[VIDEO] ~ Was this cop justified in punching this girl in the face?

[Reason]

Yes/No

YouTube - Cop Punches Teen Girl In The Face Over Jaywalking Incident (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehrr9g52zJ4)

[t0rnado]

Cops deserve to get the shit beaten out of them just for being wastes of tax money. Their mere existence is funded by theft. This cop was not justified in hitting someone who probably paid for his job.

[Reason]

Cops deserve to get the shit beaten out of them just for being wastes of tax money. Their mere existence is funded by theft. This cop was not justified in hitting someone who probably paid for his job.

How do address the girls' actions?

[jsu718]

Normally I would agree... I hate cops as much as anyone... but she took a swing at him while he was already dealing with someone that was resisting aggressively. Can't fault him for defending himself.

[Kregisen]

Cops deserve to get the shit beaten out of them just for being wastes of tax money. Their mere existence is funded by theft. This cop was not justified in hitting someone who probably paid for his job.



Not all cops are a waste of tax money. Cops are needed however many abuse their power, and the punch here may have been justified, but it was unnecessary.

A jaywalking incident should never be a big issue....something like a warning should occur, so just the fact that this whole thing came out of something so small is bad in itself.

They were fighting back so they deserved what they got, though like I said, that punch wasn't necessary.

[nate895]

This is what happens when you have stupid crimes like jaywalking that are there merely to provide revenue streams for the state. The cops become overbearing in those cases because they are taught to deal with hardened criminals, when the average traffic/small infraction offender is simply an everyday citizen just trying to go about his/her daily business a bit faster, and yet they get treated like a common criminal worthy of all contempt. The party to blame here is not the officer or the accused, for both seem justified in their own ways, but rather the invisible third party: The People's Republic of King County.

[orenbus]

Normally I would agree... I hate cops as much as anyone... but she took a swing at him while he was already dealing with someone that was resisting aggressively. Can't fault him for defending himself.

For some reason that video reminds me of this video, I think probably because some will call (what the black lady in the above video and the white guy with the video camera in the below video do) a shove others will call it a swing. In both cases though I agree it is assault.

YouTube - NC Tea Party Member Punched (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwZ5X0JMd3Q)

[t0rnado]

How do address the girls' actions?

Attempting to prevent some thug in a costume from kidnapping her.

[BlackTerrel]

Fuck no.

Also I'll be honest giving someone a ticket for jaywalking is just the cop trying to be a dick. And it wouldn't shock me if it was racially motivated. I know too many black kids who get a ticket for what is not a real crime.

[AutoDas]

Fuck no.

Also I'll be honest giving someone a ticket for jaywalking is just the cop trying to be a dick. And it wouldn't shock me if it was racially motivated. I know too many black kids who get a ticket for what is not a real crime.

Yeah, only whites can be racially motivated. Thanks BlackTerrel.

[BlackTerrel]

Yeah, only whites can be racially motivated. Thanks BlackTerrel.

Don't put words in my mouth. People of all races can be racist and most people (thankfully) are not.

Here we have a white cop who goes to MLK boulevard which is probably the black part of town and starts handing out jaywalking tickets. Racially motivated? Maybe, maybe not.

But put it this way. I have black friends and white friends. Both groups jaywalk, blacks seem to get far more tickets for this bullshit "crime" than whites. It does not mean that they are all racially motivated, but clearly some of them are. The numbers are too disproportionate for it to be a coincidence.

[Kludge]

Hard to answer. The policeman acted like policemen should when his government´s authority is threatened. The individuals acted like individuals should when government fails at producing enough repression in its citizenry. Gov´t ought to be producing war propaganda to inspire nationalism, IMO.

http://images.jellymuffin.com/images/american/images/159.gif

[Promontorium]

Punching is strangely emotionally evocative. If he had simply pushed her away, it might have been obvious that she was the aggressor and that he had no recourse. On the other hand, I've seen people proudly support police clubbing citizens with batons. Let me say, if he had batoned her, the police and any subsequent authority would find it just. There is an official and legal expectation that law enforecement may perform its job without being attacked. If the arrest is on false pretences, official recourse is available and need not be violent. It has been established long ago that law enforecement may always respond to force with a higher level of force, above physical attack would be oc spray or a baton.


Aside from this, I too find it disturbing to watch. I also want to see what happened before.


I would like to hear any ideas the anarchist has about replacing police. If you believe there should be absolutely no government, that's not really my interest. I am trying to develop a model that could effectively replace police with duties spread to other "authorities". For example, if you have a serial killer, an investigator and forensics are beneficial to no one person, but all people who fit the killer's target profile. I see no individuals rational method of catching a serial killer, it would require professionals, and although they could be privately funded, if they don't have any authority to investigate, they would never solve the crimes.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I used to think Seattle would be a cool place to live. oh well...

[noxagol]

Arresting someone over jaywalking?! Are you fucking kidding me?

[newbitech]

teenagers... this bully cop probably doesnt have any brothers growing up so he feels like taking swings at girls is ok. the report says he was arresting a guy, guess the guy was too tough for him to handle..

[jsu718]

Fuck no.

Also I'll be honest giving someone a ticket for jaywalking is just the cop trying to be a dick. And it wouldn't shock me if it was racially motivated. I know too many black kids who get a ticket for what is not a real crime.

Has nothing to do with race. My answer to this, which was yes, had to do with what I would have done in the same situation. I would absolutely take a swing at someone else that was acting that way, regardless of race. It is essentially a matter of self defense on both sides, and the way the law sits right now people don't really have a right to defend themselves against cops. As much as I hate that aspect of the law and would fight it in every way possible outside of physical violence myself, both sides here were equally at fault unless the jaywalking was real.

[newbitech]

Has nothing to do with race. My answer to this, which was yes, had to do with what I would have done in the same situation. I would absolutely take a swing at someone else that was acting that way, regardless of race. It is essentially a matter of self defense on both sides, and the way the law sits right now people don't really have a right to defend themselves against cops. As much as I hate that aspect of the law and would fight it in every way possible outside of physical violence myself, both sides here were equally at fault unless the jaywalking was real.

really? You'd be in the same situation as this jack boot? Take a swing at someone who was acting what way? Getting loud? Seems to me like the cop decided to get out at the wrong corner to harass a (man) sorry a teenager for WALKING and some others decided to voice their opinions about the ridiculousness of his "enforcement" actions. It is not self defense on the cops side because he is the one who got out of the car to approach the crowd.

The cop physically put himself in the middle of that crowd "putting his life on the line" to make sure a grown man (sorry again, a teenager and apparently now a group of teenagers) could make it safely across the street on their own. So what, now we pay crossing guards to assault people? Sounds pretty ridiculous no? Well apparently the crowd thought so, and VOICED their opinions. So instead of calling for back up or attempting to calm the situation what does he do? He further engages himself by attempting to effect an arrest on a teenage girl. He is obviously causing pain to the girl in the blue who is doing what everyone does when a cop puts you in a wrist lock and tried to relieve the pressure point of his martial arts tactic on her arm. Her friend very bravely decided to try separate the aggressor from the victim and rather than backing off, this cop decided to use escalated force to reassert himself as the man in charge by attacking yet another person.

The only good thing I can say about this cop is that at least he didn't pull his taser out an electrocute anyone. But, as many times as I have tried to have something good to say about a cop, it always seems to fail and I find some other piece of evidence provided by the cops that prove me guilty of having any hope that common sense is something that a cop takes to work with him along with his shiny badge and gun.

I find no fault in anyone who will defend themselves in this manner from cops. Sure experience teaches us to live to fight another day, and because of the effectiveness of this cop, many more will be frightened by their presence. But these are kids. Go into any crowd of kids and starting acting like a fucking prick and putting your hands on people and you'd probably get treated the same way, YELLED AT.

If you think you would have done the same thing in this situation, you might want go back and listen to the audio of this report without watching the incomplete video. These were a bunch of young kids this cop was harassing. Think through this situation for a minute before you say that you'd do the same thing, or that the cop was acting out of self-defense.

What gives you or anyone else the right to put your hands on someone who doesn't want to be touched by you or this cop? Nothing gives you that right nor the cop. Because it is not your right. This is something we all hopefully learned in grade school at the same time we were learning that cops are allowed to get away with enacting violence as a means of ensuring obedience.

Cops, you guys need to go back and relearn this lesson so the next time you won't be surprised and caught off guard when someone VERBALLY defends themselves and friends from idiot laws and then proceeds to rip you a new asshole for being the scum sucking gutter slut that you love to be.

No. The cop was never justified in putting his hands on anyone in this video or incident.

[anaconda]

I watched it four times and I think the cop had justification. I just wish the girl had hit him harder the first time. Cops offend me with their very existence. Perhaps he was being an asshole in the first place and provoked the whole episode. I would love to see a tape of the whole incident.

[Travlyr]

Arresting someone over jaywalking?! Are you fucking kidding me?

Nope, not kidding. Stupid, stupid shit. Last week a raft guide was arrested for swimming across the river. Stupid, stupid shit going on in our world.

[Krugerrand]

I'm first going to defend the jaywalking laws. They are important from a liability standpoint when a driver hits a stupid pedestrian that is not crossing properly. That said, the attempted enforcement shows the police officer has an attitude issue.

Second, the questions that comes to my mind even before considering if the punch was justified have to do with the ineptitude of this cop. He seriously lacks situational awareness. He should have been able to identify a situation that was escalating beyond of his control and taken a step back and called for support. If that meant 'jaywalkers' got away, so be it. Additionally, he punched the woman and the medical exam showed she was not injured: he needs to spend less time at Dunkin' Donuts and more time in physical conditioning.

He had one lady crawling on his back while he wrestled the other. He could have easily has he gun pulled and used against him had these been real criminals.

I'm not so concerned with the punch as with him having an attitude issue that led to trying to cite people for jaywalking. He lacked situational awareness to step back and call for backup. And, his use of force was weak.

[stone]

Dangerous job + mediocre pay + little education/training needed to enter = the lower rung of humanity being cops

This isnt rocket science people. Who do you think will be cops when the above equation exists? The smart people? The thinkers and freedom lovers?? uh NOT!!!

NOW! think about "post 9-11", when the US glorified cops for some strange reason. They know they have power and they're gonna use it to extract money from the citizenry because their "jurisdictions" demand it.

"Protect and Serve" is not even in 70% of cops vocabulary.

Not all cops are idiots. Most are. We can find video after video after video depicting uncessary cop on citizen violence. Old people, women, kids, etc. NOT THUGS mind you.
Seattle is where the cop shot the kis in the subway right?? Remember that video?

Shot the kid while he was ON THE GROUND!!!

Do yourself a favor and watch this video - http://vodpod.com/watch/2093527-the-largest-street-gang-in-america-video-by-boilingfrogs-myspace-video

[Krugerrand]

Dangerous job + mediocre pay + little education/training needed to enter = the lower rung of humanity being cops

This isnt rocket science people. Who do you think will be cops when the above equation exists? The smart people? The thinkers and freedom lovers?? uh NOT!!!

NOW! think about "post 9-11", when the US glorified cops for some strange reason. They know they have power and they're gonna use it to extract money from the citizenry because their "jurisdictions" demand it.

"Protect and Serve" is not even in 70% of cops vocabulary.

Not all cops are idiots. Most are. We can find video after video after video depicting uncessary cop on citizen violence. Old people, women, kids, etc. NOT THUGS mind you.
Seattle is where the cop shot the kis in the subway right?? Remember that video?

Shot the kid while he was ON THE GROUND!!!

Do yourself a favor and watch this video - http://vodpod.com/watch/2093527-the-largest-street-gang-in-america-video-by-boilingfrogs-myspace-video

Welcome to the forums! Cops around my parts are very well paid.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Fuck no.

Also I'll be honest giving someone a ticket for jaywalking is just the cop trying to be a dick. And it wouldn't shock me if it was racially motivated. I know too many black kids who get a ticket for what is not a real crime.

I just got a $135 ticket for not wearing my seatbelt... and Im white... race has nothing to do with it, its all about money. This situation turned bad because of it. I think the cop was indeed justified because her and her friend were getting physical. When I got my seatbelt ticket I was polite and was off in 10 minutes with no problem.

I dont agree with the seatbelt laws but I dont blame the officers either I blame the morons who make the laws. If she had a problem with the jaywalking laws then she needs to join this forum and our crew and find out ways to end the nanny state and laws like Jaywalking and seatbelt laws.

[Icymudpuppy]

I used to think Seattle would be a cool place to live. oh well...

There are places in Washington State that are cool places to live. Seattle is not one of them unless you are a full blown socialist.

[roho76]

Hard to answer. The policeman acted like policemen should when his government´s authority is threatened. The individuals acted like individuals should when government fails at producing enough repression in its citizenry. Gov´t ought to be producing war propaganda to inspire nationalism, IMO.

http://images.jellymuffin.com/images/american/images/159.gif

Why am I hearing Lee Greenwood in my head after seeing your gif? My parents belong to the VFW and he is their hero. I can't even tell you how many times I have had to hear his patriotism songs. Like listening to his songs and drinking Bud Light in a smokey club room makes you a patriot.

[Fredom101]

Of course not. She was defending her friend, this is just yet another example of police abuse. I'm glad no one was hurt.

[Fredom101]

Dangerous job + mediocre pay + little education/training needed to enter = the lower rung of humanity being cops

This isnt rocket science people. Who do you think will be cops when the above equation exists? The smart people? The thinkers and freedom lovers?? uh NOT!!!

NOW! think about "post 9-11", when the US glorified cops for some strange reason. They know they have power and they're gonna use it to extract money from the citizenry because their "jurisdictions" demand it.

"Protect and Serve" is not even in 70% of cops vocabulary.

Not all cops are idiots. Most are. We can find video after video after video depicting uncessary cop on citizen violence. Old people, women, kids, etc. NOT THUGS mind you.
Seattle is where the cop shot the kis in the subway right?? Remember that video?

Shot the kid while he was ON THE GROUND!!!

Do yourself a favor and watch this video - http://vodpod.com/watch/2093527-the-largest-street-gang-in-america-video-by-boilingfrogs-myspace-video

Most/many cops are former military who were in Iraq and now have mental disorders and are taking their aggressions out on the American public. I wish this weren't true but it is. This is why we have the highest prison population per capita in the WORLD.

BTW, that cop that shot the kid on the ground was in Oakland. I think he got "suspended with pay". Great system, eh?

[roho76]

I just got a $135 ticket for not wearing my seatbelt... and Im white... race has nothing to do with it, its all about money. This situation turned bad because of it. I think the cop was indeed justified because her and her friend were getting physical. When I got my seatbelt ticket I was polite and was off in 10 minutes with no problem.

I dont agree with the seatbelt laws but I dont blame the officers either I blame the morons who make the laws. If she had a problem with the jaywalking laws then she needs to join this forum and our crew and find out ways to end the nanny state and laws like Jaywalking and seatbelt laws.

Go pay your state sponsored tyranny bullshit seatbelt ticket and behave little cattle. If you like being a ATM for the state that is your right. Be good and maybe they won't break into your house at 3 in the morning and shoot your entire family and then try to cover it up. Shit maybe they'll just shoot you through the door from outside like they do in Detroit then send you a bill.

Jaywalking? Really? I have never in my life heard of somebody getting a ticket for this bullshit. Is this what the state has reduced themselves too for raising revenue. It stands to reason given the incentive for cops to pay their own salaries. When faced with job cuts on the force what do you do? Start handing out more tickets.

The only problem I see is that everyone was just standing there. They should have put those cops in their place. I guarantee you if they were surrounded by a mob of angry bystanders they would think twice about handing out jaywalking tickets in the future.

[John E]

Regarding the law:

1. If people don't like jaywalking laws, then go and change them but as it stands they are valid laws.

2. Like a previous poster mentioned, idiots walk out in the middle of the street and get hit by a car. Its bad enough as it is for the driver but worse if the jaywalking laws are not around.


Regarding the girls:

They could've accepted the fine and fought it in court -- chances are, the fine would have been dismissed. Instead they decided to act out violently which is not the answer.


Regarding the cop:

He could have handled the situation a little better but I can't fault him for the punch when the other girl swung first.


General opinion:

Don't let judgmental attitudes blind you to the facts of the situation.

[Roxi]

I just got a $135 ticket for not wearing my seatbelt... and Im white... race has nothing to do with it, its all about money. This situation turned bad because of it. I think the cop was indeed justified because her and her friend were getting physical. When I got my seatbelt ticket I was polite and was off in 10 minutes with no problem.

I dont agree with the seatbelt laws but I dont blame the officers either I blame the morons who make the laws. If she had a problem with the jaywalking laws then she needs to join this forum and our crew and find out ways to end the nanny state and laws like Jaywalking and seatbelt laws.

thats CRAZY!!! a seatbelt ticket here is $10 !! where are you NY?

[catdd]

My guess is someone called in a complaint and the cops were trying to break up the party.
Jaywalking is one of those nit picky tickets they can write when they want to be dicks.
She messed up when she pushed the guy - people are getting tazed and shot for less than that these days.

[fisharmor]

2. Like a previous poster mentioned, idiots walk out in the middle of the street and get hit by a car. Its bad enough as it is for the driver but worse if the jaywalking laws are not around.

No, it's not worse. You are pulling that assertion out of thin air.
This is the same mentality that is used to defend the drug war, and it's bunk.
The law can't prevent anything. All it can do is react, and it doesn't even react by compensation - it reacts with revenge.
There is no excuse for the law exacting revenge on ordinary citizens for not crossing the street properly. That is a tyrannical law. There is no defense.


They could've accepted the fine and fought it in court -- chances are, the fine would have been dismissed. Instead they decided to act out violently which is not the answer.

No, chances are not that the fine would have been dismissed.
Until you offer evidence that the court system is not in the business of enforcing law (i.e., doing the job it is explicitly charged with), we have every reason to believe that the best case scenario would be that they would have to pay fines.


Don't let judgmental attitudes blind you to the facts of the situation.

I'm not - I'm looking at facts outside of this situation, too.
General opinion: t0rnado got it right in the very first response.

[JK/SEA]

Well, it could be blowback. You know Seattle, and surrounding communities are aware of Police abuse. We have had too many incidents lately that could give credence for people lashing out at police. Cops seem to be their own worst enemy.

Cop in Everett Washington gets off for murder. Shot a drunk 7 times in the back while sitting in his Corvette.

Cop shoots and kills a home owner because he protested to loudly about road crews spraying herbicides along HIS property line near Granite Falls Washington.

4 cops killed in coffee house by an angry black man tired of police abuse in Tacoma Washington.

1 cop killed by different black man in a revenge incident over a cop who assaulted a 16 y/o black female in a holding cell.

A seattle cop under investigation for assaulting a young hispanic man being 'detained' face down on the sidewalk over a mugging. Later released when determined he was innocent, but the cop was caught on tape using racial language while stomping on the kids head.

and on and on...

yep...blowback is a bitch.

[JP2010]

I see it as justified. She assaulted a police officer who was in the middle of arresting someone.

His other option would have been to taze her. Would you prefer that?

[JP2010]

Arresting someone over jaywalking?! Are you fucking kidding me?
No. The person was going to get a ticket for jaywalking. The person was arrested for assault.

[JK/SEA]

I see it as justified. She assaulted a police officer who was in the middle of arresting someone.

His other option would have been to taze her. Would you prefer that?

In keeping with Police protocol, the girl who did NOTHING should have been shot, but it appears the cop was being nice today, and will probably get a raise and promoted for his efforts in revenue raising for the State. Good job officer...well done. A 2 for one...yes indeed.

[JP2010]

In keeping with Police protocol, the girl who did NOTHING should have been shot, but it appears the cop was being nice today, and will probably get a raise and promoted to SWAT.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[roho76]

Regarding the law:

1. If people don't like jaywalking laws, then go and change them but as it stands they are valid laws.

Let me know how this works out for you.


2. Like a previous poster mentioned, idiots walk out in the middle of the street and get hit by a car. Its bad enough as it is for the driver but worse if the jaywalking laws are not around.

So Jaywalking laws protect people from being idiots and just charging out into the street. Got it. I fail to see the invisible fence like you do but then again I'm not Wonderwoman. I'm sure you think gun control laws protect people from shooting themselves or others. Care to comment?



Regarding the girls:

They could've accepted the fine and fought it in court -- chances are, the fine would have been dismissed. Instead they decided to act out violently which is not the answer.

I can't really disagree with you here but it is highly unlikely to result in anything in favor of the girl unless she has thousands of dollars to fight the system which is unfortunate. It is my belief that this is intentional. Opinions very though.



Regarding the cop:

He could have handled the situation a little better but I can't fault him for the punch when the other girl swung first.

I don't recall her swinging and it looked as though he had other options but just wanted to show her who is boss. Again this is my Opinion.



