It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Seattle officer punches girl in face during jaywalking stop

page: 11
38
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I praise the cop for not Tasering the woman - he actually man handled her the way cops are supposed to. You mess with the bull, you get the horns. This cop was physically assaulted, and he still didn't draw any sort of weapon, he just battled hand-to-hand.

Other cops will Taser you if your hair is parted the wrong way, like total p____y's. Should he have punched her? Well, she wasn't a small girl - she was a tough and big woman - believe it or not women can be strong and dangerous and he just had to lay a little law down to let her know she messed with the wrong cop.

If that cop backed down he'd be sending a message out to the neighborhood that it's "OK" to assault cops during an arrest, because they'll just back down. Now THAT would be dangerous to himself and all his fellow cops in the precinct.


[edit on 16-6-2010 by harrytuttle]




posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by vimanarider
 


Nope, not one iota. Unless it is a motorway, a pedestrian has precedence. The roadways were not built for the sole use by cars. It is up to the motorist to ensure he doesn't run anyone over. The London Government (or any local authority) has no power to override Common Law or the Highway Code.

My "land of the free" comment was a light hearted jibe back at you Americans that constantly and without mercy rip on the UK for our "socialist" system or our apparent "police state". ATS is repleat with such threads.

I love the irony of not being allowed to cross a road whereveer you like and having police militantly enforce it.....

[edit on 16/6/10 by stumason]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 



Surely it is down the pedestrian to decide where and when it is safe for them to cross?


The problem is that if it's left up to the pedestrians many would just jump out into oncoming traffic. That's why we have clearly labeled crosswalks for pedestrians. Nobody would be able to drive a car around here, some people literally simply step out into traffic with the attitude that everything must stop for them.

We have laws that say you can't drive past a stop sign without stopping, even if there are no other cars, or pedestrians present. We also have laws that say you must cross the street in a marked crosswalk. Both laws were intenede to keep people safe, does it make a difference which law she broke ?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by AndrewTB
 


Do people really lack common sense or are you just not teaching people how to look in either direction? Since the UK introduced the "Green Cross Code" back in the 1970's for kiddy-winks, deaths by pedestrians have fell by around 70% in the past 40 years.

Like I said, seems somewhat over-reactive to have laws in place for something so trivial and to have the Police enforce it like she was injecting heroin in front of a school...

I think its stupid we need such a law, yes. We really dont have PSAs on it nor is it really taught in school. Its something parents usually teach you as a child but lousy parents are pretty common now a days too.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 



Do people really lack common sense or are you just not teaching people how to look in either direction?



Yes over here they actually do lack common sense. And some just plain feel that they are entitled to do so.

Would you run out into the middle of a busy street dressed in dark clothes, at night, in the rain, when you know there is low visibility ? They do it over here all the time. And I'm not only talking about running out in front of cars, they run out in front of busses and semis like that too.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by vimanarider
 


Nope, not one iota. Unless it is a motorway, a pedestrian has precedence. The roadways were not built for the sole use by cars. It is up to the motorist to ensure he doesn't run anyone over. The London Government (or any local authority) has no power to override Common Law or the Highway Code.

My "land of the free" comment was a light hearted jibe back at you Americans that constantly and without mercy rip on the UK for our "socialist" system or our apparent "police state". ATS is repleat with such threads.

I love the irony of not being allowed to cross a road whereveer you like and having police militantly enforce it.....

[edit on 16/6/10 by stumason]


In reference to the UK laws or lack there of, just because they do not exist does not make it prudent. Your opinion would soundly change if some knucklehead stepped out if front of you whilst on a Sunday drive, causing you to careen off the road and head on into an outdoor restaurant full of guests.

As far as your lighthearted jibe...I think you are generalizing Americans here a wee bit. The UK and USA go hand in hand, neither would likely exist in their present form today without the other. For you to direct that comment at me, someone who made no allusion to UK social or political systems, was kind of unfair, no? Afterall, I love and respect England very much, I mean come on England is the world leader in ummmm??? They are a nation at the forefront in the field of hmmmmm????
Sorry, my friend, I could not resist...but it is all lighthearted, right?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   
I dunno about this. The tape starts after both the first woman and cop are already scuffling. I refuse to have an opinion on who was right or wrong ar first because I did not get to see that. That being said, I am usually one of the first people to get pissed at cops for acting like maniacs but uh...

this one...

this one kind of does not help.

I am finding it hard to blame a cop for being physical while he is trying to restrain one woman and another decides to step in. That is just wrong. He was not beating anyone and if the first woman would have just stood still for a minute, I am willing to bet they would have had a conversation.

