• 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]

See post #74 above.

You state the old man "attempting to grab his ID from the officer" as though it was fact. I've read more than a dozen news articles and not once had I came across such report. You have the tendency to make up stuffs against this old man and despite my calling you out on this several times, you continues to do so without reservation. That right there goes to show you are willing to engaging in dishonest debate knowingly.


Yes, police make mistakes and didn't catch him despite the old man's standing against the wall and within arms' length of the officer but I had already allowed for such in my two previous posts and you have yet to tell me why he was handcuffed while sustaining a fall.


Now, once again, which makes more sense:


A. The old man standing against the wall just fell within arm's length of officer and officer just handcuffed a fallen old man still on the ground after a fall.


OR


B. The police called for backup and when backup arrived the old man was pushed to the wall and then down to the ground to be subdued and handcuffed.


A doesn't make much sense, does it?

For one, the old man was standing against the wall and the officer was in front of him within arm's length. It not only makes no sense but also there is no report in the news media of a single witness stating that the old man fell. Yet, despite it's absence of witness to that and the scenario making no sense you still steadfast insist that the old man fell.


Whereas B is consistent with the following points:


1. this is consistent with police take down tactics that results in a subject being subdued on the ground and handcuffed:


[video=youtube;zqRYhPcaq-Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zqRYhPcaq-Y[/video]


2. it is consistent with the news report of the old man's encounter with the police:

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


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.​


3. supported by a witness' account:

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


“The guy didn’t seem to speak English. The cop walked him over to the Citibank. [The officer] stood him up against the wall and was trying to write him a ticket. The man didn’t seem to understand, and he started walking away. The cop tried to pull him back, and 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.”​

4. the independent media photos of Mr. Kang Wong on the ground and already handcuffed supported his account in #2.


Notice that the witness Ian King said the old man struggled with the cop before pushing him as the backup cops started running in from everywhere and not that the old man fell and then the backup cops started running in from everywhere.

So, the old man was still standing until the backup cops arrived and only then he was pushed to the floor which is consistent with what the old man said in #2 above.


So, if we have ruled out the falling scenario very unlikely as expounded above, the only way the old can sustain such head injuries to the back of his head is:


1. he banged his head against the wall himself and lied about it. Unlikely given it was in busy public street intersection - many witnesses.


2. he fell back and hit his head on the concrete pavement but that's not possible for abovementioned reasons and also he was against the wall.


3. he lay down on the concrete himself and banged his head against the concrete pavement. Unlikely given it was in busy street intersection - many witnesses.


Not every beating situation has a video or photo documentation. For instance, in domestic abuse cases, do you need to see a video of a man beating his woman in progress in order to recognize that the woman was beaten based on her injury and her account?


If the man pushed the woman against the wall forcefully enough just once to cause the back of the head to sustain a gashing open wound injury, do we then not consider that as beating? Or do we need also to see bruises on the woman's body, black eyes, split lip and what nots in order to call it beating?


Just like in cases of domestic violence where statistically men are usually the perpetrators of the violence and therefore women are assumed victims unless shown otherwise so also the documented police abuse and violence against the citizenry. NYPD cops are notorious for abuse of power.


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


Mr. Kang Wong had no run-in with the law and had been a hardworking and productive citizen since he was a young man. So, on what ground are you doubting his integrity and inventing stuffs to vilify him?
 
Last edited:
See above post #74.

Not just NYPD being abusive, nationwide we are seeing increased abuse of power and militarization of the police. Public apathy and support of such abuse only make things worst as our jurors seemingly are very reluctant to convict them and therefore they get the free pass to abuse more.


In your previous posts, you stated that we have to follow strictly the jaywalking law and observe where to cross and what to do or not to do according to what the signal light indicates otherwise we deserved to be stopped by the cops and ticketed.


But, walking is as fundamental as breathing air and taking in food and water in terms of fundamental right and liberty. Nobody can tell us where to walk or when to walk or not to walk unless we posed a danger to others.


To me, a strict regulation of walking under jaywalking law is fundamentally against the Constitution when liberty is concerned. In most states, pedestrians are not harassed by police for crossing where they find convenient if they observe safety precaution and did not violate the safety of others such as a coming motorists. In most states, pedestrians are cited for jaywalking only when an accident occurred and the pedestrian involved is found to be at fault. To charge the pedestrian for a wrong doing relating to unsafe walking/crossing, there must be a code for the offence, thus the jaywalking law was enacted mainly for that purpose.


This precinct implemented enforcement of jaywalking law so strictly in very short period time (within 12 hours of that day) and expect people to know what's going on let alone the old man who had been doing what he had been doing before without getting into trouble with the law. And then all of the sudden he was stopped by the police and stood against the wall?


He didn't even know what's going on and you want to tell him to argue his jaywalking case in court?


