Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Officer Who Hit Woman Will Be Fired

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Also this happened during a traffic stop. We all know nothing bad happens at a traffic stop.




posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 



Really? He has a serious record of violence. He just exhibited unnecessary violence on the wrong person. But even if it was a person squirting water on him, its not equal force. The guy is a psycho. Both past record of it, and on video an example of it. PERIOD.

Partner, I agree it was excessive force. You go to far to assume his past history.

He has a record of being ACCUSED of excessive force. You provided no record of how many times he was found to be GUILTY of using excessive force.

Like I said, there is a difference. Sometimes, people do not want to go to jail. Sometimes, police officers have to use a reasonable amount of force to take people into custody. People make false accusations against officers all the time.

This is not the case for THIS instance because it is quite obvious that the amount of force used did not match the resistance of the woman. There was no attempt to peacefully arrest her so she did not make any attempt to resist. So, punching her in the face was excessive.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


I do not. If there are numerous complaints, they ARE ALWAYS FOR A REASON. I've dealt with crooked cops and made some slink off the property with a very undulating slither. Not metaphor. They're not even all human IMO. And that was well before waking up more. Having a trail of complaints is SMOKE, and where there is smoke there is always FIRE.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by parkwoods21
Also this happened during a traffic stop. We all know nothing bad happens at a traffic stop.

Maybe you should go read the OP or read it again, whatever the case may be.

I am going to guess that you have not watched the video, or you would know that it occurred at a crosswalk in Philadelphia at the annual Puerto Rican Day parade.

It was not a traffic stop with regard to the woman. She was crossing the street, which used to be legal.

You did use the word 'or' in that post. I have no idea what the importance of it is, since she did not spray silly string or throw water on anyone. Thanks for calling me stupid twice, coming from you, I will take it as a compliment.
edit on 6-10-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 



Notice the word "could"? It does not say, "will" or "would". It says, "could". Which means he may, as in it is possible.. or it may not, could not, or will not. What I am saying is, don't hold your breath. He "could" face charges or he could not faces charges. He is not charged with anything right now, and I am saying he wont be charged. You see, this is what happens when the masses are being appeased. People like you assume he will be charged because someone said he might be. 3 Months from now, you forget all about the story, there will still be no charges, and this cop is working in Jersey

So, what you are saying is that all of this is your assumption of what will happen. Instead of waiting to see what happens and waiting for the reasoning behind the decision, you automatically assume what will happen.

I am almost certain, after reading the article for the first time, you ASSUMED that he would face no disciplinary action. Instead, he was fired.

Now, what do ASSUMPTIONS make out of you and me? What was thay saying?


Yes, a decision the DA has to make. Not that the DA DID make it, or that charges were expected. This is simply another way of saying, "It's not our call". It is called passing the buck. When in REALITY and in the land of real people like you or I, if a there is a video tape of us punching some women in the face, the cops could and would arrest us based on that evidence of a crime. But when it is one of their own, and it is on videotape, it is suddenly not up to them anymore to enforce our laws, it is up to District Attorney.

Ok, so you are faulting the police department for leaving the investigation of one of their own up to a less-partial third party instead of making the decision themselves?

No matter what the outcome, you are always going to find fault in the police.

If the department would have prematurely charged the officer, and brought a weak case to court, he would be found not guilty. The officer would sue to get his job back and be able to say "see I was found not guilty in criminal court" and be back on the job and you would be screaming "SEE ALL POLICE ARE TERRIBLE!"

If the District Attorney looks at the case and makes an informed decision on charging the officer, they can bring a solid case to court and prosecute him or decline to charge leaving the decision of the department to terminate him to it's own merits.


And now your post is full of assumptions. Fact is, and history is on my side with this, it has happened before. Now you say the maximum penalty is 2 year... the keyword here is "maximum". Which means there is a lesser term as well if convicted, we call that a "minimum" sentencing. You are also assuming that if a charge comes, it will be assault, but "assault" has varying degrees, such a "simple assault" which is a misdemeanor charge in the State of PA and carries a maximum penalty of 1 year, which would be just under the 1 year and 1 day that would prohibit him from carrying a firearm. ..and again that is the maximum which means any sentence could be less than a year as well. Guess what? he would still be able to carry a firearm. You are also assuming there will be a conviction, no plea deal, etc etc. Sorry but the real world does not work this way.



§ 2701. Simple assault.

(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of assault if he:

(1) attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another;
...
(b) Grading.--Simple assault is a misdemeanor of the second degree unless committed:

(1) in a fight or scuffle entered into by mutual consent, in which case it is a misdemeanor of the third degree; or
...

Source
Simple assault is a second degree misdemeanor in PA unless it is a fight or scuffle entered into by mutual consent. Meaning both parties were engaged in the fight. The woman was not engaged in the fight. So it is a second degree misdemeanor.

