Investigation Launched After Cop Punches Teen Girl At Pride Fest

[beero1000]

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.

Wrong. The law says assault is illegal, period, for EVERYONE, no matter their class, rank, station, or job. What one can argue is that the assault occurred during the performance of lawful duties, or in self-defense, or in defense of another, or that it can be excused in some other way. These are DEFENSES, and may exculpate the perpetrator from some or all criminal liability.

The video evidence is clear - the cop assaulted the girl. You are arguing that he should have no criminal liability (you keep vacillating as to why). That IS NOT the same thing as saying that there is nothing to defend. Generally, the validity of criminal defenses are tested in special rooms, presided over by people with gavels. At least, that's the way it works with normal people. Some people, apparently, just automatically get a free pass because they wear a funny hat and a gun.

 

[ksen]

Yeah, what's up with those Pittsburgh cop hats anyway? It looks like it belongs on the head of a cabbie.

Hey, maybe after all this is said and done that cop will have a wonderful career as a taxi driver?

 

[Jarhyn]

Nice argument from law. If the law said that homosexuality was wrong, you would still accept this? If the law said I wasn't allowed to kill cops who attempted to imprison or harm me for being gay, then that would make me a bad person? No. There was nothing wrong with how he acted, there was something wrong with how he was or was not trained to act. There was something wrong with the person who triggered his action. But his acting was right.

 

[ksen]

Is that what you tell your fellow cop buddies in the locker room?

 

[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.

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

Um, no. Nothing I said implies that. I just pointed out the objective facts of the situation that make the protester the initiator of a confrontation who was expressing hateful bigotry commonly associated with violence, so if anything the cop should have been on the ready to step in against the threat he posed to the girl. Thus, when this aggressor suddenly claims that the target of his aggression is being aggressive, the trained response is not to instantly attack and beat the target of his aggression.

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.

According to your logic, all cops in the area should be expected to instantly begin shooting every person they see prior to any evidence of an actual threat or who the threat is.

Some things and instincts override the most rational parts of us and force our meat suits into action. Denial of this will serve nobody.

If your expectations for trained police response is all we can expect from cops, then its beyond rational certainty that all law enforcement should be immediately disbanded because they objectively would pose a greater threat to public safety than the tiny odds that any of their irrational rabid dog responses could ever protect the innocent.

 

[beero1000]

Yeah, what's up with those Pittsburgh cop hats anyway? It looks like it belongs on the head of a cabbie.

Hey, maybe after all this is said and done that cop will have a wonderful career as a taxi driver?

 Sillitoe Tartan

Nice argument from law. If the law said that homosexuality was wrong, you would still accept this? If the law said I wasn't allowed to kill cops who attempted to imprison or harm me for being gay, then that would make me a bad person? No. There was nothing wrong with how he acted, there was something wrong with how he was or was not trained to act. There was something wrong with the person who triggered his action. But his acting was right.

WTF? That has got to be the most messed up ethical system I have ever seen.

 

[ksen]

 Sillitoe Tartan

Huh, thanks! They should have used Steelers colors.

 

[Jarhyn]

 Sillitoe Tartan

Nice argument from law. If the law said that homosexuality was wrong, you would still accept this? If the law said I wasn't allowed to kill cops who attempted to imprison or harm me for being gay, then that would make me a bad person? No. There was nothing wrong with how he acted, there was something wrong with how he was or was not trained to act. There was something wrong with the person who triggered his action. But his acting was right.

WTF? That has got to be the most messed up ethical system I have ever seen.

Indeed the claim of ethics by law is a very messed up system of ethics.

I am not the one inventing malice or hateful motivations for the officer when none can be positively identified. I'm not the one proposing rage or retribution against a guy who could very reasonably just be doing his job. I am not getting emotional over the accidental innocence of the person he detained, nor am I demanding anything other than the minimal action to make sure it doesn't happen again.

I am not placing a demand on our society to ruin the career of a person because my society fails to do due diligence in adequately training response actions. I am not demanding of any person to be omniscient.

What I am demanding is that people attempt to see things from the perspective of the officer. Too often the only thing that separates a hero from a villain in the eyes of society is the accidental success or failure to be effective. The soldier who jumps on a rock that he thinks could be a grenade and fails is as much a hero to me as the one who jumps on the grenade and saves a hundred people. Or the one who shoots a child who has a grenade shaped you and stumbles towards a crowd.

Actions are right or wrong when they are made, not when results are known.

 

[dystopian]

Nice argument from law. If the law said that homosexuality was wrong, you would still accept this?

