Criminal Justice

Police Officer Threatens To Shoot Pregnant Woman After Her Child Took Barbie From Family Dollar Store

"There is no situation in which this behavior is ever close to acceptable," said Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego.

|

A family has filed a $10 million civil rights suit against the Phoenix Police Department (PPD), the city of Phoenix, and a local police officer following the release of viral video footage that shows the officer brandishing his gun and threatening to shoot a pregnant woman and her fiancé whose 4-year-old daughter was suspected of stealing a Barbie from the Family Dollar store.

"It was not until the parents got back into their car that they realized" their daughter had taken the doll, according to the suit.

On May 27, Iesha Harper, 24, and her fiancé Dravon Ames, 22, along with their 1- and 4-year-old daughters, were followed by police as they drove away from the Family Dollar. Upon parking at their babysitter's residence, they were approached by two officers, at least one of whom is seen with his gun drawn.

"Get your fucking hands up," the officer can be heard saying. "I'm gonna put a fucking cap right in your fucking head!"

"My hands are holding my babies," Harper replied.

"Get out of the fucking car," the officer replied. "You're gonna get shot!"

A PPD incident report written by the officer omits any mention of his brandished weapon and paints both Ames and Harper as a confrontational threat. Specifically, it alleges Harper was "verbally abusive" and that the officers feared she had a weapon. She did not.

That same report acknowledges that Ames complied with the officer's commands. But in an apparent attempt to justify the use of force, the report claims Ames was "verbally loud" in saying "that he had done nothing wrong."

Additional footage shows a different officer throwing Ames against the side of a squad car. After commanding Ames to spread his feet, the officer forcefully kicks his right leg while Ames struggles to maintain his balance. At one point, the footage shows at least five officers at the scene.

No charges were filed against any party for shoplifting. Police officers issued Ames a traffic ticket and impounded his car for driving with a suspended license.

The $10 million lawsuit claims that an officer—referred to as Meyer—"punched the father very hard in the back for no reason." Now, Ames "is limping, cannot stand straight or carry weight," the suit says, all of which have affected his "earning capacity" as a warehouse employee. It accuses the officers of committing "battery, unlawful imprisonment, false arrest, infliction of emotional distress, and violation of civil rights under the fifth and 14 amendments."

It further states that the officers were from the Central City Precinct, and that "the rules are that they should have body cameras."

"My understanding is that because that's a high crime area, they should have been wearing body cameras," Tom C. Horne, the family's attorney, tells Reason. "They did not." In 2018, the Phoenix City Council authorized the implementation of body cameras city-wide. So far, only one in five officers have been equipped with them.

After Harper exited the vehicle with her children, the suit says that an officer "grabbed the mother and baby around both of their necks" in an attempt to remove the 1-year-old child from her arms. Harper refused to do so, allegedly because the baby is too young to walk and the pavement was hot. The officer then pulled the baby by the arm, injuring her limb. The 4-year-old, Island Drake, has since been having nightmares and wetting the bed, Horne writes in the lawsuit.

"I, like many others, am sick over what I have seen in the video depicting Phoenix police interacting with a family and young children," Mayor Kate Gallego tweeted on Saturday. "There is no situation in which this behavior is ever close to acceptable."

Gallego said she will expedite the implementation of police body cameras and that all precincts will have them by August. She will also hold a "community meeting" this evening, during which residents can air concerns and discuss potential solutions. She has asked the police chief to attend.

The Barbie was returned to the Family Dollar without upset, NPR reports.

NEXT: Deficit Politics May Have Gone Away, but Debt and Deficits Are Worse Than Ever

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Gallego said she will expedite the implementation of police body cameras and that all precincts will have them by August. She will also hold a “community meeting” this evening, during which residents can air concerns and discuss potential solutions. She has asked the police chief to attend.

    Well then, no harm, no foul.

