Jump to content

Seattle Cop Punches Woman


VelvetVoices
 Share

Recommended Posts

To put in my recent experience, I nearly ran down a man and his two kids this weekend because he seemed to think it was a good idea to cross the street in a really bad spot. About 80 feet from the crosswalk, two lanes were stopped up (left turn and center lane), but the right lane had an arrow so traffic was free-flowing at a reasonable pace. Now, I couldn't see these people running through the stopped lanes as they darted out in front of me as I'm moving at about 25 mph - I had to slam on the breaks to avoid hitting all 3 of them, and the man simply laughed it off despite putting himself and his children in jeopardy. Why would someone here not understand that MAYBE, just MAYBE, if he'd chosen to cross at the crosswalk during the appropriate time, I wouldn't have nearly wiped all of them out due to their need to rush to McDonalds rather than wait 60 seconds for their signal to come up? Why in the hell is it MY RESPONSIBILITY to expect people who don't want to follow a simple rule to jump out in front of me? I really do not see why it's so challenging for some to grasp - waiting for the proper signal at a crosswalk isn't "infringing on one's liberties" or "being held down by the man", it's as simple and logical as any traffic regulation that's done to keep semblance of order to prevent stupid crap from happening where someone gets hurt/killed whenever possible. You can't legally run a red light because you feel that it's a barrier to your rights to go through an intersection whenever you want to - EVERYONE is bound to the same rules in some scenarios, and when it comes to cars and people darting in front of them, I've yet to find any logic in why it's remotely unreasonable to think that waiting at the proper area to cross is any big deal.

 

No, there's no "perfect system that guarantees that nobody will ever be injured at a crosswalk when going at the proper time, but that's akin to saying "we should never wear seatbelts because you can still die in an accident regardless". It's simply making excuses for our own poor decisions/behaviors, trying to justify doing things our way vs. the proper way because we're a culture of convenience, no longer one of patience and choosing to do things orderly because we tend to think we "know better" when it's not convenient for us to follow the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

beforewisdom, I think this is one of the biggest problems in attitudes today, and you hit the nail on the head here for something that doesn't get enough discussion. The hypocrisy that comes when people immediately want to side with the underdog or paint everyone they're opposed to with the same brush to side against them is what's halting actual progression. Divisiveness and the pervasive attitude that anything you think is bad truly is, starts things off on the wrong track from the get-go. The "think with your heart before your head" mindset allows this kind of thought process to previal. People too often tend to look for an excuse to pick a side immediately before facts are known, and it can often allow us to push for poor judgement that's acutally far from progressive when we do so. It isn't a mindset that creates a fair and truly balanced scenario, rather, it blocks one from being open to accepting that maybe their heart isn't always instinctually correctl. Not everyone who appears to be a victim was actually victimized by another, somtimes it's by their own poor choices (as with the video). But, people love to cheer for the underdog, and too many people will base their opinions on the occupation of one party and the color of the skin of the other, even if there's more backstory that would viably change one's opinion. But, we live in the age of polarization, where it's almost expected that people form an opinion in the first two seconds of a scenario without truly wanting to consider additional facts or be fair about things.

 

People saying/inferring that "all police are bad" and using it as a knee-jerk judgement against all of them is not much different than saying "people of race X are all bad", or "everyone who believes X is a crappy person", or what have you. It's just a complete brushstroke to go against that which some have already decided can only be anything but good, even though their opinions are based on a few random examples and do not speak for the entire base of people they have a grudge against. But, since it's geared toward an authority position in the case discussed here, it tends to be acceptable to say so as the general attitude of the movement permits things to sway in that direction with many people not understanding the hypocrisy of it.

