• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gang of NYPD cops beating up on 84 year-old man for jaywalking [W:129]

Wow. The cop pulled him back because you cannot walk away from a cop giving you a ticket. You simply can't. That in itself is against the law (not to mention the cop still had his ID card). Pulling the guy back did not do any damage to him at all. The man had no reason to struggle with the cop. But instead of simply calmly returning to the cop, he instead pushed the officer. That too is illegal.
So, that justifies the cop to push the octogenarian to the wall and then to the ground to execute an arrest?

The old man reacting reflexively to being grabbed and pulled back did damage to the cop? How?

Prove the old man struggled with the cop rather than just turned reflexively towards the cop as shown in the video I linked to above.

So, instead of conceding to your error about what the witness said, you just skipped it entirely pretending it wasn't there.
 
Last edited:
So, that justifies the cop to push the octogenarian to the wall and then to the ground to execute an arrest?

The old man reacting reflexively to being grabbed and pulled back did damage to the cop? How?

Prove the old man struggled with the cop rather than just turned reflexively towards the cop as shown in the video I linked to above.

So, instead of conceding to your error about what the witness said, you just skipped it entirely pretending it wasn't there.

Prove it was a reflex. Prove the man was pushed to the ground and didn't just fall. Prove that the police took any inappropriate actions with arresting this man. Injury to the man doesn't prove it because unfortunately at times when executing an arrest, injuries do happen. This particular injury was really minor too.

The cop did not hit, strike, or push the man first. The man should not have walked away from the police officer either. Plus, according to the old man, he didn't walk away, just tried to ask for his ID card back. So which one is telling the truth, the witness or the old man? Either way, it looks bad for the old man. If he is telling the truth about not walking away, it means the officer most likely didn't touch him first at all, since it wouldn't be necessary. If the witness is telling the truth, then it means the old man is lying or confused about the circumstances of the incident, which ruins his credibility on what exactly occurred.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Focus on the topic, not on each other.
 
Prove it was a reflex. Prove the man was pushed to the ground and didn't just fall. Prove that the police took any inappropriate actions with arresting this man. Injury to the man doesn't prove it because unfortunately at times when executing an arrest, injuries do happen. This particular injury was really minor too.

The cop did not hit, strike, or push the man first. The man should not have walked away from the police officer either. Plus, according to the old man, he didn't walk away, just tried to ask for his ID card back. So which one is telling the truth, the witness or the old man? Either way, it looks bad for the old man. If he is telling the truth about not walking away, it means the officer most likely didn't touch him first at all, since it wouldn't be necessary. If the witness is telling the truth, then it means the old man is lying or confused about the circumstances of the incident, which ruins his credibility on what exactly occurred.
Doesn't work that way when you discount the old man and concluded he was at fault.

The old man said he was pushed against the wall, then to the ground and when he came to from unconsciousness he was handcuffed, which is what the picture showed exactly. Here's the media report of what he said:

Manhattan man, 84, ticketed for jaywalking to file $5 million lawsuit against city - NY Daily News

In response to Wong’s repeated requests for his card back, the cop whipped out handcuffs and spoke into his portable radio. “I got more scared,” Wong said.

Several officers raced over and grabbed Wong, pushing him against the wall of a building. Wong said he was pushed to the ground and struck his head, blacking out. When he regained consciousness, blood was streaming down his face and his hands were cuffed behind his back.​

If the person was just falling, why was he immediately handcuffed on the ground? Didn't you said it was illegal and a no-no for the old man to walk away or push the officer? So, is it a stretch to see that what the old man said is consistent with police take down of subject to execute an arrest as noted in the picture of the old man on the ground and handcuffed behind him?

You still have not concede your numerous errors.
 
Doesn't work that way when you discount the old man and concluded he was at fault.

The old man said he was pushed against the wall, then to the ground and when he came to from unconsciousness he was handcuffed, which is what the picture showed exactly. Here's the media report of what he said:

Manhattan man, 84, ticketed for jaywalking to file $5 million lawsuit against city - NY Daily News

In response to Wong’s repeated requests for his card back, the cop whipped out handcuffs and spoke into his portable radio. “I got more scared,” Wong said.