    1. The video doesn’t tell the whole story. The officer is actually a bigger asshole than what’s depicted here.

      1. No the video doesn’t tell the whole story and your conclusion is completely inappropriate. Subsequent video shows:
        1. The father shoplifting from the store.
        2. The little girl clearly had large box with doll with her when the parents escorted her out of the store.
        3. The mother taking the doll out of the box and throwing it into the trash can. She knew no one paid for it.
        4. A passenger in the car begged the driver to stop so she could be let out. She didn’t want any part of it.
        5. The driver had outstanding criminal warrants.

        Perhaps one officer acted inappropriately but in the overall situation the police were not wrong. The family is using Jarret Maupin, a known rabble rouser and acolyte of Al Sharpton, as spokesperson. He is putting forth an abbreviated version of the truth which you are falling for.

        1. This is some good perspective. It doesn’t warrant the use of force but the article definitely doesn’t give the whole story.

          1. This is a situation in which both parties are assholes. The cops used force far in excess of what was warranted in that situation, and the family are thieving-ass, race-card playing trash.

            1. This is a situation in which both parties are assholes.

              … As it is in most of these cases.

            2. No way is there any equivalency between

              a)a child shoplifting a doll
              and
              b)doing what this officer does.

              Not even close.

              1. Yeah, stealing stuff from a store should always be tolerated.

                1. As I said below,

                  You don’t think there’s any middle ground between doing nothing and going full on murderous-cop-rage?

                  1. Didn’t I say both parties were assholes? And yet here you are crying about supposed false equivalencies.

                    1. Stop being a cop apologist, Red Rocks Pigfucker.

        2. Perhaps one officer acted inappropriately

          Perhaps.

        3. Are you seriously suggesting that shoplifters – pregnant shoplifters with small children – should be approached with guns drawn and then they and their children should be abused?

          Is that how the police were not wrong ‘in the overall situation’?

          Because I disagree with that.

          1. “pregnant shoplifters with small children”

            …shouldn’t put their children at risk by committing crimes, or training those children to commit crimes.

            Just because the police conduct was wrong doesn’t change the fact that these people are criminals who are more concerned with getting free stuff than the safety of their children.

            1. Forget about those people. The police are supposedly trained professionals. It’s on them to behave like they are, whoever they are dealing with.

              1. And if they’re dealing with criminals?

                Should they be saying “Oops, sorry, you’re pregnant, please, go ahead, commit your crimes. Here’s my card. Call me after you deliver so that we can take care of this.”

                1. You don’t think there’s any middle ground between doing nothing and going full on murderous-cop-rage?

                  Are you a cop?

                2. No, but they could have tried something like, “Good afternoon, ma’am. May we please have a word with you? We’ve received an allegation that persons in this vehicle might have been involved in a shoplifting incident at the Dollar General.” Which is probably what would have happened if the people in the car had been white. Rather than, “”Get your fucking hands up! I’m gonna put a fucking cap right in your fucking head! Get out of the fucking car! You’re gonna get shot!”

                  1. Because everything everywhere is ALWAYS about race. Stop projecting so much. Cops can just simply be assholes, they don’t have to be racists.

                    1. Or, they can be racist assholes.

                  2. !!!! Exactly!

                    Professional vs authoritarian, power drunk assholes.

                3. Correct as usual – there are only two choices here, either shoot the pregnant lady or let them get away with any crime. That’s it!

                4. Azathoth,
                  Were you born retarded or did your parents smack your head until you got this way?

            2. These people being criminals has no bearing on the treatment they received.

              Or is the justification here that ‘police are mad dogs and if you act squirly around a mad dog don’t be surprised when you’re bit’?

        4. Can you provide a source for this info?

          1. The woman’s name is Iesha. That’s all the information JR needs.

          2. Ann Althouse has an entry on her blog with some of this information: https://althouse.blogspot.com/2019/06/they-put-gun-in-my-daughters-face-and.html?m=1

        5. 5. The driver had outstanding criminal warrants.

          Police officers issued Ames a traffic ticket and impounded his car for driving with a suspended license.

