Seattle officer punches girl in face during jaywalking stop

I'm a little surprised that this hasn't actually recieved comments yet from anyone on cka -- it seems to be one of those incidents which is fairly polarizing.

I have seen it on the news yesterday. When you touch an officer, you are in the wrong, especially when it's your cousin who gets arrested or whatever was going on. I agree he could have handled it another way, but I don't blame him. If this would have been a guy who would have been hit, it wouldn't have made the news...

I like it, because she was sticking her nose it where it didn't belong. But I hate it because jaywalking? Seriously? Why not charge folks for chewing gum in class? But I like it, because cops do have a shitty job. But I hate it, because punching a girl means you're a pussy. But I like it because sometimes it's just fun to see someone get punched in the face. But I hate it, because I'd really rather it were the cop that got punched.

By the time the dust settles, I bet the cop will wish he'd done things differently, even if he's not smart enough to understand why.

I don't think punching a girl in the face is a proper reaction. I think this officer needs some retraining consider how difficult it was for him to restrain one woman.

Two women, I do love the whole 'But it's a girl' defense, I have news, women are just as capable of causing damage as a man is, there are multiple areas a woman can target that can cause extreme pain. His actions are questionable but understandable.

Jaywalkers endanger their lives and the lives of motorists, so I agree with fines. It's like driving down a one way, the wrong way. Punching her in the face was wrong, pushing her away would have sufficed, and if it escalated from there, pepper spray or a ride down town would have been called for.

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.


But don't worry, with the ACLU, this case will be reopened...wide.

Pathetic.

I did, however, find it ironic that this all occurred on Martin Luther King, Jr. Way.

Reminds of that lady in Toronto who was hauled off in cuffs for not holding on to the hand rail of the escalator. Bring on the nanny state.

Lady in , hauled off for (ignoring an officer, arguing when he requested ID), you mean? I found the way they constructed those titles counterintuitive for what happened -- she didn't get dragged away to a cell, just like these two didn't, for causing minor fineable infractions, they got dragged away for causing problems when the cop was doing his job, according to the cops, anyways. You can't miss the middle bits, after all, as ridiculous as they may be in whoever's opinion, when describing a situation -- it defaces the events a bit, at least in the eyes of one side.

I don't really have an opinion on that incident, more details for people who want to read the article and form their own opinion on that: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ae_1242921430.

Yes she was obstructing an officer--by arguing that in a free country you really shouldn't be hauled away in cuffs for not holding on to a railing.

Bring on the nanny state. Anything not prohibited is mandatory! Who cares if we're not free, we'll be safe, right?

... by arguing she shouldn't have to pay a fine, not that she shouldn't get dragged away in cuffs, is how she was obstructing. Sorry if I missed something, I'm humour-impaired in news matters.

I mean, really, how hard is it to say "yes, officer", even when she was being given the ticket, and then fight it later?

I don't have an opinion either way on the actual incident, considering that the lady in the article who works for the transit company in that case said that they didn't even follow up on the fine warnings and that they were there for show (not sure what was up cop-wise) -- I just found it funny how they missed all the middle parts somehow in the titles for the article.

"Harper Takes Job as Company Mailboy, Offerred PM Position" kind of article.

My bad--this was a Montreal case not Toronto. You must be talking about a different case. In the Montreal case, the lady was arrested, hauled away in cuffs, held in a cell and fined for not holding a hand rail.





In a free country, people shouldn't get hauled away for stuff like that. Bring on the nanny state.

Pathetic and I don't mean the police officer. These kids are foul mouthed little savages and the one who thought she could get away with assault got exactly what she deserved.

Assault is assault, police officer or not, and if your stupid enough to do it, you've got to expect some consequences........which she got.

After watching the video and despite what the commentator seems to think he knows about the law, I seriously doubt anyone but the girl in pink will be seeing the inside of a courtroom.

Zipperfish, the first word in the first article of yours past the headline is "Montreal," and the second begins with "A Quebec woman." It's the same lady which is discussed in both, down to the name and age being mentioned in both, and yes, it did happen in Montreal.

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.

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.