Investigation Launched After Cop Punches Teen Girl At Pride Fest

[Shadowy Man]

If I got tackled and beat on by a police officer after someone made them think I was dangerous and needed immediate subdual, I wouldn't blame the cop.

I think most of the resistance you are finding on this forum is with the idea that the police officer could be "made to think" something instead of doing his own threat assessment.

You keep saying stuff like this and using words like "handler" in a previous comparison with a biting dog. Unless this guy was his superior officer giving him a direct order (and maybe not even then), the officer needs to be making his own assessments, as it is his responsibility to keep citizens safe.

 

[Jarhyn]

If I got tackled and beat on by a police officer after someone made them think I was dangerous and needed immediate subdual, I wouldn't blame the cop.

I think most of the resistance you are finding on this forum is with the idea that the police officer could be "made to think" something instead of doing his own threat assessment.

You keep saying stuff like this and using words like "handler" in a previous comparison with a biting dog. Unless this guy was his superior officer giving him a direct order (and maybe not even then), the officer needs to be making his own assessments, as it is his responsibility to keep citizens safe.

You be the was being handled. In this case he was being manipulated by a protestor. People are generally not the perfect decision making, always rational things our society expects them to be. Usually we're just reactive, instinctual animals who have been trained only barely well enough to maybe have some benefit from our underused rational agency. The cop identified a cue, the cue to act in defense of another. It's hard enough to train someone to leap into a conflict fast enough to prevent potential violence from being done, not to mention also expecting him to wait until the last possible millisecond before doing something.

 

[ksen]

I don't buy this "manipulation" crap. In the mere act of walking/running/sprinting over to beat the crap out of the girl he would have seen that she was not doing anything to the big crybaby.

This is some of the worst cop apologia I have ever seen.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't buy this "manipulation" crap. In the mere act of walking/running/sprinting over to beat the crap out of the girl he would have seen that she was not doing anything to the big crybaby.

This is some of the worst cop apologia I have ever seen.

Says the guy who has never been in any sort of active threat situation. You aren't even qualified here to make an assessment about what he 'should' have been able to do. You might as well join Derec in insisting that Obama should have grown wings, flown across the world at the speed of light, and smited the terrorists there with eye lasers.

 

[doubtingt]

It's hard enough to train someone to leap into a conflict fast enough to prevent potential violence from being done, not to mention also expecting him to wait until the last possible millisecond before doing something.

You keep repeating this nonsense that he was responding as he was trained to, but the exact opposite is true. Cops are not trained to immediately choke and beat someone based solely on some person (a person who is initiating the disagreement and advocating hate and violence) says "this lady [who I am insulting and verbally attacking] is attacking me!" They are trained to intervene is such disputes and only use what force their own threat assessment indicated is warranted. Then they are trained to restrain the person as quickly as possible. Beating her is just the opposite of such restraining actions and if she were a threat would have put himself and other in danger. What the cop did was more akin to how an untrained street thug would beat a person to hurt them without regard for public safety.

Your conception of cops equates them to mindless attack dogs whose owner is every random person on the street barking orders to attack.

 

[ksen]

I don't buy this "manipulation" crap. In the mere act of walking/running/sprinting over to beat the crap out of the girl he would have seen that she was not doing anything to the big crybaby.

This is some of the worst cop apologia I have ever seen.

Says the guy who has never been in any sort of active threat situation. You aren't even qualified here to make an assessment about what he 'should' have been able to do. You might as well join Derec in insisting that Obama should have grown wings, flown across the world at the speed of light, and smited the terrorists there with eye lasers.

This is true. I never had to be aware of what was going on and assessing threats as I walked patrol on the East/West German border. No sirree, nary a threat to assess.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's hard enough to train someone to leap into a conflict fast enough to prevent potential violence from being done, not to mention also expecting him to wait until the last possible millisecond before doing something.

You keep repeating this nonsense that he was responding as he was trained to, but the exact opposite is true. Cops are not trained to immediately choke and beat someone based solely on some person (a person who is initiating the disagreement and advocating hate and violence) says "this lady [who I am insulting and verbally attacking] is attacking me!" They are trained to intervene is such disputes and only use what force their own threat assessment indicated is warranted. Then they are trained to restrain the person as quickly as possible. Beating her is just the opposite of such restraining actions and if she were a threat would have put himself and other in danger. What the cop did was more akin to how an untrained street thug would beat a person to hurt them without regard for public safety.

Your conception of cops equates them to mindless attack dogs whose owner is every random person on the street barking orders to attack.

