I see your point, but it's obvious this was NOT the case here.

See my post above about the force used. Only thing he did wrong was pull some hair.

[d993s]

See my post above about the force used. Only thing he did wrong was pull some hair.

Yeah, I saw your post.
And the only thing the cop did wrong was become a cop for the wrong reasons. Another pussy that was picked on growing up now hiding behind a badge.

[Big J]

I worked in an ER with two classic "rubber" rooms, we were the initial reciving facility for one of the largest mental health facilitys in the Metro area. I've been "hands on" with many people in the ER. That in that video was not justified, hair pulling is never justified aganist an unarmed, unskilled, woman.

[d993s]

That pig should be punished by a female with a swift kick of her 5" stiletto to his fucking temple. Maybe that will teach him.

[quickdodge®]

had it been a black woman and he had called her a ****** bitch would it have been diffrent.

I was wondering how long it would be before this goddamn shit was brought in. Later, QD.

[Big J]

I was wondering how long it would be before this goddamn shit was brought in. Later, QD.

I didn't bring it up.

[Brick]

Yeah, I saw your post.
And the only thing the cop did wrong was become a cop for the wrong reasons. Another pussy that was picked on growing up now hiding behind a badge.

You know this how? Quit assuming shit.

I worked in an ER with two classic "rubber" rooms, we were the initial reciving facility for one of the largest mental health facilitys in the Metro area. I've been "hands on" with many people in the ER. That in that video was not justified, hair pulling is never justified aganist an unarmed, unskilled, woman.

I never said hair pulling was justified. No one ever said the woman was unarmed or unskilled. Who knows what she could've had or what skills she has? We sure as hell don't, neither did the Officer at the time.

[quickdodge®]

If the keys are in the ignition and she is in the driver seat drunk = DUI... wether the car moves or not, whick it did.

That's 100% correct. Later, QD.

[quickdodge®]

Consider the possibility that the woman was def, again hypothetical, but valid for this argument.

LOLOL!!!! I'm going to assume you were serious with this comment because I did not see it followed by the three lettered initials...L O L. Please tell me where even you see this is the joke of thread. Later, QD.

[Big J]

You know this how? Quit assuming shit.



I never said hair pulling was justified. No one ever said the woman was unarmed or unskilled. Who knows what she could've had or what skills she has? We sure as hell don't, neither did the Officer at the time.

at what point should he have made that realization and responded in a more appropriate mannor? He sure came to a lot of other snap decisions.

[Big J]

I'm bored

[Brick]

at what point should he have made that realization and responded in a more appropriate mannor? He sure came to a lot of other snap decisions.

You never know about the fighting skills someone has until they use them. You be extremely cautious and expect the worst out of everyone. He could make the realization that she had no weapons after the female officer arrived to search her, after she was handcuffed.

[Big J]

She looked really dangerous to me......... and her fighting skills were off the chain

[Big J]

good thing he neturalized them with a shaolin hair pull

[d993s]

You know this how? Quit assuming shit.



.

Typical dumbass cop (who should have never become a cop.......I'm betting he's under 5'8") on a power trip. This time, he's taking out his aggression on female.
Video footage is undeniable proof.
Now until you prove otherwise, I'll assume you're a fucking moron.

[Big J]

obviously his skills are lacking if he has to respond in that manor aganist an unarmed female

[Brick]

Now I understand why QD doesn't try to reason with idiots so much...

[quickdodge®]

Now I understand why QD doesn't try to reason with idiots so much...

Notice how when reasoning came into the equation, I was ignored. Lolol. Later, QD.

[d993s]

Bottom line; he was too aggressive. A typical trait of a cop on a power trip.

[Big J]

I understand both sides, both side agree that some of it was potentially excessive. It's the "worth" of the actions that is manily in dissagreement

[quickdodge®]

LOLOL!!!! I'm going to assume you were serious with this comment because I did not see it followed by the three lettered initials...L O L. Please tell me where even you see this is the joke of thread. Later, QD.

I bring this back around. Don't know if you saw it and ignored because you caught what I was saying. Later, QD.

[Big J]

I bring this back around. Don't know if you saw it and ignored because you caught what I was saying. Later, QD.

I'm bored, that was my responce.

[quickdodge®]

I'm bored, that was my responce.

In other words you completely were lost on the point that I clearly made and I took any all alleged validity out of that comment. Later, QD.

[Julio]

I didn't get him saying that at all. I see him saying don't get yourself in a predicament where the potential for this to happen will. If the lady had any sense, she wouldn't have been DUI in the first place. Same with anyone else that's out doing dumbass shit and get caught. If they were living a better life, they wouldn't be in the position to be approached by police. I'm not denouncing what the officer did, as he was excessive, but she would never had had this event had she not been DUI.

I don't know where you pulled your understanding from. Later, QD.

The point of the story is.. drunk or not, this happens all the time.

How would you feel if it was someone sober? Yes she was drunk... But, Im glad the video is out there for the public to see on how some cops act.


Her being drunk like that does not justify him using all the force. And yes, I know you agree that he used to much forced... But I think some of us are putting to much into the fact that she was drunk.. Yes, she was wrong..

But he abused his authority.

[_Christian_]

her being intoxicated does matter because an officer will usually assess the risk one poses before acting. if she was clearly sober, i dont think he would have been as aggressive. but at the same time she probably wouldnt have acted like she did if she was sober.

[SicStang03]

Bottom line; he was too aggressive. A typical trait of a cop on a power trip.

He WAS NOT too aggressive. Cops have the right to use ANY MEANS NECCESARY when someone is resisting. Male or female, hair pulling is legit in these situations.

What ever happened to women wanting to be treated as equals??? Girls always bitch about how they aren't treated as equals and then something like this happens and there like... "but it's a female". I don't care. That cop was not out of line at all and his life gets ruined over some bimbo driving drunk, not to mention her stupid ass getting money out of this, I'LL BE DAMNED

[quickdodge®]

The point of the story is.. drunk or not, this happens all the time.

How would you feel if it was someone sober? Yes she was drunk... But, Im glad the video is out there for the public to see on how some cops act.


Her being drunk like that does not justify him using all the force. And yes, I know you agree that he used to much forced... But I think some of us are putting to much into the fact that she was drunk.. Yes, she was wrong..

But he abused his authority.

Don't you confuse me, too, Julio. I'm not so pro-police that I'm blind to the idiots of each force. I haven't justified this officer at all. And I have stated numerous times in this thread that there are corrupt police everywhere. Later, QD.

[OneSlow5pt0]

if u think are cops are soo bad go toanother country and come back and whine bout hair pulling..id take hair pulling any day over mace or tazer

[Julio]

if u think are cops are soo bad go toanother country and come back and whine bout hair pulling..id take hair pulling any day over mace or tazer

If I didnt pay taxes.. I would probably think like that.. But when I do pay taxes and have common sense...... thats to much force..

Lets say, that was a 60 year old lady, drunk?

What would you guys think of that situation?

There is a reason why he was fired... ... and still some of you are still saying it was ok what he did..

[Julio]

if u think are cops are soo bad go toanother country and come back and whine bout hair pulling..id take hair pulling any day over mace or tazer

And I forgot to say.. I dont know if you ever been out of the US.. if you havent...

Cops in other countries are 1000% worst. same shit everywhere.