You're wrong. Go back and look at the OP. 1:40 seconds in shows the cop holding the wrist of the girl in the blue top. Maybe you quit watching after the first 20 second of the initial clip. But that's how the media manipulates people. They lead with the part of the film that puts things in a particular perspective. Most people have already made up their mind before seeing the context.
Say if this wasn't a cop? Say if you saw a man and a woman on the street and the woman shoved the man and the man hit her in the face? Would you automatically think "self defense"? From a legal standpoint self defense is justified for defending life or serious bodily harm. Was this man ever in danger of life and limb? Or was he just pissed off? And yes, it would be different if the roles were reversed and the man had pushed the woman and the woman had punched the man. Men in general are stronger than women. I know that's hard to imagine it today's politically correct G.I. Jane society, but it's true. If, on the other hand, she had pulled out a gun or knife then the cop (or a private individual) would have been justified in using any amount of force including lethal force to stop her. That's because a gun or knife is a lethal weapon even in the hands of someone physically weak.
At 1:14 she is poking and swinging her hands around, so I'm not sure how he's "gripping" her. This is what leads to her being restrained. It's the latter video that shows the extent and type of grip. Maybe you only saw what you wanted to see? Of course, I doubt that, and I'm not about to insult your intelligence by implying such.
I'm glad I have such macho, macho men to defend me in this thread
It's a funny thing. If a couple of women are shoving a guy around, and he punched her, I really wouldn't have a problem with it on its own. The trouble is that we're shown things selectively. Was the guy doing something before all of that to inspire the pushing? Do we know for sure? Were the women the initiators of force in this example, and had they been trouble for the guy on various levels in the past? There's a lot of conjecture that goes on, on both sides.
CCT... I've already posted enough on the subject. I'm not "demanding" people separate one part of the incident from the rest. I'm pointing out that some people can do that, and made their vote based on that. The assertion has been made, over and over, that those voting "yes" are simply in love with the police state. It's even been said that those voting "yes" want jaywalkers assaulted for no reason. That's flat-out incorrect, and insulting.
I absolutely understand what you are getting at with your illustration that demonstrates the cop as the presumed aggressor. I don't agree with it anymore than I agree with jaywalking laws, or having public property for cops to patrol in the first place.
His defenders seem to be contending thet he's entitled to the benefit of the doubt, to the presumption of innocence.
I see the officer in terms of a person, and I see the two women in terms of people. What's shown, to me, is a pair of bad reactions taking a moronic situation and compounding it, as you said. Were the question "Were these girls justified in shoving the cop?" my response would have been "yes" as well. Does that count for anything? That's a rhetorical question, of course, because lately the forum has had a bout of black & white on issues. You're either with us, or against us! Could it be that both sides were justified in the use of comparable force (punching, shoving, slapping; anything without a weapon) in the incident? Nahhh.
No one even thought to ask.
So my point about respecting people with different answers comes down to that, basically. There are various people who answered "yes" and various who answered "no" that acknowledge both sides made big fat stupid errors in the entire situation. That's fine and that's ultimately what happened. There are some who believe the cop being a cop wipes out the young ladies' culpability altogether. There are others who'll answer the women had it coming because of their record (but the cop knew nothing of it at the time). There are yet others who believe any cop deserves anything that happens to them because they are agents of the State.
That last attitude is ultimately what baffles me. We are approaching a time in this country where a HUGE portion of people are employed by the Government, and it's going to get worse. Military and ex-military are all over the place in this nation. Of those that don't work for the Government in some way, a giant chunk have been on "assistance" or some other form of welfare, or find themselves depending on Government programs in some other form (Homebuyer tax credit, Gulf cleanup dollars, etc.). If this movement is going to take that attitude with all workers who have a Government affiliation, no matter how loose, it's only going to get worse for us.
Anyhow, both sides had much they were wrong about, but that wasn't the question. The girls may have been justified in their resisting and shoving and even jumping on the officer, but that wasn't the question. The cop might have used an open-handed slap (though I bet we'd still be here) or shoved the girls back (and again, I bet we'd still be here talking about it), but that wasn't the question. Do you see why it becomes important, to me, to actually answer the question? The question was whether or not the cop was justified in punching a girl who was shoving him around. Big strong man theories aside, if I am shoving some guy around, I would expect a non-weapon response, too (a slap, a punch, a shove, a kick, etc.). If you see it differently, *GOOD*! Variety makes the world go 'round, and it makes it possible to communicate messages to others.
Have a good 'un. You can send me a PM if you want to keep going with this. Somehow I'm sure any response I get on here is to say "OMG you're wrong and you didn't watch the video! You love the police state!" or some other similar rerun.
