Investigation Launched After Cop Punches Teen Girl At Pride Fest

[Jarhyn]

This report (http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/6291525-74/officer-woman-pittsburgh#axzz35BrPOcFx) adds the following information:
1) the police officer claims the woman attacked him first,
2) the victim is facing assault charges for this incident and an earlier incident with her mother, and
3) according to the officer Chatterji's report

The video shows the officer grabbing Lawther by the hair and punching her several times in the stomach. Chatterji wrote that he was forced to do so because he was being struck by onlookers and she kept fighting. He wrote that he feared for his safety.

What nonsense. The video shows very clearly he wasn't being struck by onlookers and that she didn't "keep" fighting (if she ever fought to begin with, the video doesn't show anything remotely like that), she adopted a fetal defensive posture, and clearly wasn't fighting. The fact that she's facing assault charges for this incident (regardless of the validity of any prior charges she's faced with) when the evidence so clearly shows her to be a victim is quite frankly, sickening. Even if his claim that she struck first is correct, which I have serious doubts about, it's painfully obvious that his response was extreme and unwarranted.

Perspective is important. The facts and knowledge available on the ground for the officer at the time are different than those available to the watcher of a video.

Part of being a social, normal, empathetic and ethical person is trying to see things from the (often limited and incomplete) perspective of others and determining if their reaction was evil based not on your available information, but rather upon theirs, whether the problem was malice or ignorance.

 

[dystopian]

Of course, we shouldn't blame him for falsifying his police report. If he had taken the time to stop and assess, an attack of conscience might have harmed someone. He was just doing as he was trained, and it was completely ethical given the information he had at the time.

Even though I really shouldn't be surprised anymore, it never stops bothering me whenever you have these sorts of cases where not only are cops blatantly in the wrong, they then try to abuse their power to get away with it; especially when the rest of their cop buddies then circle the wagons. That last part's what really gets me sometimes; the way police departments often attack the victim, while defending their own as if they could do no harm. You see this happening in the article that was just posted with the statements of that police fraternity president, for instance. The cop's statement is assumed to be true, and then we're supposed to feel bad for second-guessing him since we weren't there; conveniently forgetting for a second that we didn't need to be since we have pretty clear video evidence of police wrongdoing. Is it really too much to ask for other cops in these cases to just shut the fuck up, sit back, and wait for the results of an *independent* investigation?

 

[Sarpedon]

Bad but understandable.

What frosts me is when the prosecutors and judges get in on the act.

 

[dystopian]

Perspective is important.

Yes, you're very clever for posting an artist's demonstration of a visual illusion.

No, wait, you aren't. Just because it's possible to handcraft a visual illusion like that in your posted image, doesn't mean that all video evidence of police brutality suddenly becomes suspect.

And wasn't there another video from a *different* angle posted that showed the exact same thing?

The facts and knowledge available on the ground for the officer at the time are different than those available to the watcher of a video.

A fine argument, were it not for the fact that he *had no* facts and knowledge; he acted without those. And in fact, you yourself argued as much when you tried to claim he was in a 'confusing melee'; do you REALLY think a person in a position of authority and responsibility should just go ahead and punch people when he's confused about the facts? Because that'd be insane.

Part of being a social, normal, empathetic and ethical person is trying to see things from the (often limited and incomplete) perspective of others and determining if their reaction was evil based not on your available information, but rather upon theirs, whether the problem was malice or ignorance.

That's rich, coming from someone who seems utterly unwilling to try and see things from the perspective of pretty much everyone on this thread who isn't a police brutality apologist.

And by the way, nobody here said the cop's reaction was 'evil'; that's you projecting. Just as with the question of whether or not the problem was 'malice' or 'ignorance'; it doesn't MATTER whether he was intentionally malicious or made an honest mistake based on ignorance (although I really don't see how repeatedly punching someone in the gut, or throwing them to the ground and pulling them back up by their hair, could be an 'honest mistake')... assault is assault, and needs to be dealt with regardless of the intentions behind it. Having it be an honest ignorant mistake might net someone a lower sentence, but it doesn't fucking absolve you of the consequences and responsibility.

 

[laughing dog]

This report (http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/6291525-74/officer-woman-pittsburgh#axzz35BrPOcFx) adds the following information:
1) the police officer claims the woman attacked him first,
2) the victim is facing assault charges for this incident and an earlier incident with her mother, and
3) according to the officer Chatterji's report

The video shows the officer grabbing Lawther by the hair and punching her several times in the stomach. Chatterji wrote that he was forced to do so because he was being struck by onlookers and she kept fighting. He wrote that he feared for his safety.

