Video Taping SPD

imported post

I agree with the whole right to defend yourself as well as using the least amount of force appropriate to stop the attack...that being said I think where the problem comes in is two fold 1 she was a female and 2 she was a minor miner (other thread sorry)

Cops increasingly have been raked over the coals in the past for their interactions with minors take for example the cop who tasered the minor female for her own safety (supposedly at least)

That is why everyone is trying to throw a fit... I believe if you wanna try and hit me like a grown a$$ man you deserve to get hit like one. Regardless of age (within reason of course)

Unfortunately not everyone feels this way and most wanna coddle the children and the minorities and the women and everyone who pretty much is not a white male. (Sorry just an observation based on experiences in the state of mexico (ca) not being racial or anything like that)

That being said I respect all people who deserve it...certain people regardless of age race or creed are just dumb and unworthy of respect...

imported post

The cop should have clocked both of the gals. Started with Jay walking, which in my opinion more cops should enforce. If we cantrun em down forpoints when their are out of crosswalks, thenthey should get tickets.I also wonder if this would still be a racial issue if it were a black male cop and 2 white females? The cop should just be lucky that no one grabbed his gun. I was surprised that he didnt throw an elbow back when the one gal got on his back. Also, I havnt watched the video again since I saw it on the news, but there was a discussion of someone seeing a gun in someone else's hand, then it was said it was lighting and shadows.

imported post

I am of the mind that you don't hit a woman. However, I also want my girls to know they can't use that to their advantage. If they start to get violent, all bets are off.

As more light is shed on this, I'm of the mind that yes, he did do well in his situation.

imported post

Leatherneck wrote:

I am of the mind that you don't hit a woman. However, I also want my girls to know they can't use that to their advantage. If they start to get violent, all bets are off.

As more light is shed on this, I'm of the mind that yes, he did do well in his situation.

Click to expand...

+1, The average male citizen should not hit a woman. BUT...when they break the law and start fighting you while you are doing your job as a law enforcement officer, they have went from woman to criminal. I think there is a difference.

imported post

amzbrady wrote:

Leatherneck wrote:

I am of the mind that you don't hit a woman. However, I also want my girls to know they can't use that to their advantage. If they start to get violent, all bets are off.

As more light is shed on this, I'm of the mind that yes, he did do well in his situation.

Click to expand...

+1, The average male citizen should not hit a woman. BUT...when they break the law and start fighting you while you are doing your job as a law enforcement officer, they have went from woman to criminal. I think there is a difference.

Click to expand...

If a woman is hitting you, regardless of you being male or female, you have a right to defend yourself. Should you punch a woman that is 5'4" 105 lbs. as hard as a man that is 6'4" 250 lbs...absolutely not.

If I hit a man I am pretty damn sure he is going to hit me back--I would deserve it.

The fact that the girl is 17 has nothing to do with the situation, the girl was as big as the guy and assaulting him. I think the officer needs to make sure he keeps people in front of him when in a situation like this one. I seen these girls on his back way to many times--gun grab danger.

imported post

1. I am surprised those girls did not get tased.

2. Actually I am not, I am sure that officer was trying as best he could to not be violent due to recent fire on the SPD for that mexican beating thing. SPD have been wussies to colored and minorities lately since that. Notice nobody was arrested at that street storm they had when people were rushing the courthouse on 3rd and james blocking the streets and blocking the exit/entrance to that building.

3. The reason this was blown up is because the officer is white, and the >>>"victim"<<< was black. Why do you think the moron officer at the press conference kept mentioning "we are in touch with the african-american" community. BS. Get out of here with that crap.

4. I feel so bad for that officer because the uppers in his department are sacrificing him to keep the colored and minorities happy.

5. I'll stop here.

BTW to the OP, not illegal to record in public, but what's funny is, all those goons were thinking they getting dirt on that officer, but instead they made the prosecution of those two moron females such an easy job. Too bad that evidence won't count for much as the focus is on white on black. :banghead:

imported post

If that (or any other) LEO were trying to arrest a 19 year old white male who was fighting the officer ("resisting arrest") and another white male teanager, even larger than the officer, cam over and attempted to interfere with the officer, yelling, hitting, and pushing, I suspect the officer would have responded even more strongly (and would be perfectly correct in doing so).

