Cop Sucker Punches Woman at Philadelphia Puerto Rican Day Parade

[Ron in Regina]

Alright Ron - I guess that the best solution is to completely eliminate the police's street presence and set up some kiosks in various communities where wrong-doers can simply turn themselves in as their conscious dictates.

Crime may go up a bit (a few thousand percent or so), but that's a small price to pay seeing how every police officer is incompetent at their job at all times

That's not where I'm going at all. As Public Servants (who are still members of that
same Public but with special powers) there needs to be safeguards in place. One
recent one that is very effective is Video. Like any other citizen in a public place,
the expectation of privacy in not being video'd by traffic cams or ATM cams or
dash cams (be they in police cars or private vehicles) doesn't exist, so you
govern your actions accordingly. Laws against this that only pertain to the
Police while on duty, in my opinion, are just wrong. That's where I'm going.

In the general population, not all are upstanding citizens....but in most places most
are. In Law Enforcement, not all are upstanding citizens....but in most places most
are. The Police use video (during interviews, dash cams, interior cams in police
stations, etc...) to protect themselves. Currently, in most places, the general public
also has this right to protect themselves....but it has been taken away in three states
so far and I find that very disturbing.

The quote of, "Those that give up liberty for security deserve neither" (or something
along those lines) comes to mind.

Taken a step further...Those that give up liberty without having the choice to do so
for the security of a select group who already have special and specific rights (to
bear weapons openly) and laws protecting them (assaulting an officer carries a
much harsher penalty than just assault, etc...) without having the democratic right
to choose to surrender this liberty or not, deserve....what?

 

[gerryh]

I once met a couple officers that really didn't like me coming into their jurisdiction, selling dope, being a goon or otherwise up to zero good. Even though whenever they had contact with me, I was polite, not aggressive and called them sir.

The first couple time they rousted me, they just took my kit and sent me packing.

When that didn't work, they took me to Cherry St, handcuffed me to a tree, that's still there in Clarke Beach Park, and laid a beating to me. Two or three times if I remember correctly.

I still have contact with one of those cops, I call him friend. In fact, he testified at my trial on my behalf when I was arrested for assault. He also owned a small business and hired me to work for him for a bit, when I got out of jail.

If you asked him why they did what they did, he'd tell you it was because I was just a messed up guy doing stupid things, I deserved to get slapped around, but they didn't think I needed jail time for being a two bit hood.

Wow, talk about Stockholm syndrome.

Sorry Bear, the more I think about this the less I think of these "cops". Both should have been charged and fired. Immediate! They took the law into their own hands. Judge, Jury, and executioner. They had no right, period, to do what they did. You can defend these useless pieces of meat till the cows come home. What they did is unconscionable. If they had seen me, or any other citizen doing what they did, we would have been arrested, charged, and jailed. Period, no excuses.

 

[captain morgan]

That's not where I'm going at all. As Public Servants (who are still members of that
same Public but with special powers) there needs to be safeguards in place. One
recent one that is very effective is Video. Like any other citizen in a public place,
the expectation of privacy in not being video'd by traffic cams or ATM cams or
dash cams (be they in police cars or private vehicles) doesn't exist, so you
govern your actions accordingly. Laws against this that only pertain to the
Police while on duty, in my opinion, are just wrong. That's where I'm going.

In the general population, not all are upstanding citizens....but in most places most
are. In Law Enforcement, not all are upstanding citizens....but in most places most
are. The Police use video (during interviews, dash cams, interior cams in police
stations, etc...) to protect themselves. Currently, in most places, the general public
also has this right to protect themselves....but it has been taken away in three states
so far and I find that very disturbing.

The quote of, "Those that give up liberty for security deserve neither" (or something
along those lines) comes to mind.

Taken a step further...Those that give up liberty without having the choice to do so
for the security of a select group who already have special and specific rights (to
bear weapons openly) and laws protecting them (assaulting an officer carries a
much harsher penalty than just assault, etc...) without having the democratic right
to choose to surrender this liberty or not, deserve....what?

I don't disagree with your position , and for the record; I am sympathetic and supportive of your position as it relates to the experience that you articulated earlier. Video cameras have become a highly functional tool in today's society; however, in terms of the reference made that police/law enforcement use them - the difference is that those cameras are on for the duration of the 'event' from start to finish.

Case in point, consider the ongoing ****ysis here on the forums regarding what (and if) the woman engaged the cop... Many different opinions, but in the end, she did admit to the silly string action and if my memory serves correct - not one single poster was able to discern that fact until the lady came forth.

*NB - why can I not write the word A N A L Y S I S?