 

Me, I'd rather investigate, weigh both sides, and make a decision AFTER being better informed rather than follow the idea that a snippet of an incident posted on YouTube tells the whole story. Oh well, I guess expecting people to investigate further and empathize with the perceived "villain" is hoping for too much sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that there are some stupid and careless people in the world. But I think that we should be allowed to cross the road when we want to as long as it doesn't put anyone in danger or cause an inconvenience for others. This all started with those women and the violent copper. We don't know if they posed a danger to drivers. The road might have been clear. If it was, they had the right to cross. If they caused anyone to swerve or brake, then they were in the wrong. But the copper was wrong to assault one of them. If they were causing no harm, he was wrong to even arrest them. Wrong from a Rights position.

 

I would be prepared to drive through a red traffic light if there were no other cars around. If it was 4 o'clock on a Sunday morning in the summertime and I could see all approach roads and I was in a hurry, or if the light was stuck. I would cause no harm. I would be breaking the law but it is a law designed to stop accidents. There could be no accident.

 

If I was riding a pushbike and came to a red traffic light which stopped me turning left, I would be prepared to get off the bike, wheel it round the corner to the road I wanted to turn into. Get on the bike and ride off - if it was safe to do so. This could actually be safer than waiting for the lights to change because I wouldn't have to worry about oncoming cars turning right or cars behind me following me and forcing me into the pavement. I might actually wheel it on the road or on the pavement, depending on what was easier and what traffic there might be coming from the right. I live in the UK where we drive on the right side of the road. The right side is, of course, the left. People who drive on the wrong side of the road - the right side - would be at a turning to turn right. I believe 'pavement' means something else in some parts of the world. The pavement is that raised track at the side of roads that pedestrians walk on. And some cyclists cycle on. And dogs do their dos on.

 

It would all depend on my actions being safe. Pedestrians and cyclists are more manoeuvrable than cars, buses and lorries. If it is safe for them to ignore traffic rules - and especially if it is safer - they shouldn't be penalised for doing so.

 

I do think people who are operating dangerous machinery - such as cars - should have to abide by more rules than do pedestrians. Drivers should have to take a driving test to be on the public road. But pedestrians shouldn't need to take any test to go anywhere. And should be allowed to cross the road safely without attracting the attention of the law.

 

When I go to the supermarket, I enter from the street entrance. Once inside, there's a sign saying 'No Entry'. This is at the tills where people pay for their purchases. The 'proper' entrance is about 150 feet away, near the car park entrance. I am not going to walk 150 feet and then double back another 150 feet to end up near where I came in just to buy some tea. I walk past the people who are waiting to pay at the tills. There is plenty of room. I don't interfere with what they are doing. Sometimes, the first till has a barrier half-way across it to stop people doing what I do. I just go to the next one. Nearly everyone who comes in from the street does as I do. I see them when I am standing in the queue waiting to pay.

 

A fairly new law makes it an offence to smoke in public buildings. I agree with it. It's also an offence to smoke inside a bus stop shelter. Some bus stop shelters have three sides and a roof. The front is open. A sign warns people that they mustn't smoke inside the shelter. You can stand at the side of it - just outside - and smoke. If you are standing upwind, the smoke will blow into the shelter. But you can do that. If you stand inside it - on the downwind side - and lean out to blow the smoke away from the other people, you will be committing an offence. One person can smoke legally and cause a nuisance and put other people's health in danger. The other person can smoke illegally and not inconvenience anyone nor put their health in danger. It is the uncompromising enforcement of daft laws that annoys me. If people are not causing danger or inconvenience, they should not be reprimanded or arrested for breaking rules.

 

I've just this moment invented a new saying: Rules are right when rule breakers are wrong; rules are wrong when Rights are broken. All right, not quite Shakespeare, but what do you expect for 49 seconds' effort?

 

Meaning: Keep to the rules when not doing so could cause danger, but break the rules if keeping to them infringes your rights or inconveniences you, and breaking them causes no harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Martin;

 

I have to admit I am bit surprised you are arguing so much for a moral right to jaywalk. Especially given real abuses by law enforcement that is happening in Toronto.

 

It seems like a lot of attention being paid to a minor issue while a major issue is neglected.

 

For myself, I like the rule of one person's freedom ends where it compromises another person's freedom. The most famous example being that of yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, where there is no fire.

