Yes, but you wouldn't have felt the need to make that statement at all if you were not implying that they were that way BECAUSE they come from other countries. If you did not mean that, why even mention it?

Because I don't like the way that a lot of them act. And not towards me, but people in general, including the professors.

But what does that have to do with anything. Why is how some non-Americans at your college act relevant to a discussion on why someone would want to live in America or elsewhere?

You mentioned it because you are assuming that they act that way because they're non-American!

Do I want to live there? No. Would I visit? Yes.

Where exactly are you talking about??

I don't want to live anywhere else other than the U.S., but I wouldn't mind visiting other parts of the world.

He used far too much force, she did not push or shove him, she put her hands on his chest and you can clearly see she starts to talk, then he punches her in the face, she does not then try to fight him as people have claimed on here, someone helps her away because a man has just punched her in the face! I know when my friends have done things (none as petty as jay walking) they have never been handled in such a way by the police even if they have been swearing at them and not cooperating, I also know if I walked to the police officer to ask if I could calm my friend down, he/she would certainly not be in his/her rights to punch me in the face.

You missed the WHOLE point! Under Washington State law, the SECOND she put her hands on a Police Officer...he is justified in using force.

Do you know how many times a day or week that they struggle with people and they try and grab their weapons?

Also, he was surrounded by a large group WHILE struggling with not ONE but TWO obnoxious women. And she did MORE than just put her hands on his chest...She GRABS him and tries to WRESTLE him. That's a FELONY!

Check the video again...she did shove him. He was talking to the friend and she got in between both the police officer and her friend and SHOVED them. She then proceeded to mouth the police officer and press forward. And she didn't just walk up to the police officer to ask if she could calm her friend down. I don't know how your judicial system works over there, but here you don't TOUCH a police officer ESPECIALLY when he is in the middle of a confrontation with the individuals mouthy friend. It's a good way to get a bullet in your head or a punch in the mouth. :D

it doesn't matter what she was in trouble for - that's not why he punched her. he punched her because they were grabbing him and trying to break free. you deserve the punishment you get when you do something wrong, so just stfu and listen. things like this wouldn't happen if you'd just follow the law. it's there for a reason. i think she deserved a punch in the face.

The two were caught jay walking and the police officer wanted to speak to them. That's it. But the girl in black walked away. When he went to stop her from walking away she put up a struggle, which is where the whole thing exploded.

http://hiphopandpolitics.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/police-drama-in-seattle-17-year-old-girl-punched-in-face-by-cop-during-jay-walking-stop/

I think that the officer was justified. A little over-dramatic but justified. This 17 year old girl was obstructing justice. She was pushing at the officer, trying to shove him off her friend in order to escape arrest. A lot of people have been saying, "Wow, arrested for JAYWALKING?!"... no arrested because the police just wanted to talk to them about it, and they raised a fuss. If those girls HONESTLY would have just listened to the officer, I bet he would have just let them off with a verbal warning. No ticket, nothing.

But because these girls re-acted the way they did, they're probably going to have criminal records. The best word to describe this situation in my mind... "Owned."

Thank you. You TOTALLY just said it all. People are completely missing the point of this whole situation. Everyone's all...But it's only jaywalking. No, it's FELONY ASSAULT on a Peace Officer!

People need to seriously think about their actions and the consequences that result from them.

I think he was justified because the girl pushed him. Before that happened he was just trying to get them to stay where they were when they tried to walk away and he looked pretty calm. Once she pushed him, he punched her. It wasn't as if he continued to beat her while she was down or something.

im glad the chick got what was coming to her!! wtf grabs a cop!!?? people are so fckn stupid!! ugh!

I think that he didn't even think, he just reacted to what was going on and tried to protect himself.
He could have stepped back, did some quick thinking and taken a different turn on what to do.

But would someone think that would be wrong also?
I mean, if he would have tased her, then it would be a forum post of "Do you think it was necessary for the policeman to tase a 17 year old girl?"

I think it's videos like this that put fear of the police in people, rather then the respect that they need.
A lot of things that you see on Cops and on the internet are over done and over dramatic.

She shouldn't have stepped in, she shouldn't have shoved him, she should have just backed off and let him handle it.
He was trying to do his job in front of a lot of people, and was doing just fine until she stepped in and started fighting at him.
I could see that kind of shoving as a person provoking a bar fight.

