SCSL said:
haha i see why you could interpret PDX as that. no, PDX just stand for Portland, as in the Portland International Airport. I never thought about it like that before though.
Seattle 5-oh punches woman for jay-walking
- Thread starter SCSL
- Start date
haha i see why you could interpret PDX as that. no, PDX just stand for Portland, as in the Portland International Airport. I never thought about it like that before though.
p m said:
Peter, I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but it's true (as I said, "to an extent").
Obviously the rule of law can turn to oppression, and all-too quickly, but a complete lack of law and order results in situations like Somalia. I greatly prefer law-enforcement and a government we can affect through direct action to anarchy, which quickly turns into "rule by warlords".
Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were nations of laws.knewsom said:
You made a blanket statement and immediately disowned it by adding "to some extent" to it.
p m said:
So is North Korea. I didn't tack on "to some extent," I predicated my statement with it as an acknowledgement that law can certainly be used to eliminate freedom as well - the main point is that in this nation (as in many), our laws protect us from oppression, violence, etc. and KEEP us free. Law and Law Enforcement are like guns - they are tools that can be used for a variety of purposes. Because something can be used to oppress does not make it inherently evil.
p m said:
I know what you mean about Germany.
We must be very careful in choosing which acts to make criminal. The enforcement apparatus of state is a very blunt instrument to be used with extreme caution, lest we find ourselves on the receiving end. An argument could be made that, as a society, we have allowed the creation of a law 'enforcement' culture that trained the young man in the video that such a situation is ok. From some other boards I'm on, the LEO opinion is overwhelmingly similar to what was mentioned here earlier: "She didn't get punched for jay-walking, but for resisting arrest".
I have long respected your posts. What is your opinion on this situation?
Steve, I am in complete agreement with you on this one.
The whole situation should not have happened. The authority of law enforcement is wasted on very minor infraction.
After all, jaywalking is one of the best means of Darwinian selection in our society.
The whole situation should not have happened. The authority of law enforcement is wasted on very minor infraction.
After all, jaywalking is one of the best means of Darwinian selection in our society.
SCSL said:
Now now, don't go putting words in my mouth. There's obviously a fine line between a free, lawful society and oppression - just as there is between freedom and anarchy.
knewsom said:
My apologies if you feel I was putting words into your mouth. That was not my intention. However, the reality is that the state represents a small number of overlords who monopolize force and determine, through their great wisdom and insight, what, when, and how much to regulate.
Your basic assumptions are contained in your response:
"...a fine line between a free, lawful society and oppression." Implicit in this statement are several assumptions that deserve testing:
1. That a free society can only be obtained through the passage of laws, ie: regulation
2. That in the absense of laws created by the state, we will have "oppression"
3. That there is a "fine line" between 'just enough' laws and too many laws
4. That we can control the horrific monster of state to determine 'just the right amount' of regulation, neither too much, nor too little
Further:
"...between freedom and anarchy."
I am not sure how you are defining "anarchy", but this word does not mean what you think it means. Anarchy is merely the absence of that group of overlords with a monopoly on force, otherwise known as the state. Perhaps you are adopting the state's usage of the term anarchy, popularized during WWI, as suggesting that absent the state, man would be unable to function and in a constant state of fear, stress, and pain. If I were a state in the early 20th century, I too would have suggested that the modern state is the only rational way to organize human beings. After all, how else would I get millions of men to march towards their deaths?
You guys are all making comments based on incomplete information. This incident happened two blocks from my house on Rainier Ave. I drive up and down that street several times a week. It's a busy 5-lane road. I walk past the exact spot of the incident every day when I take the train to work.
Let me tell you a little bit about my neighborhood.
The first thing that nobody on discoweb knows is that ten feet from where these women jaywalked there is a pedestrian overpass that spans Rainier Ave. It is possible to cross the street here a million times and have zero chance of being hit by a car (or arrested). The fact that these women chose to jaywalk directly beneath the pedestrian overpass shows a complete lack of judgment and common sense, not to mention a disregard of public safety. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Jaywalking is a common activity in my neighborhood. Part of it is due to the the road design and how unfriendly it is to pedestrians. There are not many lights and limited places where pedestrians can cross the street safely. Part of it is due to the large high school nearby, where invincible teenagers think they can cheat death and run out into oncoming traffic. Part of it is a broader attitude in the community that jaywalking is acceptable. People expect cars to stop for them in the middle of the street.