Several officers raced over and grabbed Wong, pushing him against the wall of a building. Wong said he was pushed to the ground and struck his head, blacking out. When he regained consciousness, blood was streaming down his face and his hands were cuffed behind his back.​

If the person was just falling, why was he immediately handcuffed on the ground? Didn't you said it was illegal and a no-no for the old man to walk away or push the officer? So, is it a stretch to see that what the old man said is consistent with police take down of subject to execute an arrest as noted in the picture of the old man on the ground and handcuffed behind him?

You still have not concede your numerous errors.

No that is not what the pics show. No pictures show him being pushed to the ground nor knocked unconscious. And he had very little reason to feel scared about a police officer just talking on his radio. That is paranoia and he most likely overreacted to his paranoid feelings that the cop was somehow after him. Injury in the execution of an arrest does happen, whether due to the officers' actions or accidentally. I haven't erred. I have given possibilities, all of which you are trying to insist are wrong simply because you have some sort of bias against the police officers.
 
No that is not what the pics show. No pictures show him being pushed to the ground nor knocked unconscious. And he had very little reason to feel scared about a police officer just talking on his radio. That is paranoia and he most likely overreacted to his paranoid feelings that the cop was somehow after him. Injury in the execution of an arrest does happen, whether due to the officers' actions or accidentally. I haven't erred. I have given possibilities, all of which you are trying to insist are wrong simply because you have some sort of bias against the police officers.

In almost all domestic abuse cases there would be no picture showing the woman being pushed down, beaten or knocked unconscious. So, by your logic the injuries suffered by her should simply be dismissed as "she fell" and her account of being pushed down and beaten completely dismissed as unbelievable despite no history of false report, lying or trouble from the woman?


Or do you look at the possible scenario and rule out the unlikely event?


In this case, how likely is it that:


1. the man just fell when the officer was within arm's length and against the wall?


2. the witness, Ian King, who gave his account did not even mention the old man fell?


3. the man fell and instead of attending to the well being of the fallen old man the police officers just had him handcuffed behind his back while still on the ground?


Compare this to the more plausible scenario:

the old man, who didn't understand English, walked away and was pulled back by the cop. According to the witness, Ian KIng, that's when he began to struggle with the cop. "As soon as he pushed the cop, it was like cops started running in from everywhere.”


Cops in NYC Bloody Up An 84 Year Old Man Over Jaywalking : TheSource


Then the cops executed a take down to subdue the elderly subject for the handcuff and arrest. This scenario agree exactly to your point about police arresting a subject when resisting, struggling and pushing against the cop.


So, according to you, it is illegal and a big No-No to struggle and push a cop no matter what otherwise you would be handcuffed and arrested, right? Furthermore, wasn't it your point that the old man was handcuffed and arrested for pushing the cop? So, how is it that you don't believe the old man's account that he was pushed to the wall and then the ground, handcuffed and arrested in a standard police take down procedure such as this? :





Now, how about conceding to your wrong as pointed out in my post #123 (link below) about your misrepresentation of what the witness said?


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...man-jaywalking-w-129-a-13.html#post1062874712
 
In almost all domestic abuse cases there would be no picture showing the woman being pushed down, beaten or knocked unconscious. So, by your logic the injuries suffered by her should simply be dismissed as "she fell" and her account of being pushed down and beaten completely dismissed as unbelievable despite no history of false report, lying or trouble from the woman?


Or do you look at the possible scenario and rule out the unlikely event?


In this case, how likely is it that:


1. the man just fell when the officer was within arm's length and against the wall?


2. the witness, Ian King, who gave his account did not even mention the old man fell?


3. the man fell and instead of attending to the well being of the fallen old man the police officers just had him handcuffed behind his back while still on the ground?