General opinion:

Don't let judgmental attitudes blind you to the facts of the situation.

That's right just be a victim of victim-less crimes because the state needs money.

[Krugerrand]

So Jaywalking laws protect people from being idiots and just charging out into the street. Got it. I fail to see the invisible fence like you do but then again I'm not Wonderwoman. I'm sure you think gun control laws protect people from shooting themselves or others. Care to comment?

Most laws give pedestrians the right of way. If a car hits a pedestrian, the driver has serious liability issues. Jaywalking laws protect the driver - not from the the idiots charing out into the street - from the liability issues they could otherwise face for hitting the idiot that charges out into the street.

[Travlyr]

Most laws give pedestrians the right of way. If a car hits a pedestrian, the driver has serious liability issues. Jaywalking laws protect the driver - not from the the idiots charing out into the street - from the liability issues they could otherwise face for hitting the idiot that charges out into the street.

So why was the officer concerned about her jaywalking? Nobody hit her... there were no liability issues remaining... just because it's a law to protect driver's liability in the event of a mishap and must be enforced!

This is why anarchy fails. Look at the poll. 1/2 of the people like oppressive laws and want the police to enforce whatever law is on the books, even if it means bashing people in the head, shooting or tazing them or confiscating their property, and 1/2 the people want to be left alone. The 1/2 that want the continuation of the police state have no idea how to live in a free society. Anarchy fails in 2010.

[stone]

This guy is a leader and these ideas he outlines that they ARE doing in Alaska are genious and help solve these types of problems.
Stop asking for permission sheeple!!

Schaeffer Cox speech in Hamilton MT on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/9968399)

[Krugerrand]

So why was the officer concerned about her jaywalking? Nobody hit her... there were no liability issues remaining... just because it's a law to protect driver's liability in the event of a mishap and must be enforced!

This is why anarchy fails. Look at the poll. 1/2 of the people like oppressive laws and want the police to enforce whatever law is on the books, even if it means bashing people in the head, shooting or tazing them or confiscating their property, and 1/2 the people want to be left alone. The 1/2 that want the continuation of the police state have no idea how to live in a free society. Anarchy fails in 2010.


I'm not so concerned with the punch as with him having an attitude issue that led to trying to cite people for jaywalking. He lacked situational awareness to step back and call for backup. And, his use of force was weak.

I accept there is a reason for the jaywalking law - but also understand that enforcement should be a matter of good judgment.

I accept that there should be laws that drivers must stop at stop signs. I also believe that 'rolling stops' should not be prosecuted if there is no damage or possible threat of damage.

[fisharmor]

I accept there is a reason for the jaywalking law - but also understand that enforcement should be a matter of good judgment.

I accept that there should be laws that drivers must stop at stop signs. I also believe that 'rolling stops' should not be prosecuted if there is no damage or possible threat of damage.

I reject both of these, for the reason that there is a monopoly on law, and no recourse outside of the narrow confines that monopoly has placed us.

Since it is a monopoly we are completely at the whims of the enforcers. Objective right and wrong do not exist for the police - there can be no objective right and wrong, only the subjective opinion of the people on the ground. And if another subjective idea gets in their way, it gets punched in the face, tazed, and murdered.

This is supposed to promote justice?

If this cop was a private enforcer for a private road, I would be much more sympathetic. But he is not. He is one of the overlord caste, and my enemy.

[newbitech]

what gave the cop the right to put his hands on anybody in this situation? nothing.

I heard nothing about a charge of assault. The report said the girls were charged with the more serious crime of "obstruction". Oh and pile on jaywalking charges too, cause the cop led them out into the street.

Neither girl assaulted the cop in this case, what video did the people who claim this watch? The cop was the aggressor and assaulter from the get go. Not the other way around.

who thru the first punch? the cop.

[John E]

Let me know how this works out for you.


Is voilence going to resolve anything?


So Jaywalking laws protect people from being idiots and just charging out into the street. Got it. I fail to see the invisible fence like you do but then again I'm not Wonderwoman. I'm sure you think gun control laws protect people from shooting themselves or others. Care to comment?


Krugerrand pretty much summed it up for me -- its about the civil liabilities that would follow.



I can't really disagree with you here but it is highly unlikely to result in anything in favor of the girl unless she has thousands of dollars to fight the system which is unfortunate. It is my belief that this is intentional. Opinions very though.


I've been on the receiving end of more than my fair share of frivolous court cases and I know exactly how tedious the process can be. I'm not a fan by any means believe me!

I also think the ticketing is probably intentional -- just like the increase in moving voilations issued by high patrol to help pad the county coffers. I don't agree with it and I don't like it. I'm just saying that voilence isn't the right answer here.



I don't recall her swinging and it looked as though he had other options but just wanted to show her who is boss. Again this is my Opinion.


In the video, it looks like she swung at him first and after the cop hit her back, she did calm down and was placed under arrest (so far as the video shows).

Plenty of examples of cops power tripping are out there but I'm not 100% sure if this is one.

[John Taylor]

Well, it could be blowback. You know Seattle, and surrounding communities are aware of Police abuse. We have had too many incidents lately that could give credence for people lashing out at police. Cops seem to be their own worst enemy.

Cop in Everett Washington gets off for murder. Shot a drunk 7 times in the back while sitting in his Corvette.

Cop shoots and kills a home owner because he protested to loudly about road crews spraying herbicides along HIS property line near Granite Falls Washington.

4 cops killed in coffee house by an angry black man tired of police abuse in Tacoma Washington.

1 cop killed by different black man in a revenge incident over a cop who assaulted a 16 y/o black female in a holding cell.

A seattle cop under investigation for assaulting a young hispanic man being 'detained' face down on the sidewalk over a mugging. Later released when determined he was innocent, but the cop was caught on tape using racial language while stomping on the kids head.

and on and on...

yep...blowback is a bitch.

Collective guilt by association!!!! Yay JK/SEA! Why and when do you think a race war will start? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[John Taylor]

So why was the officer concerned about her jaywalking? Nobody hit her... there were no liability issues remaining... just because it's a law to protect driver's liability in the event of a mishap and must be enforced!

This is why anarchy fails. Look at the poll. 1/2 of the people like oppressive laws and want the police to enforce whatever law is on the books, even if it means bashing people in the head, shooting or tazing them or confiscating their property, and 1/2 the people want to be left alone. The 1/2 that want the continuation of the police state have no idea how to live in a free society. Anarchy fails in 2010.

I don't think the officer should have stopped these people, even though the law allows it. That being said, when an officer is by himself, with dozens of hostile people around, and two people are physically shoving and attempting to push away from him, I do think the use of force is justified. Now, I don't think this police officer should have punched her, and I don't think using that much force was necessary, but if you've ever been in that situation, alone with a group of agitated individuals, you'd know precisely why the officer used force in this instance.

[roho76]

Most laws give pedestrians the right of way. If a car hits a pedestrian, the driver has serious liability issues. Jaywalking laws protect the driver - not from the the idiots charing out into the street - from the liability issues they could otherwise face for hitting the idiot that charges out into the street.

So we need jaywalker laws to protect us from liability laws? WTF? I don't understand this logic. I must be a layman. My caveman mentality can't handle this.

[John Taylor]

So we need jaywalker laws to protect us from liability laws? WTF? I don't understand this logic. I must be a layman. My caveman mentality can't handle this.

Well the reason we have Jaywalking laws, and the reason we have to enforce them, is because driver's are generally only liable if they strike someone who is within the crosswalks of an interection or street. Jaywalking laws serve as a defense for drivers who otherwise would be open to civil suits and criminal penalties for running someone over who ambles in a drunken stupor out in front of a car, or who decides to take a nap in the middle of a street (I have seen both aforementioned cases, where innocent drivers, without any warning accidentally were faced with someone in the street who they could not avoid).

[amy31416]

He was possibly justified if you think jaywalking laws are reasonable and should be enforced. If you do, then she's guilty of assaulting the cop and his actions were "legitimate."

If the law did not exist, it's likely that neither the cop nor the girl would have been assaulted. Guess that's where I'd start if I really wanted to analyze this.

[roho76]

Is voilence going to resolve anything?



Krugerrand pretty much summed it up for me -- its about the civil liabilities that would follow.




I've been on the receiving end of more than my fair share of frivolous court cases and I know exactly how tedious the process can be. I'm not a fan by any means believe me!

I also think the ticketing is probably intentional -- just like the increase in moving voilations issued by high patrol to help pad the county coffers. I don't agree with it and I don't like it. I'm just saying that voilence isn't the right answer here.




In the video, it looks like she swung at him first and after the cop hit her back, she did calm down and was placed under arrest (so far as the video shows).

Plenty of examples of cops power tripping are out there but I'm not 100% sure if this is one.


First I'm not advocating violence I'm advocating protecting yourself from oppressors. The law is advocating violence as seen in the video. Like someone else stated it gives some moron in a costume the impression he can do what ever he wants when others disagree with him because some other moron in a suit said so.

Do I think this officers actions could be possibly detrimental to his health? Yes. One of these days these bystanders are not going to just stand there and video tape it.

Second I can't see her swing at him. Push yes. Swing no (I will admit that I am posting from my laptop and watching the videos on my iPhone because the network at the Mercedes plant I am at blocks Youtube). Does this warrant him clocking her square in the face? No. He could have handled the situation in another fashion but police are not trained to act accordingly but to take down resistors in any fashion they see fit.

Everything else you said I agree with you. It is just my belief that jaywalking laws are bullshit just like seatbelt laws. This is just a case of the mouse who keeps touching the electrode to get the cheese the only difference is a mouse can learn without a law. People=dumber than a mouse.

[TC95]

She messed up when she pushed the guy - people are getting tazed and shot for less than that these days.

That's pretty much what I was thinkin'. It's incredibly stupid to shove a cop. Wanna get shot?

[.Tom]

cops deserve to get the shit beaten out of them just for being wastes of tax money. Their mere existence is funded by theft. This cop was not justified in hitting someone who probably paid for his job.

Quoted for truth.

[John Taylor]

Everything else you said I agree with you. It is just my belief that jaywalking laws are bullshit just like seatbelt laws. This is just a case of the mouse who keeps touching the electrode to get the cheese the only difference is a mouse can learn without a law. People=dumber than a mouse.

There is a fundamental distinction between the two. Seatbelt laws serve to act as a restaint upon the individual, a "big brother" regulation for one's own good... while jaywalking laws serve to protect the DRIVERS of vehicles on the road from liability if and when they hit a jaywalker.

[Vessol]

There is a fundamental distinction between the two. Seatbelt laws serve to act as a restaint upon the individual, a "big brother" regulation for one's own good... while jaywalking laws serve to protect the DRIVERS of vehicles on the road from liability if and when they hit a jaywalker.

If someone gets hit while jaywalking, it's their own fault. I'd rather it be that way then have more BS laws.

[John E]

I reject both of these, for the reason that there is a monopoly on law, and no recourse outside of the narrow confines that monopoly has placed us.

Since it is a monopoly we are completely at the whims of the enforcers. Objective right and wrong do not exist for the police - there can be no objective right and wrong, only the subjective opinion of the people on the ground. And if another subjective idea gets in their way, it gets punched in the face, tazed, and murdered.

This is supposed to promote justice?

If this cop was a private enforcer for a private road, I would be much more sympathetic. But he is not. He is one of the overlord caste, and my enemy.

That is one of the stupidest things I've heard and its why people think the tea party is nuts.

[John Taylor]

Quoted for truth.

Individuals have the right to form voluntary associations designed to collectively exercise their individual right to self defense.

[AuH2O]

She didn't "punch" him; she shoved him. After which shove, he was several (safe) feet away from the girls and no longer grappling with the first girl. It is very likely it could have ended there. Maybe at that point he needs to approach the shover and try to arrest her for assault, but whatever the case, lunging with a punch was not necessary.

[John Taylor]

If someone gets hit while jaywalking, it's their own fault. I'd rather it be that way then have more BS laws.

That's why we HAVE jaywalking laws, to establish that the liability IS born by the jaywalker, and not by the driver on the road.

[roho76]

If someone gets hit while jaywalking, it's their own fault. I'd rather it be that way then have more BS laws.

Jesus fucking Christ. THANK YOU.

We wouldn't need jaywalking laws to protect drivers if pedestrians had no recourse for being retarded. This is nanny state bullshit.

[John Taylor]

Jesus fucking Christ. THANK YOU.

We wouldn't need jaywalking laws to protect drivers if pedestrians had no recourse for being retarded. This is nanny state bullshit.

I completely agree with you guys, but I think we're talking past one another. Jaywalking laws exist to establish liability for the pedestrian, and to prevent the driver on the road who hit the person out of the crosswalk from being liable.

[loveshiscountry]

She didn't "punch" him; she shoved him. After which shove, he was several (safe) feet away from the girls and no longer grappling with the first girl. It is very likely it could have ended there. Maybe at that point he needs to approach the shover and try to arrest her for assault, but whatever the case, lunging with a punch was not necessary.

Why would anyone, who has been shoved by an aggressive person, think the assault will stop there? I don't think many here have been in a fight, lol.

[John Taylor]

Why would anyone, who has been shoved by an aggressive person, think the assault will stop there? I don't think many here have been in a fight, lol.

Exactly. Having been in fights on Martin Luther Blvd (in another city---think extremely large rust belt city), there is little doubt that the strategic application of force, once someone physicially resists a police officer, is crucial to maintain control of the situation.

(This is not to say that this situation should have been handled in this fashion, or that this woman should have been struck).

[fisharmor]

That is one of the stupidest things I've heard and its why people think the tea party is nuts.

Interesting that you tie me in with a group I have never had anything to do with.

What about it is stupid? The total lack of objectivity in this situation?
Several people have openly stated that they want the police to make on-the-spot decisions about what laws to enforce and when.

There are two and only two consistent ways to handle this:
1) get rid of jaywalking laws
2) require every single person to carry electronic ID tags, set up scanners on the roads, and automatically ticket every single person who jaywalks every single time they do it - or come up with some other equally draconian scenario, like a cop on every corner.

Anything in between creates a situation where cops are free to determine what the law is in any given situation, and whether or not to enforce it. It makes an overlord who is free to do whatever he wants to whoever he wants to do it to, using the color of law behind inane nanny-state regulations, and if he crosses the line of decency, he gets a paid vacation for his infraction.

Debate the issue. When you stoop to name calling, you lose.

[fisharmor]

Why would anyone, who has been shoved by an aggressive person, think the assault will stop there? I don't think many here have been in a fight, lol.

Why would anyone think the cop should stop at punching her in the face?
Why not go for the tazer or the Glock?

[Krugerrand]

Interesting that you tie me in with a group I have never had anything to do with.

What about it is stupid? The total lack of objectivity in this situation?
Several people have openly stated that they want the police to make on-the-spot decisions about what laws to enforce and when.

There are two and only two consistent ways to handle this:
1) get rid of jaywalking laws
2) require every single person to carry electronic ID tags, set up scanners on the roads, and automatically ticket every single person who jaywalks every single time they do it - or come up with some other equally draconian scenario, like a cop on every corner.

Anything in between creates a situation where cops are free to determine what the law is in any given situation, and whether or not to enforce it. It makes an overlord who is free to do whatever he wants to whoever he wants to do it to, using the color of law behind inane nanny-state regulations, and if he crosses the line of decency, he gets a paid vacation for his infraction.

Debate the issue. When you stoop to name calling, you lose.

I disagree that there are only two ways to handle this.

Some laws should require a justifiable cause for enforcement. You rolled through a stop sign ... so what. You rolled through a stop sign causing another car to come to a screeching halt to avoid an accident ... justifiable cause. You rolled through a stop sign causing a pedestrian to jump out of the way ... justifiable cause. You did not use a turn signal ... so what. You did not use a turn signal which required another car that perhaps could have right turned on red after stop to wait needlessly ... justifiable cause. You jaywalked ... so what. You jaywalked which caused a car to swerve across the road and slam on the breaks ... justifiable cause.

There are some laws that should require a justifiable cause for enforcement. Because the policeman has an attitude issue is not a justifiable cause. Because a cop is on a fishing expedition for other charges is not a justifiable cause.

[lordindra3]

I live really close to where this happened. A cop just got shot over a routine stop over there. He was actually one of the few really good cops and he was shot for just checking out why someone was badly beaten. Im not saying these things are relevent to each other, but my point is that not all cops are bad and just because they are cops, doesnt mean they cant defend themselves.

Look, the thing I flippin HATE about calling this racially motivated or being called police brutality is that THERE REALLY IS RACIALLY MOTIVATED CRIMES AND THERE REALLY IS POLICE BRUTALITY so when we call people out for this little crap, then it hurts cases where it really does go on!

If you watch the ENTIRE CLIP (not just the news clip) you will see that people are yelling at the cop, trying to intimidate him and threating him and egging the girls on and the chick first took a swing at the cop, so this chick deserved it. Im sorry, I have seen REAL police brutality and REAL racially motivated stuff, but we should just move on on this case. Nothing to see here folks, the bitch deserved it.

Black Terrel- Yeah, I know jay walking is a stupid crime, but Im white and when I drove a really beat up poor car, I got my ass pulled over and searched for the stupidest reasons! Its a poor area and cops pull over poor people because crime comes from poverty in many cases. So when my THEN girl friend (now wife) was driving a Mercedes AMG and I was in a 1990 beat up civic, the cops pulled me over just for following her and I was only following her home. Plus I was arrested for getting angry at a cop for pulling me over once. Im white, so I think cops can just be assholes. It doesnt mean they are not human and dont attack WHEN BEING ATTACKED.

[MelissaWV]

The confrontation should have never happened. Jaywalking shouldn't be a crime, period. Crosswalks create a very false sense of security and people around here (college town) walk into them without even looking. Some people skate or bike through the crosswalks without a second thought. As a driver coming down the street at 30-45 mph, it's a bit hard to swerve or brake safely to avoid these surprise pedestrians. If I were to hit one, though, I would be the one at fault. Jaywalking in general has its own best punishment, which is that you shouldn't just fling yourself into the street out of fear of getting injured or killed.

I'm actually in favor of safe crossings whenever feasible. We have several of these downtown and in the campus areas. There are bridges over the street, or tunnels under them, which provide safe passage for heavy foot traffic in congested areas. I'm also greatly in favor of drivers yielding to pedestrians already crossing when they're trying to turn right, etc.. This should come from common sense on the part of everyone involved. In pedestrian vs. vehicle, the vehicle has a huge advantage. Be aware of it. Don't be dumb.

Having said all of that, once the policeman was in the situation, and once someone went to shove or punch or whatever you want to call it... at him... his reaction was the same one most of us would have if we were physically confronted that way. He responded with a similar category of force. It's not that she shoved him and he shot her. It's not that she shoved him and he tazed her. She shoved him and he shoved back.

I am incredibly curious as to why none of you are similarly angry about the male towards the end of the tape who is NOT an officer grabbing and lifting a woman out of the scene. Is it because you believe he is protecting her? I'm surprised none of you booed him for pulling the second woman (who was still pushing and shoving at the police officer) off. If this second man thought physical force was warranted in order to stop the altercation from escalating, and none of you found fault with it, could it be the problem you have with the uniform the cop is wearing that's clouding your judgment a little?

Oh, and the girl in pink? She was so traumatized that she can be seen in the back of the police car grinning at the camera at 1:37 or so. :rolleyes:

[Stary Hickory]

Well if she pushed him first.....I dunno. Looks like she had it coming. If you initiate violence expect a violent reaction. But I haven't seen anything but one little clip her pushing him and him jacking her.

Although I am not the type to make any exceptions just because she is female. You could argue that the law is stupid and the cop stopping her was only able to do so due to the threat of force, and that she merely reacted against that. I suppose that would be a way to defend her.

And really the cop did not HAVE to jack her in the face....restraining would have made more sense without a right cross to the face.

[Stary Hickory]

For some reason that video reminds me of this video, I think probably because some will call (what the black lady in the above video and the white guy with the video camera in the below video do) a shove others will call it a swing. In both cases though I agree it is assault.

YouTube - NC Tea Party Member Punched (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwZ5X0JMd3Q)

Man pretty lame, the guy with the camera did not initiate force...what a sinister way to try and compare things in an inconsistent manner. And then imply racism is a motivation.

[JK/SEA]

//

[devil21]

Arresting someone over jaywalking?! Are you fucking kidding me?

My local PD (large southern city) has also started arresting for stupid and minor stuff like jaywalking, homeless men begging for money, even speeding 15 over the speed limit. It's a revenue generator for the jurisdiction. Not only because of the fines associated but the more prisoners they have in jail, the more DoJ money they get from the state and the Feds. Remember, it's always about money. ALWAYS.

His punch was probably justified but that's only if you consider his actions leading up to that point justified. He's lucky the people didn't go feral on his ass and really give them something to video tape. Arresting blacks for jaywalking on Martin Luther King Blvd? Yeah you're an idiot cop and a Darwin Award candidate.

