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

[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]

watch this video

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

 

[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?

 

[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.