And funny that the goal of the sudden strict enforcement was to “reduce serious injuries and fatalities on our streets to zero… with strong enforcement” but within 12 hours the cops had already put an octogenarian all bloodied to the hospital. I call it bs.


It's just an convenient excuse for squeezing more revenue from the people of NY and at the same time to flex their dictatorian muscles:

Bill de Blasio Crackdown on Jaywalking Leads to Beating of 84-Year-Old Man | FrontPage Magazine


New York City does not ticket or arrest jaywalkers under normal circumstances. Giuliani’s administration briefly tried it and gave up. Even Bloomberg, who criminalized salt and soda, left jaywalking alone.


The cops on the barricades understand the futility of ticketing pedestrians for jaywalking. “This is just taking hard-earned money from people who can’t afford it,” an officer told the Times during Giuliani’s jaywalking crackdown of 1998. Another adds, “I just don’t think that walking across the street is a crime, and I wouldn’t feel comfortable getting down on people for doing it.” <snip>


New York is a pedestrian city and jaywalking is for places like Los Angeles that are automobile cities.​


I don't know from what kind of country you had transplanted from, but let me tell you, absolute power, when tolerated and freely given, corrupts. Those who abuse power will test your patient and your level of apathy. When those who abuse power is given an inch they want a foot and soon you will be consumed once you're conditioned into the apathy mode and by then it's already too late. Nothing is more fundamental than your right and liberty to walk wherever you want and whenever you want as long as you're not violating the rights of others and putting their lives at risk.


New York is more and more becoming like a police state, thanks to people like you who question the injured victim and not the action of the cops. You allow the police state to tell you where to walk, when to walk and what not to do or do and pretty soon you might find yourself like sheep herded into the trains and headed to the gas chamber while thinking you're going to get a nice shower and clean clothes before your dinner.
 
Not just NYPD being abusive, nationwide we are seeing increased abuse of power and militarization of the police. Public apathy and support of such abuse only make things worst as our jurors seemingly are very reluctant to convict them and therefore they get the free pass to abuse more.



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
 
See above

Questioning the conduct of the police officers and calling them to higher standard is hate-filled diatribe against law enforcement? Wow, just wow!

The government and the police are given the power over the people by the people and therefore they are held to a higher standard. Therefore, the presumption of innocence is given to the people and not the police.

Where's your evidence the octogenarian was impeding traffic?

By your totalitarian rule, mentally ill or elderly people who are deaf or suffer focal stroke affecting their understanding of speech will be shoved to the ground and beaten to death if they push back and continue to resist?

This is no way to treat elderly people no matter the circumstances least of all to ticket them for crossing the street instead of helping them. How many tickets do you expect to ticket them for $250 a pop? 365? 730? How many can you bleed them dry if not beaten them to death?

Police Allegedly Beat Pearl Pearson For Disobeying Orders He Could Not Hear
 
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
Yes, because calling for the police to be held to the same standard as everyone else is clearly a "hate-filled diatribe". Do you honestly believe that the best way to deal with an elderly man who poses no significant threat to you is to put him on the ground and cuff him? Are the police not supposed to "protect and serve"? How is it that you willfully ignore the many well-documented cases of police brutality, and appeal only to the laws protecting the officers in question from legal challenge, as a valid source of authority? Do you believe that the police should be exempt from individual reasoning and common sense?

Do you really believe that they should respond to any and every act of perceived disobedience or challenge to their authority with fist and club? This is what you are advocating.
 
Yes, because calling for the police to be held to the same standard as everyone else is clearly a "hate-filled diatribe". Do you honestly believe that the best way to deal with an elderly man who poses no significant threat to you is to put him on the ground and cuff him? Are the police not supposed to "protect and serve"? How is it that you willfully ignore the many well-documented cases of police brutality, and appeal only to the laws protecting the officers in question from legal challenge, as a valid source of authority? Do you believe that the police should be exempt from individual reasoning and common sense?

Do you really believe that they should respond to any and every act of perceived disobedience or challenge to their authority with fist and club? This is what you are advocating.

Because just as it is wrong to hold other people accountable for past actions of some that they fit into a category with, it is also wrong to do this with police officers.

The man fought against the police and was being arrested for fighting the police over a simple ticket that should have been fought in court. During that arrest, the man somehow hit his head, receiving an injury. This is not a case of police brutality.
 
According to the police, and the police alone. If I'm wrong, please post a link of eyewitnesses reporting this man starting a fight with the police.
 
According to the police, and the police alone. If I'm wrong, please post a link of eyewitnesses reporting this man starting a fight with the police.

Wrong. This is according to the witness in the first story quoted in the OP, Ian King. And the man himself, Kang Wong even says that he was trying to get his ID card back from the police officer because he felt it was taking too long.
 
