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

[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

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:

1. To install a pedestrian crosswalk at street level
2. Or, install a automobile overpass rather than a pedestrian overpass
3. Or, if jaywalking is such an important issue on that road, barricade the area
4. 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?

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]

I do realize my mistake...

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?

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:

1. To install a pedestrian crosswalk at street level
2. Or, install a automobile overpass rather than a pedestrian overpass
3. Or, if jaywalking is such an important issue on that road, barricade the area
4. 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.