          That’s not what they do to drivers who have outstanding warrants.

        6. in the overall situation the police were not wrong

          They were not wrong to stop the thieves. They were very wrong in the way they stopped them.

        7. JR posted his list twice, for effect, I guess.

          1. Father not charged with shoplifting.

          2. Mother throws Barbie out which solidifies idea she did not approve of or allow Barbie to be taken. Maybe it was because it could’ve been a blonde Barbie, don’t know. Returning it would have been appropriate but not without risk.

          3. Pretty sure a 4 year old cannot be charged unless it’s with a taser after a 4 year-old escalates with resistance. Good thing the 1 year-old did not reach for their diaper.

          4. Passenger had extreme fear of police contact and wanted to jet. Self-explanatory.

          5. Unless there is a material omission of facts here, father does not appear to have been taken into custody for said outstanding warrants. And a mayor will not turn on their police force lightly. Again, self-explanatory.

        8. As mentioned, the driver had a warrant, which was for driving on a suspended license, so didn’t have insurance on his car–Anyone want to drive with uninsured people around?
          I don’t personally like cops, but the best way to keep them from sticking a gun in your face is to obey the law & pull over when you see their lights & hear their siren.

          These people know damn well they committed a crime & are simply trying to score from the city taxpayers–I’m looking forward to these folks moving away from Arizona as soon as they have been charged with their crimes

          1. Sgt. BillDesertHills,
            You’re new here. I assume you wandered over from PigFuckers.com and wanted to shit up the thread.
            Thanks for coming.

        9. Finally, a sockpuppet to stand up for the First Responders™ to whom God’s Own Party dedicated its platform. But where was JR when the Houston police went on their recent no-knock killing spree? It’s not fair that nobody praised them for killing a pet who would soon be a stray anyway for lack of living owners. And I’m sure the AZ fuzz turned in a complete and objectively truthful report quoting verbatim instructions and pistol brandishing, right?

        10. JR,
          What’s it like? Fucking a pig, I mean?

  2. A PPD incident report written by the officer omits any mention of his brandished weapon and paints both Ames and Harper as a confrontational threat.

    Gee, there’s a shock…

    1. Lucky for him lying in an official report is not a violation of anything.

  3. The officers involved should be executed. Seriously, if you think the cops care about this lawsuit, you’re an idiot. The cops don’t pay that $10,000,000, the taxpayers do.

    The only way to actually make an example of these freaks is the death penalty. I guarantee fewer cops will pull shit like this if they knew it meant a bullet to the head.

    1. seriously, what drugs are you taking right now?

      1. I’d agree with your handle that you are, in fact, an Idiot, JoeJoe

    2. So if the officers should be executed, does that mean the thieves should have their hands cut off?

      1. Executed v hands cut off?

        It’s a deal.

    3. Executed seems a bit much. An assault and battery charge seems appropriate, though.

      1. I would go with firing them and a charge of aggravated menacing.

        1. Oh, and we should also have mandatory drug testing of officers immediately after such incidents. It’s highly likely that steroids were involved.

        2. Aggravated menacing, or whatever the state law calls threatening someone with a deadly weapon, and perjury for the false report of the incident. That’s two felonies. But I’d be happy to plea bargain away the perjury and all jail time in return for a guilty plea to one count of a violent felony.

          Theat means if they ever hold a gun again, it’s a federal felony. That should make it impossible to get hired as a cop again…

      2. Executed seems a bit much.

        Seems like a great way to end up with a dearth of officers and the same rats doing the same dirty work under a different cover.

        1. a great way to end up with a dearth of officers

          What’s the down side?

          the same rats doing the same dirty work under a different cover.

          Nope. They’re cowards who would never have the balls to play tough guy without the cover of the state and their unions.

          1. What’s the down side?

            Some percentage of them are law abiding and (moral) law enforcing.

            They’re cowards who would never have the balls to play tough guy without the cover of the state and their unions.