Compare this to the more plausible scenario:

the old man, who didn't understand English, walked away and was pulled back by the cop. According to the witness, Ian KIng, that's when he began to struggle with the cop. "As soon as he pushed the cop, it was like cops started running in from everywhere.”


Cops in NYC Bloody Up An 84 Year Old Man Over Jaywalking : TheSource


Then the cops executed a take down to subdue the elderly subject for the handcuff and arrest. This scenario agree exactly to your point about police arresting a subject when resisting, struggling and pushing against the cop.


So, according to you, it is illegal and a big No-No to struggle and push a cop no matter what otherwise you would be handcuffed and arrested, right? Furthermore, wasn't it your point that the old man was handcuffed and arrested for pushing the cop? So, how is it that you don't believe the old man's account that he was pushed to the wall and then the ground, handcuffed and arrested in a standard police take down procedure such as this? :


Now, how about conceding to your wrong as pointed out in my post #123 (link below) about your misrepresentation of what the witness said?


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...man-jaywalking-w-129-a-13.html#post1062874712

In any domestic abuse case, a good cop would not charge a person for it just off of the word of the victim, especially when others give another version of the story. The person certainly shouldn't be convicted of domestic abuse if the only evidence is a single incident where one ended up with a head wound and there are varying stories on how the person got that wound, there was a previous altercation where the victim was antagonizing the accused abuser in some way, and where there is absolutely no other evidence that the person was really being abused.

Now, unfortunately when it comes to DV, there tends to be a mentality that the person accusing is automatically a victim and that the accused is automatically guilty until he/she proves themself innocent, even with very little evidence, something I absolutely do not agree with. I believe in innocent until proven guilty, even when it comes to cops. Just as I would not automatically believe a husband is abusing his wife just because she ended up on the ground, bleeding after he confronted her about doing something and it being reported that she attacked him first in some way. Heck, I have been that person that attacked someone who finally just punched me (a lot more softly than he could have since I didn't even bleed or bruise from it) and I know I deserved it because I was wailing on him first. Had I bumped my head and received a cut from that altercation, it would have been my own fault for starting the altercation to begin with, especially given the restraint my brother used in his punch (we were both teenagers at the time). Others tend to have this same belief about cops when it comes to guilty until proven innocent. "Cops are always victimizing poor innocent civilians." Many times those civilians really aren't all that innocent.
 
See above post.
What do you mean "No that is not what the pics show"?


Didn't the pictures show the old man on the ground bloodied and with his hands handcuffed behind him? Wasn't he under police arrest then? Or did the pictures show the police attending to his well being following a fall?


You are missing the point here regarding DV scenario. The argument stemmed from your requirement for picture to be shown of the pushing to the ground and knock unconscious. You are not making any counterpoint regarding my rebuttal of your argument that no picture shows the old man being pushed to the ground nor knocked unconscious. When you have a he said-she said situation without video or picture evidence you still can piece together witnesses' account and other circumstantial and physical evidence to determine whose account is more likely and whose story is not plausible.


In this case we have a witness account and video of cops lifting him up from the ground while handcuffed and pictures of the old man bloodied on the ground with his hands handcuffed behind his back plus your argument that the police arrested him because he pushed the cop. By your own admission the intent of the cop was to execute an arrest because the old man pushed him back when the cop pulled him back. Your own argument supports and solidifies all the circumstantial and physical evidence pieced together with what the old man said and what the witness said which are very much consistent to what the old man said.


But, not only you failed miserably in your own logic, but you also missed the whole picture.


The police shouldn't even have given the old man a jaywalking ticket to begin with let alone treating him like a criminal by standing him up against the wall and pulling him back as if he had committed a serious crime. This cop should have exercise his discretion like the police officer at Time Square who stopped his police car to let jaywalkers cross the street despite the red "No Walking" light signal.


And also this jaywalking law was a knee-jerk reaction to recent car accident involving pedestrian deaths and was implemented shortly within 12 hours of the accident without adequate public notice. It was also not even a citywide policy but an impromptu precinct decision put into effect that looked more like milking the people than to protect their safety.


