t is normal to do what she did....kicking of your shows at people, cursing and threatening them. Happens every day and people enjoy it.
15 yr old girl, beat up by cop?
- Thread starter Liebling
- Start date
t is normal to do what she did....kicking of your shows at people, cursing and threatening them. Happens every day and people enjoy it.
If you think this video showed the girl "attacking" him, you're nuts.
If you think that's an accurate description of what occurred in the video, you're nuts.
What "attack"? The shoe? Give me a break.
You make it sound like she viciously kicked her show at his head or something. The shoe is clearly moving very slowly in the video, and there's no way it could have been moving fast enough to injure someone. It looks like it's less than a foot off the floor. As for the cussing and threatening, yeah, I imagine that probably is pretty normal for a cop.t is normal to do what she did....kicking of your shows at people, cursing and threatening them. Happens every day and people enjoy it.
The point is that people dont expect to be treated like that and if people were to go around doing what she did there would be fights all over the place.
He was wrong for doing what he did but her actions are not acceptible in society either. I dont think you wouldnt accept it from random people on the street either.
Like I (and others) have said, there's a distinct difference between cops and "regular people." The cops are supposed to be cool-headed enough to take the insults without themselves doing anything illegal. A cop certainly SHOULD expect that there's a good chance someone will insult him when he goes to work.
Edit: This is not just my opinion. The supreme court agrees with me.
Last edited:
Respect has to be earned, not simply given. As far as I'm concerned, elders are the ones who should show more calm, not youngsters. If he'd started disrespecting her verbally, that'd be one thing; he would have atleast shown that he could function at the level of a relatively normal, rebellious teen. He went much further then that, however.
The real question is, why wasn't this cop weeded out in the selection process? I definitely don't think he should be walking the beat unless he gets seriously rehabilitated if possible, complete with a profound apology to the girl in question.
Thank goodness for that.
Sorry but that's RUBBISH, she was in no position to hurt him.
“Fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment … [because] their content embodies a particularly intolerable and socially unnecessary mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey” (Antonin Scalia).
Law Dictionary: Fighting Words
Top Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > Law Dictionary"those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." 315 U.S. 568, 572. The utterance of fighting words is not protected by the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Id. Later cases support the view that it is not merely the words themselves, but the context in which they are uttered that qualify them as "fighting words," and there is often a further requirement that the words be spoken loudly, in a public place, with intent to have the effect of inciting the hearer to an immediate breach of the peace. 266 A. 2d 579, 584.
In tort law one who uses fighting words towards another, and who thereby creates reasonable apprehension in that person, may be guilty of an assault despite the doctrine that words alone do not constitute an assault. See generally Prosser & Keeton, Torts 45 (5th ed. 1984). See also defamation; slander.
http://www.answers.com/topic/fighting-words
You do not forfeit any rights being arrested, which she wasn't.
Even arrested the police don't have a right to use unnecessary force against a prisoner.
You are the one with no respect for the police.
Section 1983 Litigation: Jury Instructions
The defendant police officers claim they had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for obstructing a police officer in the conduct of his lawful duties. The parties agree that when police officer Doe attempted to arrest the plaintiff, the plaintiff called the officer [words].
The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism, challenges, and even profanity directed as police officers. The freedom of individuals to verbally oppose police action without risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free society from a police state.
Speech, even if provocative, is protected by the First Amendment unless it is shown likely to produce serious harm to government operations. This harm must be far more than mere inconvenience, annoyance or unrest.
The plaintiff’s speech in this case, while perhaps vulgar and offensive to some, was protected by the First Amendment unless you the jury, find, under all of the circumstances, that they constituted "fighting words." By fighting words the law means face-to-face epithets that are likely to provoke the average person to anger and a breach of the peace. In considering whether the plaintiff’s language directed at the police officer constituted fighting words, you may take into account the fact that a properly trained police officer may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than an average citizen, and thus be less likely to respond belligerently to fighting words than other persons.
[legal attributions cited]
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZL...&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPT381,M1
The defendant police officers claim they had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for obstructing a police officer in the conduct of his lawful duties. The parties agree that when police officer Doe attempted to arrest the plaintiff, the plaintiff called the officer [words].
The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism, challenges, and even profanity directed as police officers. The freedom of individuals to verbally oppose police action without risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free society from a police state.
Speech, even if provocative, is protected by the First Amendment unless it is shown likely to produce serious harm to government operations. This harm must be far more than mere inconvenience, annoyance or unrest.
The plaintiff’s speech in this case, while perhaps vulgar and offensive to some, was protected by the First Amendment unless you the jury, find, under all of the circumstances, that they constituted "fighting words." By fighting words the law means face-to-face epithets that are likely to provoke the average person to anger and a breach of the peace. In considering whether the plaintiff’s language directed at the police officer constituted fighting words, you may take into account the fact that a properly trained police officer may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than an average citizen, and thus be less likely to respond belligerently to fighting words than other persons.
[legal attributions cited]
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZL...&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPT381,M1
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
You don't even fuckin know me, dude. Get lost.
We don't need two sets of laws, we just don't need asshole cops thinking they are above the law. That video showed a disproportionate use of violence. That asshole cop should be fired, and jailed.
Human rights? I don't think so.
I hope you get the shit beaten out of you by some asshole cop. You deserve it.
You have obnoxious views, receding hair, and dress like a cheap magician, what else do we need to know?
if she is HIV+ or has AIDS, all she has to do is spit on a cop to hurt them.
There are just some chances cops shouldn't have to take.