When a 15-year old girl kicks shoes at a police officer, the proper response is a scoop slam. Or so thought Paul Schene, a deputy out in Seattle. Click through for the video.
Let's not even deal with the obvious problem yet. The Buzz is stupefied by this: Don't these cops know the cameras are on all the time? Sure, the Rodney King verdict opened the door to all manners of on-camera chicanery, but come on. How is this guy going to justify slamming a minor's head into a wall, body slamming her and, after his partner arrives, punching her in the head? We could maaaaaybe halfway sort of understand an extremely weak argument of "I felt threatened" if the girl maaaaaybe halfway sort kicked the shoe at him and tried to bum rush him. But she was being a petulant child who kicked a shoe at a cop, probably made some smart remark and stood there. Let's say he, in the moment, gets a mulligan for not exercising the restraint taxpayers trust him to show; let's just say, for argument's sake, he was warranted a response in kind for said petulance. Wouldn't that response be somewhere in the neighborhood of tossing the shoe back at her and slamming the cell door in her face while making some off-color remark?
This trial will be interesting. Schene is, of course, pleading not guilty, though his defense does not include the standard "hey listen, I just wanted to tap dance on a fifteen-year old shoe kicker." By the by, Schene has two in-the-line-of-duty shootings—one a fatality, both investigated and "justified." Both could very well be justified; we don't know the facts in either case, so gross speculation is unfair BUT you have to have…concerns about a guy who had little compunction about trying to throw a 15-year old girl in a figure four leglock.
Devil's Advocate time, Buzzonians: Can you present a justification defense?