Because just as it is wrong to hold other people accountable for past actions of some that they fit into a category with, it is also wrong to do this with police officers.

The man fought against the police and was being arrested for fighting the police over a simple ticket that should have been fought in court. During that arrest, the man somehow hit his head, receiving an injury. This is not a case of police brutality.
And it's not wrong for you to persist in making up stuffs against the octagenarian who had no run-in with the law before but a productive and contributing member of society in favor of the notorious NYPD cops?


He is an 84 year-old octagenarian. What right did the mean spirited cop have for confronting him and issuing him a ticket for not making to the other side before the light changes? With a fine of $250 a ticket how many pedestrians can afford to walk the streets day in and day out with the way this totalitarian cop keeps an eye on you? It's an abuse of power right there.


The old man didn't just fought the cop out of the blue. He was reacting to the cop grabbing him back against the wall as he was walking away. That's not fighting the cop.


He didn't even know what the cop was stopping him for at that time so how the heck did you keep coming up with your silly gem that he should have fought the ticket in court?


How many crimes happen every minute in NYC and how many homicide cases go unsolved by police and you don't find troubling the NYPD of that precinct is focusing on strict enforcement of jaywalking law?


I'm sure you've heard about the notorious mob behavior of crotch-rocket bikers terrorizing the streets of NYC while violating all kinds of traffic law on the book and getting away with it because police aren't there to rein them in and you want the cop to go around harassing elderly people for crossing the street?


Bottom line is there are real crimes out there more than the cops could handle, harassing elderly people crossing the street at the intersection is not one of them.
 
Wrong. This is according to the witness in the first story quoted in the OP, Ian King. And the man himself, Kang Wong even says that he was trying to get his ID card back from the police officer because he felt it was taking too long.
This is what Ian King said:

“The guy didn’t seem to speak English. The cop walked him over to the Citibank” near the northeast corner of 96th and Broadway, said one witness, Ian King, a Fordham University law student.
“[The officer] stood him up against the wall and was trying to write him a ticket. The man didn’t seem to understand, and he started walking away.

The cop tried to pull him back, and that’s when he began to struggle with the cop,” said King, 24. “As soon as he pushed the cop, it was like cops started running in from everywhere.”

Cops bloody old man

Clearly, the old man was reacting to the cop pulling him back while he was walking away. It's no crime to ask the police for your ID back unless you want to make stuff up and again claim the old man just snatch it back.
 
This is what Ian King said:

“The guy didn’t seem to speak English. The cop walked him over to the Citibank” near the northeast corner of 96th and Broadway, said one witness, Ian King, a Fordham University law student.
“[The officer] stood him up against the wall and was trying to write him a ticket. The man didn’t seem to understand, and he started walking away.

The cop tried to pull him back, and that’s when he began to struggle with the cop,” said King, 24. “As soon as he pushed the cop, it was like cops started running in from everywhere.”

Cops bloody old man

Clearly, the old man was reacting to the cop pulling him back while he was walking away. It's no crime to ask the police for your ID back unless you want to make stuff up and again claim the old man just snatch it back.

It is a crime to fight with the police. It was reported that the man pushed the cop (right there in your quote). You cannot push a police officer. That is not simply asking for your ID card back. And while it may not be a crime to ask for the card back, neither does the police officer have to give it back til he/she is done with it.
 
It is a crime to fight with the police. It was reported that the man pushed the cop (right there in your quote). You cannot push a police officer. That is not simply asking for your ID card back. And while it may not be a crime to ask for the card back, neither does the police officer have to give it back til he/she is done with it.
Yeah, an 84 year-old man. And how frail is the cop? You need a reality check.
 
Obviously totalitarianism is your cup of tea. I got it.

No. I prefer rationality. The police doing their job to protect us and not being harassed by people who are inconvenienced by the police doing their job, so they attempt to fight those police. I prefer rational dialog instead of overdramatization of a situation. I prefer people who do not automatically assume the police are at fault based on personal biases against the police when a situation arises.
 
No. I prefer rationality. The police doing their job to protect us and not being harassed by people who are inconvenienced by the police doing their job, so they attempt to fight those police. I prefer rational dialog instead of overdramatization of a situation. I prefer people who do not automatically assume the police are at fault based on personal biases against the police when a situation arises.
You are anything but rational on this issue. The cop harassed the old man for crossing the intersection and you turn the table around? How's the police protecting the people when mob behaving crotch riders are running around terrorizing the streets of NYC and this cop is harassing this old man for jaywalking that results in him bloodied and in hospital?

You are not rational at all.
 
You are anything but rational on this issue. The cop harassed the old man for crossing the intersection and you turn the table around? How's the police protecting the people when mob behaving crotch riders are running around terrorizing the streets of NYC and this cop is harassing this old man for jaywalking that results in him bloodied and in hospital?

