Seattle Cop Punches Woman in the Face

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Come on guys. The cop did not punch the jaywalker. Her face collided with his fist. She caused the collision. [/quote]

Yep, never would have happened if she stayed in the crosswalk.[/quote]

Agreed. I hate Jay Walkers. I live near the Astrodome where all the Katrina Refugees lived. Holy Crap. It was a sea of people walking across the street all the freaking time. It was a slalom course. I did not want to slow down to 5 mph for the fear of someone jumping in the car with me, but I also knew if I ran them over they would sue my ass.[/quote]

I’m sure yall never j-walk.[/quote]

I cross at regular intersections. When driving I even stop at stop signs and red lights, signal when I change lanes, all sorts of crazy crap. Hell, I even go 20 in the school zone. I am a bit anal about safety. When I cross I do not rely for the light, I watch the traffic pattern. After getting hit by a car that ran a red light in a major pedestrian area, I now what till there are no cars or they have come to a stop.

22

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Come on guys. The cop did not punch the jaywalker. Her face collided with his fist. She caused the collision. [/quote]

Yep, never would have happened if she stayed in the crosswalk.[/quote]

Agreed. I hate Jay Walkers. I live near the Astrodome where all the Katrina Refugees lived. Holy Crap. It was a sea of people walking across the street all the freaking time. It was a slalom course. I did not want to slow down to 5 mph for the fear of someone jumping in the car with me, but I also knew if I ran them over they would sue my ass.[/quote]

I’m sure yall never j-walk.[/quote]

I cross at regular intersections. When driving I even stop at stop signs and red lights, signal when I change lanes, all sorts of crazy crap. Hell, I even go 20 in the school zone. I am a bit anal about safety. When I cross I do not rely for the light, I watch the traffic pattern. After getting hit by a car that ran a red light in a major pedestrian area, I now what till there are no cars or they have come to a stop.[/quote]

I do all those things too, other than the intersection thing. I get honked at all the time is school zones. I also, in cities, tend to cross away from intersections. I feel a lot safer not having to watch for traffic turning into my path from the road I’m walking parallel to. Interestingly feral dogs will do the same thing. Crossing at an intersection means to have to watch for idiot drivers from 4 directions instead of 2.

I guess this cop should come confront me.

edited

You probably wouldn’t have gotten hit by a guy running a read light if you’d been j-walking. away from the intersection, you don’t have to rely on signals to stop the traffic. You would see someone run a red light before they got to you.

23

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

A law everyone breaks like minor speeding. Either enforce the law or don’t. Singling out areas is BS. Law enforcement has no right to differentiate enforcing a law based on area.[/quote]

Texas driving laws are written so that they are to be enforced when the action of the driver impedes with the flow of traffic. So there are laws, such as only one car is allowed in an intersection at a time, that go unenforced until cars hit each other. Sometimes cars going the speed limit will be told to speed up if they are causing traffic problems. So, in some ways, the law may depend on the scenario.

As far as selective geographic location, there are arguments for and against whether being place specific is good or bad. Effective use of police time and resources, incidents of accidents/break-ins/damage/harassment, etc.

24

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

A law everyone breaks like minor speeding. Either enforce the law or don’t. Singling out areas is BS. Law enforcement has no right to differentiate enforcing a law based on area.[/quote]

Texas driving laws are written so that they are to be enforced when the action of the driver impedes with the flow of traffic. So there are laws, such as only one car is allowed in an intersection at a time, that go unenforced until cars hit each other. Sometimes cars going the speed limit will be told to speed up if they are causing traffic problems. So, in some ways, the law may depend on the scenario.

As far as selective geographic location, there are arguments for and against whether being place specific is good or bad. Effective use of police time and resources, incidents of accidents/break-ins/damage/harassment, etc. [/quote]

Not what I was talking about and not what you were talking about earlier. Police can certainly concentrate resources on geographic locations. It should not, however, change the way they approach enforcement.

25

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Law enforcement has no right to differentiate enforcing a law based on area.[/quote]

You seem to have a strong sense of what you believe is right and wrong.

In the neighborhood where I used to live, crack, heroine, and crimes related to their dealing and distribution were rampant. Shootings, beatings and the occasional arson were the norm.

Now, if you were a cop in that community and wanted to put an end to these crimes, where would you go to do this?

A. Where the crimes are being committed.

B. Where the crimes are not being committed.

I already know the answer to this, because I saw what the local police did that worked to effectively clean up the region.

