Teen Girl Punched in Face for Jaywalking

Originally posted by Liberator
And a fantastic job he did enforcing tha law! I mean he could of just stopped her and spoke to her about it nicely, but that wouldn't be protecting the peace, how are we going to protect the streets from gangs of jaywalkers if we dont kick the piss out of them first!

You'd actually have a point if:

1. He did try to stop her.
2. She refused to comply.
3. He was in the middle of writing up other people for jaywalking.
4. She was disrespectful and had an attitude from the beginning.
5. She actually tried to walk away.

Protecting the peace would be citing people for jaywalking which is dangerous for the jaywalkers and the drivers.

If points 1-5 did not exist prior to the "situation" and he was just being an *ss for the sake of being an *ss (as can happen with some law enforcement individuals), then, yeah, you and I would agree fully.

Word.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm not exactly sure how that correlates to what I said, but I do agree that he was trying to prevent them from ganging up on him.

Because the police force was trained, after that incident, to avoid ending up on the ground.

I've posted on this multiple times, already.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
some one posted a link of a police officer being kicked in the head and suffering brain injury when he separated two combatants in mid fight.

pointing at his injury to justify why this officer made the right choice which is still the wrong choice and the what if scenarios are very childish and annoying instead of just seeing the situation at hand

Right. Lemme get this straight:

Officer is in a crowd of angry peeps. He gets physical in the mix to calm things down. He falls in the action and the obviously irritated crowd gets out of hand and beats him down.

That's COMPLETELY different from a cop, in a irritated crowd, getting physical with a perp that is literally assaulting him. What's the difference? It just so happens the the cop was ALREADY getting assaulted in an irrate crowd.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Police can't act based upon "what ifs" and "could happen" scenarios.

Cept they are and that's exactly how they are trained to act. They act on the highest probability "what-ifs" and "could happens' and their training is supposed to maximize their safety and a potential perps safety while preserving the peace...based on potential what-ifs in a situation that they've quickly collected information on.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Following that logic Police should just shoot anyone they catch doing a crime in the foot, or flat out taze them without warning. That would do away with the what-ifs and could happens altogether.

No, what I said. 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
Cept they are and that's exactly how they are trained to act. They act on the highest probability "what-ifs" and "could happens'

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I just said that, betch.

I don't have time to check which of your posts are the lucky 1 out of 100 that are correct.

How dare you expect that out of me. How dare you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't have time to check which of your posts are the lucky 1 out of 100 that are correct.

How dare you expect that out of me. How dare you.

I don't see how any of that justifies him punching a minor in the face.

crylaugh

Originally posted by Liberator
I don't see how any of that justifies him punching a minor in the face.

The use of physical force was definitely justified. However, I don't think a punch to the face was necessary...but it is still not absurdly over the top, imo. More like, there were better ways to "get r' done" than just punching in the face. Wild Shadow has pointed out several and this is the second time I'm pointing out that he pointed those out. lulz

I think the debate should be much less "was punching the girl specifically legal" and more about "was it appropriate use of force, whether justified or not, that we wish to see from the people employed by the citizens to ensure safety"

actually, has it come out as to what the jaywalking infraction was in the first place? like, did the girl disrupt traffic?

Originally posted by inimalist
I think the debate should be much less "was punching the girl specifically legal" and more about "was it appropriate use of force, whether justified or not, that we wish to see from the people employed by the citizens to ensure safety"

I agree, but it's almost universal among us that we think it was a bit too much and better training should have prevailed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree, but it's almost universal among us that we think it was a bit too much and better training should have prevailed.

I tend to think the issue has as much to do with the type of people who apply to be officers, the way recruitment is advertised, and certain aspects of the "us v the public" mentality that seems to be ubiquetous in policing, IMHO. better training would be great, I think what is required, though, is a fundamental change in what we, as citizens, expect of the police.

Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]Because the police force was trained, after that incident, to avoid ending up on the ground.

I've posted on this multiple times, already.

I don't see what you're getting at, here.

No, what I said. 🙂

What's wrong with my idea? Racist. I'm just trying to keep those poor cops alive.

I think that words like "teenager" and "juvenile" and "girl" have diluted the situation.
How about we use words like "criminal" and "lawbreaker" instead?

How about we use "black person".

Dun dun dun.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
How about we use "black person".

Dun dun dun.

Lol, forgot.

r a rainy day.