So you do admit that you don't care about the safety of the protestor. Not just cops, but humans in general are in most cases mindless dogs wandering around with everyone on the street able to order them about. I dare you some time to yell 'gun' in a panicked voice in a crowded theater and see what happens. Some things and instincts override the most rational parts of us and force our meat suits into action. Denial of this will serve nobody.

 

[Sajara]

Exactly how many fights have you been in again, where you didn't know who it was or what they were capable of? Where you didn't know if they were armed, drugged, or trained?

All the more reason not to engage in physical combat. Draw your weapon, tell her to get onto the ground, and hand-cuff her....

 

[Nexus]

then you are an ethical simpleton, and I refuse to engage such magical thinking. You expect the cop to be an omniscient god. I expect him to be a Homosapien, a little bit rational and a lot bit animal.

You don't engage in any thinking magical or otherwise. Your earlier legal pronouncements about what would happen if he acted to slowly are conclusive proof you're just making shit up as you go.

Sure, it would have been nice if he had the magical power to stop time and observe every facet of the situation first, but magical time stopping powers do not exist, and in the mean time someone was potentially getting assaulted on his watch.

He doesn't need magical powers to stop time and observe or omniscient understanding of the situation. He just needed to observe her for a few seconds and he would have noticed there was no assault happening. I've seen dozens of bar fights/potential fights and in every single instance the bouncers had better judgment and displayed better behavior than this cop.

 

[ksen]

Hold on, are we getting trolled?

If so then bravo! I bit!

 

[Sajara]

So you do admit that you don't care about the safety of the protestor.

False dichotomy.

I believe he is saying that he cares about the protestor and the protestee(?). Even if the girl was outright attacking the protestor, there are other ways to handle the situation than immediately beating her up.

Show

protestee...hehehehe, pro-testee...get it hehehehe! Ahem, childish moment gone.

 

[Jarhyn]

You don't engage in any thinking magical or otherwise. Your earlier legal pronouncements about what would happen if he acted to slowly are conclusive proof you're just making shit up as you go.

Sure, it would have been nice if he had the magical power to stop time and observe every facet of the situation first, but magical time stopping powers do not exist, and in the mean time someone was potentially getting assaulted on his watch.

He doesn't need magical powers to stop time and observe or omniscient understanding of the situation. He just needed to observe her for a few seconds and he would have noticed there was no assault happening. I've seen dozens of bar fights/potential fights and in every single instance the bouncers had better judgment and displayed better behavior than this cop.

Yes. Stop for a few seconds during an assault in progress so that the assault could be nice and assaulty by the time he stepped in.

 

[beero1000]

It's hard enough to train someone to leap into a conflict fast enough to prevent potential violence from being done, not to mention also expecting him to wait until the last possible millisecond before doing something.

You keep repeating this nonsense that he was responding as he was trained to, but the exact opposite is true. Cops are not trained to immediately choke and beat someone based solely on some person (a person who is initiating the disagreement and advocating hate and violence) says "this lady [who I am insulting and verbally attacking] is attacking me!" They are trained to intervene is such disputes and only use what force their own threat assessment indicated is warranted. Then they are trained to restrain the person as quickly as possible. Beating her is just the opposite of such restraining actions and if she were a threat would have put himself and other in danger. What the cop did was more akin to how an untrained street thug would beat a person to hurt them without regard for public safety.

Your conception of cops equates them to mindless attack dogs whose owner is every random person on the street barking orders to attack.

So you do admit that you don't care about the safety of the protestor. Not just cops, but humans in general are in most cases mindless dogs wandering around with everyone on the street able to order them about. I dare you some time to yell 'gun' in a panicked voice in a crowded theater and see what happens. Some things and instincts override the most rational parts of us and force our meat suits into action. Denial of this will serve nobody.

You are jumping straight to the defense, thereby acknowledging that the officer did do something wrong, but was not in the state of mind to realize it.

 Automatism (law).  Irresistible impulse. There's a reason it's a rarely used criminal defense. Also, the report the cop filed after the incident made no mention of a loss of control, which kind of invalidates the defense. Would you like to try again?

 

[ksen]

Yes. Stop for a few seconds during an assault in progress so that the assault could be nice and assaulty by the time he stepped in.

There was no assault in progress.

And the criminal cop would have known that if he had bothered looking for half a second instead of immediately proceeding to beat-down mode.

 

[Shadowy Man]

People are generally not the perfect decision making, always rational things our society expects them to be. Usually we're just reactive, instinctual animals who have been trained only barely well enough to maybe have some benefit from our underused rational agency.