Do you not see the immense irony in trying to argue that a *COP* should get away with breaking the law because there there COULD hypothetically be a law that has nothing to do with this whatsoever and which we'd probably all agree is a bad law? It's like you're intentionally trying to make a mockery of your self.

If the law said I wasn't allowed to kill cops who attempted to imprison or harm me for being gay, then that would make me a bad person?

No, you wouldn't be a bad person just because the law doesn't let you kill people even when they're trying to imprison or harm you. You'd be a criminal. That's kind of what the whole 'breaking the law' thing means. Doesn't matter if the law is just or unjust.

That said, yes, you *would* be a bad person for outright killing them unless they were in the process of trying to kill you. Murder doesn't suddenly become okay just because the person you killed is a bigoted fucktard. Not to mention that arguing that it's okay to kill cops trying to imprison you for 'X' means that anyone can then argue that it's also okay if they're trying to imprison you for 'Y'.

No. There was nothing wrong with how he acted, there was something wrong with how he was or was not trained to act.

Oh good, in that case I'm just going to go outside and randomly punch girls in the stomach now. After all, I wasn't trained not to do that.

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh good, in that case I'm just going to go outside and randomly punch girls in the stomach now. After all, I wasn't trained not to do that.

Yes, I think you were in fact trained to not randomly assault people. You have been trained to do that long and at heat pains to your teachers and even yourself. It is fortunate that this isn't what the cop did.
He didn't just randomly decide to go and punch a girl. He decided to (take whatever action was most readily apparent) to (subdue someone he knew was committing an assault). It just happens that the system that was supposed to guarantee (readily apparent action) was (armbar and cuff by rote) wasn't sufficiently rigorous, and he needs more time to stew on that and demonstrate his ability to execute that action before being a cop. If he can't, or is shown by history to be situationally biased towards punching when the target is a teen, female, or is gay, then he shouldn't be a cop and I'll gladly help you nail him to a cross.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh good, in that case I'm just going to go outside and randomly punch girls in the stomach now. After all, I wasn't trained not to do that.

Yes, I think you were in fact trained to not randomly assault people. You have been trained to do that long and at heat pains to your teachers and even yourself. It is fortunate that this isn't what the cop did.
He didn't just randomly decide to go and punch a girl. He decided to (take whatever action was most readily apparent) to (subdue someone he knew was committing an assault).

If you think you can determine what the police officer KNEW from the video, you are deluded. The police officer could not possibly KNOW what the woman was going to do. From the video, it does not appear if the woman was going to assault anyone. And, even if she were showing the incipient signs of assault, that does not mean the proper response is to assault her in the manner he did. I am fine with an investigation. Perhaps it will justifiably exonerate this police officer with mitigating circumstances. But until those possible mitigating circumstances are demonstrated, your attempts to justify the police officer's actions are frightening.

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh good, in that case I'm just going to go outside and randomly punch girls in the stomach now. After all, I wasn't trained not to do that.

Yes, I think you were in fact trained to not randomly assault people. You have been trained to do that long and at heat pains to your teachers and even yourself. It is fortunate that this isn't what the cop did.
He didn't just randomly decide to go and punch a girl. He decided to (take whatever action was most readily apparent) to (subdue someone he knew was committing an assault).

If you think you can determine what the police officer KNEW from the video, you are deluded. The police officer could not possibly KNOW what the woman was going to do. From the video, it does not appear if the woman was going to assault anyone. And, even if she were showing the incipient signs of assault, that does not mean the proper response is to assault her in the manner he did. I am fine with an investigation. Perhaps it will justifiably exonerate this police officer with mitigating circumstances. But until those possible mitigating circumstances are demonstrated, your attempts to justify the police officer's actions are frightening.

Maybe you just weren't reading when I stated earlier several times that knowing a thing doesn't actually mean a thing is actually a reality. Yes, I can be fairly confident he knew it from his immediate response. I can also be secure in assserting his knowledge didn't reflect reality. I can also fairly say that because of both the timescale and the urgency to act, that he didn't have time to test his knowledge before acting on it. You have hindsight. He had no line of sight and a perceived duty to act. Or would you prefer the world where cops never intercede except to clean up bodies?

I don't mind an investigation. But people here are calling to string him up, and he is already the villain in the story, a scapegoat ready to be thrown on the sword of public indignation. I would far rather see the I actual person who precipitated the attack see his full measure of attention: the lying SOB protester

 

[laughing dog]

Oh good, in that case I'm just going to go outside and randomly punch girls in the stomach now. After all, I wasn't trained not to do that.