            Are you saying that all of them are generally redeemable, morally upright, and forward thinking and they just happened to fall into a rigged profession that makes them bad or that the state and unions only collude when it comes to policing or that the only way to extort people with violence is policing?

            If it eliminated 10% of police officers nationwide tomorrow, private security contracts would swell by 10% the day after and officers security professionals would be judged by the internal policies of private security firms, to which the public would have no right to see and which are negotiated by private security unions.

            1. Are you saying that all of them are blah blah blah…?

              It’s always easy to tell what I am saying: read what I write. If you don’t see it written there, it’s not what I’m saying.

              Security contractors working for private businesses are restrained by the public relations needs of the companies they work for, and by their lack of immunity from prosecutions and lawsuits that government cops enjoy.

        2. A sudden dearth of abusive prohibition laws would more than make up for any shortage of klansmen with badges.

  4. Anyone who believes that there should be a state (an organization with the prerogative to initiate violence with impunity), has no right to complain about anything that the state ever may do to anyone.

    1. Well that’s great “all or nothing” thinking that will most definitely win the day. Good luck with your tribalism bud.

    2. So how should incidents of theft be dealt with?
      Don’t forget, you have no right to complain if your way does not work out they way you think it should.

      1. In this particular incident, the shop owner could merely ban the suspected thief from their store and enforce any bans with private security. Why would it need to be any more complex than that?

        1. But that wouldn’t destroy the lives of the suspects and their children. Keep your eye on the goal here.

    3. It is possible to have a government without allowing government agents to act with impunity. But we have get voters to realize that politicians who excuse cops from the laws the rest of us face, or appoint and confirm only former prosecutors as judges, are enemies of the Constitution and of their constituents.

  5. Before everyone jumps on the bandwagon and falls for the political situation and the politicians subsequent video shows:

    1. The father shoplifting from the store.
    2. The little girl clearly had a large box with the doll with her when the parents escorted her out of the store.
    3. The mother taking the doll out of the box and throwing it into the trash can. She knew no one paid for it.
    4. A passenger in the car begged the driver to stop so she could be let out. She didn’t want any part of it.
    5. The driver had outstanding criminal warrants.

    Perhaps one officer acted inappropriately but in the overall situation the police were not wrong. The family is using Jarret Maupin, a known rabble rouser and acolyte of Al Sharpton, as spokesperson. He is putting forth an abbreviated version of the truth which no one should fall for.

    1. Which really just shows how fucking dumb the cops can be. If they were shoplifting, then of course the police are acting appropriately in trying to arrest them. But they need to behave professionally, proportionately and appropriately. Shoplifting is not a violent crime and they had no reason to act so aggressively or threaten deadly force.

      1. Seriously. Why is swearing tolerated in any police force? These are supposed to be professionals. They’re supposed to be de-escalating any situation. They’re supposed to be working to earn the trust of the community. You don’t do any of that by yelling obscenities at people. This cop is just a thug and his supervisors are thugs for tolerating this behavior.

        1. Swearing is appropriate because all laws were written by their mothers and when you are suspected of disrespecting those laws then you are disrespecting their mothers and how can they help but take it personally.

        2. As a Latter-day Saint, I do not condone swearing.

          Having said that, I knew a Latter-day Saint who had worked as a prison guard at some point in his career. I remember him explaining that the convicts he worked with didn’t respond to commands like “Please sit down.” He had to throw in a swear word or two to get them to do anything.

          On a similar note, I remember one self defense sight explaining that you should swear when trying to get someone to stop you: it demonstrates to the uncivil that you aren’t going to be civil, either.

          As much as I don’t like swearing, I can’t help but conclude that if a certain percentage — even a small percentage — of people won’t respond if the police don’t swear, then it may be necessary for the police to swear….

    2. Do you have references for this? I see no links or citations of any kind.

      1. Links? Citations?
        This is the Reason site.

    3. Oh my god. I didn’t know all of that. The only question right now is why the cop didn’t let his trigger finger be a good Samaritan and end all of their lives.

