Out-of-Control Cop Punches Defenseless Special-Needs Girl

This is what is happening in USA when police officers feel more and more immune from punishment for breaking the law.

[video=youtube;fYTPhuPuF20]http://youtu.be/fYTPhuPuF20[/video]

 

Video has gone, and that tells me it wasn't just a report video but some twisted version of that.. Any other link?

 

It was just the vidoe filmed on cell phone. here is the other one:

http://youtu.be/ZuWCfpXrItQ

[video=youtube;ZuWCfpXrItQ] http://youtu.be/ZuWCfpXrItQ[/video]

 

Not sure why youtube wants to label it as hate speech.. But this is just plain brutal. Cops are becoming dehumanized slowly.
I guess that happens when corruption finds it's way into ranks..

 

The video is legit. Looks like all the loss of privacy from cameras everywhere cuts two ways. or does it....

In my mind, the cop is now guilty of [at least] two crimes.

• Assault with intent to kill, the charge that would be handed down to any civilian that struck a restrained special needs person that way.
• Extortion, for threatening an innocent bystander with incarceration for refusing to surrender his cell phone video.

It seems the way the criminal justice system works in the US, we create multiple laws for the same activity to help boost the potential sentencing an inmate might face. The only qualification is that each offense must contain at least one element that the other does not. In this case, I believe the cop could be charged with aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, and attempted murder. If the woman is black, he can also be charged with a hate crime.

Again, If it were a civilian and not an officer, the DA would load up every charge they thought would stick, and then cut a deal in which the assailant would bargain away the extra charges in exchange for a guilty plea to the basic charges we might have charged them with 30-50 years ago. It provides the legal justice system a way to eliminate the hassle and cost of a trial by jury of your peers, and cut straight to the confession, based on lack of faith in the crappy public defender.

Unfortunately, as demonstrated in the case of Kelly Thomas recently, the DA needs the support of the police union to get re-elected. so the chances of charges ever being brought against a cop, even with incendiary evidence like this video, are very low. With Kelly Thomas, 5 cops beat a mentally handicapped man to death. It was all caught on tape. Only two officers were ever charged, and only one with anything serious(though much less serious charges than a civilian would face).

In my opinion, when a cop gets caught doing something like this, there should be additional charges for abuse of power, not less. Throw him to the wolves.

A recent arsonist in LA lit 5 buildings on fire in a 24 hour arson spree. One of those buildings happened to be a mosque. He was charged with 5 counts of arson and a hate crime.

 

Many years ago I was in Singapore and read about a case that an off duty cop who was driving cab, robbed a passenger. The normal sentence was 6 years imprisonment but the judge gave him 12 years because he said such action by a cop even an off duty one will destroy public confidence in law enforcement.

 

Yeah. It's happening everywhere. I was walking down the street yesterday and 3 cops jumped out of their squad car and pummeled me close to death. In court, the judge asked them why to which they replied, "I knew him in high school". So they let them go back to duty and reprimanded me for 1) going to high school and 2) walking down the street.

And other insane comments like you would post.

And here's something for you to think about: no one seems to wonder how the cops got there. iow, who called the cops and why? What happened before all that that made someone feel law enforcement needed to be there.

Not sure if it's the same story but I searched/found an article that says this "special needs" person was known to carry a knife and that the "special needs" thing is an act. Did this person make a move where the officers felt she was reaching for one? You don't know, do you.

 

"You" got pummeled close to death yesterday and "you" are here posting on a site? "You" were already in court? Gee I didn't realize that the judicial system worked that fast! It appears it's as fast as your remarkable healing.

 

Point A) Cops have no right to assault a restrained 'suspect', so why cops were there, who called them just becomes pointless.
Point B) We did not see any knife in the hand of the lady. And if the lady was known to carry knife with her the correct way to handle it was to frisk her, we see a lady officer in the video as well.
At no point in the video the lady appears to be a threat, so assault was against the law.

I'm not blind or retard, so I can clearly see the video and comprehend what was going on, can you?