[Stary Hickory]

My local PD (large southern city) has also started arresting for stupid and minor stuff like jaywalking, homeless men begging for money, even speeding 15 over the speed limit. It's a revenue generator for the jurisdiction. Not only because of the fines associated but the more prisoners they have in jail, the more DoJ money they get from the state and the Feds. Remember, it's always about money. ALWAYS.

His punch was probably justified but that's only if you consider his actions leading up to that point justified. He's lucky the people didn't go feral on his ass and really give them something to video tape. Arresting blacks for jaywalking on Martin Luther King Blvd? Yeah you're an idiot cop and a Darwin Award candidate.

Yep he was justified. But the law was stupid and the girl was reacting properly against the law itself. Just she focused that anger on a police officer....which led to a nasty punch to the face. The officer was seriously about to lose control of the situation and this no doubt led to a viscous punch during a heightened state of alarm.

It would have been much better to restrain her, but I doubt it would be too possible with both of them there....the confrontation was over a dumb law.

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm actually in favor of safe crossings whenever feasible. We have several of these downtown and in the campus areas. There are bridges over the street, or tunnels under them, which provide safe passage for heavy foot traffic in congested areas.

No one has mentioned the fact that this whole incident is taking place under a pedestrian crossing bridge.

Here's how it all works:

- Wide, busy street near a school.
- Kids jay-walk.
- Kids get run-over.
- Concerned parents demand pedestrian bridge.
- It gets built.
- Concerned motorists complain that kids are still jumping out in traffic in front them and not using the pedestrian bridge.
- Police told to enforce jay-walking rules at that location.
- Teens still jay-walk.
- Teens with no respect for anything think they can verbally and physically battle the Police.


Nothing is worse than people who walk out in front of cars without looking. All it takes is a driver who is slightly distracted by something (cell phone, stereo, kids, etc) to not see the kid and pow! Who gets crucified? The driver! Maybe a punch in the mouth is better than a slam from a big-rig...

[John Taylor]

no one has mentioned the fact that this whole incident is taking place under a pedestrian crossing bridge.

Here's how it all works:

- wide, busy street near a school.
- kids jay-walk.
- kids get run-over.
- concerned parents demand pedestrian bridge.
- it gets built.
- concerned motorists complain that kids are still jumping out in traffic in front them and not using the pedestrian bridge.
- police told to enforce jay-walking rules at that location.
- teens still jay-walk.
- teens with no respect for anything think they can verbally and physically battle the police.


Nothing is worse than people who walk out in front of cars without looking. All it takes is a driver who is slightly distracted by something (cell phone, stereo, kids, etc) to not see the kid and pow! Who gets crucified? The driver! Maybe a punch in the mouth is better than a slam from a big-rig...

+1776.

[JK/SEA]

No one has mentioned the fact that this whole incident is taking place under a pedestrian crossing bridge.

Here's how it all works:

- Wide, busy street near a school.
- Kids jay-walk.
- Kids get run-over.
- Concerned parents demand pedestrian bridge.
- It gets built.
- Concerned motorists complain that kids are still jumping out in traffic in front them and not using the pedestrian bridge.
- Police told to enforce jay-walking rules at that location.
- Teens still jay-walk.
- Teens with no respect for anything think they can verbally and physically battle the Police.


Nothing is worse than people who walk out in front of cars without looking. All it takes is a driver who is slightly distracted by something (cell phone, stereo, kids, etc) to not see the kid and pow! Who gets crucified? The driver! Maybe a punch in the mouth is better than a slam from a big-rig...

BS.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/359358_bus17.html

http://en.beta.rian.ru/video/20100128/157701882.html

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100522/articles/100529829

[Brian4Liberty]

BS.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/359358_bus17.html

http://en.beta.rian.ru/video/20100128/157701882.html

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100522/articles/100529829

:confused:

[orenbus]

Man pretty lame, the guy with the camera did not initiate force...what a sinister way to try and compare things in an inconsistent manner. And then imply racism is a motivation.

Please show me where I said the guy with the camera initiated force?

Or how the implication you are saying that I am making is somehow that racism is involved?

I am merely stating that in both cases people have considered the physical actions of both the black lady and the white guy with the camera as shove others have seen it as a swing or a punch. This would be two different people looking at the same piece of video. In both cases the follow up action is a punch from their counterparts, in both cases whether you consider it a shove or a swing they should be considered assault. Not sure how you are reading more into this but whatever. :rolleyes:

YouTube - NC Tea Party Member Punched (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwZ5X0JMd3Q)

YouTube - Cop Punches Teen Girl In The Face Over Jaywalking Incident (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehrr9g52zJ4)

[devil21]

No one has mentioned the fact that this whole incident is taking place under a pedestrian crossing bridge.

Here's how it all works:

- Wide, busy street near a school.
- Kids jay-walk.
- Kids get run-over.
- Concerned parents demand pedestrian bridge.
- It gets built.
- Concerned motorists complain that kids are still jumping out in traffic in front them and not using the pedestrian bridge.
- Police told to enforce jay-walking rules at that location.
- Teens still jay-walk.
- Teens with no respect for anything think they can verbally and physically battle the Police.


Nothing is worse than people who walk out in front of cars without looking. All it takes is a driver who is slightly distracted by something (cell phone, stereo, kids, etc) to not see the kid and pow! Who gets crucified? The driver! Maybe a punch in the mouth is better than a slam from a big-rig...

Oh well that changes everything! Why didn't you tell us sooner that pedestrian footbridges mean cops have the right to punch people that don't use them?

[John Taylor]

Oh well that changes everything! Why didn't you tell us sooner that pedestrian footbridges mean cops have the right to punch people that don't use them?

He didn't say that. Try answering his assertions instead of constructing and demolishing strawmen.

The point is that jaywalking is a crime for a very specific reason, to eliminate civil and criminal liability for otherwise lawful drivers who hit jaywalkers outside of pedestrian crosswalks... These women resisted and initiated force against the police officer.

[devil21]

He didn't say that. Try answering his assertions instead of constructing and demolishing strawmen.

What question? His assertion was that jaywalking is some heinous crime requiring the action of the police state coming down on "offenders" and naturally due to committing the heinous crime, you're at fault when a cop tries to arrest you. That's nonsense. I'll thank you very much for not trying to protect me from myself.

Neither did I see any proof of any sort of pedestrian footbridge, just another assertion.



The point is that jaywalking is a crime for a very specific reason, to eliminate civil and criminal liability for otherwise lawful drivers who hit jaywalkers outside of pedestrian crosswalks... These women resisted and initiated force against the police officer.

Why is the cop ARRESTING people for jaywalking? Is that even an arrestable offense? Give a ticket, ok. Throwing someone in jail for crossing the street? Take off your jackboots and let your feet breath awhile JT.

[dmitchell]

Obviously the pig wasn't justified.

[BlackTerrel]

Has nothing to do with race. My answer to this, which was yes, had to do with what I would have done in the same situation. I would absolutely take a swing at someone else that was acting that way, regardless of race. It is essentially a matter of self defense on both sides, and the way the law sits right now people don't really have a right to defend themselves against cops. As much as I hate that aspect of the law and would fight it in every way possible outside of physical violence myself, both sides here were equally at fault unless the jaywalking was real.

Hard to say about the video itself. As far as race goes I wonder why this cop went down to MLK Boulevard just to arrest some people for Jaywalking. You could go on any crowded street in America and find ten people jaywalking so why did he choose to go to MLK?

Not saying this case in particular - because it's just one. But overall the prevalence of arresting black people for this "crime" is way higher than anyone else from my own anecdotal experience. Way higher. Too much to be a coincidence.

I am not anti-police. In fact I would be much harsher on legit criminals than we are today. Rape, murder - put those bitches down. Destruction of property, theft - put those people away for a long time.

Jaywalking, smoking weed, expired license plates - leave us the fuck alone and stop issuing out chicken shit tickets. That's why you're so despised.

[devil21]

Not saying this case in particular - because it's just one. But overall the prevalence of arresting black people for this "crime" is way higher than anyone else from my own anecdotal experience. Way higher. Too much to be a coincidence.

It's not. It gives them the excuse to search for drugs, weapons, or anything else they can proudly pose on tv with. It's just another form of profiling.

[dmitchell]

Welcome to the forums! Cops around my parts are very well paid.
They are a government established monopoly and they tend to be unionized.

[orenbus]

Jaywalking, smoking weed, expired license plates - leave us the fuck alone and stop issuing out chicken shit tickets. That's why you're so despised.

smoking weed, drinking beers, drinking beers, beers, beers....

YouTube - Jay's Rap (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-xKUU5sWS4)

[John Taylor]

What question? His assertion was that jaywalking is some heinous crime requiring the action of the police state coming down on "offenders" and naturally due to committing the heinous crime, you're at fault when a cop tries to arrest you. That's nonsense. I'll thank you very much for not trying to protect me from myself.

Neither did I see any proof of any sort of pedestrian footbridge, just another assertion..

He did not say that jaywalking was "some heinous crime", what he did suggest was that there is good reason for the existance of anti-jaywalking laws. He is right, there are.

Watch the video, there is a pedestrian footbridge directly above where this woman assaulted the police officer.



Why is the cop ARRESTING people for jaywalking? Is that even an arrestable offense? Give a ticket, ok. Throwing someone in jail for crossing the street? Take off your jackboots and let your feet breath awhile JT.

The police officer did not arrest her for jaywalking.

Jaywalking should be illegal, even if completely unenforced, for the very simple reason that it serves to eliminate liability and transfer the burden of proof from drivers to pedestrians who are struck while walking/crossing outside of the crosswalks.

[John Taylor]

Obviously the pig wasn't justified.

The who?:confused:

[BlackTerrel]

YouTube - Harold and Kumar - Jaywalking Scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXF7_0CAAdo)

[devil21]

He did not say that jaywalking was "some heinous crime", what he did suggest was that there is good reason for the existance of anti-jaywalking laws. He is right, there are.

Upholding the nanny state is not a good reason. Like I said, stop trying to protect me from myself.



Watch the video, there is a pedestrian footbridge directly above where this woman assaulted the police officer.

Fair enough. There's a concrete something. Is it directly related to the jaywalking? Not necessarily. Brian4Liberty is providing pure conjecture.



The police officer did not arrest her for jaywalking.

He was arresting the first girl for jaywalking and then when the second girl (the punchee) intervened, she was punched by the cop. The cop was arresting the first girl for jaywalking. He was trying to force her hands behind her back (not to mention nearly exposing her breasts by ripping her shirt). That much is obvious. I would have intervened as well if a cop was trying to throw my friend in jail for jaywalking. Would you not? No, because you're a pure statist.



Jaywalking should be illegal, even if completely unenforced, for the very simple reason that it serves to eliminate liability and transfer the burden of proof from drivers to pedestrians who are struck while walking/crossing outside of the crosswalks.

Aside from the nanny state implications, jaywalking may be illegal but it should NOT be an arrestable offense. Ever. A civil infraction maybe but not a criminal action subject to incarceration. The cop's actions in arresting a young person for such a silly reason is the catalyst for this episode.

[Lord Xar]

Just by viewing that clip (no sound), I would say yes -

I am just thinking if that was me and I had two hostile people all in my face - and I am seeing hands waving in my face and shoving w/ very hostile intent, of course I would crack her one. Obviously "reason" wasn't working with these shining examples of civilized society. If that dude all of sudden was wrestled to the ground and his gun taken, then a bullet in the head - all you numbskulls would be saying "Fuck that, he should have known they were gonna gang tackle him - he deserved it"...

Hey, if a cop stops me, I listen. I will fight my legal battles in a way I can win. You think by acting ghetto and "hard" you ain't gonna get your ass handed to you? Think again.

Remember, I am just basing it off what I saw... if he was swinging first or abusive first, and that is omitted in the video then I retract my feelings. But as it stands, he throw the classic "Rigth" with nice effect. I congratulate him.

And yeah "it was racist".. get a fucking life.

[orenbus]

Oh here is some raw video of what happened after.

YouTube - Caught on Tape - Police Officer Punching Woman Resisting Arrest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYQWbfSNpIg)

After watching this I'm not sure if the police officer has the physical capabilities to do the job, there is no reason a teenage girl should be giving him this much trouble when trying to arrest her.

[dmitchell]

To everyone who says that he would have punched the girl too: that's why you shouldn't be a cop. If you can't handle yourself around a couple of teenage girls, then you shouldn't be a cop. Because cops are given discretion to kill, they need to be held to the highest possible standards of behavior. Belting teenage girls is totally unacceptable. The fact that you would have punched the girl in the face too is not an excuse; cops need to meet a higher standard than "what would some random asshole on the internet do?"

[dmitchell]

The who?:confused:
The cop.

[MelissaWV]

To everyone who says that he would have punched the girl too: that's why you shouldn't be a cop. If you can't handle yourself around a couple of teenage girls, then you shouldn't be a cop. Because cops are given discretion to kill, they need to be held to the highest possible standards of behavior. Belting teenage girls is totally unacceptable. The fact that you would have punched the girl in the face too is not an excuse; cops need to meet a higher standard than "what would some random asshole on the internet do?"

And in light of the second video, I guess the second police officer should not have restrained her or tried to get her into the vehicle, either? What, precisely, should police do when they are shoved at by multiple people? He punched her so hard she was uninjured and even smiling for the camera. :rolleyes: Is this the part where no force is ever justified? I'm sorry, but if people are shoving the cop around and the cop punches back, that shouldn't be a shock. It's the same category/level of force. Is it some weird sense of ageism or sexism that holds you back? If he'd hit one of the numerous teenaged boys around there, would that have been okay? Or one of the older ladies? Or an older gentleman?

The original "stop" for jaywalking shouldn't have happened, but when some crazy women start shoving me around I will absolutely shove back, shield or no shield. If that's "asshole" behavior, so be it.

[devil21]

Oh here is some raw video of what happened after.

YouTube - Caught on Tape - Police Officer Punching Woman Resisting Arrest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYQWbfSNpIg)

After watching this I'm not sure if the police officer has the physical capabilities to do the job, there is no reason a teenage girl should be giving him this much trouble when trying to arrest her.

Well shit. After watching that Im not sure what to make of the news video anymore. Seems they did some creative editing and it's hard to tell what happened when. Oh well. Still not surprised to see a cop lose his temper and punch someone when she doesn't "respect his authoritah!". And still think it's stupid to harrass people over crossing the street.

I agree that the cop shouldn't have that much trouble subduing her. He's proof of why "body building" does not equal "strength". Get that man an exercise routine that includes push-ups and squats quick!

[Golding]

He's unjustified for trying to make an arrest for jaywalking. But that's the sort of situation where the law has to be utilized against the officer. They simply handed him an easy "resisting arrest" and "assaulting an officer" charge. Both more serious than jaywalking, and both tougher to fight given the video evidence.

[John Taylor]

Oh here is some raw video of what happened after.

YouTube - Caught on Tape - Police Officer Punching Woman Resisting Arrest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYQWbfSNpIg)

After watching this I'm not sure if the police officer has the physical capabilities to do the job, there is no reason a teenage girl should be giving him this much trouble when trying to arrest her.

Hahahaha, "you didn't read me my rights"....

You think??? Idiot woman, Miranda WARNINGS are only read when someone is being questioned.

[nateerb]

Voted yes. I hate cops. He was under assault. Closed case.

[Brian4Liberty]

Oh well that changes everything! Why didn't you tell us sooner that pedestrian footbridges mean cops have the right to punch people that don't use them?

:rolleyes:


Neither did I see any proof of any sort of pedestrian footbridge, just another assertion.


Time to get the eyes checked?


Fair enough. There's a concrete something. Is it directly related to the jaywalking? Not necessarily. Brian4Liberty is providing pure conjecture.


Logical deduction. And yes, it is a pedestrian footbridge. And it is going over the only major street that can be seen in the video.


He was arresting the first girl for jaywalking and then when the second girl (the punchee) intervened, she was punched by the cop. The cop was arresting the first girl for jaywalking. He was trying to force her hands behind her back (not to mention nearly exposing her breasts by ripping her shirt). That much is obvious.

What makes you think he was arresting the girl just for jaywalking? Conjecture? What is obvious is that the video does not start until he is trying to restrain her. It does not show what happened before that. Considering the physical attacks and stream of profanity from the girls during the video, it probably wasn't just about jay-walking at that point. Or do you truly believe that the police (attempt to) hand-cuff people while giving out tickets for jay-walking infractions?

The cop was in the wrong and lost his cool with the punch, but he was also losing control of the situation, which is what he is trained to never let happen. He will get a rash of shit at the station that will very well lead to him using even more force next time.

[newbitech]

He didn't say that. Try answering his assertions instead of constructing and demolishing strawmen.

The point is that jaywalking is a crime for a very specific reason, to eliminate civil and criminal liability for otherwise lawful drivers who hit jaywalkers outside of pedestrian crosswalks... These women resisted and initiated force against the police officer.

These young people did not initiate force against the cop. What video did you watch?

And so what they resisted. You will resist too when someone puts their hands on you and you don't approve.

[dmitchell]

And in light of the second video, I guess the second police officer should not have restrained her or tried to get her into the vehicle, either?
What second cop? I only saw one.


What, precisely, should police do when they are shoved at by multiple people?
By multiple people we mean one teenage girl. As far as I saw, the only person who shoved the cop was the girl in the pink shirt. One thing he could do is realize that arresting people isn't always the right move, even if it there is some justification. Another thing he could do is not be such a pussy over the fact that he was shoved by a child. And yet another thing he could do is write a ticket for jaywalking and leave. There are many alternatives to punching kids in the face.


Is it some weird sense of ageism or sexism that holds you back? If he'd hit one of the numerous teenaged boys around there, would that have been okay? Or one of the older ladies? Or an older gentleman?
What holds me back is a sense of decency about when a situation calls for violence. This one did not.


The original "stop" for jaywalking shouldn't have happened, but when some crazy women start shoving me around I will absolutely shove back, shield or no shield. If that's "asshole" behavior, so be it.
Again, you aren't a cop. Cops are supposed to be better than the average man on the street. And yeah, if you punch kids in the face, then you might be an asshole.

[dmitchell]

And by the way, why is it that everyone is cheering some phony politician's focus-grouped ad (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=249635) about "fighting tyranny" and "gathering your armies," but then when a girl resists petty tyranny in real life, everyone cheers when she gets punched in the face?

[newbitech]

And by the way, why is it that everyone is cheering some phony politician's focus-grouped ad (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=249635) about "fighting tyranny" and "gathering your armies," but then when a girl resists petty tyranny in real life, everyone cheers when she gets punched in the face?

everyone? no its 32 - 32. I suspect that the definition of justified is being used rather loosely to be honest.

[dmitchell]

For an appropriate value of "everyone."

[newbitech]

For an appropriate value of "everyone."


I am with you tho, it does seem rather overwhelming to see so many on this forum find justification for this incident.

If we asked the opposite question, are these girls justified in resisting this police officer, I wonder if the response would be 50-50. Maybe a good poll question to ask.

[fisharmor]

I disagree that there are only two ways to handle this.

Some laws should require a justifiable cause for enforcement. You rolled through a stop sign ... so what. You rolled through a stop sign causing another car to come to a screeching halt to avoid an accident ... justifiable cause. You rolled through a stop sign causing a pedestrian to jump out of the way ... justifiable cause. You did not use a turn signal ... so what. You did not use a turn signal which required another car that perhaps could have right turned on red after stop to wait needlessly ... justifiable cause. You jaywalked ... so what. You jaywalked which caused a car to swerve across the road and slam on the breaks ... justifiable cause.

There are some laws that should require a justifiable cause for enforcement. Because the policeman has an attitude issue is not a justifiable cause. Because a cop is on a fishing expedition for other charges is not a justifiable cause.

And if common law existed in any real form in this country, none of this BS would be necessary.
Traffic accidents and pedestrian fatalities would be handled on a case-by-case basis, with case law that helps the judge determine the outcome on a case-by-case basis.
What we have now is civil law trying to fill the role that common law is supposed to be filling.
Thus the emphasis is shifted away from what you advocate - namely, taking extenuating circumstances into account on a case-by-case basis.
Civil law is by definition codified.
If the code isn't enforced, it may as well not exist.
If the code is enforced, it must be enforced fairly and CONSISTENTLY, and not on the street by individuals exercising on-the-spot subjective judgment.

The cop is enforcing a bullshit system. I'm still right there with t0rnado.

[MelissaWV]

What second cop? I only saw one.


By multiple people we mean one teenage girl. As far as I saw, the only person who shoved the cop was the girl in the pink shirt. One thing he could do is realize that arresting people isn't always the right move, even if it there is some justification. Another thing he could do is not be such a pussy over the fact that he was shoved by a child. And yet another thing he could do is write a ticket for jaywalking and leave. There are many alternatives to punching kids in the face.