What nonsense. The video shows very clearly he wasn't being struck by onlookers and that she didn't "keep" fighting (if she ever fought to begin with, the video doesn't show anything remotely like that), she adopted a fetal defensive posture, and clearly wasn't fighting. The fact that she's facing assault charges for this incident (regardless of the validity of any prior charges she's faced with) when the evidence so clearly shows her to be a victim is quite frankly, sickening. Even if his claim that she struck first is correct, which I have serious doubts about, it's painfully obvious that his response was extreme and unwarranted.

I don't find his claims extraordinary - they are consistent with covering one's ass. What I find fascinating is that the officer says he was forced to beat the victim in part because he was being hit by onlookers.

 

[dystopian]

I don't find his claims extraordinary - they are consistent with covering one's ass.

I don't think they're extraordinary either; I *do* think they're reprehensible. Shouldn't we expect better from the people we invest with the power and responsibility of upholding our laws? We give cops a lot of power and authority; and with that comes a responsibility and expectation, they're held to a higher standard than the rest of us for just that reason.

What I find fascinating is that the officer says he was forced to beat the victim in part because he was being hit by onlookers.

That IS an interesting claim, isn't it (quite aside from the linguistic impossibility you've pointed out)? Of course, the evidence suggests he's full of shit; but even if it were true that he was being hit by members of the crowd, how does that justify beating the girl up?

I suppose it IS possible that he got scared the crowd was turning on him (which duh, that's going to happen when you act like a violent thug with a badge), and his brain invented a fantasy of him being assaulted. I've heard these sorts of claims from cops before, where they're clearly doing abusive shit in front of a crowd. In such a scenario, naturally the crowd's going to get riled up, and rather than back off the cops start escalating because they think that's the only way they can maintain control of the crowd. Then afterwards, they reconstruct events in their head so as to justify it. They do this even when video evidence incontrovertibly proves that they weren't being assaulted or threatened by members of the crowd.

 

[Jarhyn]

The second video I saw, 'from a different angle' was also of a different point in time. After the confrontation had resolved and he was... Being screamed at by pretty much everyone. The amount of violence and rage from the crowd was near-rabid.

I think the officer acted poorly, but his report reflects the entirety of my assessment: nobody REALLY knew what was going on, the view was obstructed by a crowd, the girl had made earlier threats, and he got, at the very least, a few elbows and knees to the fleshy bits. His knowledge was that he was being assaulted and heavily resisted, and in a melee, the source of such can't be isolated. So how about you wait for the investigation rather than screaming for his blood. The only bit any of the video shows is the punching AFTER the two of them had exited the crowd, and the angry crowd being very abusive of the officer after.

I have no real reason to think your reactions and assumptions of motive are driven not by reality and understanding or reason, but rather by your perceptions of 'female vulnerability', a judgement against the cop for defending someone you don't like, and a general desire to go after 'The Man'.

 

[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.

Do you have evidence she tried to get away, or are you just assuming she did? Do you have any evidence she was resisting arrest, or are you just assuming she did? There is nothing in the video evidence presented in this thread that supports either claim.

Watch the video again. The confrontation starts before the punching.

I don't think she did any deliberate attack on the cop, she was merely trying to escape. That doesn't change the situation.

 

[dystopian]

The second video I saw, 'from a different angle' was also of a different point in time. After the confrontation had resolved and he was... Being screamed at by pretty much everyone. The amount of violence and rage from the crowd was near-rabid.

Yeah, go figure. Cop beating up a teenage girl and people get angry, how dare they!

I think the officer acted poorly, but his report reflects the entirety of my assessment: nobody REALLY knew what was going on, the view was obstructed by a crowd,

Which just goes to prove; once again; that he needed to step the fuck back and take a few seconds to figure out what the hell was going on. Nothing you've said in this thread suggests otherwise.

the girl had made earlier threats,

According to who?

and he got, at the very least, a few elbows and knees to the fleshy bits.

Again, according to who? The cop himself? Don't make me laugh.

