[Zipperfish]

Khar Khar:

In both cases, it was the same. The lady was haughty to the police officer when he asked her to follow a simple rule either clearly known (this case) or posted (previous case) several times. In the case from Montreal, the lady refused to provide her ID to an officer, and could easily have done so and fought it at the station. Her arrest was due to her refusal to follow simple instructions from an offer.

OK first of all, it's a nanny state law to require holding on to a handrail at all time. I have never heard of a fatality due to falling from an escalator because a person wasn't holding a handrail. Not saying it hasn't happened--just saying I've certainly never heard of it. So that's problem number 1, right there. It shouldn't even BE a law to start with.

Problem Number 2--inconsistent application of law. Why this person? Again, in the linked article and others it's clear that the sign is often ignored. It is not justice when officers arbitrarily choose to whom the law should apply. (Same for jaywalkers actually. I work in downtown Vancouver and I've never seen a businessman get a jaywalking ticket, but skateboarders get them all the time).

Also, it is not against the law to be "haughty" to a police officer. It's an unfortunate fact of life that many police officers think it is. Nor is it against the law to talk back to a peace officer. However, the peace officer--since he is the one with the weapons--can haul you in any time for any reason, book you and there is not much you can do about it. The fact that he has the power to do that does not make it legally justified.

$1:

Whether it should happen or not, or whether or not this is a nanny state issue, is not something I'm really all for discussing, I'd just like to point out that she did not get arrested for going down the escalator without holding on -- she got arrested for obstructing a police officer following that, all she was getting was a fightable fine which was going to happen either way.

Clearly you're a fan of the nanny state and that's fine--quite in vogue these days actually. I attribute this to an aging, frightened population that needs to feel they are "safe." It goes with the general shift to the right, politically, we're seeing in the western world these days. It's really bad in England, and it's catching on here too. Even the US is not immune to its insidious influence.

[Khar]

Zipperfish, you've put so many words into my mouth I'm afraid they can't fit. I'm not really interested in discussing nanny laws because, frankly, it's a term I never heard before today and didn't feel I knew enough to discuss it. I also did not say it was illegal to be haughty to the police officer, although you did skate over where I said where I thought there was a line -- when the lady refused and argued to give over her ID so he could write a ticket.

My only reason coming in here was because you were appropriating another incident and were being inconsistent in it's usage, and I wanted to correct it a bit, even if it wasn't a big thing. I'm not going to sit here and defend the legality of what that officer did, because, yes, I did think it was stupid. Yes, it's inconsistent, but so are most fines out there. I'm just trying to be lighthearted.

[Public_Domain]

[ShepherdsDog]

When bad attitudes collide.

[Public_Domain]

[martin14]

CharlieHammer CharlieHammer:

She was resisting arrest. Case closed. Her friend was trying to assist her escape. Case closed.

As to answer the question of the guy in the video: "are you serious?"

Yeah, the cop was SERIOUSLY trying to enforce laws that this mob was SERIOUSLY disobeying.

not seeing much of a problem here.


But I'm sure the cries of racism will be long and loud.

[Zipperfish]

Khar Khar:

Zipperfish, you've put so many words into my mouth I'm afraid they can't fit. I'm not really interested in discussing nanny laws because, frankly, it's a term I never heard before today and didn't feel I knew enough to discuss it.

Then there's not much to discuss, because that is my main concern with this whole affair--though it should be noted that you responded to my original post about "bring on the nanny state."

yes, a police officer can legally arrest someone for refusing to present ID. Actually he can arrest someone for being "haughty"--except in that case the arrest would not be legal, but most citizens would never be able to do much about that. There's not much in the way of recourse if you are illegally arrested, unless you wind up dead in custody, and even then...

Maybe the cop was just a dick, or maybe she flipped out on him. Regardless, in my opinion, in a free society, you don't have laws that force people to hold on to the handrail on escalators.

In a bone of contention of mine. In Vancouver, it's illegal to dance in many drinking establishments. And you can be arrested for playing music in Stanley Park.

[Khar]

Bah, details, details! I didn't respond to the nanny state initially at all, only that you got a little lost on the way to Montreal.

