• 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]

Excon said:
:lamo
And still, as evidenced by this thread alone you were and still are talking about yourself. :doh
iLOL
Click to expand...
Get real, dude. You actually have a lengthy pages of record concerning your thuggish behavior in the dungeon people can check out for themselves. Go down to the basement where you belong and stop wasting my time here.
 
dolphinocean said:
Get real, dude. You actually have a lengthy pages of record concerning your thuggish behavior in the dungeon people can check out for themselves. Go down to the basement where you belong and stop wasting my time here.
Click to expand...

:lamo
And still, as evidenced by this thread alone you were and still are talking about yourself. :doh
iLOL
 
Excon said:
:lamo
And still, as evidenced by this thread alone you were and still are talking about yourself. :doh
iLOL
Click to expand...
Your empty words mean squawk. Go to the basement where you belong. You're not worth my time here.
 
dolphinocean said:
Your empty words mean squawk. Go to the basement where you belong. You're not worth my time here.
Click to expand...
:lamo
That is because you are wrong, have been shown to be wrong, and will continue to be wrong.
It isn't going to change.
There was no harassment of the guy.
Saying so is ridiculous.
 
Excon said:
:lamo
That is because you are wrong, have been shown to be wrong, and will continue to be wrong.
It isn't going to change.
There was no harassment of the guy.
Saying so is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Are you going to derail this thread to vent your frustration? Go to the basement for that, Excon.
 
dolphinocean said:
Are you going to derail this thread to vent your frustration? Go to the basement for that, Excon.
Click to expand...
Still can't address your ridiculous assertions. Figures.
There was no harassment of the guy.
 
dolphinocean said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, issuing a legal ticket is not harassment. And the tickets for jaywalking in NYC are about $125, not $250.

You can't prove that the guy simply "didn't make it in time". That is his claim, just as many people who speed will claim that they were going the speed limit. That is something to be discussed in court, not on the street with the cop.

Negative monetary incentive, if you prefer. Taking money from someone for doing something wrong. If you don't do it, you keep your money.
 
roguenuke said:
No, issuing a legal ticket is not harassment. And the tickets for jaywalking in NYC are about $125, not $250.

You can't prove that the guy simply "didn't make it in time". That is his claim, just as many people who speed will claim that they were going the speed limit. That is something to be discussed in court, not on the street with the cop.

Negative monetary incentive, if you prefer. Taking money from someone for doing something wrong. If you don't do it, you keep your money.
Click to expand...
All right then, if you don't believe in the old man's words, can you prove that the old man violated the jaywalking law? C'mon, put the money where you mouth is.
 
dolphinocean said:
All right then, if you don't believe in the old man's words, can you prove that the old man violated the jaywalking law? C'mon, put the money where you mouth is.
Click to expand...

It's not my job to prove he was jaywalking. It is the cop's job, in court. Asking for the impossible is a pretty pathetic way to debate. I am saying that as soon as he pushed the cop, or laid a hand on the cop at all, or even just tried to walk away from the officer prior to getting the ticket, he was wrong and did something illegal. Pushing an officer at all (as the witness says the old man did) is a crime and what really got him in trouble, not the ticket itself.

However, the man's story has changed between stories on this. One says that he claims to have left with the light, while others only say that he crossed with a group of people (something I have seen people do is cross together despite the light not being green for them to go). There are cameras in the area though (there was a news crew there and likely some cameras on the corners).
 
dolphinocean said:
You have repeated your assertion long enough, now go down to the basement and stay there.
Click to expand...
:lamo

Still not addressing your false statements. Figures.
There was no harassment.
 
roguenuke said:
It's not my job to prove he was jaywalking. It is the cop's job, in court. Asking for the impossible is a pretty pathetic way to debate. I am saying that as soon as he pushed the cop, or laid a hand on the cop at all, or even just tried to walk away from the officer prior to getting the ticket, he was wrong and did something illegal. Pushing an officer at all (as the witness says the old man did) is a crime and what really got him in trouble, not the ticket itself.

However, the man's story has changed between stories on this. One says that he claims to have left with the light, while others only say that he crossed with a group of people (something I have seen people do is cross together despite the light not being green for them to go). There are cameras in the area though (there was a news crew there and likely some cameras on the corners).
Click to expand...
No, this is a debate forum where you insist to side with the cop and made up stuffs against the old man here. You said you don't believe in the old man but you go with the cop's conduct, so I'm asking you to prove the old man committed jaywalking as claimed. I don't know where you were from but in this country the police/govt has the burden of proof.

Also, how do you know the old man didn't reflexively push the officer when he was grabbed and pulled back by the cop? How do you know it was not an unintentional maneuver in his sudden curiosity to turn around to see what's going on when the cop grabbed and pulled him back given he didn't understand English?