I agree people aren't perfect, but isn't this why police officers are given training, rather than just handed a badge and a gun? I'm not saying that I don't understand how the officer made a bad decision, I'm just saying that he did make a bad decision and should be willing to face the consequences of the bad decision. If you believe that there was no other possible course of action that any police officer could have taken at that moment then I guess I can understand why you might not think it was a bad decision.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's hard enough to train someone to leap into a conflict fast enough to prevent potential violence from being done, not to mention also expecting him to wait until the last possible millisecond before doing something.

You keep repeating this nonsense that he was responding as he was trained to, but the exact opposite is true. Cops are not trained to immediately choke and beat someone based solely on some person (a person who is initiating the disagreement and advocating hate and violence) says "this lady [who I am insulting and verbally attacking] is attacking me!" They are trained to intervene is such disputes and only use what force their own threat assessment indicated is warranted. Then they are trained to restrain the person as quickly as possible. Beating her is just the opposite of such restraining actions and if she were a threat would have put himself and other in danger. What the cop did was more akin to how an untrained street thug would beat a person to hurt them without regard for public safety.

Your conception of cops equates them to mindless attack dogs whose owner is every random person on the street barking orders to attack.

So you do admit that you don't care about the safety of the protestor. Not just cops, but humans in general are in most cases mindless dogs wandering around with everyone on the street able to order them about. I dare you some time to yell 'gun' in a panicked voice in a crowded theater and see what happens. Some things and instincts override the most rational parts of us and force our meat suits into action. Denial of this will serve nobody.

You are jumping straight to the defense, thereby acknowledging that the officer did do something wrong, but was not in the state of mind to realize it.

 Automatism (law).  Irresistible impulse. There's a reason it's a rarely used criminal defense. Also, the report the cop filed after the incident made no mention of a loss of control, which kind of invalidates the defense. Would you like to try again?

There
Was
Nothing
To
Defend
.

He acted swiftly. Too swiftly for you. Had he waited given the information he had at the outset, it would not have been swift enough for the protestor. She got punched. From the cop's information pool, the protestor could have gotten a lot worse. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. In this case preparation for the worst is rushing the potential attacker and doing what comes to mind to subdue them quickly. If you don't agree with his reaction, then advocate retraining him and the rest of the police force to not punch. It isn't a matter of control, it's a matter of having the information to act differently, and the instincts or reflexes to initiate that consideration. He had neither the time to let the assault resolve (a bad choice, in any regard) nor the training to restrain someone despite the perception she was fighting him.

 

[ksen]

Had he waited given the information he had at the outset, it would not have been swift enough for the protestor.

Who gives a shit that it wouldn't have been swift enough for the protester dickbag?

- - - Updated - - -

If you don't agree with his reaction, then advocate retraining him and the rest of the police force to not punch.

Nah, he should just be taken out back and put down like any other rabid dog because he's shown himself to be a menace to society.

 

[beero1000]

It's hard enough to train someone to leap into a conflict fast enough to prevent potential violence from being done, not to mention also expecting him to wait until the last possible millisecond before doing something.

You keep repeating this nonsense that he was responding as he was trained to, but the exact opposite is true. Cops are not trained to immediately choke and beat someone based solely on some person (a person who is initiating the disagreement and advocating hate and violence) says "this lady [who I am insulting and verbally attacking] is attacking me!" They are trained to intervene is such disputes and only use what force their own threat assessment indicated is warranted. Then they are trained to restrain the person as quickly as possible. Beating her is just the opposite of such restraining actions and if she were a threat would have put himself and other in danger. What the cop did was more akin to how an untrained street thug would beat a person to hurt them without regard for public safety.

Your conception of cops equates them to mindless attack dogs whose owner is every random person on the street barking orders to attack.

So you do admit that you don't care about the safety of the protestor. Not just cops, but humans in general are in most cases mindless dogs wandering around with everyone on the street able to order them about. I dare you some time to yell 'gun' in a panicked voice in a crowded theater and see what happens. Some things and instincts override the most rational parts of us and force our meat suits into action. Denial of this will serve nobody.

You are jumping straight to the defense, thereby acknowledging that the officer did do something wrong, but was not in the state of mind to realize it.

 Automatism (law).  Irresistible impulse. There's a reason it's a rarely used criminal defense. Also, the report the cop filed after the incident made no mention of a loss of control, which kind of invalidates the defense. Would you like to try again?

There
Was
Nothing
To
Defend
.

