Virginia teen was detained and prosecuted for saying 'OINK OINK' to cop

[Ophiolite]

"oink oink" isn't justified because it disrespects all cops, even the good ones.

The "oink, oink" was not directed at all cops. The action of the cops it was directed at demonstrated that they did not deserve respect. Continue being part of the problem if you wish. That is your choice in a free society.

 

[Sparagmos]

"oink oink" isn't justified because it disrespects all cops, even the good ones.

But it was 100% legal, and cops are there to enforce the law, not to enforce other moral or ethical standards.

 

[W2L]

The "oink, oink" was not directed at all cops. The action of the cops it was directed at demonstrated that they did not deserve respect. Continue being part of the problem if you wish. That is your choice in a free society.

Sorry my fault, i didnt read the whole article, maybe i missed that part. Still though its calling someone a pig. Kids should protest without slander.

 

[W2L]

But it was 100% legal, and cops are there to enforce the law, not to enforce other moral or ethical standards.

True.

 

[Ophiolite]

Sorry my fault, i didnt read the whole article, maybe i missed that part. Still though its calling someone a pig. Kids should protest without slander.

No problem. I agree it would be better if protest was dignified. We should also recognise that young people have a natural tendency to rebel - its arguably an essential part of growing up to become a mature adult. Saying "oink" to police officers is doubtless not the best way of achieving that growth process, but reacting as the officers did is not the best way of policing a community or building respect.

 

[devin553344]

Officers then behaving in a way to justify that disrespect, even worse. Are you opposed to cheek turning?

Reading the story the police paint a different and justified story. I guess it all depends on who you believe, the youth or the officers.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think they are taking the info out of police reports which should be accurately detailing and reporting what is going on as far as injuries.

It would be nice to think that unlike every other job....cops are happy to do unnecessary extra paperwork. I doubt it though.

We can use the amount of injury to accurately assess the danger

How? If someone throws punches at you....but they never land a clean punch or miss entirely, does that mean you were never in any danger?

Seems like a faulty premise.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It’s news to you that’s cops beat people up? That was in south Florida.

No....I read your earlier post....

"The police in my city are corrupt and unnecessarily violent. They’ve killed a number of mentally ill people unnecessarily and steal homeless people’s property. They teargas peaceful protesters after kettling (trapping) them. They’ve been busted associating with white supremecists. I don’t think they are serving the public equally and fairly."

 

[variant]

It would be nice to think that unlike every other job....cops are happy to do unnecessary extra paperwork. I doubt it though.

Police reports are some of the most tedious paperwork around.

It's a good portion of what police do, document everything they do.

So from your statistics:

Injuries

• Of the 60,211 officers who were assaulted, 17,476 (29.0 percent) sustained injuries. (Based on Table 80.)

• 32.0 percent of the officers who were attacked with personal weapons (e.g., hands, fists, or feet) suffered injuries. (See Table 85.)

• 14.1 percent of the officers who were assaulted with knives or other cutting instruments were injured. (See Table 85.)

• 10.2 percent of officers who were attacked with firearms were injured. (See Table 85.)

• 22.0 percent of officers who were attacked with other dangerous weapons were injured. (See Table 85.)

Unarmed physical assaults with hands fists ect had the highest injury percentage. So we can either conclude that they are reporting things like bruises and scrapes, or (as you seem to be suggesting) that serious injury is more likely to happen in unarmed rather than armed combat that has a lower rate of injury.

Now we should also probably extrapolate that the severity of the injury probably goes up when the attacker injures with a weapon.

How? If someone throws punches at you....but they never land a clean punch or miss entirely, does that mean you were never in any danger?

Seems like a faulty premise.

It's not the premise. I am judging danger by the rate of injury, an objective idea. You are judging it based upon a definition of a word we don't understand fully because it is obfuscated in the legal system.

The number of times assaulted doesn't tell us the danger involved because we can't assess what the nature of those assaults were.

Similarly we don't necessarily track near misses but rather car accidents to assess driver safety.

It's not perfect but it's a better measure. We aren't seeing the severity of injury in those statistics either so I am guessing we are still overestimating the danger.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Police reports are some of the most tedious paperwork around.