Like what Music God said, she should be glad all she got was a punch in the face.

The line was drawn way way way back where the girl grabbed him. He should be allowed to defend himself. If the girl had a knife in her pocket, would punching her have been justified? In cases such as this, the police officer's reaction is one of life and death. This is nothing more than defense.

His body language changes right before he punches the female. He gets really angry. I think the punch was out of anger. That doesn't necessarily mean it was wrong. He was being assaulted by two assailants. I'm okay with what he did. People are only upset because it was a female.

Yep.

You know what I find interesting about this thread is that I think it demonstrates a difference in culture. Transit and I see this as an assault (all be it a provoked assault) on a woman by someone in power. We do not see it as justified and we do not see it as self defence.

However for the most part, the Americans here seem to think it was OK for him to hit her. Perhaps this has to do with the fact that an American police officer is far more likely to have a gun pulled on him (since people don't generally walk around with guns here), perhaps he thinks he has more to fear, and more reason to have to resort to physical violence to protect himself?

The second thing I wonder about is the possibility that Americans perhaps see violence as a means of control as a more acceptable thing. After all this is a country that for the most part feels it is acceptable to carry a gun to defend yourself with, and a country which in certain areas believes in the death penalty. Police officers there all carry guns, and use them (often because they have to). These are all big differences to the UK. So perhaps violent means of control are just more accepted there than they are here in the UK?

To be fair, in a lot of these types of stories, people do often side wit the citizen-because there have been many cases where it truly has looked excessive and like the person couldn't fight back. I think this case in different because we clearly see The girls fighting him first in a very threatening way, and they look like they are causing the situation to get out of control initially-not the officer. In other cases/videos, it can be the other way around.

There are a lot of American who don't agree with the death penalty and aren't big gun advocates-I see the main difference in perspective/culture being that here, all our officers carry guns, everywhere they go. They don't usually in the UK, right?

When the girls grabbed him, we see how they could easily being going for his weapons. I am not saying he shouldn't have chosen to do something else- it would have been smarter for him if he hadn't, so he wouldn't have gotten in trouble. But, people here see it in terms that an assault on an officer is messing with someone with a deadly weapon right on their hip. And, here it is far more likely that the officer would encounter someone acting unlawfully who happens to also be carrying a weapon themselves. So yes, I would agree with your first point.

As for the second point, it's not that we think violence as control as more acceptable really, but rather that I think officers here deal with people who are probably armed a lot more often. It's not that it's a good thing, just a reality that police officers deal with a lot of crazy things and unreasonable (possibly armed) people, so we aren't too sympathetic in this case, even though he could have made another choice.

A lot of people illegally carry guns without permits and do really stupid things. Officers have to make decisions in a split second, and I see how the guy in this case did what he did-not that it was the best choice, but I can see how it happened.

I don't think your assessment is correct. We have had this conversation before, and just because a few idiots in America think punching a woman in the face is an acceptable reaction by the police, it doesn't mean that Americans as a whole are ok with violence. This generalization thing just promotes stereotypes.

Personally, I am appalled at the violence shown in this video, and I hope this police officer gets stuck in an office job forever, and that the girl gets a lot of money in punitive damages.

I was simply making an observation about the thread. And the vast majority of Americans commenting here seem to find what this officer did acceptable.

And it is not a generalisation but a FACT that Americans are more accepting of people carrying guns and more accepting of the death penalty. That is not the same as saying ALL Americans feel that way, just that MORE Americans are accepting of violent means of control than Brits are. I'm sure there must be surveys to show this (at the very least i'm sure there's surveys on how many Americans do not want tighter gun control). It would only be generalising if I said all Americans felt that way, and clearly they don't, and I did not say that.

I think what you're trying to say is that MORE Americans are accepting of people carrying guns instead of what you said, which is, Americans are MORE accepting of people carrying guns. I think it's a matter of semantics. The first one is probably correct, although I don't have statistics to back it up. The second one is a generalization.

Yes, you're right, and my language was probably incorrect. That is exactly what I mean that MORE Americans are accepting of people carrying guns (and of the death penalty). But I was writing it when tired and on my Blackberry. Apologies. :P

:) ZOMGWTFBBQ Look at this, bloop!!! People can have a debate and exchange ideas without resorting to name calling and personal insults!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D