He acted swiftly. Too swiftly for you. Had he waited given the information he had at the outset, it would not have been swift enough for the protestor. She got punched. From the cop's information pool, the protestor could have gotten a lot worse. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. In this case preparation for the worst is rushing the potential attacker and doing what comes to mind to subdue them quickly. If you don't agree with his reaction, then advocate retraining him and the rest of the police force to not punch. It isn't a matter of control, it's a matter of having the information to act differently, and the instincts or reflexes to initiate that consideration. He had neither the time to let the assault resolve (a bad choice, in any regard) nor the training to restrain someone despite the perception she was fighting him.

What
You
Are
Posting
Is
An
Excusatory
Legal
Defense
.

An excuse defense acknowledges that a criminal act was committed, but the perpetrator should be excused from criminal liability because of mitigating factors. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. Stop for a few seconds during an assault in progress so that the assault could be nice and assaulty by the time he stepped in.

There was no assault in progress you idiot.

And the criminal cop would have known that if he had bothered looking for half a second instead of immediately proceeding to beat-down mode.

 

[Jarhyn]

People are generally not the perfect decision making, always rational things our society expects them to be. Usually we're just reactive, instinctual animals who have been trained only barely well enough to maybe have some benefit from our underused rational agency.

I agree people aren't perfect, but isn't this why police officers are given training, rather than just handed a badge and a gun? I'm not saying that I don't understand how the officer made a bad decision, I'm just saying that he did make a bad decision and should be willing to face the consequences of the bad decision. If you believe that there was no other possible course of action that any police officer could have taken at that moment then I guess I can understand why you might not think it was a bad decision.

I don't think it was much of a decision at all; usually 'decide' implies an availability of perceived alternatives. Letting someone get attacked by an unknown person was not an option, and he wasn't trained well enough to ignore her struggles and just arm-bar her and cuff her. That later thing is not a failing in him but of his training, and the society that let him be so untrained.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's hard enough to train someone to leap into a conflict fast enough to prevent potential violence from being done, not to mention also expecting him to wait until the last possible millisecond before doing something.

You keep repeating this nonsense that he was responding as he was trained to, but the exact opposite is true. Cops are not trained to immediately choke and beat someone based solely on some person (a person who is initiating the disagreement and advocating hate and violence) says "this lady [who I am insulting and verbally attacking] is attacking me!" They are trained to intervene is such disputes and only use what force their own threat assessment indicated is warranted. Then they are trained to restrain the person as quickly as possible. Beating her is just the opposite of such restraining actions and if she were a threat would have put himself and other in danger. What the cop did was more akin to how an untrained street thug would beat a person to hurt them without regard for public safety.

Your conception of cops equates them to mindless attack dogs whose owner is every random person on the street barking orders to attack.

So you do admit that you don't care about the safety of the protestor. Not just cops, but humans in general are in most cases mindless dogs wandering around with everyone on the street able to order them about. I dare you some time to yell 'gun' in a panicked voice in a crowded theater and see what happens. Some things and instincts override the most rational parts of us and force our meat suits into action. Denial of this will serve nobody.

You are jumping straight to the defense, thereby acknowledging that the officer did do something wrong, but was not in the state of mind to realize it.

 Automatism (law).  Irresistible impulse. There's a reason it's a rarely used criminal defense. Also, the report the cop filed after the incident made no mention of a loss of control, which kind of invalidates the defense. Would you like to try again?

There
Was
Nothing
To
Defend
.

He acted swiftly. Too swiftly for you. Had he waited given the information he had at the outset, it would not have been swift enough for the protestor. She got punched. From the cop's information pool, the protestor could have gotten a lot worse. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. In this case preparation for the worst is rushing the potential attacker and doing what comes to mind to subdue them quickly. If you don't agree with his reaction, then advocate retraining him and the rest of the police force to not punch. It isn't a matter of control, it's a matter of having the information to act differently, and the instincts or reflexes to initiate that consideration. He had neither the time to let the assault resolve (a bad choice, in any regard) nor the training to restrain someone despite the perception she was fighting him.

What
You
Are
Posting
Is
An
Excusatory
Legal
Defense
.

An excuse defense acknowledges that a criminal act was committed, but the perpetrator should be excused from criminal liability because of mitigating factors. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING.

no. You are arguing that the face of an action, the doing of things in space, can have an innate wrongness, a 'criminal ness' aside from the actual intent and reasons behind it. There is nothing to mitigate. He acted immediately on the information he had to stop a perceived attack. A girl was punched to prevent her from assaulting someone. He didn't know how she was assaulting but that he had to stop it. Keep in mind knowledge doesn't always reflect reality. He didn't act against the suggestion of others. He didn't have any reason at the time to think the protestor was lying, he didn't have a clear view of the girl when the guy said he was being attacked. His only guilt is of being ignorant of things, and lacking proper training. These are not things he is culpable for.