Seattle officer punches 17 yr old girl in the face

[Koshin]

this is my issue with most of the people that are cops. When I got popped once, I had machine guns pointed at me, yet I somehow didnt get shot, or maced, or beat up. why? becasue Im a smart guy. I dont f*** with the LEO's....

This all coming from a convicted felon. (My younger more eager for money-making years)

[numbnuts240]

It seems as though some of you really don't have to deal with over-zealous police officers.

i've been there, dave. just comply, and you won't get beat up. or just hit them back, right?

[Koshin]

Dave will knock the s*** out of a cop. He's got a history

haha

[Jesda]

Nearly all traffic laws are based on this same premise, but you don't get people complaining about them (at least not with any validity).

When you're a white police officer in a black neighborhood in a city where relations between people and police are at a new low, and you make the choice to give someone a ticket for crossing illegally, you take an unnecessary risk. There are more factors at play than the legality/illegality of the act. Discretion is required.

Does this mean all police should stop enforcing the law in black neighborhoods? No. It means you take into consideration the necessity of issuing the ticket versus the potential consequences.

The 1967 riots in Detroit began in much the same way. A few tickets here, a few arrests there, and before you know it the police went on a spree, enforcing every 'law' on the book with a heavy focus on mostly black neighborhoods. They took it a step further and began making illegal arrests and beating suspects, but I digress. The relationship between a police force and its citizens is defined by the level of enforcement and the response time.

When you enforce EVERY single law written, you end up with an oppressive atmosphere. Call it political BS, call it whatever you want, its a real social problem with grave consequences if handled poorly.

Let me compare with an economics metaphor:
In a management situation at a large business, you have the option of micromanaging the actions of your people. You could, in theory, count the number of minutes employees spend chatting with their coworkers, how long it takes them to take a dump, or how many megabytes of data they transfer in a day on average through non-work-related sites with their computers. Or, you could back off and measure only the outputs, how much they produce versus the resources (labor hours, bandwidth, overhead) consumed to create it.
Productivity is defined in economics by OUTPUT per INPUT of resources (labor, tools, capital, whatever), and its unlikely that slightly increasing the number of total minutes spent on work will produce any real difference in work being performed.
Micromanagement is rarely effective at producing results. Its much more effective, as a manager, to handle people who aren't producing rather than people who aren't using inputs the exact way you prefer. In this metaphor, an employee that isn't producing "product" is similar to a thief, while an employee that takes an additional coffee break is similar to a jaywalker. Yes, a jaywalker could get themselves killed, but someone on an extra 3-minute coffee break could be missing an opportunity to perform research, collaborate with coworkers on a new project, or contact a client and make a huge sale. The POTENTIAL consequences are high in both situations.
However, the consequence to micromanagement is low employee satisfaction, high turnover, and a failure by management to get employees to share its vision to achieve larger goals.

Likewise, micromanaging the law produces many of the same problems, especially if there is already a level of distrust between the people (employees) and management (police). If you put the screws to people who don't like you to begin with, regardless of whether their reasons for disliking you are justified, you will end up with a confrontation.

I'm downloading a TV show right now. I could be arrested.
I had trouble getting the last nugget of poop out of the wet grass when I walked my dog and picked up after him last night. I could be ticketed.
I was doing 20mph in the neighborhood when the sign says 15. I could be ticketed.
I pulled into the parking lot of Blockbuster Video to take a call on my cell phone. I was trespassing and breaking the law. I could be arrested.

Where does it stop? In a situation where tensions with police are already high, you have to make a choice. Several laws have good intentions, and some come from societal fear. Regardless of the source, its impractical to actively enforce all of them. Its the same reason 90% of NICO is allowed to get away with speeding 5mph over the limit -- enforcement on that level produces few if any positive results.

I can't remember the name of the economist who came up with this theory, so I'm taking credit.

[Koshin]

qft

[Jesda]

NAACP needs to stop crying and trying to allow this type of behavior be deemed acceptable by "law abiding citizens" .

