Gay rights rally: woman is punched in the face by cops

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
magnifier661

magnifier661

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
59,328
Likes
5,588
Points
113
http://liberalplanet.com/2014/06/17/watch-pittsburgh-cop-beats-woman-at-gay-pride-rally/

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1408060667.627566.jpg

Pittsburgh police are investigating one of their own after a video showed the officer throwing a gay rights activist to the ground and punching her several times in the stomach.

At the city’s annual Pittsburgh Pride event, a march and festival in the heart of Pittsburgh to celebrate gay rights, one of the attendees, Ariel Lawther, stopped to confront an anti-gay activist and a small fight broke out. Into that scene waded officer Souroth Chatterji who grabbed the woman and fight quickly escalated.

Accounts of what prompted the officer to start beating the woman diverge quickly. According to Chatterji, the woman hit him several times and took a “combative stance.” According to Lawther, when the officer first grabbed her she thought it was another protester and instinctively swung around to protect herself. The next portion, caught on a witness’ phone, depicts Chatterji grabbing Lawther by her hair and punching her several times in the chest and stomach.
Click to expand...
 
Well that was fun, arrested for fighting then tried to fight the cop and caught a beating. The camera girl admitted to throwing a full water bottle at someone so hopefully she gets charged with assault with an unsuccessful attempt at battery and littering.
 
cmeese47 said:
Well that was fun, arrested for fighting then tried to fight the cop and caught a beating. The camera girl admitted to throwing a full water bottle at someone so hopefully she gets charged with assault with an unsuccessful attempt at battery and littering.
Click to expand...

Yeah watching the video was pretty funny. The gay activist girls were the aggressors, then became the victims all in one motion.

I still think the cop was a bit out of line. Then again, if she really did swing at him, then he can use force to contain her.
 
wow....too bad, I was rooting for the fucking screamer to get tagged...
 
magnifier661 said:
Yeah watching the video was pretty funny. The gay activist girls were the aggressors, then became the victims all in one motion.

I still think the cop was a bit out of line. Then again, if she really did swing at him, then he can use force to contain her.
Click to expand...

Even if he did get swung at do you think those savages would tell the truth about it as witnesses?
 
At some point you have to protect the people who protect us. I'm glad I'm not the one who has to decide where the line is drawn.

Did this officer cross the line? Possibly. Was it warranted? Possibly. Should he be punished? I don't know.
 
magnifier661 said:
Well there were plenty of people there to be witness. The video coverage only shows the aftermath. I wish I could see what happened before.
Click to expand...

missing the fight that got her arrested and the alleged attack that called for self defense
 
Misleading title therefore everything else is discredited. Title says "face" - nothing else does.

Mags, you're inciting rage falsely.
 
People who pervert their minds with hate are an abomination.

I suppose she is lucky she's a white woman so she didn't get shot.

That being said, Pittsburgh Pride clearly needs better security. Maybe they can get in touch with the Bay Area folks. No excuse for bigots or out of control cops but the situation could have been avoided. Haters always hate. Don't engage with them is rule #1 for Pride.
 
crandc said:
People who pervert their minds with hate are an abomination.

I suppose she is lucky she's a white woman so she didn't get shot.

That being said, Pittsburgh Pride clearly needs better security. Maybe they can get in touch with the Bay Area folks. No excuse for bigots or out of control cops but the situation could have been avoided. Haters always hate. Don't engage with them is rule #1 for Pride.
Click to expand...

I kept wondering why they were not leaving, clearly the religious protesters were upsetting the group as you could hear numerous times I want to hit him, I want to push him down etc. Then when a fight did happen we get what we saw.
 
Excessive force. If the cop needed help, he should have called for it on the radio. No need to beat the woman, though it is reasonable for him to have tried to break up the fight.
 
Well that was a fun video. I saw at least 4 people in that video who are out of control. The guy on the step ladder, the officer, the one being arrested and the damn screamer. If it was a tv show I would say that stuff doesn't happen . . .
 
Last edited:
Treaty_of_Batum said:
Well that was a fun video. I saw at least 4 people in that video who are out of control. The guy on the step ladder, the officer, the one being arrested and the damn screamer. If it was a tv show I would say that stuff doesn't happen . . .
Click to expand...

What did the guy on the ladder do other than talk
 
I was just talking in the movie theater when I yelled fire. I dont know why people got upset.
 
if you look in the background, you can see the gay activists molesting children and marrying goats too.
 
Mediocre Man said:
if you look in the background, you can see the gay activists molesting children and marrying goats too.
Click to expand...

Damn that must have been some where is waldo shit cause I totally overlooked it, all I saw was a loud mouth bitch taking a few shots to the gut.
 
crandc said:
People who pervert their minds with hate are an abomination.
Click to expand...

Inside special interest groups of any kind they are the norm, not an abomination.

Human beings have to stoop pretty low to make a guy like that seem like the victim, but for this crowd it comes naturally.