His knowledge was that he was being assaulted and heavily resisted, and in a melee, the source of such can't be isolated. So how about you wait for the investigation rather than screaming for his blood. The only bit any of the video shows is the punching AFTER the two of them had exited the crowd,

Bullshit. You expect people to wait for the investigation but seem perfectly willingly to defend this guy's reprehensible actions based on baseless conjecture. You don't want us to conclude that the grown man who *beats up* a teenage girl was at fault, but you're perfectly willing to take his flimsy arguments and claims at face value. Really? Of course he's going to claim that he was being assaulted! He knows that anything else means he's in deep fucking shit, so of course he's going to make up an excuse that exonerates him. What boggles my mind is that you are not only willing, but *eager* to accept his version of events without question despite the fact there is zero evidence, but condemn the rest of us for rightfully stating that his actions were over the top and unacceptable, even though we have those actions on videotape. Keep in mind that even if his claims about the preceding events are true (unlikely), it doesn't fucking absolve him since his use of force was still highly disproportionate.

and the angry crowd being very abusive of the officer after.

Let's all take a few moments to feel sorry for the cop who beat up a kid and then had to listen to angry words; that poor abused man.

I have no real reason to think your reactions and assumptions of motive are driven not by reality and understanding or reason, but rather by your perceptions of 'female vulnerability', a judgement against the cop for defending someone you don't like, and a general desire to go after 'The Man'.

Stop projecting your own insecurities on me. I would have reacted the exact same way if the victim had been a male. In fact, I *have* reacted pretty much the same way when these sort of videos of cops abusing *guys* are posted online. So no, my reaction isn't colored by some perception of 'female vulnerability'. And no, it isn't colored by him defending someone I don't like either, since I've pretty much ignored the preacher's role in this altogether; it is in fact entirely irrelevant in relation to the cop's actions. And finally, while you might argue that I have some general desire to 'go after the man'; arguing that here is patently absurd. A corrupt politician would be 'the man'; a billionaire CEO who'se lawyers could let him get away with mass murder would be 'the man'; some idiot with a badge and a streetcop's salary *is not* 'the man'.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, go figure. Cop beating up a teenage girl and people get angry, how dare they!

I think the officer acted poorly, but his report reflects the entirety of my assessment: nobody REALLY knew what was going on, the view was obstructed by a crowd,

Which just goes to prove; once again; that he needed to step the fuck back and take a few seconds to figure out what the hell was going on. Nothing you've said in this thread suggests otherwise.

the girl had made earlier threats,

According to who?

and he got, at the very least, a few elbows and knees to the fleshy bits.

Again, according to who? The cop himself? Don't make me laugh.

His knowledge was that he was being assaulted and heavily resisted, and in a melee, the source of such can't be isolated. So how about you wait for the investigation rather than screaming for his blood. The only bit any of the video shows is the punching AFTER the two of them had exited the crowd,

Bullshit. You expect people to wait for the investigation but seem perfectly willingly to defend this guy's reprehensible actions based on baseless conjecture. You don't want us to conclude that the grown man who *beats up* a teenage girl was at fault, but you're perfectly willing to take his flimsy arguments and claims at face value. Really? Of course he's going to claim that he was being assaulted! He knows that anything else means he's in deep fucking shit, so of course he's going to make up an excuse that exonerates him. What boggles my mind is that you are not only willing, but *eager* to accept his version of events without question despite the fact there is zero evidence, but condemn the rest of us for rightfully stating that his actions were over the top and unacceptable, even though we have those actions on videotape. Keep in mind that even if his claims about the preceding events are true (unlikely), it doesn't fucking absolve him since his use of force was still highly disproportionate.

and the angry crowd being very abusive of the officer after.

Let's all take a few moments to feel sorry for the cop who beat up a kid and then had to listen to angry words; that poor abused man.

I have no real reason to think your reactions and assumptions of motive are driven not by reality and understanding or reason, but rather by your perceptions of 'female vulnerability', a judgement against the cop for defending someone you don't like, and a general desire to go after 'The Man'.

Stop projecting your own insecurities on me. I would have reacted the exact same way if the victim had been a male. In fact, I *have* reacted pretty much the same way when these sort of videos of cops abusing *guys* are posted online. So no, my reaction isn't colored by some perception of 'female vulnerability'. And no, it isn't colored by him defending someone I don't like either, since I've pretty much ignored the preacher's role in this altogether; it is in fact entirely irrelevant in relation to the cop's actions. And finally, while you might argue that I have some general desire to 'go after the man'; arguing that here is patently absurd. A corrupt politician would be 'the man'; a billionaire CEO who'se lawyers could let him get away with mass murder would be 'the man'; some idiot with a badge and a streetcop's salary *is not* 'the man'.