You are not rational at all.
What is irrational is saying the cop harassed the guy.
 
You are anything but rational on this issue. The cop harassed the old man for crossing the intersection and you turn the table around? How's the police protecting the people when mob behaving crotch riders are running around terrorizing the streets of NYC and this cop is harassing this old man for jaywalking that results in him bloodied and in hospital?

You are not rational at all.

Good work on the emotional diatribe of irrationality here.

No one was "harassed". He was being given a ticket for jaywalking, something completely within a law enforcement officer's job. If he wants to contest the ticket, contest it in court. Do not push the police officer giving you the ticket. And no, it was not the jaywalking ticket that left the man bloodied and in the hospital. It was his actions in struggling with the police officers.
 
Good work on the emotional diatribe of irrationality here.

No one was "harassed". He was being given a ticket for jaywalking, something completely within a law enforcement officer's job. If he wants to contest the ticket, contest it in court. Do not push the police officer giving you the ticket. And no, it was not the jaywalking ticket that left the man bloodied and in the hospital. It was his actions in struggling with the police officers.
"emotional diatribe"? I see you've been exconized pretty good.


Yes, the old man was harassed for crossing the intersection by the abusive cop whose interest was to meet the quotas to fill the coffer. If you want to live in a fascist police state where the police watch your portion size and tell you what to eat and how much to eat and where to walk and when not to walk, by all means go back to where you crawl from instead of trying to violate our individual liberty guaranteed by our Constitution.
 
What is irrational is saying the cop harassed the guy.
Your debate record sucks, therefore you have no standing whatsoever to talk about rationality vs irrationality. You're dismissed.
 
"emotional diatribe"? I see you've been exconized pretty good.


Yes, the old man was harassed for crossing the intersection by the abusive cop whose interest was to meet the quotas to fill the coffer. If you want to live in a fascist police state where the police watch your portion size and tell you what to eat and how much to eat and where to walk and when not to walk, by all means go back to where you crawl from instead of trying to violate our individual liberty guaranteed by our Constitution.

Fight in courts. Not on the street. Only idiots who want to get arrested try to fight tickets on the street, with the cop. Any rational person knows that you have a much better chance (a really good chance in fact if you are an old man getting a jaywalking ticket) of fighting the ticket in court and winning (not having to pay the ticket). But you don't have such a good chance when you push or fight with the police officer giving you the ticket on the street.

And no, harassment involves inappropriately approaching a person in a way that is meant to disturb or upset a person. While giving the ticket may have upset the man, that was not the intent of the actual ticket. The intent was to give monetary incentive to the man not to jaywalk. This was absolutely not harassment.
 
Your debate record sucks, therefore you have no standing whatsoever to talk about rationality vs irrationality. You're dismissed.
:doh
iLOL
As evidenced by this thread alone, you are clearly speaking of your own record.
:lamo
 
Fight in courts. Not on the street. Only idiots who want to get arrested try to fight tickets on the street, with the cop. Any rational person knows that you have a much better chance (a really good chance in fact if you are an old man getting a jaywalking ticket) of fighting the ticket in court and winning (not having to pay the ticket). But you don't have such a good chance when you push or fight with the police officer giving you the ticket on the street.

And no, harassment involves inappropriately approaching a person in a way that is meant to disturb or upset a person. While giving the ticket may have upset the man, that was not the intent of the actual ticket. The intent was to give monetary incentive to the man not to jaywalk. This was absolutely not harassment.
Keep on harping with your "fight in court" mantra. It's probably the best thing you can dish out for now.


On the bold part above, you just described the harassment conduct of the cop for "inappropriately approaching a person in a way that is meant to disturb or upset a person'. Good job right there.


You call getting a ticket of $250 per pop for not making across the intersection in time a monetary incentive for not jaywalking a rational argument?


Monetary incentive is money awarded by the police dept to the person every time he did not engage in the behavior of jaywalking. If you can't distincguish the difference, you're a lost cause.
 
:doh
iLOL
As evidenced by this thread alone, you are clearly speaking of your own record.
:lamo
Given my previous tedious dealing with your diatribes and your known record I'd rather debate with an echo wall decorated with some parrots as sidekicks. At least I can climb the wall when I get bored and feel like it.

Now, go down to the basement and collect your dungeon trophy. Or do you need me to go down there to add my name to the list in honor of your thuggish debate skill?
 
Last edited:
Given my previous tedious dealing with your diatribes and your known record I'd rather debate with an echo wall decorated with some parrots as sidekicks. At least I can climb the wall when I get bored and feel like it.

Now, go down to the basement and collect your dungeon trophy. Or do you need me to go down there to add my name to the list in honor of your thuggish debate skill?
:lamo
And still, as evidenced by this thread alone you were and still are talking about yourself. :doh
iLOL
 
Back
Top Bottom