As a pedestrian in my neighborhood, I can understand why people choose to jaywalk. As a driver, it is infuriating. I have had to learn to watch closely for people suddenly darting into traffic, drive a little slower, and sometimes I lose my patience and just lay into my horn as I pass a jaywalker. :banghead:
It's definitely a public safety hazard. It's a crime, and it should be. Yes, I would prefer that the police were focusing their attentions on the gun violence and gang activity that happens a little further south of my home, but having lived here for 2+ years I have seen lots of close calls and a few collisions along Rainier Ave. As a citizen and resident, I applaud the Seattle police department for enforcing this law. This kind of enforcement makes me feel like I'm getting value from my taxes. These women were not only endangering themselves, they were endangering other people.
Should the cop have punched the woman? I think that was an unnecessary response, but not without justification. The cop was attacked, the video clearly shows who instigated and escalated the fracas. The women involved showed incredibly poor judgment from the moment they chose to walk into the street (right under the fucking bridge!) to the moment they were put into cuffs. This attitude shows a complete lack of personal responsibility and accountability. People are on edge about this right now, especially since another officer is under investigation for stomping on another suspect (on video) a couple weeks ago. In the jaywalking case I stand behind the actions of the cop. In the stomping case I condemn the actions of the cop.
Let me tell you a little bit about my neighborhood.
The first thing that nobody on discoweb knows is that ten feet from where these women jaywalked there is a pedestrian overpass that spans Rainier Ave. It is possible to cross the street here a million times and have zero chance of being hit by a car (or arrested). The fact that these women chose to jaywalk directly beneath the pedestrian overpass shows a complete lack of judgment and common sense, not to mention a disregard of public safety. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Jaywalking is a common activity in my neighborhood. Part of it is due to the the road design and how unfriendly it is to pedestrians. There are not many lights and limited places where pedestrians can cross the street safely. Part of it is due to the large high school nearby, where invincible teenagers think they can cheat death and run out into oncoming traffic. Part of it is a broader attitude in the community that jaywalking is acceptable. People expect cars to stop for them in the middle of the street.
As a pedestrian in my neighborhood, I can understand why people choose to jaywalk. As a driver, it is infuriating. I have had to learn to watch closely for people suddenly darting into traffic, drive a little slower, and sometimes I lose my patience and just lay into my horn as I pass a jaywalker. :banghead:
It's definitely a public safety hazard. It's a crime, and it should be. Yes, I would prefer that the police were focusing their attentions on the gun violence and gang activity that happens a little further south of my home, but having lived here for 2+ years I have seen lots of close calls and a few collisions along Rainier Ave. As a citizen and resident, I applaud the Seattle police department for enforcing this law. This kind of enforcement makes me feel like I'm getting value from my taxes. These women were not only endangering themselves, they were endangering other people.
Should the cop have punched the woman? I think that was an unnecessary response, but not without justification. The cop was attacked, the video clearly shows who instigated and escalated the fracas. The women involved showed incredibly poor judgment from the moment they chose to walk into the street (right under the fucking bridge!) to the moment they were put into cuffs. This attitude shows a complete lack of personal responsibility and accountability. People are on edge about this right now, especially since another officer is under investigation for stomping on another suspect (on video) a couple weeks ago. In the jaywalking case I stand behind the actions of the cop. In the stomping case I condemn the actions of the cop.
So, Tugela, just to be clear:
Punched by the agents of the state = ok
Stomped by the agents of the state = not ok
And you would like to employ the blunt force of state to protect the citizenry from errant citizens choosing to cross the street they paid for at the time of their own rational determination. Anything less than complete, limp submission to such enforcement may automatically and irrevokably escalate the situation from a ticket to a punch (or, potentially, a stomp)?
Punched by the agents of the state = ok
Stomped by the agents of the state = not ok
And you would like to employ the blunt force of state to protect the citizenry from errant citizens choosing to cross the street they paid for at the time of their own rational determination. Anything less than complete, limp submission to such enforcement may automatically and irrevokably escalate the situation from a ticket to a punch (or, potentially, a stomp)?
SCSL said:
I'm afraid reality disagrees with your idealistic view of anarchy. In the places on this planet where there is no state, no law, no order, theft, rape, violence, and murder are commonplace. To some extent, this depends on the scale of the population. Sure, in a tribe of 50 or 100 people in a rural setting, no state is necessary as they can easily govern themselves. In a place like Somalia, however, this is simply not the case. As I said before, to a certain extent, law and order are necessary for a free society. It's also not about the NUMBER of the laws, but about what's illegal, and how proportionate the response by Law Enforcement. This is not a simple discussion, it's obviously very convoluted.
