Seattle Cop Punches Woman

[Ducati]

It shouldn't matter how you treat an officer. They should treat you the same whether you submit to them or not. This is why people don't respect police. If you roll over and submit, you might get off with a warning. If you treat them like a public servant, you get a ticket. This is abuse of power.

[beforewisdom]

I wouldn't call "not attacking" them rolling over and submitting. The video opened up with the women attacking the cop. I agree, he used excessive force.

[Marcina]

One of my friends at work was killed by a car at an intersection while waiting to cross.

 

Yeah, I'll jaywalk if it's safer..

 

In this situation, I think the cop was just doing his job. Yeah, I think he overdid it but at the same time.. If you thought some crazy bitch was gonna attack you, what would your reaction be? Teenagers have a problem with authority, and there are a lot of incidents of kids just stabbing people for the hell of it and whatnot. Ya gotta be careful.

[VelvetVoices]

more post then I expected since I've last been in this thread, I'll just post this:

A Seattle, Washington, police officer who was caught on video punching an alleged jaywalker did nothing wrong, the Seattle Police Officers Guild said.

 

Walsh, who joined the force in November 2007, has not been disciplined in the Monday incident, which remains under investigation, Jamieson said. The event has been referred to the department's Office of Professional Accountability for review, he said.

 

"The officer did nothing wrong. We always will review incidents like this, that's how police officers learn," Sgt. Rich O'Neill, president of the Seattle Police Officer's Guild, told CNN. "I am confident that the review will show that the officer was totally justified. He was defending himself."

 

According to a police statement, Walsh was on patrol and in uniform Monday afternoon when he stopped a young man for jaywalking.

 

While interacting with the man, Walsh observed four women jaywalking at the same location and ordered them to step over to his cruiser, police said. The department described the women as being "verbally antagonistic toward the officer."

 

One of the women began to walk away and appeared to raise her hand in a dismissive gesture after being ordered to step over to the car, police said.

 

Walsh escorted the woman back to the cruiser, but she then started to yell at him and pull away, "breaking free of the officer's grip several times," police said.

 

When the officer tried to handcuff the woman, another woman placed her hands on the officer's arm, police said. "The officer pushed the second subject back, but she again came at the officer, at which time he punched her," police said.

 

O'Neill forcefully defended Walsh's actions.

 

"The focus needs to be on the two individuals," O'Neill said. "If you watch the entire video, he is trying to de-escalate the situation, first by voice commands, then by taking her by the wrists, and then she reacts by pulling away and swinging.

 

"My critique is that he could have used more force and taken the girl to the ground," O'Neill said. "He could have grabbed her, it's called a leg sweep, handcuffed her and it would have been over a lot faster, but when you take someone to the ground you risk more injury."

 

The 19-year-old woman who allegedly grabbed Walsh's arm was booked for investigation of assault on an officer, police said. The other woman, who police said was 17, was booked for obstructing an officer. Both suspects were also cited for jaywalking.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/16/police.jaywalker/index.html?hpt=T2

[VeganEssentials]

Where's Vegan Joe when you need him?

 

What most people fail to consider based on thinking a partial video clip explains everything and makes for a perfect victim is this -

 

1. If you follow the story to the root, the police were called to patrol that area by the principal of the school nearby due to kids crossing at the wrong place, and he wanted to make sure that everyone was being safe so nobody was going to get hit running wildly through the street to get across. Schools often are considered the "responsible party" if anything goes wrong within a certain radius of their territory, hence the decision to have police presence.

 

2. The officer, prior to what was shown, had caught the girls jawalking, and simply asked them to come over. Why they decided to get all shouty with him and completely disregard his authority is beyond me, but they made a really dumb decision to escalate things beyond simply listening for a second and evening humoring the officer by saying "Gee, I won't do that again, sir" and moving on.

 

3. Whenever someone comes up and grabs an officer in a hostile situation, it is considered a THREAT. What happens if someone decides to take advantage of their being tied up trying to subdue one person and makes an attempt to hurt the officer? What is someone tries to grab their gun, taser or pepper spray and use it against them? Do some people here really think that cops should simply deal with it when people get angry and start battling the police to defend someone who made a dumb decision to be combative instead of simply showing a bit of respect? And, with note to the fact that the area is known for crime, drugs and hostility toward officers, why on earth would the cops let their guard down when the situation is definitely NOT in their favor for things going smoothly and without incident.