Did anyone of them really think fighting back would help? Honestly, hate cops or not does anyone think a cop is at some point going to concede a battle? I would not. If it turns out that later I was wrong for the initial contact and any behavior subsequent then fine but there is no way ganging up on me would convince me to just let it go.

The cop was in a struggle, he was outnumbered, and seemed to be in the wrong as far as the population was concerned. He was in as bad a place as he could be without the threat of death. I cannot help but imagine that may have crossed his mind though.

I am not totally justifying a punch in the face but I am not sure I would react any differently is such a tense situation with a surprise attack from outside. I do know for a fact I would not behave as either of those woman were, even if the cop was wrong. It was not like he was trying to toss her in a bottomless pit or break her legs.

So I guess if I have to judge from the footage we have, no one is a winner in that film but the woman who got punched went out of her way to put her face in danger because her friend was upset over being stopped by a cop. I think it's easier to see who made the leaset intelligent decisions.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
I don't see how anyone can try to justify someone detaining someone else for simply crossing the street wrong. A simple "don't do that again, it's dangerous" would suffice. Furthermore, the "crime" isn't big enough to justify a violent detainment. A person shouldn't have the right to forcibly detain someone else unless that person is a fugitive or a danger to the public. We as people have the natural right to not have force initiated against us. Any *laws that suggest otherwise, are obviously violating our unalienable rights and are naturally criminal in nature, which would make anyone enforcing those *laws a criminal. Arguing for them, would be the same as arguing in favor of the Taliban's laws against music or education for women.

Just because something is law, doesn't make it right and doesn't make anyone who breaks that law, a criminal. If that were true, Ghandi is also a criminal (and so was Jesus, if that's your flavor) and no, I'm not comparing that fat chick to Ghandi.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
That guy is out of line. All the cops who want to jump in here and defend him are out of line. It was jaywalking and he badly mis-managed the situation. His mis management of the situation caused the confrontation. he was power tripping and there was no need for any of this. Pathetic.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
I don't see how anyone can try to justify someone detaining someone else for simply crossing the street wrong. A simple "don't do that again, it's dangerous" would suffice.


I have a question. Forgive me if it has been covered already. Do you know what happened before the tape started? Do you know that she was crossing the street and he tried to detain her? Is it possible that there was more to the interaction that lead to him actually detaining her?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I don't think she was "detained" for jaywalking, she and her friends were asked to stand by the police cruiser while the officer finished his conversation with the other gentleman. In all likelihood, the officer would have done just what you said...issued the young ladies a stern warning and sent them on their way. I was not until they disregarded the officer and continued walking away that the situatioin escalated.

Let's be honest here, we have all jaywalked full well knowing it was an offense. Not a one of us would ever expect to be arrested for it, clearly. Just as I am sure this particular officer had no intention of arresting them. At worst his first instinct could have been to bust their balls and give them a ticket...that all went to hell with their ridiculous reactions.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by amazing
That guy is out of line. All the cops who want to jump in here and defend him are out of line.


Just let me say, I am not a cop. I am hardly even a fan of most cops. I try to judge them on an idividual basis but I feel the whole system is corrupt. I know other members have mentioned the lovely Greece New York PD. I could not be happier to see badges on their way to prison so I am not a pro-cop biased person. That being said...


It was jaywalking and he badly mis-managed the situation.


I agree things were being mismanaged but was it just jaywalking? I did not actually see her being accused of or charged with or even being told she was jaywalking. I just see that in the title. Do you or anyone else have more on this? I am more than willing to believe a bully cop just did a bully thing but I honestly do not see in this tape where she was jaywalking and based on that crime, he decided to become forceful.


His mis management of the situation caused the confrontation. he was power tripping and there was no need for any of this. Pathetic.


But... and this may be a big but...did not the second woman commit assault on the officer while he was conducting a stop? That is also a crime, no?

Not trying to be argumentatve but there are plenty of videos to bash cops with. I do not see where this all happened because she was simply jaywalking. Is there another video of the beginning?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by vimanarider
that all went to hell with their ridiculous reactions.


This is the only reason I am actually asking here. I see cops do some scary scary stuff all the time. I do not trust the local PDs as far as I could throw the buildings. Personally though, I am always polite and do my best to make sure they know I am not a threat to them, nor do I intend to impede them for the sake of 'asserting my freedoms' and my personal experiences with cops are generally all quite positive. In fact, I would be willing to bet that so many of the tickets I was sure I was getting, never got written because I helped him do his job easily and quickly and he did not really want to fill out the paperwork and go to court over me when there will undoubtedly be some loudmouth up the road that wants to be a jerk for no reason. Why not spend time writing up their tickets instead of friendly ol' me.

Maybe I am nuts though. I could be willing to go with that too I guess.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
This is very simple.