All I see here are repeated attempts at rhetoric and spin. You claim your perceptions are not colored by age and gender, right after repeatedly bringing up that It was a teenage girl. Somehow I don't believe your claims that you are unbiased.

Of course I'll take someone at their word initially, and then attempt to disprove. Right now I look at the video and your narrative is full of holes and your use of language about absolution and culpability is entirely revealing of retributivist attitudes. Maybe when you can stop thinking in such religious terms and start thinking in terms which are more constructive like 'needing correction, retraining' or that he should be taken off the street, or any more useful thing than merely punishing him, then I'll care about your views on how the cop should be handled. And please do enlighten me as to how stepping back is going to give a cop the power of x-ray vision to see through a crowd?

Hell, in the initial 'lead up' portion of the complete video, there is direct evidence of people screaming AND TELLING COPS that they want to and would assault the protestors, if the cops hadn't been there. And you want to tell me that you doubt a cop saying that someone else there had done the same thing?

 

[ksen]

All I see here are repeated attempts at rhetoric and spin.

Me too buddy, me too.

 

[Jarhyn]

Then please do provide an example, such as my own, where he derided the big bad cop for being a big meanie To a 'defenseless' girl based on an incomplete perspective of the event, and then claimed her 'girl' status wasn't coloring his perceptions? I'm saying that the vast majority of people here are being unreasonable in their expectations of the cop, and being unreasonable in their lack of expectations and vitriol of the protestors, who themselves were actually attempting to provoke a mob.

 

[Angry Floof]

This reminds me of the thread on FRDB about the adopted kid with severe behavior problems whose adoptive parents put him on a plane back to Russia. Without having the full story, some people were still willing to side with the adults but not the child.

If you're going to give anyone the benefit of doubt without all the information, why not err on the side of the less powerful?

 

[ksen]

Then please do provide an example, such as my own, where he derided the big bad cop for being a big meanie To a 'defenseless' girl based on an incomplete perspective of the event, and then claimed her 'girl' status wasn't coloring his perceptions? I'm saying that the vast majority of people here are being unreasonable in their expectations of the cop, and being unreasonable in their lack of expectations and vitriol of the protestors, who themselves were actually attempting to provoke a mob.

I know man, I know. I agree that it's entirely unreasonable to expect a police officer to be the calm and reasoned party when voices start getting raised.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Jarhyn]

Then please do provide an example, such as my own, where he derided the big bad cop for being a big meanie To a 'defenseless' girl based on an incomplete perspective of the event, and then claimed her 'girl' status wasn't coloring his perceptions? I'm saying that the vast majority of people here are being unreasonable in their expectations of the cop, and being unreasonable in their lack of expectations and vitriol of the protestors, who themselves were actually attempting to provoke a mob.

I know man, I know. I agree that it's entirely unreasonable to expect a police officer to be the calm and reasoned party when voices start getting raised.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Voices were past raised. They were calling for help. And when that happens, action must be taken. At that point I expect the police to go in and break things up.

As for which side to err on, I stand by erring I. The side that has the most to lose. The girl has some bruises and had a shitty day. I expect her to get a fair trial, and at worst 'time served'. If she gets more than that, you can expect me to be very angry on her behalf, and if the cop tries to go after her in trial, he can suck a fat one. The officer has his entire life and livelihood on the line. He is getting demonized from multiple forums, on the news, and is being placed squarely on the sacrificial slab of public opinion. For such heavy punishment, stronger evidence is needed than a mere video that shows nothing of what actually happened in the crowd.

In reality I guess I would like to see the charges against her dropped, since she was defending herself against what she claimed was an unknown assailant... But that's the sort of thing I guess courts exist to decide.

 

[dystopian]

All I see here are repeated attempts at rhetoric and spin. You claim your perceptions are not colored by age and gender, right after repeatedly bringing up that It was a teenage girl. Somehow I don't believe your claims that you are unbiased.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that pointing out the known facts means my perception are colored by age and gender. Would you have preferred I referred to the victim as "an entity of unknown age and gender?"

