- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,138
- Reaction score
- 807
- Location
- Volunteer State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
So, that justifies the cop to push the octogenarian to the wall and then to the ground to execute an arrest?Wow. The cop pulled him back because you cannot walk away from a cop giving you a ticket. You simply can't. That in itself is against the law (not to mention the cop still had his ID card). Pulling the guy back did not do any damage to him at all. The man had no reason to struggle with the cop. But instead of simply calmly returning to the cop, he instead pushed the officer. That too is illegal.
Do you think that helps your case of saying there was harassment, when there clearly wasn't?w-h-a-t-e-v-e-r.
So, that justifies the cop to push the octogenarian to the wall and then to the ground to execute an arrest?
The old man reacting reflexively to being grabbed and pulled back did damage to the cop? How?
Prove the old man struggled with the cop rather than just turned reflexively towards the cop as shown in the video I linked to above.
So, instead of conceding to your error about what the witness said, you just skipped it entirely pretending it wasn't there.
Moderator's Warning: |
Doesn't work that way when you discount the old man and concluded he was at fault.Prove it was a reflex. Prove the man was pushed to the ground and didn't just fall. Prove that the police took any inappropriate actions with arresting this man. Injury to the man doesn't prove it because unfortunately at times when executing an arrest, injuries do happen. This particular injury was really minor too.
The cop did not hit, strike, or push the man first. The man should not have walked away from the police officer either. Plus, according to the old man, he didn't walk away, just tried to ask for his ID card back. So which one is telling the truth, the witness or the old man? Either way, it looks bad for the old man. If he is telling the truth about not walking away, it means the officer most likely didn't touch him first at all, since it wouldn't be necessary. If the witness is telling the truth, then it means the old man is lying or confused about the circumstances of the incident, which ruins his credibility on what exactly occurred.
Doesn't work that way when you discount the old man and concluded he was at fault.
The old man said he was pushed against the wall, then to the ground and when he came to from unconsciousness he was handcuffed, which is what the picture showed exactly. Here's the media report of what he said:
Manhattan man, 84, ticketed for jaywalking to file $5 million lawsuit against city - NY Daily News
In response to Wong’s repeated requests for his card back, the cop whipped out handcuffs and spoke into his portable radio. “I got more scared,” Wong said.
Several officers raced over and grabbed Wong, pushing him against the wall of a building. Wong said he was pushed to the ground and struck his head, blacking out. When he regained consciousness, blood was streaming down his face and his hands were cuffed behind his back.
If the person was just falling, why was he immediately handcuffed on the ground? Didn't you said it was illegal and a no-no for the old man to walk away or push the officer? So, is it a stretch to see that what the old man said is consistent with police take down of subject to execute an arrest as noted in the picture of the old man on the ground and handcuffed behind him?
You still have not concede your numerous errors.
No that is not what the pics show. No pictures show him being pushed to the ground nor knocked unconscious. And he had very little reason to feel scared about a police officer just talking on his radio. That is paranoia and he most likely overreacted to his paranoid feelings that the cop was somehow after him. Injury in the execution of an arrest does happen, whether due to the officers' actions or accidentally. I haven't erred. I have given possibilities, all of which you are trying to insist are wrong simply because you have some sort of bias against the police officers.
National Lawyers Guild is a radical front for the Communist Party
In almost all domestic abuse cases there would be no picture showing the woman being pushed down, beaten or knocked unconscious. So, by your logic the injuries suffered by her should simply be dismissed as "she fell" and her account of being pushed down and beaten completely dismissed as unbelievable despite no history of false report, lying or trouble from the woman?
Or do you look at the possible scenario and rule out the unlikely event?
In this case, how likely is it that:
1. the man just fell when the officer was within arm's length and against the wall?
2. the witness, Ian King, who gave his account did not even mention the old man fell?
3. the man fell and instead of attending to the well being of the fallen old man the police officers just had him handcuffed behind his back while still on the ground?
Compare this to the more plausible scenario:
the old man, who didn't understand English, walked away and was pulled back by the cop. According to the witness, Ian KIng, that's when he began to struggle with the cop. "As soon as he pushed the cop, it was like cops started running in from everywhere.”
Cops in NYC Bloody Up An 84 Year Old Man Over Jaywalking : TheSource
Then the cops executed a take down to subdue the elderly subject for the handcuff and arrest. This scenario agree exactly to your point about police arresting a subject when resisting, struggling and pushing against the cop.