 

I think that he should have just pepper sprayed them both when things started getting hostile, stuffed them in the car, charged them with disorderly conduct, and called it a day. I have little respect for people who think they're somehow above the law and exempt from being called out when they do something stupid. And, I have less respect for people who make their beds and then want to blame everyone else when they victimize themselves through stupid actions. I wish the cop hadn't decided to hit her, but until you're put in that same situation, you'll never know just how you will react when you think that your own safety is in jeopardy.

 

So, let's review -

 

When a cop asks you to come over, take a second and acknowledge them and do as they say. It's not going to be in your favor to do otherwise. Besides, if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem? Having a "F*ck the police" attitude from the start doesn't show you're cool or tough, it just shows you don't have any respect for someone who might just have a quick question or comment for you. Not every time a cop wants to speak with you is going to lead to a ticket or arrest...unless, of course, you seem to WANT it to go that way as happened here.

 

If you make a cop mad by getting physical, don't be a dumbass and fight them with everything you've got. At least, not because you don't want to take the time to get scolded for jaywalking.

 

If things go from bad to worse as in this case, accept that you're the idiot who escalated the matter to bring the end result for not doing the right thing in the first place.

 

I know, it's in vogue to hate cops in much of the vegan community. But as one who has had far, far more good experiences with them than bad, I've come to take the time to judge someone AFTER my experience, not by immediately dismissing someone based on their job, uniform, diet, color, etc. There are shitty vegans out there, too, but I'm not going to judge our whole community on those who I don't like. Let's try to do the same for everyone, regardless of how much one can't stand "authority figures" and all that stuff.

[beforewisdom]

2. The officer, prior to what was shown, had caught the girls jawalking, and simply asked them to come over. Why they decided to get all shouty with him and completely disregard his authority

 

That was already posted in this thread and the posted video began with the woman grappling with the cop.

 

There were probably race <=> police antagonism issues under the surface, but there is no room left to adapt to a situation if someone ignores the authority of a police officer and gets physical with them.

 

I wish the cop would have done something less ugly like push her to the ground, but the article said that would raised the risk of hurting her.

[mtguy1976]

VeganEssentials, thank you so much for saying that and for standing up for the law enforcement that visit this board. Its a very stressfull job and decisions have to be made in seconds, sometimes less. Its very easy for people to say they would do things differently or react a certain way after they are givin some time to think about it. There have been times were I reacted in one way, were I should have reacted in another way.

[lobsteriffic]

Having a "F*ck the police" attitude from the start doesn't show you're cool or tough, it just shows you don't have any respect for someone who might just have a quick question or comment for you. Not every time a cop wants to speak with you is going to lead to a ticket or arrest...unless, of course, you seem to WANT it to go that way as happened here.

 

I know, it's in vogue to hate cops in much of the vegan community. But as one who has had far, far more good experiences with them than bad, I've come to take the time to judge someone AFTER my experience, not by immediately dismissing someone based on their job, uniform, diet, color, etc. There are shitty vegans out there, too, but I'm not going to judge our whole community on those who I don't like. Let's try to do the same for everyone, regardless of how much one can't stand "authority figures" and all that stuff.

 

 

Thank-you! You worded it much more eloquently than I could have, but I agree 100%. I think police officers have one of the toughest jobs out there and it bothers me that some people seem to hate them so.

[Ducati]

I have to say that law enforcement brings the disrespect upon themselves. Their primary mission is no longer "Serve & Protect" but rather "Fine & Collect". They enforce laws that are dangerous to collect more money. If law enforcement focused more on serving the people, then they would be respected more.

[beforewisdom]

I have to say that law enforcement brings the disrespect upon themselves. Their primary mission is no longer "Serve & Protect" but rather "Fine & Collect". They enforce laws that are dangerous to collect more money. If law enforcement focused more on serving the people, then they would be respected more.

 

That would be "our" fault, not theirs.

 

Police don't like doing those BS speed traps ( oops, you were going 38 in a 35 mph zone ).

 

They do it because they are ordered to. Municipalities order them to do it to get needed revenue. Municipalities need the revenue, because voters want more services while paying less taxes. Non-voters simply let that situation come about.

