Seattle Cop Punches Woman in the Face

Wednesday, June 16th, 2010

Both women are overreacting here. Obviously the cop is as well. Make up your own mind about whether the punch was warranted. I think you could make a case that by the time the punch was thrown, the cop justifiably felt he was losing control of the situation. (And hey, at least he didn’t use his Taser.) Seems to me that the mistake came earlier: This started as a jaywalking citation. Was it it really so important that the woman get a jaywalking fine that she needed to be chased down and thrown against the patrol car? Even if she was trying to avoid the fine, seems like at some point you realize what’s at stake here (a single incident of someone undermining your authority to get away with a petty crime), and just let it go.


Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

257 Responses to “Seattle Cop Punches Woman in the Face”

  1. #1 |  Elliot | 

    Dennis N (#227): “Anarchy leads to USSRs and Third Reichs.”

    The Russian Empire was never a place of peaceful anarchy. The monarchy had massive armies, government bureaucracies, the Russian Orthodox Church, secret police, and the support of a large portion of the population. A costly, protracted war, coupled with organized rebels caused the government to collapse, at which point it was replaced. The chaos and disorder during the transition was not an easing of government rule, but simply a transitional phase. Much of the structures of the old regime were simply manned with new people, with new rules, whose cruelty was driven not by a lack of government power, but as the ultimate fulfillment of government totalitarianism.

    The Nazis were voted into office in elections. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the President. 85% of German voters chose to grant him even more power in the August 1934 plebiscite.

    I’m beginning to think you know nothing whatsoever of history.

  2. #2 |  Elliot | 

    BSK (#244): “Doesn’t [anarchy]] simply become a survival of the fittest model? Now, maybe fitness will be determined by reason, as some have suggested. But even reason and discourse doesn’t guarantee freedom from oppression.”

    That’s a common strawman used against anarchy and libertarian-type minarchy.

    Who asserts there are guarantees? Who asserts that no one will fail in a free market? Who asserts there will not be predators?

    BSK (#244): “At least with the government, we have some idea of who we’re being oppressed by and how.”

    At least if one’s next-door neighbor is raping a woman, she knows who her rapist is. She can take some comfort there, I suppose.

    BSK (#244): “We also have avenues to pursue grievances with this oppression (even if they are not entirely sufficient). In anarchy, I never quite know who or how I’m going to be oppressed and the likely only way to avoid oppression is to become an oppressor myself.”

    Uncertainty is not an ethical justification to prohibit the freedom of others to make their own peaceable choices.

    This universe is abound with uncertainty. An asteroid or caldera could wipe out most life on Earth tomorrow. You could slip and hit your head. A plane could malfunction and crash down on your head.

    Why is it that you think using aggressive force to coerce others is a proper way to deal with uncertainty?

  3. #3 |  Dennis N | 

    Thebottom line, despite the fevered rantings of anarchist wannabees, is that no sane society will allow Anarchy to exist. Your wishing that history was different, and refusing to see what is staring you in the face, doesn’t negate the fact that anarchy is the fevered pipe dream of people with time on their hands and nothing constructive to do with it. Anarchy destroys the stability that societies crave and need to thrive and grow. This is why every society in the world has developed some form of government.

    So continue to pine for anarchy while you pass the bong around. Sane people will pretty much ignore you, as will society, unless you pi$$ them off sufficiently.

    If you get in society’s way, or become sufficiently irritating, you will be destroyed and then forgotten. Every society in the World has done this, and always will.

  4. #4 |  Elliot | 

    Dennis N (#253): “Thebottom line, despite the fevered rantings of anarchist wannabees, is that no sane society will allow Anarchy to exist.”

    Instead of addressing the matter of using reason rather than force, instead of looking at right and wrong, you ignore those wholly logical points and short-circuit any civil dialog by concocting unfounded accusations of “fevered rantings” and suggestions of insanity.

    But what have any of the commenters to whom you object written which was “fevered” or “ranting” or “insane”? I, and others, have advocated freedom, self rule, consensual relationships, and the ethical superiority of using reason instead of aggressive force. (I’ll try to be as accurate as possible characterizing others who have posted comments here. If I stray over the line, my apologies, and if they are even reading this, they are free to correct me.)

    Dennis N (#253): “Your wishing that history was different, and refusing to see what is staring you in the face, doesn’t negate the fact that anarchy is the fevered pipe dream of people with time on their hands and nothing constructive to do with it.”

    If you read your comments and my corrections of your factual errors (USSR, Third Reich), you’ll find that it is you who thinks history was actually different than it was. I see, staring me in the face, the result of increasing government power being applied to large populations, not only in those totalitarian regimes, but in the US and other so-called “free” nations, like the UK. Contrary to your characterizations, none of the people here who have objected to the ugly, violent, and often deadly application of government power to the lives of us all have been puffing at opium pipes. I have no illusions about government evaporating and freedom bursting forth, like the ending of some melodramatic Hollywood feel-good movie.

    On the contrary, I and the people with whom I’m familiar (who may or may not be represented by others who have posted here) see what actually is and despair at the cost to ourselves and our neighbors, realizing that things are only getting worse, when it didn’t have to go this way in the “Land of the Free”. I choose not to put on blinders, wave the flag on the 4th of July to speeches peppered with meaningless references to “freedom”, or dumbly cling to hope that lining up at the polls will ever be a way to recapture lost freedoms.