For those of you defending the police I'm appauled.

Any MAN that hits a WOMAN because he can't control the situation with tact and intelligence is an idiot, and does not deserve to be a Police Officer of all things.

THE FIRST thing Police are taught to do is DIFFUSE situations. People forget that.

Stop backing the police because "they have the right to arrest people"...

Sheep.

Whoever said citizen's arrest earlier is how that whole scenario should have gone down.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
It just seems to me that this whole situation should have been managed differently. I think that speaks to training in the Seattle police department unless...he there was something else going on. public intoxication, drug use etc etc. Being the hammer isn't "Always" good. He was the hammer. There are other ways to diffuse situations.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


You are correct! Not only is there a school, the high school called the police and asked them to patrol that crossing because of all the complaints the school received from drivers being stopped by the constant non-use of the pedestrian bridge. Sadly typical of the majority of todays youth, the constant lack of respect of other people.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by vimanarider
 


By not allowing them to leave, he was detaining them. Nobody should have the right to initiate force against anyone else, cop or not. This is supposedly not an authoritarian state and therefore a cop shouldn't have the right to line people up on a whim.

This is exactly why people hate cops, myself not included. Lets break this down.

The "state" is forcing people to cross the street in a certain way because "it" feels that we aren't capable of making that decision in a proper and safe manner. When someone feels that they can cross the street by themselves, according to their own judgment, they get detained by an #hole cop. When they try to go about their day due to a false detainment, they are forcibly and violently detained, including a punch to the face that solves nothing except for an infliction of pain and suffering.

Does this sound like "liberty and justice for all"? The state deciding when and where you can cross the street and a loss of freedom can be the result of not obeying the state? Excreting your right to freedom can result in pain and suffering?

We have clearly lost our way and it is no longer about freedom and liberty, but rather it is about obeying the state. The police are supposed to be there to serve the public and ensure the safety of said public. Instead, the police seem to be there only to enforce the many rules of the state. The police have become the strong arm of the state, punishing those in non-compliance. My ancestors would be ashamed. Our forefathers would not recognize this as the system or economy they sought. All stick and no carrot, when it shouldn't be neither a carrot or stick.


--airspoon



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SolPower
This is very simple.

For those of you defending the police I'm appauled.

Any MAN that hits a WOMAN because he can't control the situation with tact and intelligence is an idiot, and does not deserve to be a Police Officer of all things.

THE FIRST thing Police are taught to do is DIFFUSE situations. People forget that.

Stop backing the police because "they have the right to arrest people"...

Sheep.

Whoever said citizen's arrest earlier is how that whole scenario should have gone down.



This is so wrong on many levels. This notion that a man who hits a woman is in the wrong.....but its ok for the woman to hit the man. That does not stand anymore. Change with the times. Look at those women...hardly the 50's housewife. Those days are gone.

Since feminism and all their nonsense.....regardless of who lays there hands on another...(why should men have to put up with their crap all the time) the man always comes of in the wrong. Not in my book.

If a woman comes in swinging...well, she is going down like a two ton turd! (Unless she's hot...then she just gets a swift backhander.)

Ironically, those two women...about a ton each....and loud mouthed...attracting all that attention...stupid....all she got was a tap in the face. Should of been a good old fashion headbutt straight to the hooter. End of!!



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
The "state" is forcing people to cross the street in a certain way because "it" feels that we aren't capable of making that decision in a proper and safe manner. When someone feels that they can cross the street by themselves, according to their own judgment, they get detained by an #hole cop. When they try to go about their day due to a false detainment, they are forcibly and violently detained, including a punch to the face that solves nothing except for an infliction of pain and suffering.


I have to ask if you spend much time driving and parking and living in the inner city. I grew up in a charming little ghetto. Cars are parked along most streets due to lack of private parking room. Children dart in and out of these cars. Children are about the same height as most of the cars they seem to like to hide behind. They often run from one side to the other without a care and you are left watching each and every car on both sides to see if anyone is going to magically appear right in front of you before you can stop. It is unnerving, unsafe, and if people were smart enough to cross safely, it would not be happening.

The other thing that happens is with the teens and young twentys. They seem to go out of their way to cross in front of moving cars even though a crosswalk is available. They walk into moving traffic and then walk really really slowly because they know you cannot just get mad and run them down and go on. It is a real problem that demonstrates quite clearly that children and young adults are not smart enough to cross safely. I for one really resent the idea that I cannot drive from A to B without worrying about the lawsuit hiding behind every parked SUV when there are perfectly safe stoplights to cross at about every 4 houses.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


If you drove home by that spot you would sing a different tune. Why is there a jaywalking law? because it saves lives.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join