Of course I'll take someone at their word initially, and then attempt to disprove. Right now I look at the video and your narrative is full of holes

Feel free to point them out. You haven't managed to convince any of us thus far, I don't see much of a chance of you turning that around with some previously unaddressed 'hole'.

and your use of language about absolution and culpability is entirely revealing of retributivist attitudes. Maybe when you can stop thinking in such religious terms

Lol, what? You DO realize, I hope, that religion doesn't have some sort of exclusive rights to words, right? Again, stop projecting on me. The fact that you see religious thinking in my choice of words says more about you than it does me.

and start thinking in terms which are more constructive like 'needing correction, retraining' or that he should be taken off the street, or any more useful thing than merely punishing him, then I'll care about your views on how the cop should be handled.

Again; stop projecting. Not once have I said that he should 'merely be punished'. I have only ever expressed the view that he should be held accountable for his actions under the law in the same manner as a non-cop would be. If you want to argue that people who commit assault shouldn't be jailed but should instead just receive 'correction', then feel free to start a new thread; but as it stands, assault is a criminal offense that carries a jail sentence. Just because cops enforce the law, doesn't mean they are above it.

And please do enlighten me as to how stepping back is going to give a cop the power of x-ray vision to see through a crowd?

If nothing else, it calms his own nerves enough so that he doesn't go punching people in the stomach over and over.

Oh, and I've been meaning to ask; if he couldn't see through the crowd in order to determine whether or not someone was being assaulted, then how the fuck could he determine who to grab and beat?

Hell, in the initial 'lead up' portion of the complete video, there is direct evidence of people screaming AND TELLING COPS that they want to and would assault the protestors, if the cops hadn't been there. And you want to tell me that you doubt a cop saying that someone else there had done the same thing?

Where the fuck did you hear people telling the cops they would assault the protestors if the cops hadn't been there? Do you realize how utterly inane that sounds? Who the fuck would tell a *cop* that they would break the law? You're not making any sense here. By the way, just because people express such frustration doesn't mean they seriously intend such action; and it sure as fuck doesn't mean a cop is then justified in beating people up. Should a cop beat me up if I tell him "Man, I hate my boss, sometimes I just want to strangle him"?

Learn to read the fucking mood, develop some of that empathy you implied we didn't have, and next time *you* are in a confusing situation you won't decide to assault someone just because the crowd's scary!

And direct evidence of people screaming?! Oh my god!

 

[ksen]

Voices were past raised. They were calling for help. And when that happens, action must be taken. At that point I expect the police to go in and break things up.

Again, we're on the same page because I also expect the police to go in and break things.

 

[Jarhyn]

And in so expecting, validate my expectation that you are letting your (largely inaccurate) perception of police color your perspective here.

 

[dystopian]

The officer has his entire life and livelihood on the line.

Maybe he should've thought about that before assaulting someone? Just a thought.

He is getting demonized from multiple forums, on the news, and is being placed squarely on the sacrificial slab of public opinion. For such heavy punishment, stronger evidence is needed than a mere video that shows nothing of what actually happened in the crowd.

Honestly, it deeply *deeply* disturbs me that you're seriously trying to defend this guy by arguing that the girl 'has some bruises and had a shitty day, but the cop has his livelihood on the line'. What the fuck is wrong with you man? You're almost starting to sound like Derec when he's defending rapists; same kind of argument. Who gives a shit that his livelihood on the line? What does that have to do with anything? You're dismissing the victim's experience as being 'just a shitty day', and are trying to excuse the perpetrator's actions by saying that if there's consequences he'll lose his livelihood. Of course he'll lose his livelihood if he breaks the law and hurts someone; you'd lose *your* livelihood too if you assaulted someone and got convicted of it, so fucking what if the person you assault only has a few bruises?

And don't give us that crap about public opinion and stronger evidence needed than mere video: First of all, *nobody* here is suggesting he be punished based purely on public opinion. Secondly, what exactly constitutes 'stronger evidence' than direct visual proof of what happend?

Incidentally, the reason public opinion is against him is a very obvious reason you can't seem to fathom: the people that society invests with power and responsibility are held to a higher standard than the rest of us. Nobody gives a shit if some random truck driver takes an unscheduled nap on the side of the road. If an airline pilot takes a nap while he's the only one flying the plane however; it's a very different matter. Cops are tasked with upholding law and order; as a result, when they themselves *break* that law and order, their actions weigh correspondingly more than if they were committed by someone who'se not a cop.

They don't get to complain about the way society treats them when they go and betray the trust we've given them.

 

[Jarhyn]

Dystopian, if you can't see how retributivism is religious in nature, driven by belief and emotion rather than rational and deliberate thought, then I truly feel sorry for you. I think I've ignored maybe 3 people on these forums since I started here. It's a shame you had to be the fourth.