    In other words, I look the facts straight in the eye and don’t like what I see. I’m not distracted by platitudes and false hope, nor dissuaded by nonsensical name-calling (“fevered rantings”, “pipe dreams”, insanity), nor convinced by the usual litany of logical fallacies put forth in furtherance of tradition, popularity, or “might makes right”.

    I’m simply pointing out what is unethical about the way things are, when people who are doing no harm to others are harmed for one bad excuse or another.

    Dennis N (#253): “Anarchy destroys the stability that societies crave and need to thrive and grow. This is why every society in the world has developed some form of government.”

    You’re using the words “anarchy” and “society” in ways that don’t make sense.

    “Anarchy” isn’t a thing which creates or destroys. Rational freedom (self rule) is simply a default condition of not being coerced by aggressive force. The absence of something bad doesn’t “destroy” anything. It just means a certain type of bad thing is not there. That is not to say that without government there aren’t predators, mind you. But without the false imprimatur of titles and fancy papers, good people clearly identify the predators for what they are, and aren’t misdirected.

    “Society” isn’t an entity with emotions or thoughts (“craving”), or capable of actions (“developing”). What you and others call “society” or “the people” or the “common good” is merely a way to tell the lie that some subset of people represent everyone else, even those who disagree. Governments are made of fallible people, with negative incentives that work against the freedom of the people they rule. They don’t actually represent others. Anyone who paid attention to Pelosi and Reid ramming through the Health Care Deform against the wishes of the majority of Americans can see that clear as day. Those liars will forever more claim that the American people, the “society”, decided to create this health care system. And, people like you will yell “amen” (or, you’ll disagree with them if you’re a Republican type, instead yelling “amen” at Republican lies).

    The “stability” you hold up as being more important than the freedom of individuals just another word for “safety”, and as Benjamin Franklin so famously pointed out, people like you who gladly trade freedom for safety will end up with neither.

    That wouldn’t be so bad if you only traded your own freedom for a false sense of safety. But you’re cheer leading your “meaner gang” to take away the freedoms of your neighbors to increase your illusion of safety. That’s despicable.

    Meanwhile, as you champion government as a panacea against instability, we have all sorts of events, past and future, of financial ruin made possible and made worse by government action. FDR prolonged the Great Depression (just as Bush and Obama are doing with the current recession). Government involvement in the housing market led to a glut of bad loans, which created the recent collapse. Pyramid schemes like Social Security and Medicare are looming on the horizon, certain to wreak untold havoc on our economy. Massive debt is right now, as we sit here, threatening to change our economic status in the world.

    And, that’s not even going into the boondoggles of foreign interventions, drug prohibition, etc..

    So, tell me exactly how has government created or maintained stability? Are you freaking kidding me?

    Again, don’t lie and claim that I’m pretending that anarchy is going to pop out of nowhere to solve everything. There will always be predation and serious problems that human beings have to face, with or without government. The real question is, how exactly is government HELPING, when all evidence shows it makes things worse?

    Dennis N (#253): “So continue to pine for anarchy while you pass the bong around. Sane people will pretty much ignore you, as will society, unless you pi$$ them off sufficiently.”

    Again, you make things up instead of discussing ethics.

    I don’t expect things to get better. I’m just hoping that more people will recognize right and wrong, and stop believing that the “meaner gang” system has any sort of moral probity.

    Dennis N (#253): “If you get in society’s way, or become sufficiently irritating, you will be destroyed and then forgotten. Every society in the World has done this, and always will.”

    Again, you’re pretending that “society” is something with emotions, thought, and action. What you’re really talking about are the people who wield special powers who do such horrible things. I’ve not forgotten the tens of millions murdered by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and their ilk, and no decent person tosses them into the memory hole, either.

    I know damned well that people who have or crave power, even under color of law, will often do bad things to those who stand up for their rights and the rights of their neighbors. Why must you keep repeating that mantra to try to intimidate others from advocating individual rights? We get it. You’re on the side of the bad guys.

    So what?

    That’s nothing to be proud of.

  5. #5 |  Elliot | 

    I’ll add to my last comment (#254): In an earlier comment (#227), you stated, “Anarchy leads to USSRs and Third Reichs.”. I corrected you in a follow-up comment (#251), pointing out that the Nazis were voted into power. Also, note that the Russian Empire was not a state of anarchy, but a large government which lost popular support (at which point the Tsar abdicated and various factions fought a civil war to assume power). Then, in comment (#253) you claimed that “every society in the world has developed some form of government” in order to achieve “the stability that societies crave and need to thrive and grow.”

    Notice how you’ve painted yourself into a corner. By your argument, the Nazis and Soviets formed (or changed) their government to provide “stability”.

    How’d that turn out?

  6. #6 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Awesomeness, Elliot.

    There are those that know how to debate and there are those that lose debates.

  7. #7 |  Waterproof Eyeliner | 

    Sure the women were going a bit overboard, I don’t think that punch was at all necessary.