TWO BLACK HOLES

[numbnuts240]

[Dattebayo]

It seems as though some of you really don't have to deal with over-zealous police officers.

i've been there, dave. just comply, and you won't get beat up. or just hit them back, right?

lol

If you shake an officer's hand these days it's called battery on a LEO. And STFU you wanker.

[numbnuts240]

ya, i got let off by a statie once and i offered my hand to shake his as thanks. he told me that that wasn't allowed. i just said "ok" and went on my way.

[Jesda]

If an officer wants to write you a ticket, you take the ticket.

The officer is NOT a judge. Go before the judge, plead your case, and no one gets punched. It's the way a civilized judiciary works.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people will stand there and argue with a cop, who has no authority to determine guilt or innocence, and thereby make matters WORSE for themselves. Educate yourselves and THINK before you act.

The officer is not a judge, and not the author of legislation or local ordinances, but the officer can choose to let you go with a warning in smaller situations, as I was given a verbal one two nights ago when I was speeding through a speed trap (two-block stretch of road is 35mph, when the rest of the same four lane road is 45mph... I was doing 48 thinking I was following the limit). While I was frustrated and annoyed that I got pulled over, I didn't act ghetto and get lippy. I figured, the guy who had the choice (and he did have the choice) of letting me go with a warning could at least be spoken to like a normal human being.

Okay, I got a little lippy. He asked if I had been drinking and I said "THIS FRUIT SMOOTHIE" in a very annoyed way and tapped on the lid of my cup.

But he thought my dog was cute and I was showing him some man-cleavage.

I'm sure calling him an ***hole and bitching about the speed trap would have earned me a ticket. I save my verbal abuse for city councils and mayors.

[IBCoupe]

I can't help but wonder if the jaywalking laws only serve two purposes:
1. to establish a contributory/comparative negligence defense in civil actions, and
2. to give jackass cops a way to bother people.

I'm struggling to come up with any other logical reason for it. The only person a jaywalker endangers is himself. I suppose, then, that some nanny statists would offer a third reason: protecting you from yourself.

[Dattebayo]

Mouthing off is stupid to anyone in a authority position or in a situation. I once mis-judged an opening and scraped someone's car on the side in traffic and the lady who was driving it came out in a fury calling me a motherfu*ker and a d!ck and as*hole and all that. She just went on and on and on... The officer who came by wanted to b**** slap her cause of all the nasty stuff she was saying, instead she got a disorderly conduct charge and the accident was forgiven and forgotten.

That guy was smooth, he had her handcuffed inside 5 seconds with some quick maneuver. He didn't have to hit her at all cause he knew what he was doing. I figure if you are going to do your job out in the real world, you need to have someone train you the right way or at least be there watching you until you have proven you can handle it without fu*king it up. That officer in the vid was a fu*k up IMO.

[AZhitman]

I can see the officer got pushed away so it pissed him off enough to punch the chick, but he attacked her like she was a big dude, come on guys.
You're all fu*king CRAZY.

Life is getting so crazy now that you can't cross the street without worrying about getting arrested. It seems as though some of you really don't have to deal with over-zealous police officers. Move into a major metropolitan area and check it out sometime.

Really? I'm crazy?

I live in a MUCH larger city than you do.

You're either paranoid, or your mom makes you wear your Rodney King halloween costume to school.

How would YOU have handled the situation? Since it's been a while since I drafted the Officer Safety Continuum of Force guidelines for a large state agency, in the 5th-largest metropolitan area in the US, I'm eager to hear your brilliant recommendation.

[AZhitman]

If an officer wants to write you a ticket, you take the ticket.

The officer is NOT a judge. Go before the judge, plead your case, and no one gets punched. It's the way a civilized judiciary works.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people will stand there and argue with a cop, who has no authority to determine guilt or innocence, and thereby make matters WORSE for themselves. Educate yourselves and THINK before you act.

The officer is not a judge, and not the author of legislation or local ordinances, but the officer can choose to let you go with a warning in smaller situations, as I was given a verbal one two nights ago when I was speeding through a speed trap (two-block stretch of road is 35mph, when the rest of the same four lane road is 45mph... I was doing 48 thinking I was following the limit). While I was frustrated and annoyed that I got pulled over, I didn't act ghetto and get lippy. I figured, the guy who had the choice (and he did have the choice) of letting me go with a warning could at least be spoken to like a normal human being.