Yes, I think you were in fact trained to not randomly assault people. You have been trained to do that long and at heat pains to your teachers and even yourself. It is fortunate that this isn't what the cop did.
He didn't just randomly decide to go and punch a girl. He decided to (take whatever action was most readily apparent) to (subdue someone he knew was committing an assault).

If you think you can determine what the police officer KNEW from the video, you are deluded. The police officer could not possibly KNOW what the woman was going to do. From the video, it does not appear if the woman was going to assault anyone. And, even if she were showing the incipient signs of assault, that does not mean the proper response is to assault her in the manner he did. I am fine with an investigation. Perhaps it will justifiably exonerate this police officer with mitigating circumstances. But until those possible mitigating circumstances are demonstrated, your attempts to justify the police officer's actions are frightening.

Maybe you just weren't reading when I stated earlier several times that knowing a thing doesn't actually mean a thing is actually a reality.

No one is required to accept your redefinition of the meaning of words.

Yes, I can be fairly confident he knew it from his immediate response.

Unless you personally well-acquainted with the officer, your confidence is unfounded in reality.

I can also be secure in assserting his knowledge didn't reflect reality. I can also fairly say that because of both the timescale and the urgency to act, that he didn't have time to test his knowledge before acting on it. You have hindsight. He had no line of sight and a perceived duty to act.

Utter fucking nonsense. I have no hindsight - I have the video of his actions. He was there. He had the time to look. In the video, the woman does not appear to be a threat. Until an investigation yields mitigating circumstances, your excuses are more than exercises in assumptions and counter-factual delusions - they are frightening sick.

Or would you prefer the world where cops never intercede except to clean up bodies?

I prefer a world where the response of police officers is appropriate to the situation. And where their syncophants do fling inane excuses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They're both use-of-force situations. I find the comparison reasonable.

Why is violence required to subdue the teen?

What should he do, say pretty please?

She's already trying to get away. I would be very surprised if force in some fashion wasn't used.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, he could have observed the situation and seen that the girl wasn't attacking anyone. That's what happens when someone makes an actual threat assessment.

An action is right or wrong when it is taken, not when results are known.

Again wrong, people are held accountable for the results of their harmful actions the reasons for their bad decisions only serve to mitigate punishment.

He took the safest gamble he could afford.

No, he reacted without thinking only driven by emotion.

We don't know exactly what started the situation. Whatever the trigger event, the result was that he was trying to apprehend her. She tried to escape. The cop is going to use the force he needs to stop her, and he's not going to be too inclined to get hurt doing it. Any cop in the situation would have done something to her.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Why is the cop excused for reacting in this fashion for being a rabid dog with lack of training, when the Duck Dynasty taint-tard is even more rabid and possesses less training? If that is the case, hey, he's human, we should also cut him some slack eh?

 

[fast]

Edited out

 

[barbos]

Where does this cop think he is? In Russia?
And he seems unusually small and skinny for american cop.

 

[Jarhyn]

Why is the cop excused for reacting in this fashion for being a rabid dog with lack of training, when the Duck Dynasty taint-tard is even more rabid and possesses less training? If that is the case, hey, he's human, we should also cut him some slack eh?

No. Taint-tard (and anti-gay protesters in general) have specific training TO be assholes, TO handle cops in such a way as the violence isn't directed at them, and TO posture themselves in such a way to get cops to actually react. They're lawsuit trolls, going to a place that could be a powder keg and then intentionally making it worse in an attempt to get SOMETHING to happen; it's well documented that it's what the Phelps family did, and if you think for a second that these people aren't using the same playbook, you're an idiot. There's a difference to reacting in an attempt to do your job, and intentionally going to a place to stir up trouble, and taking clear, conscious, deliberate actions to do so. The protester here is no better than the cop in the other thread who slit a dog's throat. They're perverse control freaks, and no amount of training short of brain surgery that we don't have the technology or means to execute would fix that. That a girl got injured because of those bigoted fucks incenses me. I just don't go after the ONE guy in this situation who was actually attempting to prevent major and irreparable violence.

 

[laughing dog]

We don't know exactly what started the situation. Whatever the trigger event, the result was that he was trying to apprehend her. She tried to escape. The cop is going to use the force he needs to stop her, and he's not going to be too inclined to get hurt doing it. Any cop in the situation would have done something to her.

There is wide range of possibilities of "doing something to her", and the response on the video is but one of many.