 

I don't see the issue as "jaywalking", but as running out into traffic in such a way that might cause accidents........which involves other people.

Edited by beforewisdom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vegan Essentials;

 

Yep, a lot of people simply don't understand what prejudice is. They mistake it for an attitude directed at a particular group rather than a way of (not) thinking. Some who do understand that difference don't understand the harm and hypocrisy of not applying judgment evenly on all people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VeganEssentials,

 

You are approaching this from the viewpoint of a white male of exceptionally large statue. You have to remember that the prejudgment that people develop is a defense mechanism. If you were a small woman mugged by a homeless person, you would be more weary of homeless people. You would prejudge them in order to protect yourself. If you were alone at night, you might find yourself turning around and walking the other direction based on your past experiences.

 

We all prejudge people everyday based on our past experiences. Whenever I see a public transportation bus stopped on the side of the road in front of me, I assume it is going to pull out in front of me. I change lanes, slow down, etc. to protect myself from having to do something more drastic. I do this from years of experience with them on the road. This isn't wrong, or unethical, or immoral. It is a function of survival.

 

Police and race are different things entirely. One is choice, the other is from birth. Most of the people who seek out law enforcement careers have a certain type of attitude. They choose that career path and prejudging them based on those choices is one way people protect themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Beforewisdom. If people do run into traffic, they should be made to pay for any damage or alarm they cause. If someone caused an accident by their foolish behaviour and the police asked me to help apprehend the one responsible, I would probably help. It would depend on what damage was done or on the circumstances.

 

I actually felt a bit sorry for that copper. Once he'd punched the woman he couldn't back down - he had to keep going. I imagine he knew he'd gone too far.

 

I'm not aware of what's happening in Toronto. Unless it is something to do with the G9 wotsit. I saw someone on the television news who looked like a thug smashing a window and running off. He might deserve to be punished.

 

I don't hate the police. I've always been treated with respect by them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soooo:

 

1: We have a girl jaywalking.

2:Cop tries to apprehend girl.

3:A Misunderstanding happens.

 

First off - jaywalking can be dangerous. So can be chewing though - you could swallow something and suffocate. -> The girl's offense was not THAT big.

 

Second: What is the cop's duty? To challenge people or to maintain the safety of the city? The girl's jaywalking was not such a big threat. So the cop decided to pick on the girl. He could have just advised her not to do it - considering her age, done it properly, we know how teenagers are. ->Trying to apprehend her for jaywalking was totally wrong.

 

Third: What do you want? A criminalized population? Stalin discovered that forced labour was a great way to build infrastructure so he sent half of his population to "correction facilities" and exploited them. Is it impossible to live without criminalizing half of the population?

 

I'm not American but that's what I'd think if this happened in my country.

A crime avoided is better than a crime counted. The police should help, not criminalize people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'd almost forgotten all about this thread!

 

VeganEssentials,

 

You are approaching this from the viewpoint of a white male of exceptionally large statue. You have to remember that the prejudgment that people develop is a defense mechanism.

 

Prejudgement to me is not a defense mechanism - it's a means to simply form opinions and start judgement before ANY facts are revealed in order to validate our opinions further. That's what our society has been reduced to, forming our opinions at a glance with little to no info, then we expect an incredible presentation to be convinced that our snap judgements might have been wrong. We're all guilty of it to some degree (some more than others), but the more we battle it and try to NOT let our opinions be formed by pre-judgement, the better off we'll be. I witnessed plenty of pre-judgement in some of the statements at the start of the thread when people chose to simply view the clip as "white cop attacks black woman" instead of "black woman breaks minor law, refuses to acknowledge police who wish to speak to her, becomes irate and hurls profanities, resists police, friend interferes, gets punched, all hell breaks loose".

 

Police and race are different things entirely. One is choice, the other is from birth. Most of the people who seek out law enforcement careers have a certain type of attitude. They choose that career path and prejudging them based on those choices is one way people protect themselves.