Okay, I got a little lippy. He asked if I had been drinking and I said "THIS FRUIT SMOOTHIE" in a very annoyed way and tapped on the lid of my cup.

But he thought my dog was cute and I was showing him some man-cleavage.

I'm sure calling him an ***hole and bitching about the speed trap would have earned me a ticket. I save my verbal abuse for city councils and mayors.

Cool story, bro.

But you're right on the money. It's called DISCRETION. And we're not second-guessing the original stop. For all we know, there could have been more to it than that.

The only person a jaywalker endangers is himself.

Ummmm, wrong.

Jaywalking is a seemingly minor offense to some, but in Phoenix, it's caused a TON of fatalities (several to innocent people). I see speeding as a minor offense, considering what I drive, my skills and training, and the environment I speed in. Some would disagree.

Fortunately, the decision on whether to use discretion is NOT mine to make.

p.s. You're like Britney Spears... using your bewbs and doggie to get out of a ticket.

[Jesda]

But you're right on the money. It's called DISCRETION. And we're not second-guessing the original stop. For all we know, there could have been more to it than that.

I wish there was more video showing the beginning of the incident. With all those people around, someone has to have it.


I love this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8[/youtube]

[Koshin]

hahahahahahaha

[krash]

And Chris Rock takes the medal for the perfect explanation!

[Solar_Runner]

LMAO, he's dead on!

[ADDirishboy]

I can't help but wonder if the jaywalking laws only serve two purposes:
1. to establish a contributory/comparative negligence defense in civil actions, and
2. to give jackass cops a way to bother people.

I'm struggling to come up with any other logical reason for it. The only person a jaywalker endangers is himself. I suppose, then, that some nanny statists would offer a third reason: protecting you from yourself.

A jaywalker is also endangering my vehicle, and others around me. I live in a college town, people jaywalk EVERYWHERE. Blatant disregard for motorists. They step out into the street without so much as a glance back at traffic.

I've had to slam on my brakes many times to avoid a pedestrian just stepping out into the street. But what if someone has to swerve to avoid a retard in the middle of the road, and hits head on with another vehicle? Now you have people who should never have even had an accident with messed up cars and the person who swerved is responsible for the damages.

THAT is why that s*** is illegal.

[Looneybomber]

But what if someone has to swerve to avoid a retard in the middle of the road, and hits head on with another vehicle?

Your options are, stay straight and hit the guilty walker, or swerve and hit the innocent on comming vehicle. I say , hit the guilty party and teach them a lesson.


Besides, the car could have infant/toddler passengers.

[AZhitman]

The only person a jaywalker endangers is himself.

Let's not forget the fact that SOME of us care more about our cars than some a$$ walking in the street where they don't belong.

If you're unfortunate enough to get hit by something *I* drive, you'd better be in good enough shape to RUN, because I'm gonna be pissed. I'm not gonna be late for dinner because *you* want me to stop and answer a bunch of police questions for a report... WTF is that?

Your stupidity should never, ever, EVER impact my life, even in the most miniscule way. Scratch my paint and you're gonna get a beatdown.

IMO, that girl was lucky to get off with one punch. Quit defending the lowest common denominator.

You lefties SAY you're Darwinians, but then you go and get in the way of natural selection. WTF.

PICK A FREAKING SIDE!!!

[MinisterofDOOM]

Your options are, stay straight and hit the guilty walker, or swerve and hit the innocent on comming vehicle. I say , hit the guilty party and teach them a lesson.

Yeah, just hit the guy. It's not like you'll be held liable or anything. No, insurance premiums won't be affected. You won't be cited (at best). The pedestrian won't take you to court. Nah, hit them and that's the end of it. You as a driver have absolutely nothing to lose

And, anyway, since when is going with the least-s*** scenario in ANY way remotely good? The CORRECT option is not having to hit the guy, because he uses his brain and stays the hell out of the way.

[Dattebayo]

The CORRECT option is not having to hit the guy, because he uses his brain and stays the hell out of the way.