I'm as opposed to oppression and the idea of a police-state as you are, and completely agree that in this particular instance, the response to the offense of jaywalking was not proportionate. ...however, the video we all saw did not begin until after things started getting ugly. How did it get to that point? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that the officer in question didn't run up to a jaywalker and start beating them.
ptschram
Well-known member
If we have a law that is supported by the local constituents, enforce it.
If it's not supported, do away with it. There is a process to do so, but few exercise the right to directly influence legislation.
As for this situation, she got what she deserved for interfering with the cop. She should have walked away and made arrangments to bail her friend out the next day.
If it's not supported, do away with it. There is a process to do so, but few exercise the right to directly influence legislation.
As for this situation, she got what she deserved for interfering with the cop. She should have walked away and made arrangments to bail her friend out the next day.
Hmm, all this statist, etc. talk.
The lady in question was out of line, wrestling around with the cop. Handle your problem like a civilized person and do not put your hands on the "official of the state" first and foremost. Wtf do you expect? If you think he is wrong in whatever he stopped you for, there are other ways to argue that, other than wrestling around in the street.
What I see there is no respect for the police, bitches being loud, etc. And stop blowing this out of proportion and using this one isolated incident to construct a view of the overall state taking over our rights. It makes you sound ignorant.
Go j-walk in Hawai and see if you get slapped with a fine.
The lady in question was out of line, wrestling around with the cop. Handle your problem like a civilized person and do not put your hands on the "official of the state" first and foremost. Wtf do you expect? If you think he is wrong in whatever he stopped you for, there are other ways to argue that, other than wrestling around in the street.
What I see there is no respect for the police, bitches being loud, etc. And stop blowing this out of proportion and using this one isolated incident to construct a view of the overall state taking over our rights. It makes you sound ignorant.
Go j-walk in Hawai and see if you get slapped with a fine.
Last edited:
SCSL said:
Good point. My point was not in the broad context though, my point was more along the lines of the fact that we don't even have a video of the incident, and the investigation by those involved hasn't even got half-way through yet.
No, it is not. I'm trying to make the point that this is pretty much an incident that is what it is. She resisted, hit, pushed, and cussed out the officer. She had an accomplice with her, both getting at the officer. That is what we have, that's it.
If you want to talk about the broader context of having too many laws, etc... that is fine, I just don't see this particular incident as really having anything to do with that.
Yeah, you're just assuming way too much here from this one little incident. Again, the officer may have been a bit out of line with a punch in the face. But he SHOULD have taken her down SOMEHOW.
He is not serving the interests of the state, he is serving our interests. It is not in the interest of the state to not have jay-walkers, it is in the interest of pedestrians and motorists. Again, the incident you have chosen to use for this discussion is just out of balance for this discussion, it does not fit.
If you want to discuss the idea of the state being over zealous with it's power, you should be discussing the stated policy of the Obama administration to use a crisis to gain more power. You should be worried about anti-free speech on the internet and on talk radio. You should be worried about a global free trade tax based on the perceived causes of climate change. You should be worried about the fact that Obama is going to nationalize health care, the oil industry, the auto industry, etc...
A wrestling match on a street corner in Seattle is not going to get you anywhere on this subject.
SCSL said:
SCSL, the context of the original crime has nothing to do with the context of the crime of assaulting a police officer. That is why she was punched and rightly so.
All this talk about a Police State.... brings back some foggy memories from Humboldt County!
http://music.humboldtmusic.com/RodDealAndTheIdeals_Police_State.mp3
http://music.humboldtmusic.com/RodDealAndTheIdeals_Police_State.mp3
SCSL said:
And what in your mind are the "interests of the state"? Is one of them to allow each and every police officer (who are underpaid and have to put up with BS everyday) to be able to punch "innocent" citizens in the face just for no reason? As some others pointed out, this incident has nothing to do with some fictitious state control that you are fuming about. Somehow I ve never had issues with the police trying to punch me in the face, wrongfully imprison me or just give me a ticket for no reason whatsoever. Hmmm, wonder what would happen if I tackled a police officer? I guess his state provided mental conditioning would automatically trigger his state funded training, which in turn would make him mindlessly execute a hidden state agenda, thus severely infringing on my personal rights for no reason whatsoever.