I’m curious, based on your statement, where you would step up patrols and surveillance to have an effect on crime in the area.

Try not to outsmart yourself here by putting in your own option C. The right answer is within those choices, and this is a real world example that actually worked.

26

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]trevor16 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:
This all happened because of jay-walking? Seriously?

One would think that a cop would have better things to do than to harass jay-walkers.[/quote]

This is what I was thinking. I can almost guarantee the cop was being an ass to begin with. Once in the situation though, I don’t think it was wrong to punch her.[/quote]

Because it’s always the cops fault and citizens would never, ever do something without provocation?

I don’t know how someone can make a “guarantee” about something knowing absolutely no details of the incident. Just because you may be reasonable and would not do what this woman did unless the cop was being an ass, doesn’t mean everyone you see on the internet is a reasonable, sensible person. [/quote]

I never made a guarantee. There was a word in my post that made a qualification. You must have missed it.

Next, I never made any of the claims you accuse me of. Just because you like to hump fire hydrants, doesn’t mean everyone does.

I do know some things as fact. The confrontation was over j-walking. A cop has no right to do anything to anyone (even assholes) without reasonable cause. J-walking is not reasonable cause in my book. A police officer approaching someone on the subject of j-walking is utter BS. It’s like pulling someone over because they were going 2 miles an hour over the speed limit.

The reason I can almost guarantee he was being an ass is because there is apparently no reasonable explanation for the initiation of the contact. Can you think of a better explanation?

I never said the women were being reasonable or sensible, but it isn’t against the law to not be. I also said that he was right to punch her for laying hands on him (much the way I wish the student would have punched the congressman for grabbing him).

Learn to read. Learn to think.[/quote]

I wasn’t trying to be an asshole. Just playing the other side so relax.

He was doing his job…enforcing the law (police have no role in creating law, however they are paid to enforce it which he was doing).

Stopping people for jay-walking is not something that I as police officer aspire to do, however that isn’t to say it isn’t a worthy thing to do. Every day people are killed jay-walking. You can claim survival of the fittest or whatever, however jay-walking deaths affect many more people than the dead pedestrian(family, friends, witnesses, the driver who has to live with killing someone ect.)

Just because YOU don’t feel that stopping people for jay-walking is right, many people do and police departments are constantly getting complaints that they are not enforcing laws like this. Then when they do increase enforcement they get complaints that they are doing too much. If you can think of a solution maybe you should speak up.

Police are just doing their job when they are out there doing traffic enforcement. Just like you probably do things that your boss tells you to do. If you have a problem with jay-walking laws do something about it…don’t assume that just because the cop was doing his job he was being an asshole. That is pretty ignorant.

27

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Law enforcement has no right to differentiate enforcing a law based on area.[/quote]

You seem to have a strong sense of what you believe is right and wrong.

In the neighborhood where I used to live, crack, heroine, and crimes related to their dealing and distribution were rampant. Shootings, beatings and the occasional arson were the norm.

Now, if you were a cop in that community and wanted to put an end to these crimes, where would you go to do this?

A. Where the crimes are being committed.

B. Where the crimes are not being committed.

I already know the answer to this, because I saw what the local police did that worked to effectively clean up the region.

I’m curious, based on your statement, where you would step up patrols and surveillance to have an effect on crime in the area.

Try not to outsmart yourself here by putting in your own option C. The right answer is within those choices, and this is a real world example that actually worked.

[/quote]

Since you didn’t read it, allow me to reiterate my earlier post, “Police can certainly concentrate resources on geographic locations. It should not, however, change the way they approach enforcement.”

Unless you are arguing that police shouldn’t enforce laws against “crack, heroine, and crimes related to their dealing and distribution were rampant. Shootings, beatings and the occasional arson” in other areas then i haven’t contradicted you.

Do you think illegal drug use is more prevalent among poor or rich neighborhoods?

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2007/study-finds-rich-kids-more.html

28

[quote]trevor16 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]trevor16 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:
This all happened because of jay-walking? Seriously?

One would think that a cop would have better things to do than to harass jay-walkers.[/quote]

This is what I was thinking. I can almost guarantee the cop was being an ass to begin with. Once in the situation though, I don’t think it was wrong to punch her.[/quote]

Because it’s always the cops fault and citizens would never, ever do something without provocation?