 

Yes, one is choice and one is by birth, but that doesn't make it any more "right" to pre-judge one or the other. Believe it or not, there are quite a few police officers out there who...gasp....actually want to serve the public and protect the citizens of their area. Pre-judging and saying "I've had a few bad experiences with officers, therefore, ALL of them are that way" is no different than being judgemental toward a person's ethnicity in that regard. That's why it irritates the heck out of me when all cops are blanketed with the same statement - in that regard, it's very, very similar to using race as an excuse to hate against one segment of the population. Simply because one might have had bad experiences with cops before does not mean that they're all bad - simple logic dictates this, so why perpetuate a bias toward an entire group where many are actually doing it for the betterment of their areas?

 

Like I've said here before, being a skateboarder for 20+ years, I've had more than my share of run-ins with cops. Well over 100 encounters, I guarantee it maybe closer to 200. Was I upset when I'd occasionally get hassled in a parking lot for 20 minutes and have my license run for a criminal check for simply enjoying myself? At the time, yes, but now that I'm older, I understand that it's all part of the game, they have to do crap work along with what they WANT to be doing. It's part of the job. I doubt that ANY cop wants to be standing around shouting at people to stop jaywalking, but only when people bother to obey the laws of the trivial shit can police spend their time actually doing more important work. But instead, a discussion turns into some sort of bizarre situation where the incident in the video and jaywalking laws mean we're suddenly on the verge of being in a Stalin-esque bleak world of zero freedoms. All in the name of siding with the "victim" who chose their own fate by being an asshole...

 

And, for the record, despite being more than qualified for trespassing tickets EVERY TIME I was hassled, I only got one ticket out of all the times I was stopped. Why? I was polite, respectful, acknowledged that they didn't want to be wasting their time with me and agreed to move on my way. A little respect goes a long way Now, had I started screaming obscenities and resisting with everything I had, I guarantee, my race and gender wouldn't have made a difference in whether or not the police showed me any respect. I'd have been cuffed and in the back of a car in seconds, not because of what I looked like, but because I would have deserved it. To me, that's not a cop doing a bad job, it would have been ME being at fault. That's why this whole discussion sits poorly with me - it's simply one big excuse to make people less responsible for their own actions while using it as an "I told you so!" event to further condemn a profession that's not filled exclusively with power-mad jerks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

's what our society has been reduced to, forming our opinions at a glance with little to no info, then we expect an incredible presentation to be convinced that our snap judgements might have been wrong. We're all guilty of it to some degree (some more than others), but the more we battle it and try to NOT let our opinions be formed by pre-judgement, the better off we'll be.

 

I used to think this way. The more I ignored my gut and didn't pre-judge, the more I got screwed over. Now I keep my defenses up. If someone possesses certain traits that I have come across in people from my past who did me harm, I will be much more skeptical of them over someone without those traits. I believe everyone does this no matter what they may claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

new video with hoodrats in it. enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6PdyVrHO9g&feature=player_embedded

Yes, that headline gets completely capitalized because this video…it’s like the moonlanding, losing President Kennedy, and those topless photos Lindsay Lohan did for New YorK Magazine all rolled up into one. Just watch this video. No description will suffice, but there’s a pregnant woman, a lack of pants, NSFW language, a man punching a lady in the face, a cop getting hit by a car, all in one extravagant Burger King parking lot scene.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to think this way. The more I ignored my gut and didn't pre-judge, the more I got screwed over. Now I keep my defenses up. If someone possesses certain traits that I have come across in people from my past who did me harm, I will be much more skeptical of them over someone without those traits. I believe everyone does this no matter what they may claim.

 

Everyone's entitled to do as they please. Just remeber one critical point - if you always pre-judge and keep your defenses high from the start, you're going to miss out on as many or more good experiences as you will bad ones

 

Life's too short to form grudges early and hold them for years. Nothing creates remorse like realization that you've purposefully avoided that which you feared would only end up bad, only to realize later on that perhaps you weren't always right in your assumption. But, we've all got to figure that one our for ourselves. I've learned it the hard way, and it was a hell of a lesson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...