 

Why does it matter how the cops got there? Who cares if the cop just had a run in with the guy who has been nailing his wife, climbed out of the cruiser after a high speed pursuit, or was simply called to deal with a rude and belligerent bus passenger.

It boils down to a simple matter of equal application of the law. If that cop isn't charged for striking a woman with a closed fist while another officer held her hands, no citizen should ever be charged with a crime for the same behavior. It is either a crime always, or it is a crime never. And if the person is "known to carry a knife" is an excuse, he should have just shot her. After all, she's known to carry a knife, right?

I can appreciate cops have a tough job. Crazy and angry people mouthing off, spitting, getting obnoxious, concerns about people carrying concealed weapons etc. Its tough job because you can't just punch restrained women in the face when you get angry. You have to suck it up. If, as a police officer, you had the right to assault someone every time they pissed you off, it would not only be an easy job, it would be a fun job.

 

The previous posts are further proof that no one on DP can read or understand the written word. I have mentioned this time and time again in other threads but this is my first mention of it here.

You're welcome.

 

Alight, then you must be special..

 

I can't speak for the others,but my post was an attempt at humor.....I was being sarcastic,apperantly I wasn't half as funny as I thought I was .

 

Well at least one of you is smart enough to recognize my sarcastic response to the insane statement made by that poster. It amazes me that someone would look at that video showing one side of things without considering the other. What happened beforehand? The cops knew this person. Why is that? Why do they know her so well? The only person who said the person had mental problems was "some guy on the bus" so how do you know they were actually handicapped?

And on and on. This is a stupid thread.

 

You really are special..

First of all your 'sarcastic' attempt was so pathetic that I chose to ignore it completely..
As far as rest of your post goes, we don't care what happened before, who called the police, what the woman had done, how cops knew her or whether she was someone like you or not.
What happened in the video is the matter of the discussion. Let me break it down for you:

1) Cops arrest the woman
2) They restrain her
3) The cop punches her unprovoked, no knife, no gun, no threat is seen in the video.

Point 3 is the matter of discussion. Cop can't do that, it's unlawful..

 

Actually your post and logic is totally stupid since you lack basic knowledge about law, police procedures and everything else.

 

I may be stupid but I'm smarter than you @gworld.

@The_Webby, while you don't see a gun/knife, if this person, known to the police, is also known to carry one, and makes a move that indicates they are reaching for such a weapon, what would you do? Ask politely that they not reach for that potential weapon in their pocket? Of course, we don't know if any of that is true, which is my point. Your facts are based on what happened during an event and not what lead up to it. It's like the hockey player, last night, who had a punch thrown at him and retaliated with a punch. The referee didn't see the first punch, what happened before, and penalized the player that retaliated.

Most people don't think these things through. Most people don't think, period.

 

What you are missing here, that cops have a responsibility, the responsibility to follow the same law they are supposed to enforce.

The video posted in this thread is from retard new channel with a retard editor, who thought it's bloody cool to cut the video and insert interview bits.. I'm posting an unedited, uncut clip here:

[video=youtube;uaQi2xsf0gQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaQi2xsf0gQ[/video]

Tell me when you see the lady reaching for any object. All wee see that her both hands were secure, she was talking slam and BAM! The cop punches her.. Not OK!!

Also with your analogy of hockey players, yes even if the hockey player had a punch thrown at him, should not and can not retaliate with a punch. The same way, you can not go and kill someone if he killed someone else.. We have courts for that, the court decides the punishment. You or me or a hockey player or a cop can not punish someone.

At times in past I supported Cops' actions, even when the incident ended with someone getting killed. Because the suspect was at fault. But not this time.

 

Yep. I don't see the reason for the punch either. I'm more riled up by @gworld's stupid comment as if cops all over the USA act like that all the time, which was the purpose of my original post. He's basing all his opinions on that video and stories he hears in the news. I could just as easily find "nice cop" videos and stories and base all my thoughts on those but that's not as exciting as what he shows. I'm sure he lives for the excitement and doesn't notice other things going on around him.

 

[video=youtube;4smim2MNvF8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4smim2MNvF8[/video]


What can I say. Would be communists make good music.