...

There were two girls coming up to the cop, and both of them laid hands on him. If you would watch the video, you'd see that. The second video clearly shows him having to deal with the other girl. If you think those women were "children" then I suppose that's your own issue to deal with. He WAS writing a ticket for jaywalking, and people decided to make a scene. I suppose that, as they were shoving him, he was supposed to write a ticket and say "have a nice day, ma'am" and leave.

If someone shoved me, I'd shove them back. The people voting "no" are either rightfully pointing out that he should never have made the stop in the first place, or they just hate cops, or they are saying that self defense doesn't apply when you are wearing the uniform. The people voting "yes" are either apologists, weighing the fact that self defense shouldn't be limited based on your wearing the uniform, or simply hate (black?) women. Who knows? Your "alternative" doesn't make any sense, though, because the officer did not just walk up and deck someone. The "simply writing a ticket" was what was going on before people decided to lay hands on him.

[MelissaWV]

I am with you tho, it does seem rather overwhelming to see so many on this forum find justification for this incident.

If we asked the opposite question, are these girls justified in resisting this police officer, I wonder if the response would be 50-50. Maybe a good poll question to ask.

If the officer were laying hands on the girls for some reason, they'd be justified using their hands in response, yeah. Self defense doesn't change simply because one side's wearing a uniform. If the cop is writing them a bullshit ticket, that doesn't make him a target for physical retaliation, at least in my book. I'm always saddened to see I'm in sparse company in thinking that.

[newbitech]

There were two girls coming up to the cop, and both of them laid hands on him.

can you tell me where you see two girls coming up to him and laying hands on him?

I see no evidence that suggest that the girls touched the cop first. Also, the cop was going after someone else according to the report, and the people in the crowd voice their displeasure for the way the cop was harassing people and attempting to cause economic damage to people.

Sounds like the cop failed to apprehend the initial subject of his premeditated assault so rather than go home empty handed, he turned his attention to whoever was close by and probably being the most vocal. That's the girl in the blue. From what I see, he has her in some sort of martial arts wrist lock and she can be heard telling him to get off her. He was clearly hurting her and causing her pain, to which the girl in the pink responded by stepping between the two to separate them. Sure we all know that is not the thing to do if you want to avoid jail, but defending her friend from a man who was out of control is what I would suspect any decent person would do.

Yeah if the crowd of people just magically appeared around the cop and starting pushing him and throwing stuff at him, he should defend himself. But we all know that is not what happened. We all know it was the cop who attacked this crowd, probably in some kind of sick fraternity initiation. Before you can hang out at the cop bar, you have to go down to MLK and arrest a black kid, and with NO backup. Bonus points if you can get a felony charge out of it. Double bonus points if you find drugs or weapons, AND if you can get away with punching tazering or shooting someone in the face, then you will get to park in the reserved spot near the door.



If the officer were laying hands on the girls for some reason, they'd be justified using their hands in response, yeah. Self defense doesn't change simply because one side's wearing a uniform. If the cop is writing them a bullshit ticket, that doesn't make him a target for physical retaliation, at least in my book. I'm always saddened to see I'm in sparse company in thinking that.

I am sure the cop put his hands on the girls first absolutely no doubt in my mind, I don't need to see video proof of that. I agree if he is writing a bullshit ticket, then no violence should occur. But if that person doesn't want to accept the ticket, then is that cop allowed to touch that person? I don't think so. The only reason he is even allowed to write the bullshit ticket is because he knows he can escalate to force them to pay it.

Its like all those stupid deals in the courts, well the cop tries to pull the deal on the street. Hey just take this bullshit fine, pay this bullshit ticket, and you won't have to worry about me charging you for assault after I twist your wrist behind your back in a martial arts pressure point move that damages nerves. The choice is yours.

I applaud the resistance in the face of jack boot thuggery.

Whatever happened to issuing warnings, maybe he should of pulled up and put his lights on, called in crowd control, got on his loud speaker and moved the people back off the street. Maybe the city ought to put up fences around the areas where people are not allowed to walk instead of paying jack asses to go out and assault people. Maybe they cut this cops salary in half and pay two part time kids from this neighborhood to be crossing guards instead of shipping in someone who doesn't even live in the county to pretend like he cares about the community.

I feel very strongly about this, because I have experience first hand punishment by cops on the street for having a "bad attitude". Hey cop, fuck off. I might have a bad attitude, but you aren't paid to enforce good attitudes.

[BlackTerrel]

And in light of the second video, I guess the second police officer should not have restrained her or tried to get her into the vehicle, either? What, precisely, should police do when they are shoved at by multiple people? He punched her so hard she was uninjured and even smiling for the camera. :rolleyes: Is this the part where no force is ever justified? I'm sorry, but if people are shoving the cop around and the cop punches back, that shouldn't be a shock. It's the same category/level of force. Is it some weird sense of ageism or sexism that holds you back? If he'd hit one of the numerous teenaged boys around there, would that have been okay? Or one of the older ladies? Or an older gentleman?

The original "stop" for jaywalking shouldn't have happened, but when some crazy women start shoving me around I will absolutely shove back, shield or no shield. If that's "asshole" behavior, so be it.

You can't separate the two. Yes my reaction is partially biased by what he was doing there. If he had been chasing a guy who had just robbed a 7/11 and was carrying bags of cash my reaction would probably be different.

It's like if I went to the zoo and jumped in the lions cage and then when a lion charged at me I shot him and killed him. Then I say "oh I was justified because he was charging at me and would have killed me". But I never should have been in the lion's cage to begin with.

This asshole drove down to MLK boulevard and started fucking with people and the people didn't like that. Here's a message to cops: stop fucking with the citizens! We pay your fucking salaries. Start doing what we pay you to do which is keep the murderers and the rapists and the guys that mug me at 3 in the morning off the street - and stop fucking with the rest of us and giving us chicken shit tickets because we are crossing the street, or have tinted windows or whatever. Do your fucking job and stop harassing us.

[dmitchell]

There were two girls coming up to the cop, and both of them laid hands on him. If you would watch the video, you'd see that. The second video clearly shows him having to deal with the other girl.
What I see is a girl in pink shoving the cop to defend her friend, and a girl in a dark sweater trying to get away from the cop and briefly trying to defend and pull him off of the girl in pink. I only see one person shove the cop.


If you think those women were "children" then I suppose that's your own issue to deal with.
The two girls were 17 and 19 years old, respectively (conflicting reports on which is which). So yes, in my mind these are kids.


He WAS writing a ticket for jaywalking, and people decided to make a scene. I suppose that, as they were shoving him, he was supposed to write a ticket and say "have a nice day, ma'am" and leave... Your "alternative" doesn't make any sense, though, because the officer did not just walk up and deck someone. The "simply writing a ticket" was what was going on before people decided to lay hands on him.
No. Here is the most detailed account (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/421817_punch15.html) I have read.


About 3:10 p.m. Monday, [Officer Ian] Walsh saw several people unlawfully cross Martin Luther King Jr. Way South, according to a report issued by another officer. Rather than use a pedestrian overpass, the group wandered across the busy street.

Walsh stopped and ordered a 17-year-old girl to stop as she walked away from him. When she didn't, he tried to pull her back to the scene, and the jaywalking arrest took a violent turn.

Video shows Walsh, a four-year veteran with the department assigned to the South Precinct's patrol division, wrestling with the girl in an attempt to place her under arrest. When another woman grabbed him, he punched her in the face.
So no, the cop wasn't simply writing a ticket "before people decided to lay hands on him." He may or may not have been writing a ticket when the girl walked away; but he was the one who grabbed her, which is what initiated the struggle. He could have disengaged at any time, but he was probably on some power trip and felt he had to "win."

[MelissaWV]

can you tell me where you see two girls coming up to him and laying hands on him?

I see no evidence that suggest that the girls touched the cop first. Also, the cop was going after someone else according to the report, and the people in the crowd voice their displeasure for the way the cop was harassing people and attempting to cause economic damage to people.

Sounds like the cop failed to apprehend the initial subject of his premeditated assault so rather than go home empty handed, he turned his attention to whoever was close by and probably being the most vocal. That's the girl in the blue. From what I see, he has her in some sort of martial arts wrist lock and she can be heard telling him to get off her. He was clearly hurting her and causing her pain, to which the girl in the pink responded by stepping between the two to separate them. Sure we all know that is not the thing to do if you want to avoid jail, but defending her friend from a man who was out of control is what I would suspect any decent person would do.

Yeah if the crowd of people just magically appeared around the cop and starting pushing him and throwing stuff at him, he should defend himself. But we all know that is not what happened. We all know it was the cop who attacked this crowd, probably in some kind of sick fraternity initiation. Before you can hang out at the cop bar, you have to go down to MLK and arrest a black kid, and with NO backup. Bonus points if you can get a felony charge out of it. Double bonus points if you find drugs or weapons, AND if you can get away with punching tazering or shooting someone in the face, then you will get to park in the reserved spot near the door.

I am sure the cop put his hands on the girls first absolutely no doubt in my mind, I don't need to see video proof of that.

The part I put in yellow is pure conjecture and absolute crap. It would be the same if I were on some "cop-friendly" website that said these girls were just asking for it by being black and young and "mouthy." The whole thing is a rant against the police in general, rather than a discussion of what's in this particular video. Give me a break.

The girls were described as jaywalkers, too, and it was stated that they were also to be ticketed. The non-pink girl did put her hands on him. If you can't see that in the two videos, I don't know what to tell you. In the first video at 0:06 and 0:07 you can see her shoving against him. In the second video, she is shoving back against his "kung fu grip."

If you were to flip the thing around, and two police officers were filmed shoving a woman who then punched one of the officers, I doubt sincerely many of you would have the same reaction. She'd probably be a "hero" to some of the people who express such undying hatred of all police.

You're making this a question of the uniform. Take it off, put them on equal footing, and see if you believe a shove merits a punch. I've already said repeatedly the initial stop was bullshit. The punch was not.

[dmitchell]

If the officer were laying hands on the girls for some reason, they'd be justified using their hands in response, yeah. Self defense doesn't change simply because one side's wearing a uniform. If the cop is writing them a bullshit ticket, that doesn't make him a target for physical retaliation, at least in my book.

I agree with that. The girls should not have resisted. But the fact that they did resist doesn't mean that "anything goes;" the cop is still supposed to use discretion. This cop didn't. This cop punched a 17 year old in the face.

[MelissaWV]

...


So no, the cop wasn't simply writing a ticket "before people decided to lay hands on him." He may or may not have been writing a ticket when the girl walked away; but he was the one who grabbed her, which is what initiated the struggle. He could have disengaged at any time, but he was probably on some power trip and felt he had to "win."

I hadn't heard this account. One can only discuss evidence that is included in a thread or in mainstream sources, and I had not seen this, period. It's still something that isn't verified by any other source I've seen. If true, she's perfectly justified in shoving back. If not, we're back to where we started.

The bias of many in this thread, though, was absolutely against the officer from the getgo. Even if it's "right" in the bulk of situations, it makes me sick to my stomach that's the assumption people leap to. It isn't changed even if the guy grabbed her first. It just means I was incorrect in this particular instance.

[MelissaWV]

You can't separate the two. Yes my reaction is partially biased by what he was doing there. If he had been chasing a guy who had just robbed a 7/11 and was carrying bags of cash my reaction would probably be different.

It's like if I went to the zoo and jumped in the lions cage and then when a lion charged at me I shot him and killed him. Then I say "oh I was justified because he was charging at me and would have killed me". But I never should have been in the lion's cage to begin with.

This asshole drove down to MLK boulevard and started fucking with people and the people didn't like that. Here's a message to cops: stop fucking with the citizens! We pay your fucking salaries. Start doing what we pay you to do which is keep the murderers and the rapists and the guys that mug me at 3 in the morning off the street - and stop fucking with the rest of us and giving us chicken shit tickets because we are crossing the street, or have tinted windows or whatever. Do your fucking job and stop harassing us.

And you just separated the two, and it makes perfect sense to me. Yes, you'd be justified in defending yourself (though in your example, you'd be liable for damage to the lion, for sure). No, you shouldn't have been in the cage. That tends to come out when the zoo sues you for damages.

Is there some particular reason that someone can't take a jaywalking ticket and challenge it in court? Or is there something else at play here?

Incidentally, laws can be changed.

[newbitech]

The part I put in yellow is pure conjecture and absolute crap. It would be the same if I were on some "cop-friendly" website that said these girls were just asking for it by being black and young and "mouthy." The whole thing is a rant against the police in general, rather than a discussion of what's in this particular video. Give me a break.

The girls were described as jaywalkers, too, and it was stated that they were also to be ticketed. The non-pink girl did put her hands on him. If you can't see that in the two videos, I don't know what to tell you. In the first video at 0:06 and 0:07 you can see her shoving against him. In the second video, she is shoving back against his "kung fu grip."

If you were to flip the thing around, and two police officers were filmed shoving a woman who then punched one of the officers, I doubt sincerely many of you would have the same reaction. She'd probably be a "hero" to some of the people who express such undying hatred of all police.

You're making this a question of the uniform. Take it off, put them on equal footing, and see if you believe a shove merits a punch. I've already said repeatedly the initial stop was bullshit. The punch was not.


Ok, so we don't know what kinds of games this particular cop was playing that day. Fine granted. The fact tho is that the cop appeared in the middle of this crowd, not the other way around. So he put himself in that situation. That is fine, he is allowed to be there just like everyone else. Hell, he is even allowed to starting dishing out fines and tickets. But he is not allowed to start grabbing people. And that is precisely what he did. He grabbed the girl in the blue. She didn't put her hands on him. He put his hands on her. She did what anyone would do if someone put them in a martial arts pressure point submissive hold. She resisted the pain. She tried to escape the violence.

What gives the man in this video the right to put his hands on this girl? Nothing. What happened to the guy the cop was originally after? Was his plan really to get out of the car and start handing out tickets like candy? Come on now.

I have no doubt that he was trying to find a reason to search the original guy he was after. Probably a known drug corner. He needed an excuse to search for evidence so he decided he'd go ahead and provoke a crowd of people with the threat of jail time for jaywalking. Well, people let him hear about his idiocy and he decided he'd show them who was boss by going after the first person he could get his hands on.

I already said, the girl in the pink tried to stop the cop from hurting her friend. She wouldn't have touched the cop if the cop wouldn't have been touching her friend.

[Brian4Liberty]

... Start doing what we pay you to do which is keep the murderers and the rapists and the guys that mug me at 3 in the morning off the street...

Within the past month, there was a "special investigative report" on one of the the local TV News programs. Basically a lot of hand-wringing about people who jay-walk and refuse to use crosswalks on busy streets. Throw in a few concerned parents, and other activists who go to the city council to complain about the same subject, and there will probably be a mandate thrown at the Police to enforce jay-walking laws. In that sense, the Police are doing what they are paid to do. We may not agree with the petty things that the Police do enforce, but unless there is an overwhelming public voice against nanny-state Policing, it will only continue to grow.

[dmitchell]

The bias of many in this thread, though, was absolutely against the officer from the getgo. Even if it's "right" in the bulk of situations, it makes me sick to my stomach that's the assumption people leap to.
Why? How many accounts do you have to read of cops tricking, beating, tasing, brutalizing, raping, and killing people before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt in situations like this? Personally, I am well past the point of trusting the police.

[HRD53]

Not a big fan of the po-po, but this guy was losing control of the situation. He needed to do something and he didn't exactly clobber her... I'd like to ask you guys how a cop should defend himself? Yell 'stop it' and spank the perpetrator... maybe threaten them with time out?

There are people on this board who see a badge and just hate it. I've had enough poor experiences with cops to make me not trust them, but jesus... try to be objective. The only way this cop is in the wrong is if he initiated the force on the girls (before the tape was rolling). Everything in this vid points to him just defending himself.

[mrsat_98]

I voted NO. I hope he gets the shit sued out of him. It was excessive.

[Brian4Liberty]

Incidentally, laws can be changed.

Statist! ;)

[Danke]

The people voting "no" are either rightfully pointing out that he should never have made the stop in the first place, or they just hate cops, or they are saying that self defense doesn't apply when you are wearing the uniform.

I voted no, and none of what you assumed applies.

The cop was pushed away. That does not justify him punching the girl in the face.

[Brian4Liberty]

Why? How many accounts do you have to read of cops tricking, beating, tasing, brutalizing, raping, and killing people before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt in situations like this? Personally, I am well past the point of trusting the police.

A dog bit me once. We need to eliminate dogs.

[newbitech]

Not a big fan of the po-po, but this guy was losing control of the situation. He needed to do something and he didn't exactly clobber her... I'd like to ask you guys how a cop should defend himself? Yell 'stop it' and spank the perpetrator... maybe threaten them with time out?

There are people on this board who see a badge and just hate it. I've had enough poor experiences with cops to make me not trust them, but jesus... try to be objective. The only way this cop is in the wrong is if he initiated the force on the girls (before the tape was rolling). Everything in this vid points to him just defending himself.

See I don't think the cop was defending himself. I think he was the aggressor. He could have easily yelled at the perp to stop jaywalking. He could have simply escorted the perp across the street took their name and told them next time will not be a warning but a court summons.

Yes, I see a badge and I hate it. I can be objective, what I see is a cop doing what cops are trained to do. It's wrong. The whole incident is wrong on the cops part. I am not sure how you think the girl ended up being wrist locked martial arts style by this cop, but I can assure you that this hold the cop had on her was not self defense.

[MelissaWV]

I voted no, and none of what you assumed applies.

The cop was pushed away. That does not justify him punching the girl in the face.

Point noted.

To me, it's the same category of force. I don't think in those kinds of situations I nitpick about the precise level. In other words, if the cop had shoved her and she decked him, that'd be fine with me. If the cop had shoved her and she shot him, that wouldn't. If the girl had shoved the cop, and he shot her, that wouldn't. I haven't seen that level of distinction applied to other instances on the board, so I didn't think to include it.

[sofia]

Fuck no.

Also I'll be honest giving someone a ticket for jaywalking is just the cop trying to be a dick. And it wouldn't shock me if it was racially motivated. I know too many black kids who get a ticket for what is not a real crime.

bullshit...

if anything, blacks are LESS likely to be mistreated because of white guilt and cops being afraid of being labeled "racists" by agitators like u

[MelissaWV]

Why? How many accounts do you have to read of cops tricking, beating, tasing, brutalizing, raping, and killing people before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt in situations like this? Personally, I am well past the point of trusting the police.

I give each situation its own evaluation. I have seen people being quite violent and rude to the police simply based on the uniform, and not any behavior they were a part of. I have seen the same done to military, or to Government workers, or to the family they were with. I have seen police be total douchebags to people simply because they "are the law," or some other bullshit. Those individuals are at fault for their actions.

How many Ron Paul supporters throwing snowballs and dressing up funny do you have to read about before you realize they're all kooks? All of 'em! There are no individuals; it's just one big hive and every worker bee buzzes exactly the same. There is no room for someone merely being a human being.

There have been many other accounts talked about on these forums where it's been very obvious the police acted horribly. There are other times when the police really are defending themselves as people. Your entire post seems to suggest it's just too hard to distinguish between individual cases, and individual people, so you've adopted a stance of utter mistrust. That's your cross to bear. That's your opinion to have. Mine is to look at each case.

With what I was presented with in the OP, I had one conclusion to draw. With what's been suggested afterwards, it's highly possible there is more to all of this than the videos and even the initial reports showed.

[jsu718]

bullshit...

if anything, blacks are LESS likely to be mistreated because of white guilt and cops being afraid of being labeled "racists" by agitators like u

In theory, possibly. In reality, no. The way it actually goes is that cops mistreat everyone, but the media will only report on it if the person is black and the cop is not. I will point out how little the baptist minister that was accosted by border patrol was reported by the media.

[futo555]

You push me , im going to knock you out.

ok , in my book.


2 people pushin him and they could have grab his gun with no problem.

[BlackTerrel]

bullshit...

if anything, blacks are LESS likely to be mistreated because of white guilt and cops being afraid of being labeled "racists" by agitators like u

Only in your world Sofia.

[0zzy]

can't tell without first part being filmed.

those girls acted aggressive, however.

[dmitchell]

I give each situation its own evaluation...
Everyone does, myself included. But you said that even if skepticism toward police violence is usually justified, it makes you "sick to your stomach" when people are skeptical toward police violence. I don't get that.


Your entire post seems to suggest it's just too hard to distinguish between individual cases, and individual people, so you've adopted a stance of utter mistrust.
I distrust police because I have witnessed enough cases of police brutality to know that "power corrupts" isn't just a funny thing to say.