So, according to you, it is illegal and a big No-No to struggle and push a cop no matter what otherwise you would be handcuffed and arrested, right? Furthermore, wasn't it your point that the old man was handcuffed and arrested for pushing the cop? So, how is it that you don't believe the old man's account that he was pushed to the wall and then the ground, handcuffed and arrested in a standard police take down procedure such as this? :
Now, how about conceding to your wrong as pointed out in my post #123 (link below) about your misrepresentation of what the witness said?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...man-jaywalking-w-129-a-13.html#post1062874712
What do you mean "No that is not what the pics show"?See above post.
Communist Party = Group that doesn't agree with my brand of conservatism.
Long live McCarthyism
I'm generally supportive of the police, at least here in Toronto and Canada, but I have to say I find it remarkable that there are so many officers available to rush to the aid of an officer writing a jaywalking ticket. Are there units of officers on standby to assist and protect any officer not involved in an actual crime?
I'd also say there's probably nothing more irritating to a cop than a person whom he's talking to ignoring what he's saying. I can just imagine the attitude he was "copping" (there's a reason the term "copping and attitude" exists) when the little asian didn't speak English and wouldn't do as he was told.
This is not to say the elderly man was faultless in this - one, he should learn to speak English if he's going to break the law in America and two, he shouldn't break the law in America.
I'll throw you a party sometime.sadly for you I actually am very well versed in this area.
Hmm, well thanks for clearing up this whole matter for us...While the Communist party did not sponsor the formation of the NLG in the late 30s,
many of the founders were members of the Communist party. The NLG often represented members of communist labor when they had conflicts with government, management and often other more mainstream labor groups
In addition I have a degree in Industrial and Labor relations and labor law. The NLG figured prominently in our class concerning the history of labor movements in the USA.
I'll throw you a party sometime.
Hmm, well thanks for clearing up this whole matter for us...
Oh, so when a lawyer represents a person, that means that anything that person agrees with the lawyer also whole heartedly agrees with? So if I'm a lawyer and I defend a guy who was innocent of a crime, but is a racist, I'm also a racist?
Seriously, I know your a lawyer and all, but that should mean that you know to get yourself prepared before opening remarks. I can't imagine your shoot from the hip, come up with crap on the fly strategy is very effective in the courtroom.
Moderator's Warning: Focus on the topic, not on each other.
What do you mean "No that is not what the pics show"?
Didn't the pictures show the old man on the ground bloodied and with his hands handcuffed behind him? Wasn't he under police arrest then? Or did the pictures show the police attending to his well being following a fall?
You are missing the point here regarding DV scenario. The argument stemmed from your requirement for picture to be shown of the pushing to the ground and knock unconscious. You are not making any counterpoint regarding my rebuttal of your argument that no picture shows the old man being pushed to the ground nor knocked unconscious. When you have a he said-she said situation without video or picture evidence you still can piece together witnesses' account and other circumstantial and physical evidence to determine whose account is more likely and whose story is not plausible.
In this case we have a witness account and video of cops lifting him up from the ground while handcuffed and pictures of the old man bloodied on the ground with his hands handcuffed behind his back plus your argument that the police arrested him because he pushed the cop. By your own admission the intent of the cop was to execute an arrest because the old man pushed him back when the cop pulled him back. Your own argument supports and solidifies all the circumstantial and physical evidence pieced together with what the old man said and what the witness said which are very much consistent to what the old man said.
The police shouldn't even have given the old man a jaywalking ticket to begin with let alone treating him like a criminal by standing him up against the wall and pulling him back as if he had committed a serious crime. This cop should have exercise his discretion like the police officer at Time Square who stopped his police car to let jaywalkers cross the street despite the red "No Walking" light signal.
And also this jaywalking law was a knee-jerk reaction to recent car accident involving pedestrian deaths and was implemented shortly within 12 hours of the accident without adequate public notice. It was also not even a citywide policy but an impromptu precinct decision put into effect that looked more like milking the people than to protect their safety.
It takes you several days to come back just to regurgitate the same old lame argument and lies that had been defeated over and over again previously.See above.
Wow....just wow, man
Your continued hate-filled diatribe against law enforcement is really getting old
Points to clarify
1 Jaywalking is a civil infraction but also disorderly conduct can also be cited when *said* pedestrian impedes vehicular traffic (misdemeanor crime)
2 Obstructing, the officer *also a misdemeanor crime* and finally, the old man shoving/pushing a police officer is I believe a class C felony.
The bottom line is.. any subject old/young/male/female who shoves/pushes a cop should not expect a shove in return.
The law is crystal clear, you can’t shove/push a police officer
But it is plenty fine with police shoving and push other people because you believe police a exempt for law and rather that they are the law?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?