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

[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.

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:

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:

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.