[jsu718]

Everyone does, myself included. But you said that even if skepticism toward police violence is usually justified, it makes you "sick to your stomach" when people are skeptical toward police violence. I don't get that.


I distrust police because I have witnessed enough cases of police brutality to know that "power corrupts" isn't just a funny thing to say.

Agreed... but it does work both ways.

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/8527/policebrutalityp.jpg
Happens just like this too.

Also this version of the video is much better... shows more of what happened.
YouTube - Seattle Police Confrontation - komonews.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9w9AfptGGQ)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

There is a fundamental distinction between the two. Seatbelt laws serve to act as a restaint upon the individual, a "big brother" regulation for one's own good... while jaywalking laws serve to protect the DRIVERS of vehicles on the road from liability if and when they hit a jaywalker.

Jaywalking protects you from yourself because the object of the statues are individuals walking not individuals driving. Are you suggesting it can not be discerned where a pedestrian was located when they are hit by a vehicle?

Seat belt statues limit the liability of insurance companies the same way jaywalking does.

[chudrockz]

Voted no. There should be a "hell, no" option.

If this cop feels justified punching a LITTLE GIRL like that for a gentle shove, I'd hate to think what he might do to ME (a 6'8", 320 pound guy) for jaywalking.

Of course, knowing how people drive (at least in my town) I don't DO that (jaywalk).

Come to think of it, I don't really walk at all. Maybe that's why I'm 320.

:)

[jsu718]

Voted no. There should be a "hell, no" option.

If this cop feels justified punching a LITTLE GIRL like that for a gentle shove, I'd hate to think what he might do to ME (a 6'8", 320 pound guy) for jaywalking.

Of course, knowing how people drive (at least in my town) I don't DO that (jaywalk).

Come to think of it, I don't really walk at all. Maybe that's why I'm 320.

:)

Umm... the punch had absolutely nothing to do with jaywalking...

[chudrockz]

Umm... the punch had absolutely nothing to do with jaywalking...

That's correct. The punch had to do with a shove by a young GIRL.

If a young girl shoved ME, and I punched her in the face, that would be in my opinion automatically excessive. Even MORE so were I a cop.

[fisharmor]

A dog bit me once. We need to eliminate dogs.

When a dog bites you, if you decide to press the issue, that dog gets the needle.

If dogs that bit people were instead to be temporarily relieved of the four or five things they're expected to do each week, but still got fed, then yes, I'd be in favor of eliminating dogs.

If cops who pulled crap like this got the needle, then I wouldn't have that big a problem with cops.


http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/8527/policebrutalityp.jpg
Happens just like this too.

Sure it does.
What this picture isn't considering is the same thing that isn't being considered by everyone here who doesn't have an automatic negative reaction to the badge.

The comic is assuming that we need the cops at all.
We don't.

The state passed racist laws to keep the liquor store owner from owning adequate means to keep himself from being slaughtered.
Then it chased off all the jobs from the area.
Then it encouraged the robber's father to leave his family.
The young man makes the forehead-slappingly obvious transition to a life of crime.
Then it's the cops' problem.
And that cop has two choices: treat the people he's trying to control like the animals they are, across the board, or take a chance at not going home that night.

Rewind the situation back to the beginning. It doesn't make any sense to pin all the blame on the cop. We have to see this situation for what it is - a situation where we're expecting miracles of the cops that they can't perform.

That doesn't excuse them and I still hate the badge. But the reason I hate it isn't because I'm being irrational: it's because we don't need them. They are only making a bad situation worse, and society in general refuses to see the obvious solution, which is to get rid of them.

I would hate the people who become cops whether they're cops or not. Create a job description that reads "power tripping dickholes needed to unnecessarily rough up brown people" and not surprisingly, that's the type of person who is going to apply.

The job is immoral, it doesn't work, and it makes the situation worse.
As I've said before, there are cops out there who help old ladies across the street.
Doesn't mean I want their jobs filled.
I don't want them to exist, and that is why I have a negative reaction to the badge.

[jsu718]

That's correct. The punch had to do with a shove by a young GIRL.

If a young girl shoved ME, and I punched her in the face, that would be in my opinion automatically excessive. Even MORE so were I a cop.

Is there really a need for such labels? If I were a cop and someone shoved me while I was trying to restrain someone that was resisting arrest that hadn't been verified to be free of deadly weapons I would sure use whatever was necessary to end the situation as quickly as possible before someone in the crowd pulled a gun... as had happened in several previous cases in that area in Seattle recently.

[Krugerrand]

Jaywalking protects you from yourself because the object of the statues are individuals walking not individuals driving. Are you suggesting it can not be discerned where a pedestrian was located when they are hit by a vehicle?

Seat belt statues limit the liability of insurance companies the same way jaywalking does.

Obviously it can be discerned where a pedestrian was located when hit by a vehicle.

It makes no difference where the pedestrian was located if pedestrians are not SUPPOSED to be in a cross walk. One cannot legally assume that a pedestrian is SUPPOSED to be in a cross walk until there is a JAYWALKING LAW that legally identifies that they are SUPPOSED to be in a crosswalk. Thus, it is not protecting you from yourself. It is protecting other people from having to worry about you being somewhere else.

Go ahead. Take away the jaywalking law. The person crossing in the middle of a busy road gets hit. The family sues the driver for wrongful death. It's your job to represent the driver. You argue the pedestrian should not have been in the middle of the busy road. You get laughed at in court ... on what basis do you get to decide where the pedestrian should be? It's a public road. There was no "no Pedestrian Crossing" sign. There's no law saying the person should not be there. That pedestrian had every right to be there. As such, the driver should have been prepared for a pedestrian being where it had every right to be. That driver you're representing is on the losing end of that wrongful death lawsuit.

[constituent]

Hard to answer. The policeman acted like policemen should when his government´s authority is threatened. The individuals acted like individuals should when government fails at producing enough repression in its citizenry. Gov´t ought to be producing war propaganda to inspire nationalism, IMO.

http://images.jellymuffin.com/images/american/images/159.gif

Spot on as usual.

Freedom isn't free, and ammunition ain't gettin' any cheaper.

I'd rather she have been shot than punched, but some "cops" just really aren't cut out for the job.

[MelissaWV]

Everyone does, myself included. But you said that even if skepticism toward police violence is usually justified, it makes you "sick to your stomach" when people are skeptical toward police violence. I don't get that.

I distrust police because I have witnessed enough cases of police brutality to know that "power corrupts" isn't just a funny thing to say.

"Everyone does" is invalid. People said that the police officer deserved to get shoved because he was a cop earlier in this thread. There have been other threads rejoicing in the death of a Government employee or police officer, regardless of circumstance. That's not skepticism. That's hatred.


Originally Posted by dmitchell
Why? How many accounts do you have to read of cops tricking, beating, tasing, brutalizing, raping, and killing people before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt in situations like this? Personally, I am well past the point of trusting the police.

My "sick to my stomach" post, which you responded to with the above, was talking about bias against the officer. You are saying that, because he's a policeman, there should automatically be bias against him. You can probably back this up statistically. Perhaps the officer was biased against the girls hitting him, or the neighborhood he was in, for similar reasons? That's also upsetting.


Cops deserve to get the shit beaten out of them just for being wastes of tax money. Their mere existence is funded by theft. This cop was not justified in hitting someone who probably paid for his job.


I hate cops as much as anyone


Attempting to prevent some thug in a costume from kidnapping her.


You'd be in the same situation as this jack boot?

You're right. It sounds like people were evaluating this situation based on its own merits, yep. I find the first one especially giggleworthy. These "teen girls" were paying for the cops' job? And that's why they shouldn't have been touched? So much for rights. Now we're down to bribery.

[jsu718]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012122660_coppunch16m.html
So the Seattle PD is reviewing this case and their departmental tactics as a result of this.

Oh, and both of the girls have criminal records, one including a history of assault on police.

[Krugerrand]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012122660_coppunch16m.html
So the Seattle PD is reviewing this case and their departmental tactics as a result of this.

Oh, and both of the girls have criminal records, one including a history of assault on police.

I would hope so. He was wrestling with one person while another person climbed on his back. He was in over his head before he realized it.

[dmitchell]

"Everyone does" is invalid.
Probably, but I would bet that most or all of the people you are thinking of would admit that there are some circumstances in which police violence is appropriate. If they can make the judgment that sometimes police violence is called for and sometimes it is not, then at least in principle they endorse judging on a case-by-case basis.


People said that the police officer deserved to get shoved because he was a cop earlier in this thread. There have been other threads rejoicing in the death of a Government employee or police officer, regardless of circumstance. That's not skepticism. That's hatred.
I agree with you that anyone approving violence against cops or other government employees is wrong.


My "sick to my stomach" post, which you responded to with the above, was talking about bias against the officer. You are saying that, because he's a policeman, there should automatically be bias against him. You can probably back this up statistically.
I am just skeptical of power in general, having so often seen the results of its corrupting influence.

[fisharmor]

I agree with you that anyone approving violence against cops or other government employees is wrong.

This is always where the apologists lose me.
What Melissa said got a lot less focused when you agreed with it.
What Melissa said is that we shouldn't advocate violence against these people simply because they hold a particular job.
I can get behind that.

What YOU said is that anyone approving violence against cops is wrong.
Full stop, end of sentence. No qualifier added.

And this is what gets disseminated. Not what Melissa said.
This absolute truth about the inviolable nature of our overlords is what we're indoctrinated with.
And it's not true.

[dmitchell]

This is always where the apologists lose me.
What Melissa said got a lot less focused when you agreed with it.
What Melissa said is that we shouldn't advocate violence against these people simply because they hold a particular job.
I can get behind that.

What YOU said is that anyone approving violence against cops is wrong.
Full stop, end of sentence. No qualifier added.

And this is what gets disseminated. Not what Melissa said.
This absolute truth about the inviolable nature of our overlords is what we're indoctrinated with.
And it's not true.

I may have misunderstood MelissaWV, but I stand by what I wrote. Even if you think there is some moral justification for using violence against police and government employees, it is still a totally counter-productive strategy for transitioning to a free society. You play right into the State's hands when you use violence.

[Travlyr]

The police state is a terrible state. And even today 1/2 of the people want it. :(

I don't have any problem with the concept of the jaywalking law. If a driver is cruising down the road at a reasonable speed for the design of the road and makes full effort to not hit a pedestrian, then, in court, the liability of the driver is protected. This law allows for justice to prevail in an advanced society.

Without knowing all the facts, I assume that a vehicle did not hit the girls while they were jaywalking which would factually eliminate any potential liability.

So what really happened in the video? First, the policeman assaulted the girl in the blue shirt, then he assaulted the girl in pink shirt by punching her in the face. At the start of the video the police officer is using force to (what?) handcuff the girl? For jaywalking!?! Why is he controlling her? Because she wasn't going to accept the ticket? If jaywalking was her crime, then which of you are not guilty as well and subject to the same controlling force being applied to you. Just because you did not get caught? Which of you would just stand there and be handcuffed for jaywalking? I wouldn't. The fact is that if you look both ways before crossing the street, and it's clear, then it is safe. I don't need a crossing guard by my side to traverse my world.

The police officer was simply writing the ticket to make his quota in order to pay his salary.

This is bullshit. No harm no foul. The police state sucks!

[Krugerrand]

The police state is a terrible state. And even today 1/2 of the people want it. :(

I don't have any problem with the concept of the jaywalking law. If a driver is cruising down the road at a reasonable speed for the design of the road and makes full effort to not hit a pedestrian, then, in court, the liability of the driver is protected. This law allows for justice to prevail in an advanced society.

Without knowing all the facts, I assume that a vehicle did not hit the girls while they were jaywalking which would factually eliminate any potential liability.

So what really happened in the video? First, the policeman assaulted the girl in the blue shirt, then he assaulted the girl in pink shirt by punching her in the face. At the start of the video the police officer is using force to (what?) handcuff the girl? For jaywalking!?! Why is he controlling her? Because she wasn't going to accept the ticket? If jaywalking was her crime, then which of you are not guilty as well and subject to the same controlling force being applied to you. Just because you did not get caught? Which of you would just stand there and be handcuffed for jaywalking? I wouldn't. The fact is that if you look both ways before crossing the street, and it's clear, then it is safe. I don't need a crossing guard by my side to traverse my world.

The police officer was simply writing the ticket to make his quota in order to pay his salary.

This is bullshit. No harm no foul. The police state sucks!

From what I read above (not my own research) the police were responding to numerous complaints of people not using the pedestrian bridge and causing traffic problems. Not familiar with the area, I would think a simple barricade on one side of the road would be more effective than sending police to heckle people as a means of deterrent.

[Travlyr]

From what I read above (not my own research) the police were responding to numerous complaints of people not using the pedestrian bridge and causing traffic problems. Not familiar with the area, I would think a simple barricade on one side of the road would be more effective than sending police to heckle people as a means of deterrent.

Agreed. :)

The more the police try to control us, the more resistance they will find. I like the signature... "Why can't everybody just leave everybody else alone." I don't want to be controlled. I can live my life just fine without the police harassing me.

[dmitchell]

Balko's take (http://www.theagitator.com/2010/06/16/seattle-cop-punches-woman-in-the-face/):


Both women are overreacting here. Obviously the cop is as well. Make up your own mind about whether the punch was warranted. I think you could make a case that by the time the punch was thrown, the cop justifiably felt he was losing control of the situation. (And hey, at least he didn’t use his Taser.) Seems to me that the mistake came earlier: This started as a jaywalking citation. Was it it really so important that the woman get a jaywalking fine that she needed to be chased down and thrown against the patrol car? Even if she was trying to avoid the fine, seems like at some point you realize what’s at stake here (a single incident of someone undermining your authority to get away with a petty crime), and just let it go.

[MelissaWV]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012122660_coppunch16m.html
So the Seattle PD is reviewing this case and their departmental tactics as a result of this.

Oh, and both of the girls have criminal records, one including a history of assault on police.

The criminal record portion is irrelevant as it wasn't known at the time. That goes along the lines of "Oh that person the cops shot in the back and killed was actually a rapist!" when in reality, at the time, they shot an unarmed man in the back. The justification should be based on what was in evidence and what the situation was at the time.

[Krugerrand]

The criminal record portion is irrelevant as it wasn't known at the time. That goes along the lines of "Oh that person the cops shot in the back and killed was actually a rapist!" when in reality, at the time, they shot an unarmed man in the back. The justification should be based on what was in evidence and what the situation was at the time.

Yes and no. If the car in front of you slams on its breaks unexpectedly and you hit it ... it's your fault for not controlling your car. (At least in PA, that may vary by state.) If your insurance company finds out that you've been read-ended several times for the same thing and collected settlements each time, they're going to go after you for creating the hazardous condition in the first place.

If somebody has a history of picking fights with police, they should be surprised if they end up in a fight with a policeman.

[Brian4Liberty]

When a dog bites you, if you decide to press the issue, that dog gets the needle.


Not just that one dog. All dogs must be eliminated. It has happened with more than one dog, so it was not an isolated event. I hate dogs.

[John Taylor]

Balko's take (http://www.theagitator.com/2010/06/16/seattle-cop-punches-woman-in-the-face/):

Radley generally has a rock solid outlook!

[eOs]

If the officer didn't act in the way he did, the whole situation quickly would of gotten out of hand. I don't agree with the retarded jaywalking ticket she got, but I do agree with the cop trying to keep control of the situation in the manner that he did. If it wasn't a punch to the face, it woulda been a tazer. You can't go around trying to obstruct justice like that, it's a law. Again, retarded original offense.

[Jordan]

I just got a $135 ticket for not wearing my seatbelt... and Im white... race has nothing to do with it, its all about money. This situation turned bad because of it. I think the cop was indeed justified because her and her friend were getting physical. When I got my seatbelt ticket I was polite and was off in 10 minutes with no problem.

I dont agree with the seatbelt laws but I dont blame the officers either I blame the morons who make the laws. If she had a problem with the jaywalking laws then she needs to join this forum and our crew and find out ways to end the nanny state and laws like Jaywalking and seatbelt laws.

I got a $115.50 ticket for not having physical ID on me. I was polite as well, I guess just not polite enough.

[fisharmor]

Not just that one dog. All dogs must be eliminated. It has happened with more than one dog, so it was not an isolated event. I hate dogs.

Right... again, what you're failing to consider here in your analogy is that there is already a process for destroying any dog that bites you, should you choose to pursue it.

There is no process for destroying cops that murder. The system currently rewards cops that use excessive force and murder to achieve their aims. Specifically, it rewards them with paid time off.

Your analogy also doesn't work because as I've already pointed out ad nauseum, we don't need cops. There are people who actually do need dogs, though, since they are in some cases still the best tool for a given job at hand.

I say this as an actual, non-analogous dog hater. I don't have a pet dog for the same reason I don't have a pet chainsaw. They are tools.
Cops are tools too, in every sense of the word, but a further difference is, again, not only do we not need the tool, but having it around leads to using it, and using it makes things worse.

People are free to own dogs just as they are free to own guns - because when either ends up harming me, there is recourse with the owner.
There is no recourse with the cop's owner.
Nor am I calling for their "elimination". I'm calling for them to be laid of.
Just like with every other gov't position, I'd even settle for having them get the same paycheck until retirement age if they just give up the badge and not work.
If we could get rid of them even that way, I'd pay taxes for it, and then some.

[Travlyr]

Agreed... but it does work both ways.

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/8527/policebrutalityp.jpg
Happens just like this too.

Also this version of the video is much better... shows more of what happened.
YouTube - Seattle Police Confrontation - komonews.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9w9AfptGGQ)

Yeah. After watching this version, the cop should have called for the swat team back-up to help keep the peace. These jaywalkers are dangerous to society. :rolleyes:

[BlackTerrel]

Voted no. There should be a "hell, no" option.

If this cop feels justified punching a LITTLE GIRL like that for a gentle shove, I'd hate to think what he might do to ME (a 6'8", 320 pound guy) for jaywalking.

Of course, knowing how people drive (at least in my town) I don't DO that (jaywalk).

Come to think of it, I don't really walk at all. Maybe that's why I'm 320.

:)

Dude why are you not in the NFL?

[surf]

according to the dick analyst on headline news if you touch a cop it's assault.... that's pretty fucking pathetic imo. he also thought the officer showed a lot of patience.

where i come from, hitting gals is about as bad an act as any dude can commit. i don't care if the lady hits you over the head with a frying pan - you don't stike back - you take the pan away.

Seattle, as i'm sure has been previously mentioned, is notorious for issuing jaywalking tickets. i had a friend in from Chicago that was stopped by a cop for this and his reaction was, "are you serious?"

obviously i voted "no" both for gender reasons listed above and the obvious answer that other methods of "subduing" this "criminal" were available

[John Taylor]

Yeah. After watching this version, the cop should have called for the swat team back-up to help keep the peace. These jaywalkers are dangerous to society. :rolleyes:

Jaywalkers are dangerous to society, they (in the absence of anti-jaywalking laws) create civil liability for drivers operating vehicles on roadways.

Based on this police officer's physical capacity, perhaps he needed a swat team!:)

[John Taylor]

according to the dick analyst on headline news if you touch a cop it's assault.... that's pretty fucking pathetic imo. he also thought the officer showed a lot of patience.

where i come from, hitting gals is about as bad an act as any dude can commit. i don't care if the lady hits you over the head with a frying pan - you don't stike back - you take the pan away.

Seattle, as i'm sure has been previously mentioned, is notorious for issuing jaywalking tickets. i had a friend in from Chicago that was stopped by a cop for this and his reaction was, "are you serious?"

obviously i voted "no" both for gender reasons listed above and the obvious answer that other methods of "subduing" this "criminal" were available

If a LADY strikes you, no, you don't strike her back, but when someone strikes a police officer, that is generally unacceptable behavior, and, constitutionally, the police officers have to treat each person equally under the law, using the same level of force regardless of the presence or lack of an appendage. This female is a woman, not a lady. Let's get the definitions correct.

Jaywalking is illegal for a reason.

Other ways of subduing this woman? Like using a taser? This woman is as tall and perhaps weighs more than the little police officer.

[Travlyr]

If a LADY strikes you, no, you don't strike her back, but when someone strikes a police officer, that is generally unacceptable behavior, and, constitutionally, the police officers have to treat each person equally under the law, using the same level of force regardless of the presence or lack of an appendage. This female is a woman, not a lady. Let's get the definitions correct.

Jaywalking is illegal for a reason.

Other ways of subduing this woman? Like using a taser? This woman is as tall and perhaps weighs more than the little police officer.

Yeah... He should have tazered her or shot her, or at least beat her with his nightclub. Jaywalking is a crime!

[jsu718]

Apparently they forgot Chris Rock's simple tips for not getting your ass beat by the police.
YouTube - Chris Rock - How not to get your ass kicked by the police! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8)

[HRD53]

according to the dick analyst on headline news if you touch a cop it's assault.... that's pretty fucking pathetic imo. he also thought the officer showed a lot of patience.

where i come from, hitting gals is about as bad an act as any dude can commit. i don't care if the lady hits you over the head with a frying pan - you don't stike back - you take the pan away.