I don’t know how someone can make a “guarantee” about something knowing absolutely no details of the incident. Just because you may be reasonable and would not do what this woman did unless the cop was being an ass, doesn’t mean everyone you see on the internet is a reasonable, sensible person. [/quote]

I never made a guarantee. There was a word in my post that made a qualification. You must have missed it.

Next, I never made any of the claims you accuse me of. Just because you like to hump fire hydrants, doesn’t mean everyone does.

I do know some things as fact. The confrontation was over j-walking. A cop has no right to do anything to anyone (even assholes) without reasonable cause. J-walking is not reasonable cause in my book. A police officer approaching someone on the subject of j-walking is utter BS. It’s like pulling someone over because they were going 2 miles an hour over the speed limit.

The reason I can almost guarantee he was being an ass is because there is apparently no reasonable explanation for the initiation of the contact. Can you think of a better explanation?

I never said the women were being reasonable or sensible, but it isn’t against the law to not be. I also said that he was right to punch her for laying hands on him (much the way I wish the student would have punched the congressman for grabbing him).

Learn to read. Learn to think.[/quote]

I wasn’t trying to be an asshole. Just playing the other side so relax.

He was doing his job…enforcing the law (police have no role in creating law, however they are paid to enforce it which he was doing).

Stopping people for jay-walking is not something that I as police officer aspire to do, however that isn’t to say it isn’t a worthy thing to do. Every day people are killed jay-walking. You can claim survival of the fittest or whatever, however jay-walking deaths affect many more people than the dead pedestrian(family, friends, witnesses, the driver who has to live with killing someone ect.)

Just because YOU don’t feel that stopping people for jay-walking is right, many people do and police departments are constantly getting complaints that they are not enforcing laws like this. Then when they do increase enforcement they get complaints that they are doing too much. If you can think of a solution maybe you should speak up.

Police are just doing their job when they are out there doing traffic enforcement. Just like you probably do things that your boss tells you to do. If you have a problem with jay-walking laws do something about it…don’t assume that just because the cop was doing his job he was being an asshole. That is pretty ignorant. [/quote]

Yes, police are a huge factor in determining what is illegal and not. Police policy is probably as important as the law in many cases.

And as I’ve explained, I logically think j-walking is safer. Plus it is also the job of the officer to avoid physical confrontations. It’s his job to serve. his job to defuse situations.

29

I understand the Cop , but that was 0 to 60 faster than I have ever seen

30

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]trevor16 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]trevor16 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:
This all happened because of jay-walking? Seriously?

One would think that a cop would have better things to do than to harass jay-walkers.[/quote]

This is what I was thinking. I can almost guarantee the cop was being an ass to begin with. Once in the situation though, I don’t think it was wrong to punch her.[/quote]

Because it’s always the cops fault and citizens would never, ever do something without provocation?

I don’t know how someone can make a “guarantee” about something knowing absolutely no details of the incident. Just because you may be reasonable and would not do what this woman did unless the cop was being an ass, doesn’t mean everyone you see on the internet is a reasonable, sensible person. [/quote]

I never made a guarantee. There was a word in my post that made a qualification. You must have missed it.

Next, I never made any of the claims you accuse me of. Just because you like to hump fire hydrants, doesn’t mean everyone does.

I do know some things as fact. The confrontation was over j-walking. A cop has no right to do anything to anyone (even assholes) without reasonable cause. J-walking is not reasonable cause in my book. A police officer approaching someone on the subject of j-walking is utter BS. It’s like pulling someone over because they were going 2 miles an hour over the speed limit.

The reason I can almost guarantee he was being an ass is because there is apparently no reasonable explanation for the initiation of the contact. Can you think of a better explanation?

I never said the women were being reasonable or sensible, but it isn’t against the law to not be. I also said that he was right to punch her for laying hands on him (much the way I wish the student would have punched the congressman for grabbing him).

Learn to read. Learn to think.[/quote]

I wasn’t trying to be an asshole. Just playing the other side so relax.

He was doing his job…enforcing the law (police have no role in creating law, however they are paid to enforce it which he was doing).

Stopping people for jay-walking is not something that I as police officer aspire to do, however that isn’t to say it isn’t a worthy thing to do. Every day people are killed jay-walking. You can claim survival of the fittest or whatever, however jay-walking deaths affect many more people than the dead pedestrian(family, friends, witnesses, the driver who has to live with killing someone ect.)

Just because YOU don’t feel that stopping people for jay-walking is right, many people do and police departments are constantly getting complaints that they are not enforcing laws like this. Then when they do increase enforcement they get complaints that they are doing too much. If you can think of a solution maybe you should speak up.