      1. I know, right?
        They’re friends with an Al Sharpton associate? EXECUTE THEM ALL

        1. Bad behavior by cops totally justifies stealing things that don’t belong to you and leveraging a race-baiter to enable your thievery.

          1. No one is making that claim.

            1. No one’s actually making the claim that the cops’ behavior was justified, either, but everyone seems to think that’s what JR is arguing.

              One strawman is just as good as another.

              1. He literally said that the police were not wrong here.

                1. It’s wrong to apprehend thieves? I’ll remember that next time someone steals your shit.

                  1. Are you struggling with reading comprehension today? And with due process? 1. Innocent until proven guilty; the officer is arresting SUSPECTS.

                    2. No charges were filed. Which means they are no longer even SUSPECTS.

                    Idiot.

                    1. Another thief apologist.

          2. RedRocksRetard, are you sure your link to PigFuckingIdiots.com didn’t accidentally redirect you to Reason?

    4. It’s sad that you think any of that justifies the police behavior. Do you hold yourself responsible for everything everyone related to you has ever done? If not why can the cops point guns at babies – is it all those moms who use their kids as human shields to stick up gas stations?

      1. But if what JR alleges is true, that means the article did not give the whole story, regardless of the outcome.

        1. We’re all reading the same article on the same website right? If you haven’t familiarized yourself with Reason’s slant and their left leaning tendencies, that’s on you. In this particular case, I don’t see how these omissions (if true) are relevant to the outcome.

          1. I definitely am not a fan of government force but only in the sense that it isn’t checked or held accountable. Someone still needs to use force to stop thieves so acting like these people are innocent just to spite the police seems flawed to me. I would just rather the full story which I understand is difficult to come by.

            1. acting like these people are innocent

              Assuming people are innocent and treating them accordingly unless and until they pose an immediate threat or have been found guilty through due process is a foundational principle of our legal system.

              1. That might have been a poor choice of words. I mean that it seems evident that these people knew about the theft and have done similar in the past so we shouldn’t write articles like they are perfectly innocent just because we don’t like the police. Both that the adults are thieves and the police used excessive force can be true.

                1. The point is that the abusive behavior of the police was completely unjustified even if the subjects were guilty as alleged.

                  1. Yes, again, I understand that it was unjustified. But it is dishonest not to mention the actual facts of the case.

                    1. The allegation of shoplifting was mentioned.

                    2. They only mentioned that the child took the doll. Not that the parents *allegedly* knew about it.

                    3. Which is still irrelevant.

                    4. There’s a big difference

                2. How is it evident? You’re giving a lot of credence to a list produced by anonymous poster on a comments page. What evidence are you basing your conclusions on?

            2. Melvin,
              Those salty pig nuts in your mouth are affecting your judgement.

          2. Not being right leaning does not equal left leaning.

            1. Not being right leaning does not equal left leaning.

              No, it doesn’t. One can be centrist. Or pursue a ‘third way’.

              That doesn’t change the fact that Reason has left leaning tendencies.

        2. That’s a good point – but hiding the full details to make the couple in the story look better still doesn’t justify the actions of the police in this encounter.

      2. The moms use their children to shoplift and get away with it. They do this all the time. Kids under 7 can’t be prosecuted in most states. The cops should have shot them all to make an example out of them.

    5. even if your points 1 through 5 are all true. At least one or more cops involved behaved like bullies with guns and badges, because that’s what cops are. Why would you defend that? Over a fucking barbie doll?

      1. “WE MUST DEFEND THIEVES BECAUSE COPS BAD”

        1. Nobody in this thread is saying that.

        2. Who is defending thieves?

          1. You sure seem to be okay with it just because the cops were acting like assholes.

            1. Again, you sure like making assumptions of guilt without due process. Don’t care much for our constitution, do you?

              1. You sure like justifying thievery because COPS BAD. Don’t care much for property rights, do you?

                1. You are repeatedly accusing people of lacking nuance by way of a complete lack of nuance. This is a complex situation, both parties can be wrong to varying degrees. Most people here seem to understand that, even if they won’t admit it outright.