Seattle, as i'm sure has been previously mentioned, is notorious for issuing jaywalking tickets. i had a friend in from Chicago that was stopped by a cop for this and his reaction was, "are you serious?"

obviously i voted "no" both for gender reasons listed above and the obvious answer that other methods of "subduing" this "criminal" were available


If somebody hits me with a frying pan, i'm punching them in the fucking face... I don't care if they have a vagina or not.

[Agorism]

I think I'd rather get punched than tasered. At least that way the cop has to exert himself a little bit.

[stone]

the girls are obviously a few a$$ kickins short of knowing how to act like females.
The cop probably roughed someone up unecessarily in the past month, so he deserved what she gave him too. He looked like a lame a$$ wuss and I think she told him he was weak near the end, which had me laughing.

By the way, I do admire greatly how the community gathered around there and filmed the proceedings. That is the smart thing to do, and is actually what Shaefer Cox and his group are doing in Alaska.

[Natalie]

I voted for yes. It looks like she put her hands on him first. I'm not a fan of cops either, but if you act civil, they most likely will not give you any problems.

[AutoDas]

Don't put words in my mouth. People of all races can be racist and most people (thankfully) are not.

Here we have a white cop who goes to MLK boulevard which is probably the black part of town and starts handing out jaywalking tickets. Racially motivated? Maybe, maybe not.

But put it this way. I have black friends and white friends. Both groups jaywalk, blacks seem to get far more tickets for this bullshit "crime" than whites. It does not mean that they are all racially motivated, but clearly some of them are. The numbers are too disproportionate for it to be a coincidence.

Yeah, the jaywalkers in this video were racially motivated. Look at how ignorant they act when second one put her hands on the officer. The officer used just enough force to push her away. Thank god for video cameras otherwise this would be headlined, "Black 19 year old high schooler gets punched in the face by white cop for jaywalking confirmed by 10 witnesses." He was issuing tickets for jaywalking because the local high school down the street called for cops to discourage this reckless behavior and to encourage use of the sky bridge 20 feet away. I don't care how injustice the arrest, you do not interfere in an arrest but maybe MLK means nothing to these thugs.

Is BlackTerrel's post racially motivated? Maybe.

Anecdotal evidence aside, I didn't see any white kids in the video so have you considered blacks get more tickets because they jaywalk more proportionality to other races and you only notice this because you have a victim outlook on life?

[Brian4Liberty]

Anecdotal evidence aside, I didn't see any white kids in the video so have you considered blacks get more tickets because they jaywalk more proportionality to other races and you only notice this because you have a victim outlook on life?

If memory serves, I believe there are three girls, two black, one white. The white girl played a minor role in the video, so she wasn't as obvious. Maybe she can get top billing next time...

[BlackTerrel]

Yeah, the jaywalkers in this video were racially motivated. Look at how ignorant they act when second one put her hands on the officer. The officer used just enough force to push her away. Thank god for video cameras otherwise this would be headlined, "Black 19 year old high schooler gets punched in the face by white cop for jaywalking confirmed by 10 witnesses." He was issuing tickets for jaywalking because the local high school down the street called for cops to discourage this reckless behavior and to encourage use of the sky bridge 20 feet away. I don't care how injustice the arrest, you do not interfere in an arrest but maybe MLK means nothing to these thugs.

If you don't think there are cops out there who specifically target black people you are woefully naive. Consider yourself lucky you don't have to deal with it.


Anecdotal evidence aside, I didn't see any white kids in the video so have you considered blacks get more tickets because they jaywalk more proportionality to other races and you only notice this because you have a victim outlook on life?

1. Black people are genetically prone to jaywalk

2. Black culture supports jaywalking. It's what we talk about at Church.

Neither of these are bloody likely. I have plenty of white friends, black friends, and Asian friends. The black people tend to be far more targeted than the white or Asian ones - that is a fact.

Most police are probably not racist. But some are. That's a fact.

[mport1]

50/50??!! This thug is harassing and then beating up a girl for jaywalking!

[aji]

ASSAULT, crim. law. An assault is any unlawful attempt or offer with force or violence to do a corporal hurt to another, whether from malice or wantonness; for example, by striking at him or even holding up the fist at him in a threatening or insulting manner, or with other circumstances as denote at the time. an intention, coupled with a present ability, of actual violence against his person,

The police officer was not only justified in his use of force in defending himself, but also using further force to subdue and arrest his attacker for assault.

[AutoDas]

If you don't think there are cops out there who specifically target black people you are woefully naive. Consider yourself lucky you don't have to deal with it.

Don't put words in my mouth. Do non-white cops target your white friends or are the non-white cops angels?


1. Black people are genetically prone to jaywalk

2. Black culture supports jaywalking. It's what we talk about at Church.

Neither of these are bloody likely. I have plenty of white friends, black friends, and Asian friends. The black people tend to be far more targeted than the white or Asian ones - that is a fact.

Most police are probably not racist. But some are. That's a fact.

Why would a group of people that dress and support a culture of thug life that hate cops and have disrespect for the law get targeted by cops?

Each one has no respect for property.

[live liberty]

50/50??!! This thug is harassing and then beating up a girl for jaywalking!

Yes, the sad reality is that fully 50% of the people on rpf want the police to arrest jaywakers and if they resist then take a beating and get further charges of resisting arrest and assault on a police officer. It's sad but true. They have been conditioned to believe that they have to obey the police, no matter what, because it's the law even tho everybody jaywalks sometimes.

[MelissaWV]

Yes, the sad reality is that fully 50% of the people on rpf want the police to arrest jaywakers and if they resist then take a beating and get further charges of resisting arrest and assault on a police officer. It's sad but true. They have been conditioned to believe that they have to obey the police, no matter what, because it's the law even tho everybody jaywalks sometimes.

You're speaking for the 50%, and you're in error. The question has nothing to do with whether it should be lawful to arrest someone for jaywalking. The question is about the punch, which was not a part of the jaywalking ticket. The punch was a direct result of the officer being shoved. That's how it was presented in the initial video.

The subsequent video and accounts show that it's very likely the cop was already being violent towards dark-shirted girl, which would merit the shoving response by her or her pink-shirted friend. That's still a bit wobbly, though.

You don't have to "obey the police, no matter what," but neither does the uniform give you an excuse to shove them and cry victim when they shove or punch or slap you back. And yes, a lot of people jaywalk, and a lot of people take their tickets and contest them, or simply don't pay them. If people were really super smart, and these cops have a history of this crap in that neighborhood, they'd set up cameras and have people of different nationalities jaywalk, and see what happens.

Is it your contention this what's shown in the video is really the smartest course of action?

[MelissaWV]

according to the dick analyst on headline news if you touch a cop it's assault.... that's pretty fucking pathetic imo. he also thought the officer showed a lot of patience.

where i come from, hitting gals is about as bad an act as any dude can commit. i don't care if the lady hits you over the head with a frying pan - you don't stike back - you take the pan away.

Seattle, as i'm sure has been previously mentioned, is notorious for issuing jaywalking tickets. i had a friend in from Chicago that was stopped by a cop for this and his reaction was, "are you serious?"

obviously i voted "no" both for gender reasons listed above and the obvious answer that other methods of "subduing" this "criminal" were available

Says someone who's never been hit by a frying pan. Seriously, regardless of gender, assault isn't okay. You are assuming you can "take the pan away." In all your gentlemanly glory, what you are saying is "women are weaker."

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

I haven't posted here in ages, but this situation strikes at the heart of a major problem where I live in Charlotte. No, not police brutality, but JAYWALKING!

First, let me get this out of the way, no, I do not believe anyone from the state ought to be punching people in the face. HOWEVER, when someone, usually a welfare collecting dependent decides to create their own traffic laws and steps out in front of 45 to 55 MPH traffic and tries to cross a five lane road, drivers should get out and beat their ass for stupidity. Maybe some of you who think jaywalking isn't a problem don't live in an area where it is. Where I live, I see on a DAILY basis people crossing this kind of a HIGHWAY with TODDLERS! Sure enough, there have already been about 10 deaths this year due to this type of behavior, and the media blames the drivers, of course. Usually, it's blamed on a cell phone, even if there's no proof of a cell phone.

Another major part of the problem is the jaywalkers themselves truly believe they are ENTITLED to jaywalk because THEIR bus stop or store or whatever is on the other side. It does arise from dependency, and the thinking they have a RIGHT to a bus ride, a RIGHT to a store, and a RIGHT to interfere with others because it's easier for them.

I have to question some of you who think jaywalking is perfectly fine. Is driving in multiple lanes okay too? Is deliberately interfering with other people's rights ok? Freedom does not mean you have the right to do ANYTHING you want. While I certainly don't support laws that protect people against themselves, I do support some kind of ban on jaywalking.

[wildfirepower]

I think the cop does not like Barack Obama.

[John Taylor]

I haven't posted here in ages, but this situation strikes at the heart of a major problem where I live in Charlotte. No, not police brutality, but JAYWALKING!

First, let me get this out of the way, no, I do not believe anyone from the state ought to be punching people in the face. HOWEVER, when someone, usually a welfare collecting dependent decides to create their own traffic laws and steps out in front of 45 to 55 MPH traffic and tries to cross a five lane road, drivers should get out and beat their ass for stupidity. Maybe some of you who think jaywalking isn't a problem don't live in an area where it is. Where I live, I see on a DAILY basis people crossing this kind of a HIGHWAY with TODDLERS! Sure enough, there have already been about 10 deaths this year due to this type of behavior, and the media blames the drivers, of course. Usually, it's blamed on a cell phone, even if there's no proof of a cell phone.

Another major part of the problem is the jaywalkers themselves truly believe they are ENTITLED to jaywalk because THEIR bus stop or store or whatever is on the other side. It does arise from dependency, and the thinking they have a RIGHT to a bus ride, a RIGHT to a store, and a RIGHT to interfere with others because it's easier for them.

I have to question some of you who think jaywalking is perfectly fine. Is driving in multiple lanes okay too? Is deliberately interfering with other people's rights ok? Freedom does not mean you have the right to do ANYTHING you want. While I certainly don't support laws that protect people against themselves, I do support some kind of ban on jaywalking.

You've made a good argument for the existence of anti-jaywalking ordinances. In the absence of them, the civil liability of drivers would be massively increased.

[live liberty]

You're speaking for the 50%, and you're in error.

No error here. Fully 50% (look at the poll) of the people here on rpf support the police state. Violence against fellow human beings is only justified in self defense whether uniformed or not. That's exactly what is wrong with the police state. When any law is passed, that automatically gives the police state the right to initiate violence to achieve the desired result. Don't pay your taxes... go to jail... have a ounce of pot in your house... kill your dog... claim you need a moment to get your papers... get tazered... get caught jaywalking and resist... get punched in the face. The police state is not the friend of freedom.


The question has nothing to do with whether it should be lawful to arrest someone for jaywalking. The question is about the punch, which was not a part of the jaywalking ticket. The punch was a direct result of the officer being shoved. That's how it was presented in the initial video.

The punch was a direct result of the officer being over his head. The girl in the pink shirt was simply a kid trying to help her friend. She did not need a punch to the face. She was not attacking him. She was unwisely helping her smaller friend. An experienced rational policeman would have let the situation calm down. I do, however, applaud the officer for not losing control of himself and beating her with his stick or tazer.


The subsequent video and accounts show that it's very likely the cop was already being violent towards dark-shirted girl, which would merit the shoving response by her or her pink-shirted friend. That's still a bit wobbly, though.

Nothing wobbly about it. He was assaulting her for jaywalking. They are kids. She was not going after the officer to beat him up. She pushed him away. It was dumb, but she calmed down and moved away with the help of her wiser friends.


You don't have to "obey the police, no matter what,"

Yes you do. No matter what. Or you can choose a beating or tazer. It is their duty to control you if you resist. And I think the girls may have learned the lesson that resisting the police will get you a beating. 50% of the people will be happy with that. I'm not, but we may just have to agree to disagree. Wherever freedom is... that's where I want to be.

YouTube - Taser | Tasered: Cpl Thomas O'Connor stop of Eugene Snelling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RGe8fJ597w)


And yes, a lot of people jaywalk

Jaywalking is an extremely vague law. Everybody jaywalks, it's just that most people don't really call it jaywalking. People that live in a cul-de-sac don't go to the intersection to cross the street to visit their neighbor - that's jaywalking. People that live in the country cross the road all the time without finding a crosswalk. Jaywalking is a law to establish liability in the event of an accident; not one to be enforced to imprison disobedient people or support police salaries.


and a lot of people take their tickets and contest them, or simply don't pay them. If people were really super smart, and these cops have a history of this crap in that neighborhood, they'd set up cameras and have people of different nationalities jaywalk, and see what happens.

It's not about race. It's the police state. A lot of people like the police state and accept their tickets, grumble about it and go on forums to complain then sit down to watch American Idol. At least these girls stood up for what they thought was right. Resisting arrest for jaywalking is justified civil disobedience.


Is it your contention this what's shown in the video is really the smartest course of action?

Absolutely not. The smartest course of action would have been:

To install a pedestrian crosswalk at street level
Or, install a automobile overpass rather than a pedestrian overpass
Or, if jaywalking is such an important issue on that road, barricade the area
Or, for the chief of police to have sent a team of officers (rather than one) to teach these young people the importance of using the pedestrian overpass.


If you really believe that jaywalking is a major societal issue that needs addressed, then educating the people makes more sense than sending an officer to punch them in the face.
The kids aren't the dumb ones here, the adults are.

[live liberty]

I haven't posted here in ages, but this situation strikes at the heart of a major problem where I live in Charlotte. No, not police brutality, but JAYWALKING!

First, let me get this out of the way, no, I do not believe anyone from the state ought to be punching people in the face. HOWEVER, when someone, usually a welfare collecting dependent decides to create their own traffic laws and steps out in front of 45 to 55 MPH traffic and tries to cross a five lane road, drivers should get out and beat their ass for stupidity. Maybe some of you who think jaywalking isn't a problem don't live in an area where it is. Where I live, I see on a DAILY basis people crossing this kind of a HIGHWAY with TODDLERS! Sure enough, there have already been about 10 deaths this year due to this type of behavior, and the media blames the drivers, of course. Usually, it's blamed on a cell phone, even if there's no proof of a cell phone.

Another major part of the problem is the jaywalkers themselves truly believe they are ENTITLED to jaywalk because THEIR bus stop or store or whatever is on the other side. It does arise from dependency, and the thinking they have a RIGHT to a bus ride, a RIGHT to a store, and a RIGHT to interfere with others because it's easier for them.

I have to question some of you who think jaywalking is perfectly fine. Is driving in multiple lanes okay too? Is deliberately interfering with other people's rights ok? Freedom does not mean you have the right to do ANYTHING you want. While I certainly don't support laws that protect people against themselves, I do support some kind of ban on jaywalking.

You miss the point entirely. We live in a police state! 50% of you are fine with it and I am not. Jaywalking is not perfectly fine even though everybody has to jaywalk on occasion. Proper design, rational techniques and education are preferable to police beatings.

[MelissaWV]

No error here. Fully 50% (look at the poll) of the people here on rpf support the police state. Violence against fellow human beings is only justified in self defense whether uniformed or not.

...

The rest of the post is superfluous. Did it occur to you that a portion of that 50% are supporting "violence against human beings is only justified in self defense whether uniformed or not"? Oh right. A 17-year-old shoving at you is just a child, and should be restrained. Of course, then we'd be arguing about a video showing some policeman restraining a 17-year-old girl roughly (which the rest of the video shows) instead. It wasn't well-handled on either side.

Your contention that to support someone punching someone who is shoving them is "support of the police state" is wrong. It absolutely, simply is, and most of the votes were put in before the second video and subsequent accounts surfaced.

Perhaps the 50% saying he wasn't justified were psychic, or perhaps they simply don't think a cop should ever respond to being shoved or having hands put on them, simply because they are wearing the uniform. That, to me, seems moronic. There are obviously other reasons someone could have voted "No" even before the supporting information surfaced. Either you support what you typed (the right to defend with comparable force), or you don't; the uniform shouldn't make a lick of difference. Based on what was available when most people cast their votes, the "Yes" vote is not necessarily what you are characterizing it as. The punch was a response to the shoving. He was incredibly unlikely to just sock her in the face for jaywalking on its own. They are two separate things, whether people want to believe it or not.

The rest is pure sensationalism.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

You miss the point entirely. We live in a police state! 50% of you are fine with it and I am not. Jaywalking is not perfectly fine even though everybody has to jaywalk on occasion. Proper design, rational techniques and education are preferable to police beatings.

No, I think some of you miss the point.

Do we live in a police state? YES, I do agree with you. My concerns about it are more with the REAL crap the police and government do. Like Census workers demanding unconstitutional information, checkpoints which assume you've done something illegal without probable cause, and other laws which give police power over your life. However, anti-jaywalking laws are a legitimate function of policing. Jaywalking is dangerous. The person who does it is not just putting himself/herself at risk, s/he is putting every driver at risk as well. A police officer is sworn to protect the public. Someone doing something which harms the public should be corrected.

The other part to this that so many miss. Education won't stop this. This really didn't happen before the days of public housing and government dependency. The overwhelming majority of the people doing this here are public housing residents who feel they are ENTITLED to make their own rules. They feel they are entitled because government has given them everything they do have. They've never done anything on their own. They don't understand how to actually function in a society where they have to pull their own weight, or where their actions or inactions affect other people. It's really a cycle of dependency issue that I'm surprised hasn't been addressed earlier in this thread.

[live liberty]

The rest of the post is superfluous.

No, it's not.


The rest is pure sensationalism.

No, it's not. This is what this thread is about! Is a cop justified in punching a girl in the face? No, unless it is self defense. Some may argue that it was self defense. I don't.

My argument goes to the heart of liberty itself. Violence is authorized by laws. That is what laws are! Laws create a police state that authorizes authorities to initiate violence against their fellow man to force behavior.

This post brings out the truth of that. I happen to loathe the police state that we live and believe that we (as a society) can do better.

[live liberty]

No, I think some of you miss the point.

Do we live in a police state? YES, I do agree with you. My concerns about it are more with the REAL crap the police and government do. Like Census workers demanding unconstitutional information, checkpoints which assume you've done something illegal without probable cause, and other laws which give police power over your life. However, anti-jaywalking laws are a legitimate function of policing. Jaywalking is dangerous. The person who does it is not just putting himself/herself at risk, s/he is putting every driver at risk as well. A police officer is sworn to protect the public. Someone doing something which harms the public should be corrected.

The other part to this that so many miss. Education won't stop this. This really didn't happen before the days of public housing and government dependency. The overwhelming majority of the people doing this here are public housing residents who feel they are ENTITLED to make their own rules. They feel they are entitled because government has given them everything they do have. They've never done anything on their own. They don't understand how to actually function in a society where they have to pull their own weight, or where their actions or inactions affect other people. It's really a cycle of dependency issue that I'm surprised hasn't been addressed earlier in this thread.

And I think you miss the point. You say that we do live in a police state... I agree that we do... but I don't like it. I like liberty.

[Danke]

It absolutely, simply is, and most of the votes were put in before the second video and subsequent accounts surfaced.

Perhaps the 50% saying he wasn't justified were psychic, or perhaps they simply don't think a cop should ever respond to being shoved or having hands put on them, simply because they are wearing the uniform. That, to me, seems moronic. There are obviously other reasons someone could have voted "No" even before the supporting information surfaced.

What are you talking about? I voted No right away from the OP. What extra supporting evidence? She shoved him, he responded by punching her in the face.


That, to me, seems moronic.

No, your continued ASSumptions are what is moronic.

[MelissaWV]

No, it's not.



No, it's not. This is what this post is about! Is a cop justified in punching a girl in the face? No, unless it is self defense. Some may argue that it was self defense. I don't.

My argument goes to the heart of liberty itself. Violence is authorized by laws. That is what laws are! Laws create a police state that authorizes authorities to initiate violence against their fellow man to force behavior.

This post brings out the truth of that. I happen to loathe the police state that we live and believe that we (as a society) can do better.

What?!? You mean that your assertion that the people voting "Yes" were all in favor of the police state was facetious or hyperbole or just... wrong? :rolleyes:

Thank you for the admission. The police state is idiotic for both sides. You would think the cops themselves would be the first to want to get to "real policework" and not spend their time wandering around ticketing jaywalkers, checking parking meters, and making sure that kids are in school. I don't think we need them for "real policework," either, but at the very least most of these situations would go away. It'd be nice to work with the police to reach that middle ground. Unfortunately, that would mean less revenue, and fewer cops (most of them patrol around doing nothing most of the day as it is), and the unions can't have that. Those are all larger issues. The only issue I see here is who punched or shoved or restrained first (from the first video, looks like the girl; from the second, looks like the cop).