I'm tired of hearing from "the community" that the only reason he hit his attacker was because she was black.

imported post

Poosharker wrote:

1. I am surprised those girls did not get tased.

2. Actually I am not, I am sure that officer was trying as best he could to not be violent due to recent fire on the SPD for that mexican beating thing. SPD have been wussies to colored and minorities lately since that. Notice nobody was arrested at that street storm they had when people were rushing the courthouse on 3rd and james blocking the streets and blocking the exit/entrance to that building.

3. The reason this was blown up is because the officer is white, and the >>>"victim"<<< was black. Why do you think the moron officer at the press conference kept mentioning "we are in touch with the african-american" community. BS. Get out of here with that crap.

4. I feel so bad for that officer because the uppers in his department are sacrificing him to keep the colored and minorities happy.

5. I'll stop here.

BTW to the OP, not illegal to record in public, but what's funny is, all those goons were thinking they getting dirt on that officer, but instead they made the prosecution of those two moron females such an easy job. Too bad that evidence won't count for much as the focus is on white on black. :banghead:

Click to expand...

Some could construe that as reverse racism...

imported post

Poosharker wrote:

1. I am surprised those girls did not get tased.

2. Actually I am not, I am sure that officer was trying as best he could to not be violent due to recent fire on the SPD for that mexican beating thing. SPD have been wussies to colored and minorities lately since that. Notice nobody was arrested at that street storm they had when people were rushing the courthouse on 3rd and james blocking the streets and blocking the exit/entrance to that building.

3. The reason this was blown up is because the officer is white, and the >>>"victim"<<< was black. Why do you think the moron officer at the press conference kept mentioning "we are in touch with the african-american" community. BS. Get out of here with that crap.

4. I feel so bad for that officer because the uppers in his department are sacrificing him to keep the colored and minorities happy.

5. I'll stop here.

BTW to the OP, not illegal to record in public, but what's funny is, all those goons were thinking they getting dirt on that officer, but instead they made the prosecution of those two moron females such an easy job. Too bad that evidence won't count for much as the focus is on white on black. :banghead:

Click to expand...

Two things I heard yesterday on the radio:

1. He couldn't have tased her. Due to budget constraints, he has not been issued one.

2. The person who so conveniently was there recording this has a tendency to be 'in the right place at the right time' to record controversial occurences. Was this staged with the help of the two females?

imported post

Apparently this morning in the Times article the officer is being blamed for the incident. Some people seem to be arguing that the officer should not have escalated the situation because it was merely a jaywalking issue--WTF! What about obeying the law and not assaulting a police officer???

Thugs like this are what make our streets unsafe and when they are confronted with authority you see how much they have invested in our civil society. What ever happen to just taking the ticket and going on with your life...these thugs believe that the law does not apply to them and that they do not have to act in a civil manner.

I hope these thugs run into an officer the tases them.

imported post

Two hood hoes were jaywalking Rainier by King
Popo tried to stop 'em, hoes began to sing
One shoved cop with her paw
He punched her in the jaw:
Attack a cop and your face may get a ding!

imported post

Man.. on the topic of unethical, my cousin was just arrested for not showing up to a civil litigation hearing that was initiated by a creditor. He wasn't even informed of his hearing. Suddenly he's arrested on a warrant. What has this world come to? Arrested for not showing up to a CIVIL hearing that he was never informed of?

imported post

Leatherneck wrote:

I am of the mind that you don't hit a woman. However, I also want my girls to know they can't use that to their advantage. If they start to get violent, all bets are off.

As more light is shed on this, I'm of the mind that yes, he did do well in his situation.

Click to expand...

I'm not. Equal rights means equal responsibility. My girls do know that. I've taught them if you hit someone expect to get hit back. Sadly feminism has turned into, "I should be able to do what I want without consequences."

This woman assaulted the officer and got punched in the face for her trouble making. I don't fault this officer at all.

imported post

Sylvia Plath wrote:

Apparently this morning in the Times article the officer is being blamed for the incident. Some people seem to be arguing that the officer should not have escalated the situation because it was merely a jaywalking issue--WTF! What about obeying the law and not assaulting a police officer???

Click to expand...