§ 923. Classification of offenses and penalties.
(a) General rule.--The following penalties shall be imposed
...
(6) For a misdemeanor of the second degree, a fine of
not less than $500 nor more than $5,000, or imprisonment not
exceeding two years, or both.

Source
A misdemeanor of the second degree carries a maximum penalty of two years. Conviction=Prohibited

This is all straight from the wording contained in the law.

Fact is, even if charged that does not mean much when Police have Unions fighting for them, Arbitrators, and many procedures in place that will argue it was simply an isolated incident and everyone has a bad day eventually.

Officers are entitled to a defense just like anyone else when accused of a crime



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 





Officers are entitled to a defense just like anyone else when accused of a crime


No they're not. They're special people who have to be held to a higher standard of morality. Which is everything they do is wrong and they have no right to a defense.

Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Cops are not human, they're above humans.

And should be forced to be that way.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 



I don't have to be found guilty of anything to be fired from my job. Do you?

Are you saying police officers should be fired if ACCUSED of excessive or brutal force, guilty or not?

Police Officers are legally allowed to use reasonable force to arrest someone. That reasonable force can sometimes be escalated to the point of causing injury to another person if that person's resistance requires it.

When an officer is accused of using excessive or brutal force, an investigation must be done to determine if it was in fact excessive or brutal according to state law and departmental policy.

There is a difference between the job of a police officer and your job.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 



If there are numerous complaints, they ARE ALWAYS FOR A REASON.

Over a 19 year career, an officer can arrest and piss off hundreds maybe thousands of people. You mean to tell me that anytime there is a complaint against a police officer, the officer has ALWAYS done something wrong?

Get real.


I've dealt with crooked cops and made some slink off the property with a very undulating slither.

If this poorly worded sentence means that you have dealt with crooked police officers and made profit off of said criminality, stop right now.

You really expect us to believe that you, who promotes and benefits from police corruption, can legitimately appraise police matters? That sounds a little like hypocrisy.

Again, get real.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 



No they're not. They're special people who have to be held to a higher standard of morality. Which is everything they do is wrong and they have no right to a defense.

Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Cops are not human, they're above humans.

And should be forced to be that way.

I am going to assume you are not serious.

If I am wrong, let me know.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Juggernog
 


I swear the video shows people behind her spraying the cops with water and he thought it was her because she was right behind him. Great detective work on Josey's part.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Regardless if you shouldn't shoot silly string at an officer the punishment didn't fit the crime. She didn't want to press charges and he got fired. So I guess she is just a chill person. Just wants to shoot silly string and have a good time. Seems kind of odd but hey whatever.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by parkwoods21
reply to post by butcherguy
 


15 words into what I posted. Stupid. Ok sure, go to a party and invite me over to shoot silly string on you and have another stranger pour water on you. See how cool you still stay.


Your calling people "stupid" yet it doesn't matter if it is silly string OR water. Point is, it was not the girl. Now the article says "silly string" but the Officer's complaint was that she sprayed water, regardless my point still stands it was not her it was the man behind her. If you watch the video closely, it even appears that she got hit with the water as well which is what causes her to turn around.

As far as the rest of your comment, it is asinine. I have had water poured on me, shot at me, etc etc. I have had liquor poured on me. I have had silly string shot at me. I can tell you for a fact that I did not punch anyone for it, nor did I even lose my cool. Not in the slightest. If either of these two things is the worst thing that happens to you in life, it's a pretty good life.

Your gonna tell me you have never been in a bar and had a drink spilled on you? Did you lose your cool and punch someone in the face for it? Your whole argument is not only silly, but you are also missing the fact that the girl who is punched and arrested for this "crime" is also innocent of this "crime". Even if she was the guilty party, what was the reason for punching her in the face from behind? She never saw the Officer approach, she never saw the punch even coming. Your going to tell me that this Officer could not simply grab her and stop her? She was such a flight risk he had to assault her? Surely you can not be this blind.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by parkwoods21
Also this happened during a traffic stop. We all know nothing bad happens at a traffic stop.


actually no it didn't. Watch the video, there is no traffic stop. There is no silly string. The article is actually wrong and the video clearly shows this. Again.. watch the video and make an informed comment about what you see with your own two eyes.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 




There is a difference between the job of a police officer and your job.

Yes, that's right.
If I walk up behind a customer and sucker punch them in the face, I will lose my job, and nobody will whine about it happening.

I love how these bastards pull this over the top excessive force, caught in the act on camera, and there's always somebody crying the blues for them. This woman was an innocent bystander that got sucker punched by a govt sponsored goon. He gets no sympathy from me.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 





I am going to assume you are not serious.


It is sarcasm, but it is a serious point.

Sometimes I use sarcasm to illustrate how absurd a point is.

It's not my fault people have a hard time with sarcasm and can't get past it to see the real point.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 



Yes, that's right.
If I walk up behind a customer and sucker punch them in the face, I will lose my job, and nobody will whine about it happening.