It's a good portion of what police do, document everything they do.

Well not the police I've worked with.

So from your statistics:

Injuries

• Of the 60,211 officers who were assaulted, 17,476 (29.0 percent) sustained injuries. (Based on Table 80.)

• 32.0 percent of the officers who were attacked with personal weapons (e.g., hands, fists, or feet) suffered injuries. (See Table 85.)

• 14.1 percent of the officers who were assaulted with knives or other cutting instruments were injured. (See Table 85.)

• 10.2 percent of officers who were attacked with firearms were injured. (See Table 85.)

• 22.0 percent of officers who were attacked with other dangerous weapons were injured. (See Table 85.)

Unarmed physical assaults with hands fists ect had the highest injury percentage. So we can either conclude that they are reporting things like bruises and scrapes, or (as you seem to be suggesting) that serious injury is more likely to happen in unarmed rather than armed combat that has a lower rate of injury.

That sounds about right....coming at a cop while armed is a good way to get shot. I would expect armed assaults to have a lower injury rate.

Now we should also probably extrapolate that the severity of the injury probably goes up when the attacker injures with a weapon.

Ok.

It's not the premise. I am judging danger by the rate of injury, an objective idea.

Judging it by rate of injury makes no sense. If you are attacked by knife wielding assailants 10 times in a year, and you only get injured once, that doesn't mean the other 9 weren't dangerous situations .

On the contrary, they're all dangerous. I understand you think you're making a valid point....but you aren't.

 

[SummerMadness]

The lengths some go to justify police misconduct is mind boggling. Even when the video contradicts the officer’s account, you still have defense of their actions while ignoring the outright lies. If there is no video, they wish to treat the officer’s testimony/report as gospel. When there is video that contradicts the “gospel,” ignore it and talk about, “We didn’t see what happened before the tape.” And even when you have the video before the incident, then it’s, “Well, they shouldn’t have been doing that.” Anything to justify police misconduct, and then we wonder why there is a problem and mistrust for the police.

 

[KCfromNC]

Sorry my fault, i didnt read the whole article, maybe i missed that part. Still though its calling someone a pig. Kids should protest without slander.

Yeah, how dare people say anything bad about people who will physically attack them for saying the wrong thing.

 

[variant]

Well not the police I've worked with.

Then you work with police that are bad at their job.

On the contrary, they're all dangerous. I understand you think you're making a valid point....but you aren't.

Just not in your opinion, and you're ignoring my main point.

Every "assault" is not created equally, and they are NOT all dangerous. It makes no sense at all to simply count the number of things considered assault and simply consider them all dangerous when lightly shoving an officer is an assault and so is going at them with a knife.

One is dangerous the other isn't. To lump them all together and consider all assaults dangerous is simply a category error.

How dangerous something is, should be measured by outcome here instead of looking at number of times "assaulted" and ASSUMING they are all dangerous without detailed information, we can look at the injury rate instead.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then you work with police that are bad at their job.

I wouldn't say so...it's not as if they're neglecting to do work required of them.

Just not in your opinion, and you're ignoring my main point.

Just not in my opinion? What?

Every "assault" is not created equally, and they are NOT all dangerous.

I actually acknowledged this....so I haven't ignored anything.

It makes no sense at all to simply count the number of things considered assault and simply consider them all dangerous when lightly shoving an officer is an assault and so is going at them with a knife.

I understand that you found a few cases where assault charges probably weren't warranted. I agree.

Do you know if any of those charges were dropped? Did any result in conviction? Were those descriptions of "assault" the entire incident...or just part of an incident of assault?

Most importantly....were any of those incidents counted in the FBI's statistics?

One is dangerous the other isn't. To lump them all together and consider all assaults dangerous is simply a category error.

I'm not lumping them together....you are. Please read the FBI's reporting methods and pay close attention to whether or not they claim to have counted every single incident of assault.

How dangerous something is, should be measured by outcome

Why? I've already explained the problem with this....a problem you're ignoring. It's beyond ridiculous to claim that something wasn't "dangerous" if it didn't result in injury.

