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

[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?

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 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 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. 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 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.