There is no legitimate reason for you to walk up behind a customer and sucker punch them in the face.

Police officers sometimes are placed in a situation where they must use force to make an arrest and perform the job they are paid to do.

That is the difference.


I love how these bastards pull this over the top excessive force, caught in the act on camera, and there's always somebody crying the blues for them. This woman was an innocent bystander that got sucker punched by a govt sponsored goon. He gets no sympathy from me.

If it is me that you claim has been "crying the blues" for the officer, check my previous posts. I clearly stated that the officer's action was excessive and that it was correct to fire him.
edit on 6-10-2012 by areyouserious2010 because: typo



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SeenAlot
 


Impossible to control emotions? Have you ever seen a three year old throw a temper tantrum? (and they all do so don't chalk tantrum throwing up to bad parenting.) Many is the day I would loooove to have taken my hyperactive nephew and slap him a good one. But I don't because I guess I have the super human ability to control my emotions. Billions of mothers do it everyday, HOTSHOT.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
So, what you are saying is that all of this is your assumption of what will happen. Instead of waiting to see what happens and waiting for the reasoning behind the decision, you automatically assume what will happen.

I am almost certain, after reading the article for the first time, you ASSUMED that he would face no disciplinary action. Instead, he was fired.

Now, what do ASSUMPTIONS make out of you and me? What was thay saying?

I can look out my window, see snow on the ground and frost on the window pane and assume it is cold outside. It is a safe assumption to make because I already know from experience that when there is snow on the ground and frost on the window that it is always cold out. As I linked several examples for you, history has shown us that in a majority of these types of cases the Officer either gets employed elsewhere or remains on the force in the same area. Do i need to link more examples to support my opinion or can you admit it is a safe assumption to make? As I said before, history is on my side on this topic. I would be willing to bet that you would be hard pressed to link for us the exact same amount of examples I listed to support your view.


Ok, so you are faulting the police department for leaving the investigation of one of their own up to a less-partial third party instead of making the decision themselves?


When there is video of the crime, yes I am. This is not a debatable issue. It is on video for us all to see. If I was caught on video committing a crime, it would not go to the DA first. I would be charged plain and simple. It is very difficult to argue any point when there is video.


No matter what the outcome, you are always going to find fault in the police.


Actually, this is just wrong. I have posted on this site in defense of Police when there is video showing what took place. So you are wrong and I do not always fault the Police and my posting history proves this point.


If the department would have prematurely charged the officer, and brought a weak case to court, he would be found not guilty. The officer would sue to get his job back and be able to say "see I was found not guilty in criminal court" and be back on the job and you would be screaming "SEE ALL POLICE ARE TERRIBLE!"

Again- we have video. There is no chance of a "weak case". It gets no stronger than having a video of the incident. This is something Police dream of having in all cases because video evidence makes the case solid.

What I love most about your post is how much stuff you left out when posting the law. I would strongly suggest reading up on things like "Offense Gravity Score", "Aggravating/Mitigating Factors". These all play a part in PA law which leaves a lot of grey area that a simple response on Wiki Answers will not factor in for you... but I do give you credit for you effort



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 




There is no legitimate reason for you to walk up behind a customer and sucker punch them in the face. Police officers sometimes are placed in a situation where they must use force to make an arrest and perform the job they are paid to do.

Was there any legitimate reason for this officer to sucker punch that woman in the face? She broke no law. She was just crossing the street.

Was he placed in a situation where he needed to use force to make an arrest? Hmmmm, they arrested an innocent woman, nice move. Not only did he sucker punch an innocent woman, he had her arrested.

Sometimes cops are placed in a position where they must discharge their service weapon to make an arrest, so do you think it would be okay to shoot her in the same situation that he needed to sucker punch her for?

Maybe they will swing a couple of officers by her house to shoot the family pets. That is a typical cop action now, they forgot to do that.

ETA: When I make a mistake at my job, people can be killed. What this officer did was not a mistake, it was a crime. He punched the nearest person because he got a little bit of water splashed on him. He was pissed off and he reacted in a way the police officers should not react. They have the right to use force when it is warranted, that is exactly the reason to make certain that they do not get a 'free pass' when there is a question about excessive force. Many brutality complaints are swept under the rug as unfounded.
edit on 7-10-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I really cannot see how anyone can justify taht officer hitting that woman in the face like that. Even if she did spray him with silly string(Which I dont know for sure) that is not a punchable offense). If you have a little sister and she sprays you with silly string or throws water on you are you going to punch her in the face? Really? I know some big brothers can be mean and pick on their little sisters but normally don't punch them in the face to solve the problem, usually name calling. Even so this is an officer of the law and that;s just plain rediculous.

I don;t get why he would still be able to get a job elsewhere in the same field. Really? I mean, even if you are just trying to sign up at the animal shelter I believe that they ask you for past history to see if your eligible, why not a payed "professional' who carries a gun?





new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join