                  1. This is a complex situation, both parties can be wrong to varying degrees.

                    No shit, that’s what I said in my OP up thread.

                    1. You are special, RedRocksRetard.

    6. Are you seriously suggesting that shoplifters – pregnant shoplifters with small children – should be approached with guns drawn and then they and their children should be abused?

      Is that how the police were not wrong ‘in the overall situation’?

      Because I disagree with that.

      1. Even if everything you allege is true, and, frankly, its what I assumed – I could see the missing details in this story from a mile away – that still does not justify *any* part of the police response.

        None of that was justified.

        And no, ‘had outstanding warrant’ is not justification because there’s no way the cops could have known about those until they ran the ID.

        1. None of that was justified.

          That’s not what JR is arguing. He’s pointing out that the case is a lot more nuanced than the initial coverage indicated.

          1. And what bearing does that have on the outcome?

            1. “WE MUST DEFEND THIEVES BECAUSE COPS BAD”

              1. That’s all you got?

                1. It’s more than you’re offering.

                  1. You never put a direct question to me.

                    Are you suggesting I’m defending theft? Has anyone in this case been convicted of theft? What’s your issue? Do you feel a great need to defend the power of the state and it’s monopoly on violence?

                    1. You never put a direct question to me.

                      Why should I ask you anything?

                      Are you suggesting I’m defending theft? Has anyone in this case been convicted of theft? What’s your issue? Do you feel a great need to defend the power of the state and it’s monopoly on violence?

                      Here’s a question–what’s with the spergout?

                    2. what’s with the spergout

                      It’s a day with a “y” in it?

                  2. statist

                    1. Thief apologist.

              2. Or “We know that petty thieves exist, and they should get what they deserve. But the cops have a duty to act with restraint and use force only when absolutely necessary.”
                You don’t have to make the petty thieves look better to criticize the police.

                1. “We know that petty thieves exist, and they should get what they deserve. But the cops have a duty to act with restraint and use force only when absolutely necessary.”

                  That isn’t any different than what I argued above. Both sides are assholes here.

                  1. I know. You are right. I was just providing an alternative interpretation of how people might be thinking about this story.

                2. Restraint? We’re talking about cops, right? Why do you think they applied for the job in the first place?

                  1. Well, yeah. That’s a big part of the problem. The whole police culture is fucked.

          2. His argument is that they were thieves. Shoplifters, not a ‘mistake’.

            Cool.

            But he’s also arguing that since they were shoplifters then the police reaction was not unjustified.

            Not cool.

            There’s a difference between ‘we’re going to treat you as a potential thief in this sort of situation until prove otherwise’ and ‘we’re going to threaten to kill you even though you’ve done nothing to indicate you might even *possibly* be violent’.

        2. “And no, ‘had outstanding warrant’ is not justification because there’s no way the cops could have known about those until they ran the ID.”

          The cops didn’t arrest him for that outstanding warrant, so either it was for something even more trivial than shoplifting a barbie doll, or point 5 is wrong. That makes me wonder about the other four points…

  6. The arresting officers definitely over reacted but the suspects aren’t clean and definitely brought the heat on themselves by stealing. Of course the perps are claiming they are innocent victims of racist police but a big payout would make them whole. I have little sympathy for either side in this case.

    Video of the shop lifting……
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lihlTMv17xQ

    1. Who represents a more lasting threat to their local community, some random, petty shop lifter? Or an asshole with a gun and qualified immunity?

      1. Both of them. It’s not like you’re rushing to live in a neighborhood where the former proliferate, after all.

      2. Who represents a more lasting threat to their local community, some random, petty shop lifter?

        Way more people are killed by cars than guns. I’m gonna go with the dude driving on a suspended license and teaching his daughter to shoplift.