Or he's using his brain to try and get money that way... The laws are set up now so that the pedestrian ALWAYS has the right of way, even when they are breaking the law.

[PHENOMenalVinyl]

Should have tazed that b**** too.

you DON'T resist arrest. the moment you do, you become a threat to the officer(s)'s safety and they can and will take you down, within reason. that punch, was a quick, effective, measure. stunned her enough to partially subdue her. she kept resisting and should have gotten her a** beat.

just saw this but i agree the girl/girls both should be arrested and he did nothing wrong at all

Hes a cop you dont try to argue/start hitting/slapping w/e they were wrong he did his job but he shoulda just called for backup and both women should be handled but try to send a lady cop imo this is why being a guy as an officier is challenging at times like these. He may not have handled it the right way but he did what he had to do

[PHENOMenalVinyl]

The only person a jaywalker endangers is himself.

Let's not forget the fact that SOME of us care more about our cars than some a$$ walking in the street where they don't belong.

If you're unfortunate enough to get hit by something *I* drive, you'd better be in good enough shape to RUN, because I'm gonna be pissed. I'm not gonna be late for dinner because *you* want me to stop and answer a bunch of police questions for a report... WTF is that?

Your stupidity should never, ever, EVER impact my life, even in the most miniscule way. Scratch my paint and you're gonna get a beatdown.

IMO, that girl was lucky to get off with one punch. Quit defending the lowest common denominator.

You lefties SAY you're Darwinians, but then you go and get in the way of natural selection. WTF.

PICK A FREAKING SIDE!!!

ok didnt see this part till now......

I hit a guy last year.......

Jwalking in dark clothes at 11:15pm

Not my fault but hes suing me and he was in the hospital for like 7 days. This scenario sucks if it happens to you. I know your saying you would be pissed but i was scared. I knew i wasn't wrong but it sucks when it happens. I personally have been effected by this alot bc 1 my car got scratched and damage was like 700 and my deductable was 1000 so it never got fixed. 2 i hate driving at night now bc of this. If i ever see people at night it scares the s*** outta me. But in the end my car was fixed bc of a diff accident and i haven't heard anything from his lawyer.......wtf are they doing

so i guess my point is you may say that youde hit the guy but thats the last thing you wanna do....i know

[Jesda]

Don't you have a lawyer? Jaywalking laws were written not so much to actively enforce, but to allow for walker liability in an accident.

[PHENOMenalVinyl]

Don't you have a lawyer? Jaywalking laws were written not so much to actively enforce, but to allow for walker liability in an accident.

weird situation.....We heard from the chief of police that he had an attorney b4 he got out of the hospital. This was in october of last year and i still havent heard anything

[Jesda]

The process usually takes forever, but I suspect the guy's lawyer will soon realize his case has no merit.

What does your insurance company say?

[ADDirishboy]

And, anyway, since when is going with the least-s*** scenario in ANY way remotely good? The CORRECT option is not having to hit the guy, because he uses his brain and stays the hell out of the way.

QFMFT.

There should never be an accident like that anyway. I should never be put in that situation in the first place.

Your options are, stay straight and hit the guilty walker, or swerve and hit the innocent on comming vehicle. I say , hit the guilty party and teach them a lesson.


Besides, the car could have infant/toddler passengers.

Another thing, you don't think people lose control after they hit something? I work in insurance, people hit deer and then lose control and hit a tree. It happens all the time. It can happen after you hit a pedestrian too. So, the accident might not end the instant you run over that guy. What if something breaks when you hit him and causes you to lose control? Too many factors.

Again, I should never be put in that situation to begin with.

[krimsonviper]

What are your guys' thoughts on hitting a guy walking in cross walk, but it's not his turn to walk and there's cross traffic.

I ask because I was tempted to just ram into this idiot wearing dark clothes, casually crossing in the cross walk in the middle of the night and it wasn't his turn to go. I saw him about 20 feet before I got to him, so I was able to swerve, but I almost lost control of my brand new car. Who's fault would it have been if I didn't see him?

**Edit**
It was on a busy highway.