[live liberty]

Yes, given the state of affairs today, this particular girl needed to be punched in the face to teach her a lesson. Do not interfere with the police.

But overall, I vote to eliminate the violence of the police state.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

No, it's not.



No, it's not. This is what this thread is about! Is a cop justified in punching a girl in the face? No, unless it is self defense. Some may argue that it was self defense. I don't.

My argument goes to the heart of liberty itself. Violence is authorized by laws. That is what laws are! Laws create a police state that authorizes authorities to initiate violence against their fellow man to force behavior.

This post brings out the truth of that. I happen to loathe the police state that we live and believe that we (as a society) can do better.


Sure, if every human was capable of rational thought, you'd have a point.

Your liberty ends when your "liberties" infringe upon mine. You DO NOT have the right to walk out in front of my car, and then come after me for your damages. That is essentially why we have jaywalking laws.

Now, should a cop punch someone in the face for it? No. But if a cop is assaulted while trying to serve a LAWFUL ticket, YES, he has the right to self-defense.

[MelissaWV]

Yes, given the state of affairs today, this particular girl needed to be punched in the face to teach her a lesson. Do not interfere with the police.

But overall, I vote to eliminate the violence of the police state.

No one, that I've seen in this entire thread, has said anything of the sort. If the cop was shoved, he was justified in using similar force in defense. ONE person has argued that a punch was not similar enough to a shove; that's fair. To me, it's still in the same range. If the cop was restraining someone in an overly rough manner, then the shoving was justified, but ill-advised. This doesn't really seem to penetrate for some folks.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

Yes, given the state of affairs today, this particular girl needed to be punched in the face to teach her a lesson. Do not interfere with the police.

But overall, I vote to eliminate the violence of the police state.

If we lived in civil society, the girl needed to be "punched in the face" by a parent or a guardian with a warning not to do that ever again.

Not because it's "against the law", but because by jaywalking, you are putting yourself at risk at getting hurt, you are being selfish and rude, and you are interfering with other people's rights.

Better parenting and less government dependence would eliminate most of these situations with the police.

[live liberty]

What?!? You mean that your assertion that the people voting "Yes" were all in favor of the police state was facetious or hyperbole or just... wrong? :rolleyes:

Thank you for the admission.

Actually, I did not mean to admit that. A yes vote on this thread is a vote in favor of the police state whether or not it is conscious or subconscious is another matter.

[Krugerrand]

No error here. Fully 50% (look at the poll) of the people here on rpf support the police state. Violence against fellow human beings is only justified in self defense whether uniformed or not. That's exactly what is wrong with the police state. When any law is passed, that automatically gives the police state the right to initiate violence to achieve the desired result. Don't pay your taxes... go to jail... have a ounce of pot in your house... kill your dog... claim you need a moment to get your papers... get tazered... get caught jaywalking and resist... get punched in the face. The police state is not the friend of freedom.

"get caught ______ and resist" and you will have forced used against you. I really don't have that much of a problem with that statement. Your resistance is essentially the initiation of violence. Otherwise, there would be no law enforcement. Law breakers would simply leave the scene. Watch any ACLU or "standing up for your rights" video and it will be hammered into your head - DO NOT PHYSICALLY RESIST A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. This isn't a matter of a police state. It's a matter of a nation of laws. Some here don't want a nation of laws (and have legitimate support for their arguments) but most do.


The punch was a direct result of the officer being over his head. The girl in the pink shirt was simply a kid trying to help her friend. She did not need a punch to the face. She was not attacking him. She was unwisely helping her smaller friend. An experienced rational policeman would have let the situation calm down. I do, however, applaud the officer for not losing control of himself and beating her with his stick or tazer.

Dark Green = I agree.

"simply a kid trying to help her friend." You make it sound like they're setting up a lemonade stand. She was climbing up the back of the officer. She's darn lucky she didn't get herself shot as she put the officer in a potentially life threatening situation. Plus, simply help your friend rob a bank and you'll go to jail. (assuming law enforcement's only recourse isn't to open the jail cell and hope you walk into it, as it sounds like you'd suggest.)


Nothing wobbly about it. He was assaulting her for jaywalking. They are kids. She was not going after the officer to beat him up. She pushed him away. It was dumb, but she calmed down and moved away with the help of her wiser friends.

You sure like to skip some IMPORTANT details. He escalated his level of force AFTER the force was escalated against him. What you said implies that had she been complacent with the citation she would have been punched anyway. That's simply unreasonable speculation and an intentional distortion of the reality of the events.


Yes you do. No matter what. Or you can choose a beating or tazer. It is their duty to control you if you resist. And I think the girls may have learned the lesson that resisting the police will get you a beating. 50% of the people will be happy with that. I'm not, but we may just have to agree to disagree. Wherever freedom is... that's where I want to be.

YouTube - Taser | Tasered: Cpl Thomas O'Connor stop of Eugene Snelling

Jaywalking is an extremely vague law. Everybody jaywalks, it's just that most people don't really call it jaywalking. People that live in a cul-de-sac don't go to the intersection to cross the street to visit their neighbor - that's jaywalking. People that live in the country cross the road all the time without finding a crosswalk. Jaywalking is a law to establish liability in the event of an accident; not one to be enforced to imprison disobedient people or support police salaries.


It's not about race. It's the police state. A lot of people like the police state and accept their tickets, grumble about it and go on forums to complain then sit down to watch American Idol. At least these girls stood up for what they thought was right. Resisting arrest for jaywalking is justified civil disobedience.

Do you have no idea what civil disobedience is? Civil disobedience means to break the bad law and take the consequences and fight the consequences through the proper channels. Civil disobedience means having a criminal record if you believe the cause is just. I never learned of Rosa Parks resisting arrest.


Absolutely not. The smartest course of action would have been:

To install a pedestrian crosswalk at street level
Or, install a automobile overpass rather than a pedestrian overpass
Or, if jaywalking is such an important issue on that road, barricade the area
Or, for the chief of police to have sent a team of officers (rather than one) to teach these young people the importance of using the pedestrian overpass.



The pedestrian crosswalk already existed it wasn't used. Nix that smartest course of action. An automobile overpass would have to go through the existing pedestrian crosswalk. Nix that smartest course of action. For the last one ... I'd be real curious to watch the public instruction on the importance of using the pedestrian overpass. Let's just say obvious impracticality can nix that smartest course of action.


If you really believe that jaywalking is a major societal issue that needs addressed, then educating the people makes more sense than sending an officer to punch them in the face.
The kids aren't the dumb ones here, the adults are.

I agree that it wasn't handled well. The policeman could have likely handled things better up ground that would have not led to the situation. What I see is the result of a prevalent attitude of "So what if I screw with traffic - what are you going to do about it?" Crosswalk classes aren't the answer. The traffic problems in the area were not caused by people not knowing how to use a crosswalk. The traffic problems were cause by people not caring about the problems their actions cause.

[live liberty]

If we lived in civil society, the girl needed to be "punched in the face" by a parent or a guardian with a warning not to do that ever again.

Society can teach too.


Not because it's "against the law", but because by jaywalking, you are putting yourself at risk at getting hurt, you are being selfish and rude, and you are interfering with other people's rights.

Again, don't overlook proper design, rational techniques and education. Claiming that education does not work is a cop out. If you truly believe that education does not work, then try ignorance in your daily life.


Better parenting and less government dependence would eliminate most of these situations with the police.

Or eliminating the government schools, fiat money, empire & police state and using constitutional principals like the rule of law, a sheriff, judge, jury of peers... and justice.

[Krugerrand]

Society can teach too.

Again, don't overlook proper design, rational techniques and education. Claiming that education does not work is a cop out. If you truly believe that education does not work, then try ignorance in your daily life.

Or eliminating the government schools, fiat money, empire & police state and using constitutional principals like the rule of law, a sheriff, judge, jury of peers... and justice.

I just don't understand why you think education fits into this at all.

[Brian Defferding]

The cop was justified, period.

He was pushed.

If I went up and I shoved you, that can be considered assault and you can be charged for it. This time, though, that person that was shoved is a cop. You just assaulted a police officer. He is fully justified to take the offending person down - and when it comes to self-defense, the proper priority line of defense is a.) Your arms/fists, b.) Your nightstick, c.) Taser, d.) Gun. The cop went with A.

Jaywalking laws are kinda bunk, enforcing them to its fullest extent is a bit of a joke, but most cops I have seen who crack down on jaywalkers only pop their head of the car and say "Please use the crosswalk next time."

The cop certainly could have handled it better, sure, but I don't think this is a clear case of excessive force.

[Danke]

The cop was justified, period.

He was pushed.



If a cop pushes me, can I punch him in the face?

[Brian Defferding]

If a cop pushes me, can I punch him in the face?

If you didn't push/shove/assault/block the officer, and there is no clear case of probable cause that you broke the law, of course.

[Danke]

If you didn't touch the officer, and there is no clear case of probable cause that you broke the law, of course.

And I could then arrest him, right?

[live liberty]

Very few people can conceive living without police. I can.


"get caught ______ and resist" and you will have forced used against you. I really don't have that much of a problem with that statement. Your resistance is essentially the initiation of violence. Otherwise, there would be no law enforcement. Law breakers would simply leave the scene. Watch any ACLU or "standing up for your rights" video and it will be hammered into your head - DO NOT PHYSICALLY RESIST A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. This isn't a matter of a police state. It's a matter of a nation of laws. Some here don't want a nation of laws (and have legitimate support for their arguments) but most do.

Never ever resist... I get that. But police do not enforce the laws... courts do.


"simply a kid trying to help her friend." You make it sound like they're setting up a lemonade stand. She was climbing up the back of the officer. She's darn lucky she didn't get herself shot as she put the officer in a potentially life threatening situation. Plus, simply help your friend rob a bank and you'll go to jail. (assuming law enforcement's only recourse isn't to open the jail cell and hope you walk into it, as it sounds like you'd suggest.)

Agreed... given the police state in which we live.


You sure like to skip some IMPORTANT details. He escalated his level of force AFTER the force was escalated against him. What you said implies that had she been complacent with the citation she would have been punched anyway. That's simply unreasonable speculation and an intentional distortion of the reality of the events.

This would not happen in a free society (the absence of a police state).


The pedestrian crosswalk already existed it wasn't used. Nix that smartest course of action. An automobile overpass would have to go through the existing pedestrian crosswalk. Nix that smartest course of action. For the last one ... I'd be real curious to watch the public instruction on the importance of using the pedestrian overpass. Let's just say obvious impracticality can nix that smartest course of action.

Bad design! Already implemented. Why? Because we live in a controlled society rather than a free society. A free market society would have installed a proper design in the first place. As a matter of fact, people would be living, for the most part, in harmony with each other and nature. Most people do not see that... I do.


I agree that it wasn't handled well. The policeman could have likely handled things better up ground that would have not led to the situation. What I see is the result of a prevalent attitude of "So what if I screw with traffic - what are you going to do about it?" Crosswalk classes aren't the answer. The traffic problems in the area were not caused by people not knowing how to use a crosswalk. The traffic problems were cause by people not caring about the problems their actions cause.

No. Traffic control systems are simply that. Control. Bad designs. Why? Because society has never been allowed the free market of proper design. We live in a controlled society. And they do control us. The controllers have most of us blinded. Everybody that I personally know is a good person that is not out to stick it to the other guy/gal and would like to live and let live. The police state (our leaders) create chaos and then propose the solution to that chaos by giving us authorities to control us. Freedom is a much more natural process and a better choice.

[Brian Defferding]

And I could then arrest him, right?

If you wanted to and have handcuffs with you, sure.

[Danke]

If you wanted to and have handcuffs with you, sure.

All because someone pushed you. You will escalate the violence by a punch in the face up to and including locking one in a cage.

I think you have a future in the government, maybe the State Department?

[Brian Defferding]

All because someone pushed you. You will escalate the violence by a punch in the face up to and including locking one in a cage.

I think you have a future in the government, maybe the State Department?

Er, the jaywalker escalated it by pushing the officer. The punch was reactionary.

Once again - it's assault. It's basic rights being violated. You have to detain the offending person, and if a punch in the face is needed then you gotta do what you gotta do.

Of course the cop should have handled it a little bit better, some of the scenarios suggested here like reinforcement would have been a better idea, but at the end of the day that girl went from being a jaywalker to someone that could be charged with assault, and that requires arrest.

[Krugerrand]

Very few people can conceive living without police. I can.

Never ever resist... I get that. But police do not enforce the laws... courts do.

Agreed... given the police state in which we live.

This would not happen in a free society (the absence of a police state).

Bad design! Already implemented. Why? Because we live in a controlled society rather than a free society. A free market society would have installed a proper design in the first place. As a matter of fact, people would be living, for the most part, in harmony with each other and nature. Most people do not see that... I do.

No. Traffic control systems are simply that. Control. Bad designs. Why? Because society has never been allowed the free market of proper design. We live in a controlled society. And they do control us. The controllers have most of us blinded. Everybody that I personally know is a good person that is not out to stick it to the other guy/gal and would like to live and let live. The police state (our leaders) create chaos and then propose the solution to that chaos by giving us authorities to control us. Freedom is a much more natural process and a better choice.
If you want to convert more people to join you on your high horse, then I'd suggest making the case you want to make rather than distorting what happened.

Am I supposed to climb onto your utopian high horse without you making a logically supported case - or will I just get the rose colored glasses once I get there.

[BlackTerrel]

Don't put words in my mouth. Do non-white cops target your white friends or are the non-white cops angels?

Put it this way. There are a lot more white cops than non-white cops. And I doubt the non-white cops are trained to view the white community as "trouble makers".


Why would a group of people that dress and support a culture of thug life that hate cops and have disrespect for the law get targeted by cops?

Each one has no respect for property.

You're missing the point. Civilians (black or otherwise) have a right to have no respect for cops and to dress as "thugs".

Cops who are employed by the state do not have the right to target specific communities. Or to target anyone for that matter. At least they should not.

[MelissaWV]

Man I feel the same way. I saw a cop parked along MLK here, and I totally felt he was going to profile me.

http://www.bosshardtrealty.com/mlspictures/304326a.jpg

(Sorry; just figured it was about time someone popped the myth bubble that something with an MLK name has to be on the bad side of town.)

[Danke]

So we are having a discussion, and when you see the fallaciousness of your line of reasoning, you bring in the Jaywalking, that was not part of our specific discussion, to try to validate your politics. To recap:


The cop was justified, period.

He was pushed.

Now the generic question:


If a cop pushes me, can I punch him in the face?



If you didn't push/shove/assault/block the officer, and there is no clear case of probable cause that you broke the law, of course.


And I could then arrest him, right?


If you wanted to and have handcuffs with you, sure.

(not sure why I have to have handcuffs to qualify for the arrests)


All because someone pushed you. You will escalate the violence by a punch in the face up to and including locking one in a cage.

I think you have a future in the government, maybe the State Department?


Er, the jaywalker escalated it by pushing the officer. The punch was reactionary.


Then a gun shot would have been an escalation in response for the cop's punch? Or would that have been a "reactionary" response in your world? Therefore, O.K.

Guess you can't stick to the topic, so bring in "the jaywalker" as the aggressor instead of continuing our discussion.

Try taking a logic course.

Not related to our discussion, but was it the so called "Jaywalker"" that pushed the cop?

[AutoDas]

Put it this way. There are a lot more white cops than non-white cops. And I doubt the non-white cops are trained to view the white community as "trouble makers".
Put it this way. You can't look into other people's hearts and decide what motivated the officer's action was racism or the absolute disrespect they receive. I don't know why some people here think police are supposed to act better than humans. So you are saying white cops are trained to view the non-whites as "trouble makers" and not from experience?


You're missing the point. Civilians (black or otherwise) have a right to have no respect for cops and to dress as "thugs".

Cops who are employed by the state do not have the right to target specific communities. Or to target anyone for that matter. At least they should not.
Your replies are getting more irrational than the ones before it.

[jsu718]

Put it this way. You can't look into other people's hearts and decide what motivated the officer's action was racism or the absolute disrespect they receive. I don't know why some people here think police are supposed to act better than humans. So you are saying white cops are trained to view the non-whites as "trouble makers" and not from experience?


Your replies are getting more irrational than the ones before it.

Not necessarily.
YouTube - Police officer applies C-clamp on throat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbbBrnKEh6g)
Now, this cop was black and the guy being taken down was white... does it make me racist if I say that this cop was out of line for doing this just because the guy wouldn't take his hands out of his pockets but the previous cop was in the clear because he was shoved? No. It is two different situations and sometimes cops are assholes, sometimes they are excessively violent, and other times they are following proper procedure to deal with people resisting arrest and assaulting them.

[AutoDas]

um what?

[mport1]

Yes, the sad reality is that fully 50% of the people on rpf want the police to arrest jaywakers and if they resist then take a beating and get further charges of resisting arrest and assault on a police officer. It's sad but true. They have been conditioned to believe that they have to obey the police, no matter what, because it's the law even tho everybody jaywalks sometimes.

Yeah reading through some threads recently after taking a break from RPF it seems like there quite a bit more statists around. Not a good sign for the movement.

[John Taylor]

Yeah reading through some threads recently after taking a break from RPF it seems like there quite a bit more statists around. Not a good sign for the movement.

The free state project went belly-up when they decided to locate to statist New England half a decade ago...;) Wyoming was the best choice, but nooooooo, you guys had to choose New Hampshiter.

[CCTelander]

Yeah reading through some threads recently after taking a break from RPF it seems like there quite a bit more statists around. Not a good sign for the movement.

The natural outgrowth of an attitude that it's ok to scarifice principle in favor of political "gains." They come out of the woodwork in such an atmosphere.

[MelissaWV]

Yeah reading through some threads recently after taking a break from RPF it seems like there quite a bit more statists around. Not a good sign for the movement.

God forbid you should read the threads and listen to the rationale, and realize much of it has NOTHING to do with support of a police state, and rather support of someone, regardless of job, to self-defense.

[Travlyr]

God forbid you should read the threads and listen to the rationale, and realize much of it has NOTHING to do with support of a police state, and rather support of someone, regardless of job, to self-defense.

Can you elaborate on that please? :cool: Are you saying that we do not live in a police state?

[heavenlyboy34]

Yeah reading through some threads recently after taking a break from RPF it seems like there quite a bit more statists around. Not a good sign for the movement.

I agree. :(

[Travlyr]

Yeah reading through some threads recently after taking a break from RPF it seems like there quite a bit more statists around. Not a good sign for the movement.

I agree.

[MelissaWV]

Can you elaborate on that please? :cool: Are you saying that we do not live in a police state?

... How would you even remotely get that from what I said? Context is important. When someone makes the assertion:


Yes, the sad reality is that fully 50% of the people on rpf want the police to arrest jaywakers and if they resist then take a beating and get further charges of resisting arrest and assault on a police officer. It's sad but true. They have been conditioned to believe that they have to obey the police, no matter what, because it's the law even tho everybody jaywalks sometimes.

...it states that the people who voted "Yes" only have the justification that poster listed, and are in support of the police state. It's untrue. It has nothing to do with "obeying the police no matter what" or any other such nonsense. It's idiotic that there's now a good half dozen people agreeing that "Yes" votes are signs of support for the police state.

It's a funny thing. You notice more "statist" threads/posts, but I honestly notice more posts that utterly ignore context, common sense, and the evidence contained in the thread itself. Whether it fall more to the statist side or not, that seems to be the trend. People have been doing this rather rabidly since the Arizona immigration law threads, and it only got far worse with the IDF incident involving the ship. Now it's at fever pitch with the oil spill thing, and it's bleeding over into all the other threads.

I don't know if people are being deliberately dense and disruptive, or if people are just tired, or if there are a variety of reasons, or what, but it's ridiculous.

[Travlyr]

... How would you even remotely get that from what I said? Context is important. When someone makes the assertion:

I did not get that from what you posted. I was interested in your opinion. It was a sincere question. :cool:


...it states that the people who voted "Yes" only have the justification that poster listed, and are in support of the police state. It's untrue. It has nothing to do with "obeying the police no matter what" or any other such nonsense. It's idiotic that there's now a good half dozen people agreeing that "Yes" votes are signs of support for the police state.

It's a funny thing. You notice more "statist" threads/posts, but I honestly notice more posts that utterly ignore context, common sense, and the evidence contained in the thread itself. Whether it fall more to the statist side or not, that seems to be the trend. People have been doing this rather rabidly since the Arizona immigration law threads, and it only got far worse with the IDF incident involving the ship. Now it's at fever pitch with the oil spill thing, and it's bleeding over into all the other threads.