And to rub salt into the wound, the police refused to disclose to his son where he was hospitalized. Then took him into custody till next morning to book and charge him with crimes more severe than
DUI that could put him up to a year in jail:


84-Year-Old Jaywalker Could Get Jail While Deadly Drivers Get Off Scot-Free | Streetsblog New York City


Kang Wong was charged with obstruction of government administration, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct, according to reports. The first two charges are class A misdemeanors — more severe than a first-time DWI charge. Obstruction of government administration carries a sentence of up to a year in jail. While Wong is looking at jail time, the Times reported Sunday that unnamed prosecutors blamed vehicular crimes statutes and the courts for their failure to charge drivers who killed three pedestrians and a cyclist last weekend.


In each case, detectives from the Police Department’s collision investigation squad examined the scenes. Commissioner William J. Bratton said last week he would expand investigations of serious crashes, an effort that began last year. But such cases remain difficult to bring, prosecutors say, and have grown more so in recent years as the state Court of Appeals has limited the ability to make serious charges stick against drivers.​


Of the 10 crashes that have killed pedestrians and cyclists in 2014, no drivers were charged with homicide or assault. It is true that judges and juries tend to side with those who commit vehicular crimes, but prosecutors who are complaining to the press about the difficulty of securing convictions against motorists should also be making their case to Albany legislators, who have the power to change laws.


To seriously reduce traffic injuries and deaths, the mayor’s office, NYPD, and city district attorneys must be in sync. With 10 people dead, no motorists held accountable, and a pedestrian jailed, what New Yorkers have seen so far in 2014 is closer to chaos.​


It's just outrageous and excessively overkill. To an octogenarian, no less.
 
Last edited:
Communist Party = Group that doesn't agree with my brand of conservatism.

Long live McCarthyism

sadly for you I actually am very well versed in this area. While the Communist party did not sponsor the formation of the NLG in the late 30s, many of the founders were members of the Communist party. The NLG often represented members of communist labor when they had conflicts with government, management and often other more mainstream labor groups

In addition I have a degree in Industrial and Labor relations and labor law. The NLG figured prominently in our class concerning the history of labor movements in the USA.
 
I'm generally supportive of the police, at least here in Toronto and Canada, but I have to say I find it remarkable that there are so many officers available to rush to the aid of an officer writing a jaywalking ticket. Are there units of officers on standby to assist and protect any officer not involved in an actual crime?

I'd also say there's probably nothing more irritating to a cop than a person whom he's talking to ignoring what he's saying. I can just imagine the attitude he was "copping" (there's a reason the term "copping and attitude" exists) when the little asian didn't speak English and wouldn't do as he was told.

This is not to say the elderly man was faultless in this - one, he should learn to speak English if he's going to break the law in America and two, he shouldn't break the law in America.

NYC is a minor police state lol.
 
sadly for you I actually am very well versed in this area.
I'll throw you a party sometime.

While the Communist party did not sponsor the formation of the NLG in the late 30s,
Hmm, well thanks for clearing up this whole matter for us...


many of the founders were members of the Communist party. The NLG often represented members of communist labor when they had conflicts with government, management and often other more mainstream labor groups

In addition I have a degree in Industrial and Labor relations and labor law. The NLG figured prominently in our class concerning the history of labor movements in the USA.

Oh, so when a lawyer represents a person, that means that anything that person agrees with the lawyer also whole heartedly agrees with? So if I'm a lawyer and I defend a guy who was innocent of a crime, but is a racist, I'm also a racist?

Seriously, I know your a lawyer and all, but that should mean that you know to get yourself prepared before opening remarks. I can't imagine your shoot from the hip, come up with crap on the fly strategy is very effective in the courtroom.
 
I'll throw you a party sometime.

Hmm, well thanks for clearing up this whole matter for us...




Oh, so when a lawyer represents a person, that means that anything that person agrees with the lawyer also whole heartedly agrees with? So if I'm a lawyer and I defend a guy who was innocent of a crime, but is a racist, I'm also a racist?