I have no clue about people being arrested for "haughtiness", hence why I avoided discussing it's legalities. I'm always worried I'll say something patently false and I hate backpedalling.

[Zipperfish]

Khar Khar:

Bah, details, details! I didn't respond to the nanny state initially at all, only that you got a little lost on the way to Montreal.

I have no clue about people being arrested for "haughtiness", hence why I avoided discussing it's legalities. I'm always worried I'll say something patently false and I hate backpedalling.

Yes, I only have about three tunes and "nanny state" is one of them. "Global warming" is another old fave. And mucking about in foreign policy but I don't know that one as well. Oh--and epistemological underpinnings of science and religion but no one ever wants to hear that one.

[Benn]

Just Jaywalking? Yes it was. But he was trying to arrest them for resisting a lawful order. He only asked them to come over to the car, according to the article, and they refused and got verbally abusive. What kind of people refuse to come over and talk to police for a moment?

Anyhow, cut to the tape. People are saying "Its only two women" Yet its not. The officer, from his perspective has a larger group surrounding him including some jeering him who also sound like they could get combative. So from his perspective its potentially more than 2 on 1 and he has to eliminate threats that are attacking him to be assured he can properly deal with more that might come. He effectively did this. Could have have used spray? I suppose, but in his situation he does not have a lot of time to debate reactions like we all do. Was it right to hit a woman? Well as someone mentioned why shouldn't he? He should treat every threat the same regardless of gender.

If I had any criticism for him it would be that he should have just let the women alone since he was already dealing with someone. Trying to drag in a whole neighborhood yourself for a very minor charge might not be the best thing to try, yet we don't know what happened before the video to be sure how things played out before it started.

[ShepherdsDog]

If a cop flags you down at a checkstop do you ignore him and or become verbally abusive? (In Winnipeg, they don't lip off, they just try and run the cops down.)

[BartSimpson]

What I see here, first and foremost, is an officer of the law who was immediately concerned for his personal safety. He's first dealing with a belligerant suspect who's resisting over a minor infraction...where I come from that's probable cause to suspect the person for much more than jaywalking*. Second, he's got a physically imposing and aggressive woman who is physically contesting him for control of the first suspect and then there's the unseen (yet logically obvious) third person who is engaging the officer in close proximity with the camera.

From the officer's point of view he is dealing with three aggressive individuals and his personal safety is at threat. I don't give f*** all to any other concern, his department and for damn sure his union had better have his back on this as every officer's FIRST priority is their own personal safety and this officer maintained that. That some foul mouthed, combative *$#@%! took a well-deserved punch in the kisser is utterly irrelevant to me.

Maybe next time she commits a minor infraction she'll act like a peaceful person and not like a potential fugitive felon.

*Most fugitive felons come into custody by their actions when stopped for minor offenses. Timothy McVeigh comes to mind as a very good for instance.

[andyt]

This seems pretty standard behavior for black women - escalating a routine stop. There's that video on that show that shows traffic cops dealing with crazy drivers. Cop pulls over black woman for a minor infraction, and she takes it to the next level, where he has to get rough with her and arrest her. 'course the excuse is that the cops are racist (even the black ones) and so black people don't trust them. But if you're going to escalate routine stops, maybe it's you that's racist, or think you deserve special treatment.

Almost all of the bystanders were black as well. If I was that cop I would be concerned for my safety. It's good that the bystanders had the sense to stay out of it, tho it sure looked like they were working themselves up to getting involved.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

What I see here, first and foremost, is an officer of the law who was immediately concerned for his personal safety. He's first dealing with a belligerant suspect who's resisting over a minor infraction...where I come from that's probable cause to suspect the person for much more than jaywalking*.

*Most fugitive felons come into custody by their actions when stopped for minor offenses. Timothy McVeigh comes to mind as a very good for instance.

I don't buy this. I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, and avoiding cops was due to being constantly hassled by them, not because we had outstanding warrants or anything to hide.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't buy this. I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, and avoiding cops was due to being constantly hassled by them, not because we had outstanding warrants or anything to hide.

This is not about avoiding cops, this is about having a physical confrontation with a cop. I certainly won't fault anyone for avoiding cops as that is their right, but having a wrestling match with a cop is an invitation to problems.