Police are just doing their job when they are out there doing traffic enforcement. Just like you probably do things that your boss tells you to do. If you have a problem with jay-walking laws do something about it…don’t assume that just because the cop was doing his job he was being an asshole. That is pretty ignorant. [/quote]

Yes, police are a huge factor in determining what is illegal and not. Police policy is probably as important as the law in many cases.

And as I’ve explained, I logically think j-walking is safer. Plus it is also the job of the officer to avoid physical confrontations. It’s his job to serve. his job to defuse situations. [/quote]

Motor vehicle laws are not police policy.

It is the police officer’s job to enforce the law…not to stop enforcing it because someone on the street gives you attitude.

31

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Law enforcement has no right to differentiate enforcing a law based on area.[/quote]

You seem to have a strong sense of what you believe is right and wrong.

In the neighborhood where I used to live, crack, heroine, and crimes related to their dealing and distribution were rampant. Shootings, beatings and the occasional arson were the norm.

Now, if you were a cop in that community and wanted to put an end to these crimes, where would you go to do this?

A. Where the crimes are being committed.

B. Where the crimes are not being committed.

I already know the answer to this, because I saw what the local police did that worked to effectively clean up the region.

I’m curious, based on your statement, where you would step up patrols and surveillance to have an effect on crime in the area.

Try not to outsmart yourself here by putting in your own option C. The right answer is within those choices, and this is a real world example that actually worked.

[/quote]

Since you didn’t read it, allow me to reiterate my earlier post, “Police can certainly concentrate resources on geographic locations. It should not, however, change the way they approach enforcement.”

Unless you are arguing that police shouldn’t enforce laws against “crack, heroine, and crimes related to their dealing and distribution were rampant. Shootings, beatings and the occasional arson” in other areas then i haven’t contradicted you.

Do you think illegal drug use is more prevalent among poor or rich neighborhoods?

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2007/study-finds-rich-kids-more.html[/quote]

Oh, come on. If concentrating resources in a given area is not a fundamental change in enforcement, then what is?

It speaks to the priority and strategy which will be employed.

If that is not a change in enforcement based on area, I guess I don’t know what is.

32

I’ve actually gotten a ticket before for J walking back wen I was in middle school walking home rom school. Also the video just cuts in right as the officer punches the lady. We dont know what happened before the video clip cuts in or what was being said by the women.

I think the officer was in the right. He was probably going to issue a ticket to the J walkers (as gay as it is J walking is still illegal) and the two woman got mouthy then they got physical with the officer. he defended himself. I see nothing wrong with this clip at all. If those dumb girls would have just taken the $50 ticket, been polite and KEPT THEIR HANDS TO THEMSELVES none of this would have happened.

.greg.

33

I laughed. Won’t lie.

Cop asks you to do something like stop and talk or come down to the station, you don’t give him lip, you don’t get physical, you fucking go to the station. Seriously, bitch got served. I hope they both do time to be honest, because that kind of attitude towards law enforcement is just uncalled for. But they won’t because she’s a woman and she get’s a free pass for that.

If that were a guy getting smacked in the face for acting that way, would this be in question?

34

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And as I’ve explained, I logically think j-walking is safer.[/quote]

Here is the crux. J-walking for the individual at that moment, assuming they are not wearing headphones, look both ways before crossing, does not trip… may be safer that one time. But if everyone jay walked in an area with high pedestrian and car traffic, or even just high car (especially high speed) traffic, then you will have issues. The pedestrians and the drivers need to be able to rely on the others behavior. Walkers do not dart out into traffic, car stop appropriately, do not drive onto sidewalk, etc. That is for everyone’s safety. Predictability of action is what allows for traffic to flow. That said, accidents happen but rarely when everyone is doing what they are supposed to be doing - and in those cases there may be mechanical failures.

Laws are written to establish cultural norms in behavior so that there is some predictability in this. (Imagine if there were no traffic laws). Cops enforce these laws.

35

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And as I’ve explained, I logically think j-walking is safer.[/quote]

Here is the crux. J-walking for the individual at that moment, assuming they are not wearing headphones, look both ways before crossing, does not trip… may be safer that one time. But if everyone jay walked in an area with high pedestrian and car traffic, or even just high car (especially high speed) traffic, then you will have issues. The pedestrians and the drivers need to be able to rely on the others behavior. Walkers do not dart out into traffic, car stop appropriately, do not drive onto sidewalk, etc. That is for everyone’s safety. Predictability of action is what allows for traffic to flow. That said, accidents happen but rarely when everyone is doing what they are supposed to be doing - and in those cases there may be mechanical failures.

