Deputy forces pregnant inmate down

Hey Sheriff, is a double standard at play here? Refresh us on what happened in the case of Deputy King (who was fired) in 2010 and how it differs from this case (except for the brutality dealt this inmate by being held down by multiple jailers and the cruelty of being bound to a chair and having some semi-suffocating contraption placed over her head).

No I haven't been a sheriff or officer- that doesn't make my assertions wrong or the sheriff's assertions correct. Excessive is specifically defined as: More than is necessary, normal, or desirable. Regardless of my career or lack of in criminal justice it doesn't make it suddenly legal to use excessive force, and persons who are charged with enforcing the law should be even more expected to follow the laws as they are trusted PUBLIC officials. Complying with the officers orders, or refusing to did not warrant the force that was used that could have potentially had severe consequences health wise for both the pregnant inmate and her fetus. This was a severe use of physical force that could cause harm used with a inmate who was not physically aggressive or threatening in any way. They could have subdued her, even with physical means, without being excessive and in a way that would have been less likely to harm her or her fetus. Instead it's clear from both the video and the sheriff's attitude that they don't care about whether it was excessive or could have hurt the inmate, the point was to assert power, fear, and dominance. Heather your assertion that I don't get an opinion because you don't believe I have experience in law enforcement is the stupidest thing I've read today. Following your nonsensical vein of thought no one who has actually been a politician should have a right to vote for any person looking to get elected to government office- because they've never been in politics and don't understand the day to day operations. Also if a politician or other elected employee (like a Sheriff) commits ethics violations, doesn't uphold their oaths of office, or violates the law no one but other politicians can hold them accountable. WTF? The sheriff and deputy's are PUBLIC officials who are paid with TAXES and therefore are subject to answering to the citizens of their districts if they don't do their jobs or act illegally then they can be fired or not re-elected.

Since there is no audio, it's impossible to know what "refusing to cooperate" means. What is clear is that the rather large jailor shoving the rather petite pregnant inmate against a concrete wall, then grabbing her around the neck and slamming her onto a concrete bench. All of this occurred without the inmate forcing any contact. It looked a little excessive to me, just saying. Especially, since I understand that a deputy was fired in 2010 for a similar incident with a pregnant woman when she actually initiated contact. IT MAKES ONE GO - hmmm?

Treefrog52881: What career do you have? I bet it safe to say you have never been a sheriff, deputy or officer of any kind. That being said, you don't know what they go through in their day to day operations. If she would have complied with the officers orders there would never have been a problem. Bad bad cop - yeah right.

Oh, I'm not done. Further Arkansas has already faced censure itself from the court in the issue of "cruel and unusual punishment" inside it's prisons. Jackson v. Bishop (1968) which specifically addressed and abolished corporal punishment in the prison system and outlined guides for how the eight amendment applies to prison inmates to prevent inmate abuse. The 2nd section of the 14th Amendment specifically states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." DUE process includes conviction of a CRIME, not charging, not alleged, not probable but actual conviction and this inmate has not been convicted, merely charged. The 5th Amendment states "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." I'm pretty sure that knocking around a pregnant woman would probably fall under infringing on her liberty without the due process of the law. Your behavior screams "Narcissistic sociopath" who likes having power and control over persons who are powerless using any force you deem acceptable with no actual regard for the law, justice or order and screams that you are a liability to the citizens you are supposed to be serving. It's extremely embarrassing that the only way you and your officers are able to maintain "order" is by manhandling inmates, especially pregnant ones and that you justify doing so in a way that could be potentially dangerous because you feel excessive force is acceptable (despite all the rulings and case law to the contrary where it has been condemned again and again by the courts). Vote this idiot out before our pockets take a hit from law suits, if he can't understand or follow the law he sure as hell shouldn't be holding a public office where he's in charge of enforcing it.

Someone should help the Sheriff with his inability to understand the law, since he's supposed to be the one enforcing it and all. Being placed under arrest or in the attention center does not mean that someone is "guilty" of anything. It means they are CHARGED with a crime, but under the law and court system have a right to presumed innocence until the time that guilt is determined by either a plea of guilty, or a conviction of the alleged crime by the judge or a jury of their peers. So his assertion that his inmates are not in there because they were "singing loud in church" has no merit, it does not matter why, it doesn't make them guilty or deserving of abuse. If he hurts this inmate or her fetus during her stay it's taxpayers who will pay the price if she files suit. Also maybe he's too stupid to understand the EXCESSIVE part in EXCESSIVE force, but essentially he's admitting to getting excessive for minor infractions because he feels he has a right to do that when persons are inside his "house." Sheriff Dum Dum, it might be time for you to actually read that Constitution and the Bill of Rights within, you know the one you're supposed to be acting under? It's fairly clear your understanding of it and how it applies to you as a person who is supposed to enforce the law and act to serve and protect the public. Pay especially close attention to the 4th, 8th, and 14th amendments (that directly address due process rights, In Delaware v. Prouse 440 U.S. 648 (1979) the United States Supreme Court held that "Police may not stop motorists without any probable cause to suspect crime or illegal activity, to check their driver's license and auto registration." Furman v. Georgia (1972) which expands the definitions of cruel and unusual punishment addressed in the fourth amendment one of which is "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary" and a "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."

Duke, go back to your trailer and hit the meth pipe some more. Grammar and spelling are not for you

Well I reckon yall folk smarter than we's is.no schooling for us down here in this good ole state of ark can saw.somebody had to help ma and pa bring the hogs in. Hillbilly/trailortrash language yehaww!!!

Mann dango Mega Low Mart, mano dango went boom man. shooooooo.

duke; I'm sure they did not know you were an elderly disabled person. We get plenty on here that can't spell, haven't a clue as to what proper grammar is, and we get our share of ebonics users also. Most I imagine are just uneducated and ignorant; unlike the elderly and disabled. Sorry you had to go through that. God Bless you.