Seriously, I know your a lawyer and all, but that should mean that you know to get yourself prepared before opening remarks. I can't imagine your shoot from the hip, come up with crap on the fly strategy is very effective in the courtroom.

prominent members of the NLG have admitted it was a communist organization even if not officially started by the ACP. Example, Ron Kuby
 
What do you mean "No that is not what the pics show"?

Didn't the pictures show the old man on the ground bloodied and with his hands handcuffed behind him? Wasn't he under police arrest then? Or did the pictures show the police attending to his well being following a fall?

You are missing the point here regarding DV scenario. The argument stemmed from your requirement for picture to be shown of the pushing to the ground and knock unconscious. You are not making any counterpoint regarding my rebuttal of your argument that no picture shows the old man being pushed to the ground nor knocked unconscious. When you have a he said-she said situation without video or picture evidence you still can piece together witnesses' account and other circumstantial and physical evidence to determine whose account is more likely and whose story is not plausible.

Pictures showing the man on the ground with a head wound are not the same thing as pictures that show the man being pushed to the ground or being unconscious. No pictures showed the man unconscious. All the pics I've seen the man was very much conscious. A head wound does not automatically mean loss of consciousness. No witness accounts so far say anything about him being pushed to the ground nor unconscious. In fact, at there is at least a third hand account of some witnesses believing he fell. So that means that there is no evidence to support that his part of the story, we don't really know the cops' story (since they are unable by general police policy to comment on such cases, and we have some information that some witnesses believe he could have received the injury merely from falling. That all goes into supporting me, not you.


In this case we have a witness account and video of cops lifting him up from the ground while handcuffed and pictures of the old man bloodied on the ground with his hands handcuffed behind his back plus your argument that the police arrested him because he pushed the cop. By your own admission the intent of the cop was to execute an arrest because the old man pushed him back when the cop pulled him back. Your own argument supports and solidifies all the circumstantial and physical evidence pieced together with what the old man said and what the witness said which are very much consistent to what the old man said.

My admission shows nothing to support that the man was pushed to the ground by police. In fact, nothing so far is evidence that he was pushed to the ground, causing the head injury at all. The physical evidence only shows that the man received a head injury somehow and that he was arrested. Nothing else. The witness statement doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever as to how the head injury occurred. He doesn't describe the head injury. So that leaves only the old man's word on how the injury itself occurred.



The police shouldn't even have given the old man a jaywalking ticket to begin with let alone treating him like a criminal by standing him up against the wall and pulling him back as if he had committed a serious crime. This cop should have exercise his discretion like the police officer at Time Square who stopped his police car to let jaywalkers cross the street despite the red "No Walking" light signal.

Jaywalking is against the law. There is nothing out of line about giving people jaywalking tickets. This belief that he shouldn't have been getting a ticket is nothing but you complaining about something that you simply don't agree with. It has nothing to do with any other part of town or what any other officer decides to do or not to do at that particular time. Just as some officers will let people go for doing a rolling stop at a stop sign while others will nail someone for it, the action is still a ticketable offense. The officer is completely justified in stopping the man and giving him a ticket for jaywalking.



And also this jaywalking law was a knee-jerk reaction to recent car accident involving pedestrian deaths and was implemented shortly within 12 hours of the accident without adequate public notice. It was also not even a citywide policy but an impromptu precinct decision put into effect that looked more like milking the people than to protect their safety.

Jaywalking has been illegal in NYC for a long time before now. Many decades at least. Enforcement has gotten pretty lax, but that doesn't mean it still isn't illegal to jaywalk. It also does not matter what any other part of the city decided to do. Unless there was some major crime that you can show was taking place right then that the police who were giving the tickets knew about and simply didn't respond to in favor of giving out tickets, then your argument is pointless. They still had every right to give tickets for jaywalking and it is wrong to believe that the police should have to give advanced notice that they will be enforcing laws. Any adult should know jaywalking is illegal, whether you have been breaking the law for years or not.