The incident happened at Martin Luther King Jr. Way South near the arterial's intersection with Rainier Avenue South, in the vicinity of Franklin High School.
A Seattle transportation department plan released in 2006 called for Seattle police pedestrian-safety patrols to target jaywalking, particularly near Franklin High and north of South McClellan Street by the Lowe's hardware store.
Between 2002 and 2006 more jaywalkers were hit by vehicles on Rainier Avenue South than in any other corridor in the city.
During that period, 61 pedestrians were struck while jaywalking on Rainier Avenue South -- nearly double the number of accidents on Aurora Avenue North, which had the second highest number of jaywalkers hit with 35, according to Seattle Transportation Department records.
____________
Just saying the officer was doing his job as instructed by his higher-ups. He was told to enforce the jaywalking laws, ESPECIALLY in that area, and had five people jaywalk right in front of him (one male, then four females), and one of the females just blew him off and started to walk away.

As he was attempting to control/cuff her, the gal in pink interfered and assaulted the officer.
The gal in pink was not only physically assaulting the officer, her record (both gals have records...) includs a previous assault on an officer.
I hope the officer is totally vindicated. He did what he needed to do. (Actually, he probably should have taken both of them to the ground, but that is even more dangerous when a lone officer is surrounded...

imported post

There are several ironies in this altercation:

This happened on a Blvd. named after one of the great black civil rights leaders, Dr. Martin Luther King.

Dr. King preached "non-violence" and "civil disobedience"

The pedestrian overpass was built with millions of tax payer dollars, includingthe dollars of many other Seattle community civil rights leaders.

Yet, these young black girls want to trample on what Dr. King fought for and ignore his preachings of non-violence and civil disobedience.

It seems that these girls parents have taught them, by their words and deeds, to ignore the law.

It seems that these girls parents have taught them, by their words and deeds, to ignore the teachings of Dr. King.

It seems that these girls parents have taught them, by their words anddeeds, to ignore what the tax payers have provided in the elevated pedestrian walkway.


(I relate this to OC, because this board openly talks about how we would verbally resist an officer for a detainment or arrest related to OC, yet physically and non violently comply)

imported post

So back to the video taping.
Someone mentioned (in another thread) that because this is a 2 party consent state, we can video tape as long as there is no audio. Did I read that wrong? Is that strictly for recording in private, and there's no restrictions on public recording?

imported post

Leatherneck wrote:

So back to the video taping.
Someone mentioned (in another thread) that because this is a 2 party consent state, we can video tape as long as there is no audio. Did I read that wrong? Is that strictly for recording in private, and there's no restrictions on public recording?

Click to expand...

There is no prohibition of any kind when recording in public like this.

imported post

Bob Warden wrote:

Leatherneck wrote:

So back to the video taping.
Someone mentioned (in another thread) that because this is a 2 party consent state, we can video tape as long as there is no audio. Did I read that wrong? Is that strictly for recording in private, and there's no restrictions on public recording?

Click to expand...

There is no prohibition of any kind when recording in public like this.

Click to expand...

And just to clarify what some people might think, recording a public official (police officer) IS legal. No one has a right to privacy while in a PUBLIC setting, such as a park, sidewalk, road, etc.

imported post

swatspyder wrote

And just to clarify what some people might think, recording a public official (police officer) IS legal. No one has a right to privacy while in a PUBLIC setting, such as a park, sidewalk, road, etc.

Click to expand...

That's why I wear a ninja outfit and mumble when I speak. I'll be damned if I'm going to be on youtube....too late.

imported post

Leatherneck wrote:

So back to the video taping.
Someone mentioned (in another thread) that because this is a 2 party consent state, we can video tape as long as there is no audio. Did I read that wrong? Is that strictly for recording in private, and there's no restrictions on public recording?

Click to expand...

In most state the relevant laws are called "wiretapping" laws. They vary a LOT in detail, but pretty much have one thing in common:

Wiretapping can only take place in situations where the parties being recorded have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

So if you are in public you have no expectation of privacy and you can be recorded, audibly and visually.

In almost all states there is no special law for police officers or public officials that makes it illegal to record them in situations where it would otherwise be legal to record them. There is also no law that makes it legal to record police officers or public officials in situations where it would otherwise be illegal.