Lt Jonathan Josey II
Posted on 10/01/2012 3:31:28 PM PDT by Altariel
This is the shocking moment a police sergeant punched a young woman in the face because he thought she sprayed silly string at him during a peaceful parade.
The video was recorded during yesterday's 50th anniversary Puerto Rican Day parade in Philadelphia - where around 1,500 people were in attendance.
The 36-second clip shows a number of people milling around enjoying the festivities in the 'City of Brotherly Love'.
From the left-hand side, someone can be seen throwing an unidentified liquid towards a group of police officers.
At the same time, a young woman is walking past - who also gets hit by the liquid.
As she turns around to see where it came from, a police officer in a white shirt - which means he has acquired the rank of sergeant - comes towards the woman and delivers a brutal punch to her face, knocking her to the ground.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Cop juiced up on steriods demanded sex from her and she refused. Happy now?
Nope. Thank goodness my wife and daughter wouldn't be caught dead in a concentrated Democrat parasite nest ("city") let alone at a Puerto Rico Pride parade (or whatever it was).
You misunderstood my entire statement, although you did quote it accurately.
There is not one person posting here who “saw” anything. They saw a video. They are discussing the video. One person has an interpretation of the video. That interpretation is either right or wrong.
And whether it is right or wrong is dependent on the facts, both what can be gleaned from the video, and what else was observed at the scene — not the number of people who have a different interpretation.
Fact is not decided by majority opinion. That was what I said. It is a bullying argument which suggests that a person should back down from their opinion because “so many people” disagree with them.
The woman comes from the other side of the crowd — not the curb — in this video and appears to be taunting the cops and said something that upset the sergeant. When he turned in her direction she knew he was coming after her. It wasn’t the guy on the left of the camera throwing something that started it. It was something that she said that angered the police sergeant. That’s what it looks like.
I don’t think the guy on the left throwing anything had anything to do with the officer’s action. Watch her actions from the start. She was taunting the cops or saying something to them that they didn’t like. That is why when the sergeant turned around she retreated. She knew immediately that he was coming after her.
Compare this officer’s (and the department’s) actions with Sir Robert Peel’s Principles:
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
And all I’ll say is that I despise whatever definition of manhood the apologists for this vicious assault possess.
The so called “men” who are so personally and emotionally invested in any vicious animal in uniform that reflexively beats down a woman half his size, because water droplets touched his f*ck*ng sacred person... I just tell you straight out, people who defend this, are not men. Take that any way you want.
Woman beaters. And their fans. On the “premier conservative site on the internet”. Ain’t that a hoot?
Even if “She said something I didn’t like” is the case, that excuse is NEVER a justification for battery.
She and the cop then react at the same time to the water (or string?) that was tossed by the person in the black sleeves.
He shouldn’t have hit her but she was taunting the police. Initially it was postulated and I thought as well that she was just innocently crossing the street and mistaken for throwing something at the police. But after watching it carefully it is clear that she was taunting the police. She wasn’t an innocent by-stander.
She didn't start from the curb. She starts from over by the group of police and is hopping up and down as if agitated. She is saying something to the police the whole time.
The cops don't even pay attention to her until they're hit with the string. If she were agitated and taunting the cops, they would have certainly noticed and reacted.
You have no basis for saying she was taunting the cops.
She said something that got the police angered. The sergeant and the other four officers to turn right around and eyeball her right away and go right after her. They didn’t look around for anybody else. They looked right at her — all of them. Whatever angered them came from her and apparently her mouth.
Tell me where she is just as the video starts and is she not jumping up and down as if agitated or agitating??? Yes or No???
If she were agitated and taunting the cops they would have at least turned in her direction, and they did not. They looked quite relaxed until the string hit them.
Sorry pal, the cop screwed the pooch here.
They said on TV it looked like she signaled someone to throw water.
Yeh -- her hopping up and down at the start of the video is a new dance step???
Sorry but you are wrong. As the video starts she is up there close to the cops gathered there and hops up and down as she backs up as if to stay on her toes and saying something to the police the whole time.
If she were agitated and taunting the cops they would have at least turned in her direction, and they did not.
They did -- watch it and watch them. They turn right towards her.
They looked quite relaxed until the string hit them.
What string??? I see no string. There is a guy on the left of the field of vision that throws water or something but he is so far away that it would never have gotten that far. That wasn't why they turned around. It was what she was saying. Put sound to this and I'll bet you would hear her mouth moving the whole time until she said something and the police had had enough.
If it was the string or something that someone else threw, then why did she retreat as soon as they turned around. Immediately she starts to retreat. She knew that it was what her mouth was throwing at them that got them to turn around and her reaction proves it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.