Laws are written to establish cultural norms in behavior so that there is some predictability in this. (Imagine if there were no traffic laws). Cops enforce these laws.[/quote]

So I’m wrong to more safely cross away from intersections because its bad for society?

36

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Law enforcement has no right to differentiate enforcing a law based on area.[/quote]

You seem to have a strong sense of what you believe is right and wrong.

In the neighborhood where I used to live, crack, heroine, and crimes related to their dealing and distribution were rampant. Shootings, beatings and the occasional arson were the norm.

Now, if you were a cop in that community and wanted to put an end to these crimes, where would you go to do this?

A. Where the crimes are being committed.

B. Where the crimes are not being committed.

I already know the answer to this, because I saw what the local police did that worked to effectively clean up the region.

I’m curious, based on your statement, where you would step up patrols and surveillance to have an effect on crime in the area.

Try not to outsmart yourself here by putting in your own option C. The right answer is within those choices, and this is a real world example that actually worked.

[/quote]

Since you didn’t read it, allow me to reiterate my earlier post, “Police can certainly concentrate resources on geographic locations. It should not, however, change the way they approach enforcement.”

Unless you are arguing that police shouldn’t enforce laws against “crack, heroine, and crimes related to their dealing and distribution were rampant. Shootings, beatings and the occasional arson” in other areas then i haven’t contradicted you.

Do you think illegal drug use is more prevalent among poor or rich neighborhoods?

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2007/study-finds-rich-kids-more.html[/quote]

Oh, come on. If concentrating resources in a given area is not a fundamental change in enforcement, then what is?

It speaks to the priority and strategy which will be employed.

If that is not a change in enforcement based on area, I guess I don’t know what is.
[/quote]

Are they going to arrest/ticket someone for doing something is a specific area they wouldn’t somewhere else?

That is the change in enforcement being discussed.

37

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I laughed. Won’t lie.

Cop asks you to do something like stop and talk or come down to the station, you don’t give him lip, you don’t get physical, you fucking go to the station. Seriously, bitch got served. I hope they both do time to be honest, because that kind of attitude towards law enforcement is just uncalled for. But they won’t because she’s a woman and she get’s a free pass for that.

If that were a guy getting smacked in the face for acting that way, would this be in question?[/quote]

THIS^^^ This should be the attitude of everyone in here and everyone in society. If you break the law (which j walking is) then just accept the consequences. Shut your mouth, take your ticket and go on with your day.

.greg.

38

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I laughed. Won’t lie.

Cop asks you to do something like stop and talk or come down to the station, you don’t give him lip, you don’t get physical, you fucking go to the station. Seriously, bitch got served. I hope they both do time to be honest, because that kind of attitude towards law enforcement is just uncalled for. But they won’t because she’s a woman and she get’s a free pass for that.

If that were a guy getting smacked in the face for acting that way, would this be in question?[/quote]

THIS^^^ This should be the attitude of everyone in here and everyone in society. If you break the law (which j walking is) then just accept the consequences. Shut your mouth, take your ticket and go on with your day.

.greg.[/quote]

Also keep your little butthole shaved and clean, just in case an agent of the state feels like fucking you.

Are you sure that you are an American?

Just checking.

39

[quote]orion wrote:
Also keep your little butthole shaved and clean, just in case an agent of the state feels like fucking you.

Are you sure that you are an American?

Just checking.

[/quote]

Fight the power!

40

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I laughed. Won’t lie.

Cop asks you to do something like stop and talk or come down to the station, you don’t give him lip, you don’t get physical, you fucking go to the station. Seriously, bitch got served. I hope they both do time to be honest, because that kind of attitude towards law enforcement is just uncalled for. But they won’t because she’s a woman and she get’s a free pass for that.

If that were a guy getting smacked in the face for acting that way, would this be in question?[/quote]

THIS^^^ This should be the attitude of everyone in here and everyone in society. If you break the law (which j walking is) then just accept the consequences. Shut your mouth, take your ticket and go on with your day.

.greg.[/quote]

Also keep your little butthole shaved and clean, just in case an agent of the state feels like fucking you.

Are you sure that you are an American?

Just checking.

[/quote]

Seriously, I’m respectful, its what I recommend, but to think it should be a requirement or you deserve something is retarded.