There's plenty of soldiers who have seen combat....been fired on by enemy soldiers....narrowly avoided explosions....and managed to get through it with no real injuries. If we were to use your reasoning here....they were never in any real danger at all.

By contrast, a chef who cuts his finger deeply while slicing vegetables has a more dangerous job!

So please, explain why this is a reasonable method for determining "danger"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then you work with police that are bad at their job.



Just not in your opinion, and you're ignoring my main point.

Every "assault" is not created equally, and they are NOT all dangerous. It makes no sense at all to simply count the number of things considered assault and simply consider them all dangerous when lightly shoving an officer is an assault and so is going at them with a knife.

One is dangerous the other isn't. To lump them all together and consider all assaults dangerous is simply a category error.

How dangerous something is, should be measured by outcome here instead of looking at number of times "assaulted" and ASSUMING they are all dangerous without detailed information, we can look at the injury rate instead.

Here variant....I'll help you out...

From the "methodology" section of the link I provided....

"Law enforcement agencies report to the UCR Program the number of assaults resulting in injuries to their officers or instances in which an offender used a weapon that could have caused injury or death. Law enforcement agencies report other assaults (i.e., those not causing injury) if they involved more than verbal abuse or minor resistance to an arrest."

So, can we agree now that your attempts to dismiss all these assaults on police is nonsense? Of your previous 4 examples....which would be included in this study?

1. Punching a police officer in the face.
2. Standing behind a gate holding it closed while an officer tries to push it open.
3. Sitting in your car grabbing the steering wheel while an officer tries to drag you out of your car.
4. Standing at a Metro station with your hands in your pockets, refusing to take them out of your pockets when an officer commands you to.

Hint- It's only #1.

 

[variant]

Why? I've already explained the problem with this....a problem you're ignoring. It's beyond ridiculous to claim that something wasn't "dangerous" if it didn't result in injury.

So please, explain why this is a reasonable method for determining "danger"?

Because it objectively measures danger. Injury is what makes the job inherently dangerous.

Wherever the line between minor resistance to arrest and an assault is in their methodology it's going to be blurrier than actually receiving an injury.

If I wanted to measure the danger of thunderstorms I would count property damage and injury (what I actually care about) rather than lightning strikes, wind and hale.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If I wanted to measure the danger of thunderstorms I would count property damage and injury (what I actually care about) rather than lightning strikes, wind and hale.

You're measuring damage at that point...not how dangerous something is. Danger expresses the possibility of damage happening.

If you're a cop....you've got about a 1 in 10 chance of being assaulted.

 

[variant]

You're measuring damage at that point...not how dangerous something is. Danger expresses the possibility of damage happening.

And how do you measure possibility? By looking at outcomes.

If you're a cop....you've got about a 1 in 10 chance of being assaulted.

And a 1 in 30 chance of being injured.

It's a good thing we train the police to defend themselves.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And how do you measure possibility? By looking at outcomes.

No...you'd need to look at the number of instances.

If an airplane crashes....it should be counted when considering the dangers of air travel. It doesn't matter if no one was injured, everyone died, or some mix of injured, uninjured, and dead.

We're talking about how dangerous it is to be a cop....not how dangerous it is to be assaulted.

 

[variant]

No...you'd need to look at the number of instances.

If an airplane crashes....it should be counted when considering the dangers of air travel. It doesn't matter if no one was injured, everyone died, or some mix of injured, uninjured, and dead.

I'm sorry but the rate of injury and death of plane crashes DO matter in the assessment of the danger of air travel.

The rate of crashes matter too because the entire job of airplanes is to not do that as much as possible.

We're talking about how dangerous it is to be a cop....not how dangerous it is to be assaulted.

And how can you assess one without assessing the other?

Being assaulted isn't by definition dangerous when 2 out of 3 times it doesn't cause serious injury and we're counting everything north of minor resistance to arrest.

If we simply make a blanket statement that assaults are dangerous then it is more dangerous to be in high school:

Physical Fighting by Youth - Child Trends

Exerpt:

• In 2017, about one in four high school students (24 percent) reported being in a physical fight in the past year, a continued decrease from the 1991 high of 43 percent.

So, is it more or less dangerous to be a police officer or a high school student where you are assaulted on average twice as much?