Watching The Cops
See other Watching The Cops Articles
Title: Police Bodycam Footage Sheds Light on Girl’s Viral Beach Head-Pummeling
Source:
RedState
URL Source: https://www.redstate.com/alexparker ... ce-beating-girl-emily-weinman/
Published: May 31, 2018
Author: Alex Parker
Post Date: 2018-05-31 22:10:39 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 22796
Comments: 135
On Wednesday, New Jersey police released bodycam video which sheds light on the viral beating of a young girl by a beach officer. Wednesday’s footage of a cop punching a young girl in the head as he holds her face-down at the beach — and the confrontation which preceded the sandy grappling — serves as a compliment to the video which made headlines over the last few days. — Lexy (@HewittLexy) May 26, 2018 In the nine minutes of additional context, Wildwood police are seen engaging 20-year-old Emily Weinman as she soaks up sun with her 18-month-old daughter, a friend, and her daughter’s father. After discovering alcohol near her beach blankets, an officer orders her to take a Breathalizer test. “I know that didn’t come up positive. I didn’t take a drink of anything,” she says. One of the cops states she’s going to have to pour out her alcohol. Off-camera, either she or her friend explains, “We didn’t even drink alcohol. You’re allowed to carry alcohol if you’re under age. You are. You’re not allowed to drink it. And we’re not drinking it.” The officers tell the girls they’re guilty of “possession/consumption. Open display — you can see [the alcohol].” “Okay, you can see it,” one of the girls admits. “And we’re not drinking it.” The video goes silent for several seconds, seemingly muting more than just names. Emily states what she clearly believes are her rights: Then more exchange between Weinman and the cop: “She’s on her way. You can wait here.” … “What’s your last name?” “You don’t need my last name.” The boys in blue aren’t particularly impressed: “Don’t touch me!” “You’re about to get dropped.” She backs away. She appears to push at the officer’s chest as he closes in on her. The video then cuts to the maybe-100-pound-girl girl screaming as the cop mounts her and is holding her by the hair. She yells, “They’re choking me!” After more struggle, the cop warns, “That’s it,” and begins fist-smashing her in the head. Both the puncher and the punched are cursing. Weinman now faces multiple charges, including two counts of assault on a police officer. I can only imagine people are going to have very different opinions of the video. So much so, that I don’t want to even give mine. I’d prefer to simply read your thoughts in the Comments section below. I’ll share my view, nonetheless, as a catalyst: Firstly, in my opinion, the girl comes across as a self-entitled brat who could probably use being taken down a few notches. Secondly, the cop appears happy to abuse his power and beat a young girl in the head. This is not the job of law enforcement. It is not their charge, place, right, or job to teach people a lesson. Their job is only to enforce the law. With as little force as possible. In this case, at issue was a citation. Nothing more. Emily Weinman may be obnoxious. But that is not the business of a public servant who is paid to bring only his best to his position. Am I wrong? Am I right? Please tell me how. Check out my initial coverage of the viral video — and the ensuing commentary of RedState readers — here. And for another choking story, check out what MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace wants to do to Sarah Huckabee Sanders. And by all means, follow Alex Parker on Twitter. Poster Comment: The longer this went on, the more I was hoping someone would accidentally kick her in the head two or three times or just light her up with a Taser for a half-hour or so. I would never have the patience to be a cop and deal with these assholes constantly.
I was sleeping on the beach and I woke up to this.. i can’t believe it.. pic.twitter.com/UJE5Sy7E4G “I didn’t do anything to disrespect you. …You can’t lock me up. I didn’t disrespect you. … I didn’t do anything to you. You’re mad because you thought we were drinking.” “Where’s your aunt?” “Okay, that’s it. I’m done with you. (to the other officer) Do you have cuffs on you?” “Don’t f***ing touch me!…What are you doing?”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 90.
#82. To: Tooconservative (#0)
I just watched a few seconds. Did they get a search warrant for that breathalyzer. You constitutionally need one. You know that right?
I don't think you can cite a Supreme Court opinion to support that. I've never heard that before. It is moot anyway. She gave the breath sample as requested. Apparently, so did her friend though you don't really see that.
Supreme court decisions lol. I'm talking about the true law the constitution. Not a bunch of freaks opinions. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Her person was secure, the alcohol was not concealed on her body or clothing. She wasn't in a house/home/residence, no personal papers were involved, and I don't think alcohol in plain sight qualifies as an "effect" but as visible contraband (when possessed by a minor). And they didn't search her at all. She even alleges that they didn't seize the alcohol after they arrested her but just left it on the beach. So where is your search and where is your seizure? Neither occurred. I don't think the Fourth Amendment applies here.
They searched her person. They searched her breath. I know i'm in the minority and you guys think the Supreme court is god like or something. The plain words of the constitution were violated.
#91. To: A K A Stone (#90)
(Edited)
They did not search her person that I saw. They requested a breath sample and she complied voluntarily with the request. If you surrender a right, that's your problem. And the state and federal courts do not believe a breathalyzer violates fundamental rights. It's not like that defense has not been tried (and failed) many times in court. I still don't see a search or a seizure.
I know i'm in the minority and you guys think the Supreme court is god like or something. I'm with you Pebbles. I consider a breathalyzer the same as a cavity search.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#83. To: A K A Stone (#82)
You constitutionally need one. You know that right?
#85. To: Tooconservative (#83)
#88. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#85)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
#90. To: Tooconservative (#88)
And they didn't search her at all.
Replies to Comment # 90. They searched her person. They searched her breath.
The plain words of the constitution were violated.
#92. To: A K A Stone (#90)
They searched her person. They searched her breath.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 90.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]