Edited June 25, 2010 by beforewisdom

[beforewisdom]

I am biased against "the police". I've done protests, have friends who still do them. I hear horrible stories about how *some* police ( they are not a monolithic group ) rob people of their given rights as Americans at protests and hurt people via racist situations.

 

I also thought the video of the cop punching the woman was *ugly*.

 

I wanted to take her side, but looking honestly at the video I could not.

 

I was a bit surprised that so many others who watched the video sided with the woman even though the video clearly shows her getting physical with the cop.

 

IMHO, you can only say you have progressive ethics if those ethics apply equally to everyone, even in situations where you don't want them to point in a certain direction.

[Ducati]

I have to say that law enforcement brings the disrespect upon themselves. Their primary mission is no longer "Serve & Protect" but rather "Fine & Collect". They enforce laws that are dangerous to collect more money. If law enforcement focused more on serving the people, then they would be respected more.

 

That would be "our" fault, not theirs.

 

Police don't like doing those BS speed traps ( oops, you were going 38 in a 35 mph zone ).

 

They do it because they are ordered to. Municipalities order them to do it to get needed revenue. Municipalities need the revenue, because voters want more services while paying less taxes. Non-voters simply let that situation come about.

 

It has nothing to do with the services the voters want. It has to do with the waste of a municipality. There is so much corruption and greed at every level of government that they need the revenue to counter the waste.

[VelvetVoices]

@VeganEssentials: A+ post, totally agree....

[beforewisdom]

It has nothing to do with the services the voters want. It has to do with the waste of a municipality. There is so much corruption and greed at every level of government that they need the revenue to counter the waste.

 

Many arguments can made against that point, but lets assume you are 100% correct. There is plenty of money for all municipal services and keeping taxes lower at the same time, it is just a matter of the municipal governments being corrupt

 

My point still stands.

 

The police aren't choosing of their own free will to waste their time collecting fees on minor infractions. They are ordered to do so by the governments they work for. Those governments partially exist at the will of the voters.

 

It isn't about the police choosing to be assholes.

Edited June 25, 2010 by beforewisdom

[lobsteriffic]

Yeah, I've done quite a bit of academic research with the police. Not too many of them say things like, "I got into this job so I can give out tickets for minor infractions."

 

There's a lot more they would rather be doing. But it's not like each individual officer gets to 100% choose his/her duties.

[Ducati]

The vast majority of cops I have met and worked with became cops for the authority. They have no control over their own lives, so they find a job that allows them to control others. I have spent a lot of time with cops in private, and what they say is completely shocking. Total and complete abuse of power.

 

BTW, I also found the same attitude in EMS.

[MartinVegartin]

I stand by my two main points:

 

It is a stupid law. It prevents people from exercising their moral right to cross the road when and where they think it is safe and when and where it is convenient.

 

The copper had no right to punch the woman.

 

Let's imagine a scene in South Africa 40 years ago. Two black women are walking along the street. One decides to sit on a bench that only white people are legally allowed to sit on. The other one is law abiding and stays standing. A copper, tells the criminal one to stand up. She refuses and tells him she has a right to sit on any public bench. It becomes heated and the copper grabs the woman. Her friend, who had remained standing, alarmed at his behaviour and the unfairness of her friend's arrest for a non-crime, grabs and pushes the copper. The copper punches her.

 

Was the copper right to punch her? The police association spokesman would have said that he did nothing wrong - just like the one in the Seattle case.

 

Was the woman morally right to sit on the bench? Was she right to demand the right to do so?

 

By sitting on the bench, she might have so angered some rabid white supremacists that they would have attacked both her and her law abiding friend. Many people might have been seriously hurt in the melee. But, even if that could happen, she still has the moral right to sit there.

 

Someone could be hurt if someone goes jaywalking. But someone still has the moral right to cross the road.

 

If a black person had wanted to sit on a whites-only bench and there was no chance of this act causing harm to anyone, I would have encouraged that black person to sit there.

 

If someone can cross the road safely, I would encourage them to do so wherever they want to do it. I would also have applauded Rosa Parks for breaking the law if it had been a law.

 

If stupid or unjust laws such as these, that have no victims, adveresly affect us or cause us inconvenience, we should ignore them. We have the moral right to do so.

 

The police deserve no more respect than anyone else. They are public servants whose job it is to protect the public. It's true that defying them can have unpleasant consequences but so can not demanding your rights - such as the right to cross the road or the right to sit on a bench.

