Branko2166 said:
DD_Bwest said:
Lulz said:
Zero999 said:
It's really simple. if he didn't had the right to arrest the other woman, then the woman in pink has the right to help. but regardless of that, she just made sure to remove his grip from the other woman and keep a distance between them. she didn't threaten his physical integrity but he punched her directly in the face for no reason. there's no way around it, HE MUST GO UNDER ARREST, period.
|
First, your punctuation and grammar are absolutely atrocious.
Second, and more importantly, you are 100% wrong. That cop had every righ to punch that woman in the face. He also had every right to place the first woman under arrest. They jay-walked. He decided to enforce the law. They decided to ignore him and try to brush past him. In what universe do you think that's how society should work? What exactly was the officer supposed to do? Follow behind them begging them very nicely to please stop so that he could do his job?
Don't be such a dunce.
If that's how the world worked how would any law be enforced? How could any police officer actually do his job if people that broke the rules were just allowed to walk away from him without him being able to retsrain the person?
In fact, that woman who tried to free her friend by putting her hands on the officer should have gotten more than a single punch to the face. Police officers carry guns, batons, and pepper spray on them at all times. You can't have disorderly civilians grabbing at them. I'm sure the women in pink didn't indend to grab his gun and use it, but can the cop actually take that chance? His safety is the priority in that situation. The safety of the woman who could potentially take one of his weapons and use it against him is an after thought.
|
im glad you said it, saved me the time of writing a long winded post.
its also important to note that the cop was cleared of any wrong doing, and she was charged with obstruction of justice and apolagized.
|
+1
It is a bit worrying how misguided or seemingly brainwashed some people are. We have laws for a reason. They apply to everyone and under all circumstances. Obviously we have our own individual moral compass but we must all follow the same law otherwise we run the risk of anarchy/disorder.
As far as the gender angle goes which has been debated in this thread, I think a bit of common sense should apply. Wether you are male or female and no matter what race you are you should expect to be dealt with harshly if you attempt to get physical in any way with the police. Even if you feel you are wrongly being targeted/arrested. The right way to deal with it is to submit to the arrest without resisting and then contest the charges if necessary.
Personally I am for equality where everyone is treated fairly under law with no consideration of gender/race/religion etc.
Also regarding the cop carrying weapons, not only does he have to take into consideration his own safety but that of others as well. Consider what could happen not only to him but also others in close proximity if his weapon/s were taken from him by someone.
@S.T.A.G.E.
You cannot have it both ways. Either women are equal hence get treated equally. Or you consider them unequal in some respects and they should then have specific special considerations/privelages over men.
|
Theres two types of equality, biological equality and social equality. Its never that simple. Its been an issue with feminism vs anti-feminism for years.