With this in mind; the individual that captured the video did not record the entire chain of events. When posted for public consumption, the officer was tried (and convicted) in the court of public opinion despite the lack of scope and resulting understanding.

In the end, there will always be a trade-off between rights, liberty and security. Left in it's purest form, we would quickly degenerate into a society where the strongest impose their individual versions of 'law' on everyone else.

That's certainly an option, but I'd highly recommend that you arm yourself to the teeth if that is the direction that you wish to go

 

[TenPenny]

Wow, talk about Stockholm syndrome.

Sorry Bear, the more I think about this the less I think of these "cops". Both should have been charged and fired. Immediate! They took the law into their own hands. Judge, Jury, and executioner. They had no right, period, to do what they did. You can defend these useless pieces of meat till the cows come home. What they did is unconscionable. If they had seen me, or any other citizen doing what they did, we would have been arrested, charged, and jailed. Period, no excuses.

Birds of a feather stick together.

 

[Goober]

A bloodied face is more than ample proof of sucker punch. Next time she and the others there need to assert their 2d Amendment rights and be fully armed to the teeth just like the Black Panthers in Houston. This way they will show the government who's really boss.

A bloody face is just a bloody face- How did it get to that point is called evidence or facts.

 

[Ron in Regina]

In the end, there will always be a trade-off between rights, liberty and security. Left in it's purest form, we would quickly degenerate into a society where the strongest impose their individual versions of 'law' on everyone else.

That's certainly an option, but I'd highly recommend that you arm yourself to the teeth if that is the direction that you wish to go

...and again....that's the rub. The 'strongest' you refer to aren't necessarily the biggest
and baddest...and one of the checks and balances there would be the public servants
we have that we call the Police. One of the effective checks and balances with respect
to the Police becoming the 'strongest' and imposing their individual versions of 'law' on
everyone else....is the knowledge that, in public & on duty, they also can be video'd just
like the "everybody else" that they still are as being members of the same public that
they have signed on to serve.

I don't believe that removing the right of the public to attempt to protect themselves in a
non-violent manner with video serves the public interest, nor the interest of the vast
majority of officiers that are honorable and law abiding in the course of their duty in
enforcing the law and protecting the public, not only from the 'bad guys,' but from
abuse by those that are suppose to be the 'good guys' and in most cases are.

I'd prefer the general public was armed with video for their protection instead of Glocks
in the event that the 'good guys' aren't being the 'good guys' they're hired to be. That's
been my position all the way along, and not these broad sweeping version of anarchy
that are being tossed about.

Video in the hands of the public isn't perfect, but it's better than not at this point (or even
the knowledge that the insident even just might be video'd), and better than being
'armed to the teeth' hopefully if the fecal matter impacts the rotory device in a manner
that, in a perfect world that doesn't exist, shouldn't ever happen but does.

 

[gerryh]

A bloody face is just a bloody face- How did it get to that point is called evidence or facts.

and that's what really matters, right goob? Cause she probably deserved it. right goob? She probably sprayed that poor poor officer with silly string. right goob? and if that girl had been your daughter, you'd be still defending the officer in bloodying her face. right goob?

 

[DaSleeper]

You're a police officer coming face to face with someone who is holding what looks like a pistol.....do you ask yourself is it a real gun? or a toy gun? or do you react with the assumption that it is deadly?

Is it a can of silly string in that hand or is it acid or some other concoction???

 

[gerryh]

You're a police officer coming face to face with someone who is holding what looks like a pistol.....do you ask yourself is it a real gun? or a toy gun? or do you react with the assumption that it is deadly?

Is it a can of silly string in that hand or is it acid or some other concoction???

defend the bullies all you want. What it comes down to in the end, is a 250 pound man cold cocking a 100 pound woman. A real tough guy.

 

[captain morgan]

...and again....that's the rub. The 'strongest' you refer to aren't necessarily the biggest
and baddest...and one of the checks and balances there would be the public servants
we have that we call the Police. One of the effective checks and balances with respect
to the Police becoming the 'strongest' and imposing their individual versions of 'law' on
everyone else....is the knowledge that, in public & on duty, they also can be video'd just
like the "everybody else" that they still are as being members of the same public that
they have signed on to serve.

It's never been just about the biggest/strongest - it has everything to do with who has the will to pursue a specific ends.

Any video is only as valuable as to the completeness of the story that it tells... It's really easy to video a fight outside a bar, but it doesn't mean much if we didn't see one of the 'participants' threaten the other with a knife in advance.

In my eyes, this is what happened to the Philly cop in this case... A 'video' showing him hitting her and no context whatsoever that would exonerate (or at least explain) why the officer took those actions.