      3. Gosh. The real threat to the local community is the dollar store, which is clearly designed to tempt shoplifters who won’t spend a dollar, thus proliferating crime, which thereby increases the likelihood of gun-toting assholes with qualified immunity using egregious unnecessary force by way of racial profiling. Somebody is behind this dollar store conspiracy. We just need to work out who it is.

      4. Who represents a more lasting threat to their local community, some random, petty shop lifter?

        The person who preys upon their neighbors.

        Without him, we wouldn’t need cops.

        1. This time, the cops are preying upon their neighbors.

    2. Fortunately you don’t have to pick a side. It’s perfectly consistent and reasonable to say that shoplifters should be punished and cops shouldn’t behave like violent assholes and that all involved probably deserve some kind of punishment.

  7. Questions for the police fans out there:
    1) Why were NO shoplifting charges filed?
    2) If he had outstanding criminal warrants, why wasn’t he taken to jail for those?
    3) Even if they robbed the place blind, there was NO evidence to suggest they were using violence.
    4) Why is there ANY justification in pointing guns at a pregnant woman who is holding another baby when there is NO evidence to suggest she had a weapon? Fuck me one of the four basic rules of firearm safety is never point a weapon at anything you aren’t prepared to destroy.

    1. AND it is patently obvious that the police report filed afterwards was not done accurately. That is clear from the basic video that went viral. The police report is demonstrably missing a number of important facts. (Not stating his weapon was drawn??)

    2. 1) Why were NO shoplifting charges filed?
      2) If he had outstanding criminal warrants, why wasn’t he taken to jail for those?

      This is at the discretion of the merchant and would’ve arguably been effected on a minor. I can’t imagine a libertarian who would think that teaching kids to steal would be an acceptable state of affairs with regards to property rights. Guns drawn obviously shouldn’t be the answer but “Why wasn’t the proper paperwork filed?” seems like a retarded position for a libertarian to take in this case.

      3) Even if they robbed the place blind, there was NO evidence to suggest they were using violence.

      Fair. Though I’m dubious as to the results of a friendly chat about the accidentally misappropriated merchandise.

      4) Why is there ANY justification in pointing guns at a pregnant woman who is holding another baby when there is NO evidence to suggest she had a weapon? Fuck me one of the four basic rules of firearm safety is never point a weapon at anything you aren’t prepared to destroy.

      Where, in any account, does it say the gun was pointed? I know they don’t get into this with the basic rules of firearm safety, but brandished =/= pointed.

      1. Where, in any account, does it say the gun was pointed?

        The linked video of the incident clearly shows the cop pointing a gun at them.

        1. The linked video of the incident clearly shows the cop pointing a gun at them.

          Once again trapped up by the absolute garbage reporting from Reason. Even their anti-police bias can’t be relied upon to accurately describe a police officer pointing a gun at someone as “a police officer pointed a gun at someone”.

          Jesus Christ is this article garbage and Reason, in their persistent pursuit of fucking with narratives, is both consistently bad and consistently to blame. It’s amateurs and part-timers at glibertarians.com and their reporting is consistently superior.

    3. “Why wasn’t the proper paperwork filed?” is the wrong idiom or phrasing. “Why weren’t procedures followed?” is more what I meant. As a libertarian, it seems counter intuitive to insist that the guy be arrested (what are/were the outstanding warrants for?) despite not being charged for shoplifting. But this is Trump’s America, so arrest him for obstructing the investigation into the non-crime that didn’t take place based on the false evidence of the same non-crime that did take place. Why not?

    4. 4) Why is there ANY justification in pointing guns at a pregnant woman who is holding another baby when there is NO evidence to suggest she had a weapon?

      Oh, the damage a loaded diaper can do . . .