And it isn't right to punish drivers alone for pedestrians being hit when in at least some cases, the pedestrians are to blame or at least partially responsible. Only enforcing the laws toward one set of people, while letting the other set continue to break the law with little to no consequences, will only breed resentment.
 
See above.
It takes you several days to come back just to regurgitate the same old lame argument and lies that had been defeated over and over again previously.


We don't need to have everything captured in the pictures to make a case based on the consistency shown by available pictures, witness account, circumstances, admission of intent to arrest and logic that piece everything together. Otherwise, domestic abuse and rape situation that do not have a single picture let alone showing the very act of assault or rape would be summarily denied per your logic.


You kept perpetuating the lie of "a third hand account of some witnesses believing he fell". There was no third hand account of anything, just the impression, which is a code word for denial, of the Police Commissioner.

This wasn't a murder case, so it's not like the cop who arrested the old man also went around gathering witnesses for eyewitness statements. And surely the Police Commissioner wouldn't be going out of his way to hunt down witnesses of a jaywalking violation case a few days after story broke that caused a stir nationwide so he could tell reporters a third hand account of what some witnesses said.


The only eyewitness account that had been on record was a college student known as Ian King. It just so happened that there were several reporters that were already there to document a pedestrian and car accident that occurred 12 hours before. Therefore, the Police Commissioner's personal impression was merely based on that witness account as reported in the news media. And that witness never said anything about the old man fell, not even anything close to give such impression.


Citywide the jaywalking law wasn't and still isn't implemented the way that police precinct operates when they go around giving pedestrians violation tickets for merely crossing the streets. Worse, they didn't give the public a chance nor warning to be aware of the new implementation on the day they carried out their strict enforcement. This is clearly an abuse of power.


Now, show me the jaywalking laws that outline that you have to complete the crossing before the walking light signal change or else you would be ticketed for jaywalking violation. And show me the old man's action violated that particular part of the jaywalking law.


This rogue cop is just mean spirited prick for treating an octagenarian like that to begin with, not to mention the overcharging the old man of various charges that would put him in jail while deadly drivers get off scot-free.


84-Year-Old Jaywalker Could Get Jail While Deadly Drivers Get Off Scot-Free | Streetsblog New York City

So, it's not a stretch to believe the old man's words as supported by pictures, your admission of police intent to arrest and witness evidence that he was being pushed down for the arrest after back up arrived.
 
Last edited:
Wow....just wow, man

Your continued hate-filled diatribe against law enforcement is really getting old

Points to clarify

1 Jaywalking is a civil infraction but also disorderly conduct can also be cited when *said* pedestrian impedes vehicular traffic (misdemeanor crime)

2 Obstructing, the officer *also a misdemeanor crime* and finally, the old man shoving/pushing a police officer is I believe a class C felony.

The bottom line is.. any subject old/young/male/female who shoves/pushes a cop should not expect a shove in return.

The law is crystal clear, you can’t shove/push a police officer

But it is plenty fine with police shoving and push other people because you believe police a exempt for law and rather that they are the law?
 
We are seeing a transformation in the USA driving by the growing number of people who live in constant personal fear and what the government to be their mommy and daddy. Thus they want basically everyone totally controlled and any who do the slightest thing they don't 100% like to be fined so their money is taken, jailed and if they so the slightest failure to be totally submissive to be beaten.

Cowardly, lazy people are also dangerous people when in comes to democracy. They are not educated voters believing in civil and human rights. They are the ignorant mob mentality.
 
Here's another case of police harassment caught on video. The female officer was trying to get the subject for smoking. The guy was at the bus stop within the light rail "trax" station. He denied smoking and stood his ground with the officer who called back up in case a take down was necessarily. The female officer being a bitch finally decided to charge the guy for trespassing at the light rail "trax" station. The two male officers were called to be there as back up so I don't fault them for being just present there.

 
But it is plenty fine with police shoving and push other people because you believe police a exempt for law and rather that they are the law?

Wrong....Cops are not exempt from, the law. They simply enforce it

Your issue is with, the individuals that write the law
 
Back
Top Bottom