I disagree with everything he is saying but fully support his right to say it. Screaming obscenities like a 7th grader and threatening bodily harm is a curious debating style that rarely wins any argument.

She assaulted him, then resisted arrest. I thought the cop showed remarkable restraint.
 
Denny Crane said:
Excessive force. If the cop needed help, he should have called for it on the radio. No need to beat the woman, though it is reasonable for him to have tried to break up the fight.
Click to expand...

"Oh, you don't wish to be arrested Ms___? Would you please stop attacking people and just stand here politely for a few minutes while I call for some of my co-workers to come and assist me in taking you to jail?"

You so funny, Denny Crane.
 
MARIS61 said:
"Oh, you don't wish to be arrested Ms___? Would you please stop attacking people and just stand here politely for a few minutes while I call for some of my co-workers to come and assist me in taking you to jail?"

You so funny, Denny Crane.
Click to expand...

You like it when a man beats on a woman?

You're not so funny.
 
donkiez said:
I was just talking in the movie theater when I yelled fire. I dont know why people got upset.
Click to expand...

I don't either. It's your right and there's certainly no law against it.

Though the image often represents illegal speech, "shouting fire in a crowded theater" refers to an outdated legal standard. At one point, the law criminalized such speech, which created a "clear and present danger." But since 1969, for speech to break the law, it can’t merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own.

The idea of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater arose from the Supreme Court’s 1919 decision in the case Schenck v. United States. The Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment, though it protects freedom of expression, does not protect dangerous speech. In the decision, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that no free speech safeguard would cover someone "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."

The case in question did not involve fires, theaters or general panic. It instead concerned a man’s conviction for protesting the First World War’s military draft. The man, Charles Schenck, had printed 15,000 fliers that encouraged readers to resist conscription. The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 criminalized such an offense, said prosecutors.

Schenck argued that the Constitution allowed his expression, but the Court disagreed. According to their ruling, Schnenck’s fliers created a clear and present danger — a clear and present danger to the government’s recruiting efforts. He hadn’t endangered life, as falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater would have, but he may as well have.

This "clear and present danger" standard stood for half a century. Further rulings even expanded it, criminalizing additional speech. But the Supreme Court then heard a case involving a new example of questionable speech, one that modern sensibilities might find more controversial than war protests.

Charles Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, had spoken to group members at a televised Ohio rally. He’d used inflammatory language and racial slurs. He’d called for "revengeance," which Ohio prosecutors interpreted as a call to violence. This meant, said the prosecutors, that Charles Brandenburg had broken the law.

A statute, which the state had enacted the same year as the Schenck decision, criminalized the advocacy of crime or violence. The victims of any possible crime this speech incited would face even clearer danger than patrons fleeing a crowded theater.

Yet Brandenburg claimed the First Amendment protected his speech. His appeal reached the Supreme Court, and the Court agreed with him, in contrast with the earlier Schenck decision. Advocacy, even when it encourages law-breaking, helps the marketplace of ideas, ruled the Court. Had Brandenburg instructed followers to commit a specific crime, he’d have committed a number of offenses himself. But the First Amendment protects speech that merely advocates general, indefinite illegal action.

With that ruling, the Court overturned the Schenck decision that had introduced "shouting fire in a crowded theater." No longer was "clear and present danger" a sufficient standard for criminalizing speech. To break the law, speech now had to incite "imminent lawless action."

So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety.

And, of course, no court will fault you for warning of a fire that actually exists.

http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com...-shout-"fire"-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html
 
Denny Crane said:
You like it when a man beats on a woman?

You're not so funny.
Click to expand...

It was a police officer subduing a violent and resisting criminal man or woman he had a right to protect himself and subdue her. Had there not been a large crowd maybe he would have just pepper sprayed her, or pulled out his taser, instead she got a couple taps to the stomach.
 
cmeese47 said:
It was a police officer subduing a violent and resisting criminal man or woman he had a right to protect himself and subdue her. Had there not been a large crowd maybe he would have just pepper sprayed her, or pulled out his taser, instead she got a couple taps to the stomach.
Click to expand...

You can see in the video she wasn't resisting or violent. He moved her away from the crowd so they weren't involved. He held her head down and punched her more times than necessary.
 
Denny Crane said:
You can see in the video she wasn't resisting or violent. He moved her away from the crowd so they weren't involved. He held her head down and punched her more times than necessary.
Click to expand...

From what I heard she swung at him as he was breaking up the fight. Clearly someone getting arrested for fighting in public represents a risk to the officer. Maybe he was excessive but its a big deal because she is a woman.
 
cmeese47 said:
From what I heard she swung at him as he was breaking up the fight. Clearly someone getting arrested for fighting in public represents a risk to the officer. Maybe he was excessive but its a big deal because she is a woman.
Click to expand...

Youtube link is in the 2nd post or so. Go watch it and see for yourself she wasn't doing anything except looking at the ground because he had her head pushed down. Then he hit her repeatedly. Exactly why did he need to hit her a 2nd time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top