I don't know if people are being deliberately dense and disruptive, or if people are just tired, or if there are a variety of reasons, or what, but it's ridiculous.

Anarchists live in a dream land Utopia that does not exist.

Nobody should be punching anybody... except for fun and self-defense. That's MO.

[CCTelander]

God forbid you should read the threads and listen to the rationale, and realize much of it has NOTHING to do with support of a police state, and rather support of someone, regardless of job, to self-defense.

With all due respect, you're being overly harsh here in your criticism.

Their rationale is irrelevant since it is based upon a number of erroneous premises.

Let's say a thief breaks into your house and you take action against them. The thief then kills you in response to your "attack." No reasonable person is going to let the thief claim self-defense in this instance.

But give the thief a government issued costume and a badge and all of a sudden the situation is somehow different? I don't think so.

The cop in this video can't claim self-defense because he was in the wrong to begin with.

In fact, EVERY cop in this country routinely violates the rights of innocent people every day they're on the job. Any time they enforce a drug "law," or an anti-gun "law," or any other "law" this is malum prohibitum in character they are violating the rights of innocents. They do it thousands of times a day. They are the thieves. Their costumes and badges don't change the character of their actions.

If there's no victim (injured party), there's no crime, and therefore no reason for a cop to take ANY action. Period.

If they take a little heat because they violate this age old dictum, too fucking bad. Maybe they should be sure, damned sure, that their actions are just before they volunteer to pick up a gun and badge and start pushing the innocent around.

[paulitics]

Not justified because of the level of force. Force should have been used once she attacked him, but not a punch in the face, lol. Stupid thing to stop someone for in the first place.

[MichelleHeart]

where i come from, hitting gals is about as bad an act as any dude can commit. i don't care if the lady hits you over the head with a frying pan - you don't stike back - you take the pan away.

You're another one of those white knights, I see. In your world, women are poor, defenseless, weak, and incapable. Even if they're hitting a man over the head with a frying pan, the man is automatically the bad guy if he defends himself. :confused:

All these gender stereotypes need to stop. Hitting someone for any reason other than self-defense is wrong, wrong, wrong, REGARDLESS of your gender. Hitting someone in self-defense is an understandable reaction.

[HRD53]

i made ah mastake!!

[HRD53]

Yeah reading through some threads recently after taking a break from RPF it seems like there quite a bit more statists around. Not a good sign for the movement.

You don't believe that a cop has the right to defend himself because of the uniform he wears... and anyone who believes otherwise is a bootlicker.

I have to be honest, it seems to me if there ever were a group of collectivists, its you. You see a badge and you hate it... You associate it with fascism and there is no convincing you otherwise. I can't believe that i'm even fucking defending the cops, but i have to... there is no evidence in this video that this cop did anything other than defend himself... and if you took the uniform off, you mindless idealogues would be defending him

[Reason]

YouTube - Teen Girl Punched By Seattle Cop Apologizes To Cop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmwgrk58xjw)

[live liberty]

Also this version of the video is much better... shows more of what happened.


Let's look at the facts:

A man is wrestling with a girl who is resisting. Another girl intervenes by separating the two, then she shoves the man away. The man pulls his arm back and punches her in the face then wrestles her to the car where the first girl jumps on the man's back. The man is now wrestling with two girls when another man steps up and pulls the second girl from the wrestling match leaving the man to wrestling the original girl to get her under control where the man finally subdues and handcuffs her. Now the girl is under the complete control of the man.

Where is the justification for a man taking control over a girl, punching another girl in the face and eventually handcuffing and completely controlling the girl?
Because the man represents the police state!

Police state lovers can kiss my ass! :mad:

[live liberty]

You don't believe that a cop has the right to defend himself because of the uniform he wears... and anyone who believes otherwise is a bootlicker.

I have to be honest, it seems to me if there ever were a group of collectivists, its you. You see a badge and you hate it... You associate it with fascism and there is no convincing you otherwise. I can't believe that i'm even fucking defending the cops, but i have to... there is no evidence in this video that this cop did anything other than defend himself... and if you took the uniform off, you mindless idealogues would be defending him

Defend! From a girl shoving him? "Your honor, she shoved me so I had to defend myself by punching her in the face." Moron.

[orenbus]

I think the cop should lose his job.

Not because he punched the girl, but because even trying to arrest one teenage girl seems to be very demanding on him physically. He doesn't seem to have the physical abilities needed in order to be a street cop. In a similar situation I could see the end result would be if he can't deal with the situation he would be more likely to pull his gun before a police officer that can subdue a teenage girl and get her in handcuffs without having to have a 10 minute struggle.

The same argument would be made about why we wouldn't want to have midgets or those with the medical condition dwarfism as police officers, it's just common sense. After watching the videos I think it's a clear cut case of this guy just can't do the job that is being asked of him.

[jmdrake]

How do address the girls' actions?

1) Jaywalking shouldn't even be a crime. If you're dumb enough to put your own life in danger that's your business.

2) The woman never assaulted the cop. She pushed him away from the woman he was arresting, but she didn't hit him. But in the bizarro world that is our nation any unwanted touching of a cop is assault. They'll even try to arrest you for making mean faces at a police dog.

[jmdrake]

Normally I would agree... I hate cops as much as anyone... but she took a swing at him while he was already dealing with someone that was resisting aggressively. Can't fault him for defending himself.

Bull. Watch the video again. She never to a swing at the cop. She pushed him away from the other girl. It's hard to tell from the clip that the media led with (and that's probably why they led with it) but if you watch through to the end it's clear what happened. The cops were trying to arrest a man for jaywalking, the crowd got agitated, the cop tried to arrest the woman in the blue blouse, the woman in the pink blouse pushed the cop away, the cop punched her in the face. He was NOT defending himself.

[jsu718]

Bull. Watch the video again. She never to a swing at the cop. She pushed him away from the other girl. It's hard to tell from the clip that the media led with (and that's probably why they led with it) but if you watch through to the end it's clear what happened. The cops were trying to arrest a man for jaywalking, the crowd got agitated, the cop tried to arrest the woman in the blue blouse, the woman in the pink blouse pushed the cop away, the cop punched her in the face. He was NOT defending himself.

Shoving a cop is still assault... 3rd degree in this case according to the most recent news.

[Travlyr]

It is a stretch to claim that a shove from a teenage girl is assault on an officer. The girls weren't fighting him... they were resisting. Their behavior was not criminal.

Now she is charged with 3rd degree assault on a police officer, with possibly a month in jail, and a year probation. Permanent criminal record. Yeah... we just made a new criminal out of a jaywalker. Into the system, girl... into the system for life.

[jsu718]

It is a stretch to claim that a shove from a teenage girl is assault on an officer. The girls weren't fighting him... they were resisting. Their behavior was not criminal.

Now she is charged with 3rd degree assault on a police officer, with possibly a month in jail, and a year probation. Permanent criminal record. Yeah... we just made a new criminal out of a jaywalker. Into the system, girl... into the system for life.

She already had a record of assaulting a police officer. This incident didn't create anything new for her.

[Travlyr]

Washington State Legislature (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.031)

RCW 9A.36.031
Assault in the third degree.

(1) A person is guilty of assault in the third degree if he or she, under circumstances not amounting to assault in the first or second degree:

(a) With intent to prevent or resist the execution of any lawful process or mandate of any court officer or the lawful apprehension or detention of himself or another person, assaults another; or

(b) Assaults a person employed as a transit operator or driver, the immediate supervisor of a transit operator or driver, a mechanic, or a security officer, by a public or private transit company or a contracted transit service provider, while that person is performing his or her official duties at the time of the assault; or

(c) Assaults a school bus driver, the immediate supervisor of a driver, a mechanic, or a security officer, employed by a school district transportation service or a private company under contract for transportation services with a school district, while the person is performing his or her official duties at the time of the assault; or

(d) With criminal negligence, causes bodily harm to another person by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm; or

(e) Assaults a firefighter or other employee of a fire department, county fire marshal's office, county fire prevention bureau, or fire protection district who was performing his or her official duties at the time of the assault; or

(f) With criminal negligence, causes bodily harm accompanied by substantial pain that extends for a period sufficient to cause considerable suffering; or

(g) Assaults a law enforcement officer or other employee of a law enforcement agency who was performing his or her official duties at the time of the assault; or

(h) Assaults a peace officer with a projectile stun gun; or

(i) Assaults a nurse, physician, or health care provider who was performing his or her nursing or health care duties at the time of the assault. For purposes of this subsection: "Nurse" means a person licensed under chapter 18.79 RCW; "physician" means a person licensed under chapter 18.57 or 18.71 RCW; and "health care provider" means a person certified under chapter 18.71 or 18.73 RCW who performs emergency medical services or a person regulated under Title 18 RCW and employed by, or contracting with, a hospital licensed under chapter 70.41 RCW.

(2) Assault in the third degree is a class C felony.
__________________
I don't know if both girls have been charged with assault, but, if so, it's going to be pretty tough for them to not be classified as a felons. The video clearly shows they violated (a) above.

[Travlyr]

She already had a record of assaulting a police officer. This incident didn't create anything new for her.

I did not know this prior to posting the above.

Do you know the details of her prior assault?

[Meatwasp]

She already had a record of assaulting a police officer. This incident didn't create anything new for her.

Where did you hear that? That changes the picture entirely. This may sound harsh, but if they had a bridge and deliberately jayed walked they asked to be run down. I have no sympathy

[MelissaWV]

I still maintain that, if this were the other way around, some of you would be cheering the woman for punching a cop who shoved her, and would claim it was self defense.

Very few in the thread have mentioned jaywalking being a valid reason to stop and ticket someone. The question here is as to what happened between the shove and the punch.

As to the "breaking in" comparison, it doesn't hold. They were not on private property. This is yet another reason for there not to be "public property" and officers charged with "keeping the peace" on that public property. Even with all that true, there are states where someone breaking in must threaten you with a certain degree of force before you are considered "justified" in taking action against them. It's a stupid twist of the law.

[jsu718]

I did not know this prior to posting the above.

Do you know the details of her prior assault?

It was discussed pretty thoroughly here...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012122660_coppunch16m.html
both girls had records.

[CCTelander]

I still maintain that, if this were the other way around, some of you would be cheering the woman for punching a cop who shoved her, and would claim it was self defense.


You're implying that those who are coming down on the cop in this instance are being hypocritical, or applying their standards inconsistently. I disagree for reasons cited below.



Very few in the thread have mentioned jaywalking being a valid reason to stop and ticket someone. The question here is as to what happened between the shove and the punch.


You're demanding that we consider only one part of the overall incident, taken out of context and viewed in a vacuum. Hardly a perscription for arriving at the truth.

But even if we limit our consideration to the segment of the incident you cite, it's impossible to come down on the cop's side while at the same time maintaining justice.

But let's play it your way. What we see in that video clip is a cop committing an aggressive act (holding her by the wrists) against the girl in the blue top. The girl in the pink top then shoves the cop in defense of her friend, companion, whatever. The cop proceeds to compound his error by punching the girl in the pink top in the face. He then further compounds his error by initiating force against her in an attempt to arrest her, whereupon the girl in the blue top attempts to defend her by jumping on the cop's back.

Nowhere in any of this is there ANY indication that the cop is in the right. That's simply an a priori assumption made by those defending his actions.

But is he? His defenders seem to be contending thet he's entitled to the benefit of the doubt, to the presumption of innocence.

However, the cop is clearly acting under color of state authority. The presumption of innocence exists TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS AS AGAINST STATE ACTION, not to protect state agents.

No matter how you cut the cake, it is the INDIVIDUALS involved, NOT the cop, who are entitled to the presumption of innocence. The cop is required, as a state agent, to PROVE that his actions were justified.

The presumption of innocence ALWAYS goes to the individual, not the state agent. Until the cop proves that his actions were justified, any claim of self-defense belongs exclusively to the individuals concerned. Period.

You state that "The question here is as to what happened between the shove and the punch." No. The correct question to be asking is "Who is the aggressor?" Whether you look at this incident in its entirety, or take the one segment out of context as you've demanded, the only JUST conclusion is that the cop is the aggressor, until proven otherwise.



As to the "breaking in" comparison, it doesn't hold. They were not on private property. This is yet another reason for there not to be "public property" and officers charged with "keeping the peace" on that public property. Even with all that true, there are states where someone breaking in must threaten you with a certain degree of force before you are considered "justified" in taking action against them. It's a stupid twist of the law.


You're arguing from a legalistic, "letter of the law" position. I'm arguing from a position of simple justice. In real life the two have almost nothing in common.

As Jefferson put it "the law is often but the Tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of an individual."

You make the erroneous assumption that cops are "charged with 'keeping the peace'." This is simply not true. They don't call them "Peace Officers" anymore. They're called "Law Enforcement Officers," and they are charged with enforcing the law. In the overwhelming majority of cases the "law" which they're chrged with enforcing is, in Jefferson's words, "but the Tyrant's will." So, basically, they're hired thugs for the state.

Furthermore, implicit in your comments seems to be the a priori assumption that professional police forces exist to protect our rights and property. This too is patently false, and thet state even flat out tells us so if we bother to listen. Here's a whole thread on this topic:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228509

Finally, my example wasn't provided as a direct analogy. It was merely intended to clearly illustrate the essential point which is that the agressor is almost never entitled to a claim of self-defense.

[MelissaWV]

And you're forgetting, as most are in their comments, that the officer wasn't shown holding someone's wrists in the OP... but this is circular. It's funny. I absolutely believe there are a lot of people who don't think it was self-defense, but there's a subgroup that simply would agree with whatever happened to the cop, even if she'd just pulled out a gun and shot him on sight. If you don't think so, scroll through the comments again.

* * *

This is tiresome and moronic. Arrive at whatever conclusion you want, but at least have a little respect for the other side of things. That, though, has been far too much to ask from this board of late.

[CCTelander]

And you're forgetting, as most are in their comments, that the officer wasn't shown holding someone's wrists in the OP... but this is circular. It's funny. I absolutely believe there are a lot of people who don't think it was self-defense, but there's a subgroup that simply would agree with whatever happened to the cop, even if she'd just pulled out a gun and shot him on sight. If you don't think so, scroll through the comments again.

* * *

This is tiresome and moronic. Arrive at whatever conclusion you want, but at least have a little respect for the other side of things. That, though, has been far too much to ask from this board of late.

I had intended to respond at a bit greater length but then realized that, on one point at least, you're absolutely right. This IS tiresome and moronic. There's no point in continuing a discussion if one's opponent steadfastly refuses to even address any of the salient points one has raised, as you have done.

Normally I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinions. In this case however I find myself disappointed.

I'm sure we'll both live.

[Pauls' Revere]

Sure he was.
push me around like that and I'll be swinging too.

[HRD53]

Defend! From a girl shoving him? "Your honor, she shoved me so I had to defend myself by punching her in the face." Moron.

Using moron as a one word sentence really pounds home the point.

[jmdrake]

And you're forgetting, as most are in their comments, that the officer wasn't shown holding someone's wrists in the OP


You're wrong. Go back and look at the OP. 1:40 seconds in shows the cop holding the wrist of the girl in the blue top. Maybe you quit watching after the first 20 second of the initial clip. But that's how the media manipulates people. They lead with the part of the film that puts things in a particular perspective. Most people have already made up their mind before seeing the context.


It's funny. I absolutely believe there are a lot of people who don't think it was self-defense, but there's a subgroup that simply would agree with whatever happened to the cop, even if she'd just pulled out a gun and shot him on sight. If you don't think so, scroll through the comments again.


Say if this wasn't a cop? Say if you saw a man and a woman on the street and the woman shoved the man and the man hit her in the face? Would you automatically think "self defense"? From a legal standpoint self defense is justified for defending life or serious bodily harm. Was this man ever in danger of life and limb? Or was he just pissed off? And yes, it would be different if the roles were reversed and the man had pushed the woman and the woman had punched the man. Men in general are stronger than women. I know that's hard to imagine it today's politically correct G.I. Jane society, but it's true. If, on the other hand, she had pulled out a gun or knife then the cop (or a private individual) would have been justified in using any amount of force including lethal force to stop her. That's because a gun or knife is a lethal weapon even in the hands of someone physically weak.

[MelissaWV]

You're wrong. Go back and look at the OP. 1:40 seconds in shows the cop holding the wrist of the girl in the blue top. Maybe you quit watching after the first 20 second of the initial clip. But that's how the media manipulates people. They lead with the part of the film that puts things in a particular perspective. Most people have already made up their mind before seeing the context.

Say if this wasn't a cop? Say if you saw a man and a woman on the street and the woman shoved the man and the man hit her in the face? Would you automatically think "self defense"? From a legal standpoint self defense is justified for defending life or serious bodily harm. Was this man ever in danger of life and limb? Or was he just pissed off? And yes, it would be different if the roles were reversed and the man had pushed the woman and the woman had punched the man. Men in general are stronger than women. I know that's hard to imagine it today's politically correct G.I. Jane society, but it's true. If, on the other hand, she had pulled out a gun or knife then the cop (or a private individual) would have been justified in using any amount of force including lethal force to stop her. That's because a gun or knife is a lethal weapon even in the hands of someone physically weak.

At 1:14 she is poking and swinging her hands around, so I'm not sure how he's "gripping" her. This is what leads to her being restrained. It's the latter video that shows the extent and type of grip. Maybe you only saw what you wanted to see? Of course, I doubt that, and I'm not about to insult your intelligence by implying such.

I'm glad I have such macho, macho men to defend me in this thread :rolleyes: It's a funny thing. If a couple of women are shoving a guy around, and he punched her, I really wouldn't have a problem with it on its own. The trouble is that we're shown things selectively. Was the guy doing something before all of that to inspire the pushing? Do we know for sure? Were the women the initiators of force in this example, and had they been trouble for the guy on various levels in the past? There's a lot of conjecture that goes on, on both sides.

CCT... I've already posted enough on the subject. I'm not "demanding" people separate one part of the incident from the rest. I'm pointing out that some people can do that, and made their vote based on that. The assertion has been made, over and over, that those voting "yes" are simply in love with the police state. It's even been said that those voting "yes" want jaywalkers assaulted for no reason. That's flat-out incorrect, and insulting.

I absolutely understand what you are getting at with your illustration that demonstrates the cop as the presumed aggressor. I don't agree with it anymore than I agree with jaywalking laws, or having public property for cops to patrol in the first place.


His defenders seem to be contending thet he's entitled to the benefit of the doubt, to the presumption of innocence.

I see the officer in terms of a person, and I see the two women in terms of people. What's shown, to me, is a pair of bad reactions taking a moronic situation and compounding it, as you said. Were the question "Were these girls justified in shoving the cop?" my response would have been "yes" as well. Does that count for anything? That's a rhetorical question, of course, because lately the forum has had a bout of black & white on issues. You're either with us, or against us! Could it be that both sides were justified in the use of comparable force (punching, shoving, slapping; anything without a weapon) in the incident? Nahhh.

No one even thought to ask.

So my point about respecting people with different answers comes down to that, basically. There are various people who answered "yes" and various who answered "no" that acknowledge both sides made big fat stupid errors in the entire situation. That's fine and that's ultimately what happened. There are some who believe the cop being a cop wipes out the young ladies' culpability altogether. There are others who'll answer the women had it coming because of their record (but the cop knew nothing of it at the time). There are yet others who believe any cop deserves anything that happens to them because they are agents of the State.

That last attitude is ultimately what baffles me. We are approaching a time in this country where a HUGE portion of people are employed by the Government, and it's going to get worse. Military and ex-military are all over the place in this nation. Of those that don't work for the Government in some way, a giant chunk have been on "assistance" or some other form of welfare, or find themselves depending on Government programs in some other form (Homebuyer tax credit, Gulf cleanup dollars, etc.). If this movement is going to take that attitude with all workers who have a Government affiliation, no matter how loose, it's only going to get worse for us.

Anyhow, both sides had much they were wrong about, but that wasn't the question. The girls may have been justified in their resisting and shoving and even jumping on the officer, but that wasn't the question. The cop might have used an open-handed slap (though I bet we'd still be here) or shoved the girls back (and again, I bet we'd still be here talking about it), but that wasn't the question. Do you see why it becomes important, to me, to actually answer the question? The question was whether or not the cop was justified in punching a girl who was shoving him around. Big strong man theories aside, if I am shoving some guy around, I would expect a non-weapon response, too (a slap, a punch, a shove, a kick, etc.). If you see it differently, *GOOD*! Variety makes the world go 'round, and it makes it possible to communicate messages to others.

Have a good 'un. You can send me a PM if you want to keep going with this. Somehow I'm sure any response I get on here is to say "OMG you're wrong and you didn't watch the video! You love the police state!" or some other similar rerun.

[ibaghdadi]

Hell no. Call me old fashioned, but it's never, ever justified for a man to punch a woman in the face. No matter what the situation is.