And must the old man ended up bloodied and send to the hospital?

 
dolphinocean said:
No, this is a debate forum where you insist to side with the cop and made up stuffs against the old man here. You said you don't believe in the old man but you go with the cop's conduct, so I'm asking you to prove the old man committed jaywalking as claimed. I don't know where you were from but uin this country the police/govt has the burden of proof.

Also, how do you know the old man didn't reflexively push the officer when he was grabbed and pulled back by the cop? How do you know it was not an unintentional maneuver in his sudden curiosity to turn around to see what's going on when the cop grabbed and pulled him back given he didn't understand English?

Click to expand...


I cannot prove that the man jaywalked, but I don't have to for this debate. Whether he jaywalked or not truly is up to a court to decide, not us. And it really has nothing to do with what the man was being arrested for.

The witness gave a description of what happened (a witness you have quoted numerous times already). He says that the man pushed the cop, nothing about the cop grabbing him in any way prior to that push/struggle. The man started the actual confrontation. Up til that, it was simply him getting a ticket with the police not touching him at all.
 
dolphinocean said:
How many times have you said that and I let stand? So, move along...
Click to expand...
:doh
Let it stand?
:doh
Your way to admit you are wrong.
Good to know.
:thumbs:
 
roguenuke said:
I cannot prove that the man jaywalked, but I don't have to for this debate. Whether he jaywalked or not truly is up to a court to decide, not us. And it really has nothing to do with what the man was being arrested for.

The witness gave a description of what happened (a witness you have quoted numerous times already). He says that the man pushed the cop, nothing about the cop grabbing him in any way prior to that push/struggle. The man started the actual confrontation. Up til that, it was simply him getting a ticket with the police not touching him at all.
Click to expand...
Sure you have to if you insist to dismiss the words of the old man and take the side of the police officer.

The witness said the cop pulled him back. How do you pull a person back if you are not grabbing him in any way? The witness, Ian King, specifically said the cop pulled him back followed by the old man pushing. You need to be diligent in your reading before you try to assassinate the character of a hardworking and productive man who contributed to the society rather than make him out to be the villiain.
 
dolphinocean said:
Sure you have to if you insist to dismiss the words of the old man and take the side of the police officer.

The witness said the cop pulled him back. How do you pull a person back if you are not grabbing him in any way? The witness, Ian King, specifically said the cop pulled him back followed by the old man pushing. You need to be diligent in your reading before you try to assassinate the character of a hardworking and productive man who contributed to the society rather than make him out to be the villiain.
Click to expand...

No I don't. I know what my debate is and what my points are. Apparently you have no clue though. The man was accused (via ticket) of jaywalking. If he wishes to contest the ticket, he does so in court and it is then the officer's responsibility to prove the man jaywalked and did so in a manner that actually violated the law (he began crossing after without the proper signal). The issuance of that ticket was not the reason for his arrest. The reason for his arrest was his pushing/struggling with the cop, basically throwing an impatient tantrum because he was being given a jaywalking ticket. That is also the reason for his injury. Had he not struggled with/pushed the police officer, he would neither have been arrested nor likely have ended up with an injury. He is at fault.
 
roguenuke said:
No I don't. I know what my debate is and what my points are. Apparently you have no clue though. The man was accused (via ticket) of jaywalking. If he wishes to contest the ticket, he does so in court and it is then the officer's responsibility to prove the man jaywalked and did so in a manner that actually violated the law (he began crossing after without the proper signal). The issuance of that ticket was not the reason for his arrest. The reason for his arrest was his pushing/struggling with the cop, basically throwing an impatient tantrum because he was being given a jaywalking ticket. That is also the reason for his injury. Had he not struggled with/pushed the police officer, he would neither have been arrested nor likely have ended up with an injury. He is at fault.
Click to expand...
Sure you have to if you insist on dismissing the old man's account without showing the basis. Of are you just plain racist against Oriental people?

Watch the video, you have to prove that the old man had actually struggled rather than reactive to being grabbed and pulled back.
 
dolphinocean said:
Sure you have to if you insist on dismissing the old man's account without showing the basis. Of are you just plain racist against Oriental people?

Watch the video, you have to prove that the old man was actually struggled rather than reactive to being grabbed and pulled back.
Click to expand...

No I don't. The witness that you yourself has quoted says that the man pushed the cop first. That is plenty enough evidence that the man started the physical confrontation that led to his arrest.
 
roguenuke said:
No I don't. The witness that you yourself has quoted says that the man pushed the cop first. That is plenty enough evidence that the man started the physical confrontation that led to his arrest.
Click to expand...
Yes you do need to prove your case when you positively claimed "He is at fault" in your last post.

Here's what the witness said:

“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.”​

Now, eat that.
 
If more people were beaten for jay walking then jay walking would be a thing of the past.
 
dolphinocean said:
Yes you do need to prove your case when you positively claimed "He is at fault" in your last post.

Here's what the witness said:

“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.”​

Now, eat that.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom