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

[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? 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.

...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.

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

 

[live liberty]

Also this version of the video is much better... shows more of what happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9w9AfptGGQ

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!

 

[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]

Yeah... you don't want to resist the State... Submit!... Submit!

Washington State Legislature

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