While you suggest that the public can defend themselves in a non-violent manner, they can also use this 'shield' as a sword in terms of releasing select info and or edit the video to pursue an ends... That said, I do place strong support on the ability of people (in general) to employ this tool, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that everyone that posts video is doing so for simple justice or is not pursuing an alternate agenda.

defend the bullies all you want. What it comes down to in the end, is a 250 pound man cold cocking a 100 pound woman. A real tough guy.

It's tough to have any sympathy for the woman that knowingly provoked that 250lb man.

 

[gerryh]

It's tough to have any sympathy for the woman that knowingly provoked that 250lb man.

I really don't care what the hell she did or didn't do.

 

[captain morgan]

I really don't care what the hell she did or didn't do.

Your opinion.

 

[Ron in Regina]

While you suggest that the public can defend themselves in a non-violent manner, they can also use this 'shield' as a sword in terms of releasing select info and or edit the video to pursue an ends... That said, I do place strong support on the ability of people (in general) to employ this tool, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that everyone that posts video is doing so for simple justice or is not pursuing an alternate agenda.

I've already stated that it isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got at this point
(even just the knowledge that someone might just end up on video due to
their actions, and thus they govern their behavior accordingly). Can you
suggest something better at this point in exchange for surrendering this
liberty? (by choice or otherwise)

 

[gerryh]

Your opinion.

Yup, and my opinion is that any "man" that cold cocks a woman isn't worth the shyte on the bottom of my shoes.

He wasn't doing his job. He was beating on someone weaker than he is.

 

[captain morgan]

I've already stated that it isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got at this point
(even just the knowledge that someone might just end up on video due to
their actions, and thus they govern their behavior accordingly). Can you
suggest something better at this point in exchange for surrendering this
liberty? (by choice or otherwise)

Tens of thousands of CCTV cameras, yet 80% of crime unsolved - News - Evening Standard

Is this the solution you seek?

Tell me that you'd still have the same perceived liberty in an environment like that

Yup, and my opinion is that any "man" that cold cocks a woman isn't worth the shyte on the bottom of my shoes.

He wasn't doing his job. He was beating on someone weaker than he is.

Yeah... He specifically picked-out this small slip of a woman - for no reason whatsoever - a decided to kick the sh*t out of her for fun.

 

[gerryh]

Yeah... He specifically picked-out this small slip of a woman - for no reason whatsoever - a decided to kick the sh*t out of her for fun.

Yup, I'd say that that is probably closer to the truth than you think.


Like I said, there is no reason to hit a woman.

 

[captain morgan]

I should have posted it in purple.

 

[Niflmir]

Definition of assault:

§ 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;
(2) negligently causes bodily injury to another with a
deadly weapon;
(3) attempts by physical menace to put another in fear
of imminent serious bodily injury; or
(4) conceals or attempts to conceal a hypodermic needle
on his person and intentionally or knowingly penetrates a law
enforcement officer or an officer or an employee of a
correctional institution, county jail or prison, detention
facility or mental hospital during the course of an arrest or
any search of the person.

Simple assault - 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2701 - Pennsylvania Attorney Resources - Pennsylvania Laws

It definitely was not assault.

Definition of disorderly conduct (of which she was charged):

§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly
conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance
or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or
tumultuous behavior;
(2) makes unreasonable noise;
(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture;
or
(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive
condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of
the actor.

Disorderly conduct - 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5503 - Pennsylvania Attorney Resources - Pennsylvania Laws

If you stretch to all limits of reason what something means to be physically offensive, maybe throwing water or spraying silly string fits the bill.

Definition of harassment:

§ 2709. Harassment.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of
harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another,
the person:
(1) strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the
other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to
do the same;
(2) follows the other person in or about a public place
or places;
(3) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits
acts which serve no legitimate purpose;
(4) communicates to or about such other person any lewd,
lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings
or caricatures;
(5) communicates repeatedly in an anonymous manner;
(6) communicates repeatedly at extremely inconvenient
hours; or
(7) communicates repeatedly in a manner other than
specified in paragraphs (4), (5) and (6).

Harassment - 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709 - Pennsylvania Attorney Resources - Pennsylvania Laws

So if we stretch 2709(a)(3) and assume she actually threw water (repeatedly) or sprayed silly string (repeatedly) then she harassed the officer. But then, by that definition, walking nearby without legitimate purpose is harassment.

Still, it is a reaction that ought to disqualify someone from possessing the privileges given to a peace officer.

 

[captain morgan]

You're assuming that the cop know it was silly string?

How about a toy gun? Plastic knife?... They're just toys after all

 

[gerryh]

I should have posted it in purple.

No, you didn't. I know you were being sarcastic. I just pointed out that your sarcasm was probably closer to the truth than you think.


and yes, the photo has it right.