      1. But she did not OBEY. She should have dropped the baby and put her hands up.

  8. Iesha Harper, 24, and her fiancé Dravon Ames, 22, along with their 1- and 4-year-old daughters

    Honey, when you have a 4-year-old, a baby, and one on the way, and you’re still single, you don’t have a “fiancé”. You just have a boyfriend—and I do mean “boy”— and a baby daddy. He is never going to marry you. If he meant to, it would have happened a long time ago. If you can’t dump him, at least get your tubes tied.

    1. The best observation so far!

  9. Obviously there’s more to this story because it doesn’t make sense as reported. I can’t believe the cops or anybody would go crazy like that on the circumstances reported. I also can’t believe the excuses being given, because the subsequent facts don’t go there. I can’t even figure out why the doll was thrown away (and then somehow returned) but the packaging kept, or who was being kidnapped.

    This is one of those plots that could seemingly only be solved by the doll’s having been thought to have contained nuclear secrets.

    1. I can’t believe the cops…would go crazy like that on the circumstances reported.

      You’re naïve about police behavior, then.

      1. Not to exculpate the officers of course, but it wouldn’t be the first time Reason has skipped over the fact that somebody called the police to report a black kid with nuclear secrets was being kidnapped in order to craft a narrative.

  10. “There is no situation in which this behavior is ever close to acceptable.”

    And yet it will ultimately be accepted.

    1. Yes. The taxpayers might be on the hook for a settlement, but there will be no consequences for the officers.

  11. Arizona in the news!

  12. What?
    The cop didn’t shoot the pregnant woman?
    What kind of cops do they have in Arizona?
    Don’t they realize the value of a doll these days and how hard it is to acquire one?
    What’s this world coming to?

    1. Don’t worry, last year cops killed twice as many people as the year before. The police chief was Very Concerned. They paid a bunch for a report, which found that everything was on the up and up, and that was the end of that. Why they didn’t kill this particular person we may never know. Maybe the gun jammed and the situation mellowed before it had a chance to escalate. Maybe he cop got distracted. Could be anything really.

    2. And weren’t there any dogs around?

  13. 1. Steal Underwear
    2. ? *
    3. Profits

    * ? = File multi-million dollar lawsuit.

  14. Mothers have children shoplift for them because they know the kids can’t be prosecuted. The cops should have shot them all. Then there wouldn’t be any explaining to the press. They thought they saw a gun. End of story.

    1. Please get in your time machine and go back to feudal Japan.

  15. The only question presented to the mayor is whether the officer has been fired — permanently.

  16. “This behavior” that the mayor finds unacceptable is exactly the kind that drug suspects and their families are subjected to every single day in this country. I wonder, is the mayor prepared to end violent drug raids in Phoenix? Or when she says “this behavior” is she only referring to being careless enough to be caught on camera?

    1. If the mayor proposed real police reform that would be effective at reducing their violent and abusive behavior, there is not a chance in hell that she would be re-elected.

      1. Police are corrupt and violent by nature, you can’t reform that.

        1. Yes you can. End qualified immunity and watch what happens when police officers are held to the same standards as the rest of us.

  17. Didn’t watch, but I bet if I did it would follow the form these almost always do:

    The people were being idiot shitheads, and then the cops went too far.

    Even when the cops get out of line, which in half of these things that get reported they’re actually acting reasonably against ass hats who have it coming… But even when they do go too far, it’s almost always because the people were being assholes to begin with. Which is to say the cops should have probably been harsh-ish back, but not as harsh as they often are.

    I am a believer in fair and proportional smack downs of shitheads. Cops shouldn’t be shooting people or breaking their limbs for lipping off, but neither should people be getting in their faces screaming etc (as often happens) and the cop is supposed to suck them off.

    It should be proportional on both sides.

  18. #FucktheCops
    #DisarmPolice

  19. […] 4 year old daughter took a Barbie doll from a dollar store.  You can read about it here –  Police Officer Threatens To Shoot Pregnant Woman After Her Child Took Barbie From Family Dollar Stor…. The event did not receive wide spread attention until  6/17 when the Phoenix Mayor and Police […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.