 

Strangely enough, just a couple of hours ago on television, I saw for the first time a no-jaywalking sign. A big red hand.

[Richard]

I was a bit surprised that so many others who watched the video sided with the woman even though the video clearly shows her getting physical with the cop..

I don't side with the women, they were clearly wrong to argue and get physical like they did. But I think that there are other ways to subdue somebody than punch them in the face, just seemed like he lost control there

[mtguy1976]

It is a stupid law. It prevents people from exercising their moral right to cross the road when and where they think it is safe and when and where it is convenient....If stupid or unjust laws such as these, that have no victims, adveresly affect us or cause us inconvenience, we should ignore them. We have the moral right to do so.

Now this is for all of Washington Sate, I couldn't find one for Seattle only:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/PDF_and_ZIP_Files/Washington_State_Collision_Data_Summary_2008.pdf

Page 124

Failure to Use Crosswalk Total number of accidents:186 Of those fatal : 9

 

Did Not Grant Right of Way to Vehicle Total number of accidents 176 Of those fatal :8

 

Yeah, stupid law.

[Ducati]

It is a stupid law. It prevents people from exercising their moral right to cross the road when and where they think it is safe and when and where it is convenient....If stupid or unjust laws such as these, that have no victims, adveresly affect us or cause us inconvenience, we should ignore them. We have the moral right to do so.

Now this is for all of Washington Sate, I couldn't find one for Seattle only:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/PDF_and_ZIP_Files/Washington_State_Collision_Data_Summary_2008.pdf

Page 124

Failure to Use Crosswalk Total number of accidents:186 Of those fatal : 9

 

Did Not Grant Right of Way to Vehicle Total number of accidents 176 Of those fatal :8

 

Yeah, stupid law.

 

Yes, amazingly stupid. Especially when you consider that amazing 877 accidents, with 11 of them fatal occurred when the vehicles did not yield the right of way to pedestrians. These statistics clearly show that when pedestrians have the right of way, they get hit more then when they don't have the right of way.

 

Great Resource MTGuy!

[mtguy1976]

It is a stupid law. It prevents people from exercising their moral right to cross the road when and where they think it is safe and when and where it is convenient....If stupid or unjust laws such as these, that have no victims, adveresly affect us or cause us inconvenience, we should ignore them. We have the moral right to do so.

Now this is for all of Washington Sate, I couldn't find one for Seattle only:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/PDF_and_ZIP_Files/Washington_State_Collision_Data_Summary_2008.pdf

Page 124

Failure to Use Crosswalk Total number of accidents:186 Of those fatal : 9

 

Did Not Grant Right of Way to Vehicle Total number of accidents 176 Of those fatal :8

 

Yeah, stupid law.

 

Yes, amazingly stupid. Especially when you consider that amazing 877 accidents, with 11 of them fatal occurred when the vehicles did not yield the right of way to pedestrians. These statistics clearly show that when pedestrians have the right of way, they get hit more then when they don't have the right of way.

 

Great Resource MTGuy!

That is true that there were more vehicle at fault accidents and I'll give you that. But, if 362 people (thats the total number of accidents were the pedestrians were at fault) would have obeyed the traffic control device there would have been a lot less injuries and fatalities.

[Ducati]

Your math doesn't make sense. More pedestrians were hit using the signal at the crosswalk then those who disobeyed it.

[mtguy1976]

Your math doesn't make sense. More pedestrians were hit using the signal at the crosswalk then those who disobeyed it.

Makes sense to me.

Failure to Use Crosswalk "jaywalking" -----------------------------------------------------> 186

Did Not Grant Right of Way to Vehicle (used the cross walk, but went when it was red)------> +176

362

[Ducati]

And 877 accidents were caused when people obeyed the crosswalk signals. That means more people hurt when obeying the law.

[MartinVegartin]

If people get knocked down crossing the road it is often because they didn't take enough care. No law can protect them. If they only cross when the signal tells them to, they could still be killed by a careless driver if they, the pedestrian, are not taking care.

 

It's easy to cross a road safely. You do so where it is easy to get across without being hit. I've done it thousands of times.

 

Only cross when you can do so without putting yourself or others in danger. Only sit on a bench if you are not likely to be attacked for doing so.

 

Come on now, America is supposed to be the Land of the Free. You should be free to cross the road.