On Wednesday, New Jersey police released bodycam video which sheds light on the viral beating of a young girl by a beach officer.
Wednesdays 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.
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 daughters father.
After discovering alcohol near her beach blankets, an officer orders her to take a Breathalizer test. I know that didnt come up positive. I didnt take a drink of anything, she says.
One of the cops states shes going to have to pour out her alcohol.
Off-camera, either she or her friend explains, We didnt even drink alcohol. Youre allowed to carry alcohol if youre under age. You are. Youre not allowed to drink it. And were not drinking it.
The officers tell the girls theyre guilty of possession/consumption. Open display you can see [the alcohol].
Okay, you can see it, one of the girls admits. And were 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:
I didnt do anything to disrespect you. You cant lock me up. I didnt disrespect you. I didnt do anything to you. Youre mad because you thought we were drinking.
Then more exchange between Weinman and the cop:
Wheres your aunt?
Shes on her way. You can wait here.
Whats your last name?
You dont need my last name.
The boys in blue arent particularly impressed:
Okay, thats it. Im done with you. (to the other officer) Do you have cuffs on you?
Dont touch me!
Youre about to get dropped.
She backs away.
Dont f***ing touch me! What are you doing?
She appears to push at the officers 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, Theyre choking me!
After more struggle, the cop warns, Thats 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 dont want to even give mine. Id prefer to simply read your thoughts in the Comments section below.
Ill 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.
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.
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."
I wasn't talking to you. I don't care about your opinion. You are a stupid when it comes to the constitution and human rights.
You are more like a nazi than an American constitutionalist.
Anyhow. If there was probable cause where is the oath or affirmation.
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.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
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.
They searched her person. They searched her breath.
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.
The plain words of the constitution were violated.
#95. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite, Fred Mertz (#93)
It doesn't say you can search if someone is stupid and agrees to your illegal search. It says no searches.
She wasn't searched. The alcohol was in plain sight by her blanket.
What, you expect the cops to go around blindfolded so they don't see evidence of crimes providing probably cause for further investigation?
If she hadn't had the alcohol out in plain sight next to her, it seems very unlikely that they would have ever stopped to question her and then arrest her.
An officer seeing something in plain sight is not conducting a search. He's just seeing evidence.
I believe alcohol on the beach is against the law regardless of age.
I'm not sure if all public beaches ban it though that is a safe bet. But a minor is always banned, on the beach or elsewhere.
This girl isn't too bright or she wouldn't have been displaying it openly. It's bound to catch any cop's eye. And the girl looks like she could be in high school.
I started think about the 18mo infant. It would have been born in December 2016 or very early January 2017 to be 18 months old now.
In September of 2016, she was arrested and charged with burglary, simple assault, criminal mischief, criminal trespass and recklessly endangering another person.
So she was 5-6 months pregnant in September 2016 when she committed some pretty serious crimes. Then when her daugher wasn't even a year old, she committed more crimes and paid $10,000 restitution and court costs and got 4 years probation.
#102. To: Tooconservative, A K A Stone, Fred Mertz, GrandIsland, Dead Culture Watch, misterwhite (#96)
See? I told you that you were wrong. Now even Fred is agreeing with you. : )
Heh -- this is one of the most widely emotional, polarizing threads here in a while.
NORMALLY I'm very cynical about these types of possible over-officiousness.
I will say that the initial reports were clearly way slanted toward the Witch in question. Story was spun AGAINST LE as usual. UNTIL the Wildwood PD released th body-cam.
Drunken Witch is Guilty of several offenses. INCLUDING being an obnoxious attention-ho, disturbing the peace, incitement, lying her azz off, and assaulting a LE.
I. FULLY. CHEERED. ON. HER. BEAT-DOWN.
*My perspective*: Having worked at the Seaside NJ beaches for several years (back when), this kind of animal was simply carted away without all this phony fanfare. By screeching and screaming, she's tried to cover her own lawlessness to exploit the fake, "MEN ARE MEAN WOMEN-HATERS!" meme.
(This is the type of selfish weaselly witch who would cry, "RAPE!!!" in public in you brushed against her.)
As TC has documented above, this disrespectful witch was already ON PROBATION and NOT a good person. What we DON'T need: A bunch of these types of Dem-Leftist trouble-making anarchists pulling this BS in public as we're all trying to enjoy ourselves in peace.
Having worked at the Seaside NJ beaches for several years (back when), this kind of animal was simply carted away without all this phony fanfare.
So was busting minors for alcohol openly displayed a usual thing back when? Was this use of force something that surprised you or seemed typical for summer beach cops like these?
So she was 5-6 months pregnant in September 2016 ...
... and 18 years old. Any record of crimes committed prior to that -- and I'm guessing quite a few -- would be sealed. So, she's off to a running start and I'm sure we haven't heard the last of her, given her attitude towards the law and law enforcement.
At least the kid has a father. No idea how that happened.
One of the cops states shes going to have to pour out her alcohol.
Cop: "Alcohol is not allowed on the beach. You're going to have to pour it out." Me: "Oh, I didn't realize that. OK. I'm pouring it out." Cop: "Thank you. Have a nice day."
No assault. No beating. No arrest. No YouTube video. No Facebook posting.
I live a dull life. (But with no criminal record.)
Or she could have put it in a cooler or kept it out of sight. Then the cops would have had no probable cause to stop and get off the 4-wheeler to question her.
Apparently, some people think you have a constitutional right to display that you have alcohol on a patrolled public beach even if you're a minor.
Before you declare this woman more holy than the Virgin Mary, let's look at some other reporting on her little hobbies.
Yeah,that little thing assaulted those two fat cops and had them in fear of dey widdle lifes. Da poor bayabys! And all they did was attack her and thrown her to the ground and hit her in the head!
She's a bully! A bully,ah tells ya!
As for the rest of it,sounds like a typical example of the pigs overcharging to get a plea bargain conviction. IOW,police and judicial abuse of power and authority for profit and to cover their own incompetent asses.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
anything couldve been written down on that paper so I wouldnt give it to him.
She says that twice. Can't she read?
Maybe she thought it would be a good idea to write it twice so slow-witted people would understand it?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
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.
I'm with you Pebbles. I consider a breathalyzer the same as a cavity search.
The sound you are hearing is that of AKA nailing a framed copy of that post to his wall.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
#113. To: sneakypete, misterwhite, Liberator (#110)
As for the rest of it,sounds like a typical example of the pigs overcharging to get a plea bargain conviction.
Well, if she is correct and they never did actually confiscate the alcohol, then it would seem they have no physical evidence of M.I.P. All her lawyer has to do is say, "What alcohol? I see no alcohol in evidence".
So she might get off on that charge. It could cause the D.A. to drop all the charges since that was the offense that set events in motion.
then it would seem they have no physical evidence of M.I.P.
Just her voluntary testimony, on camera, that she illegally possessed it.
Of course she could say she was just kidding. But the cop would say he didn't know that and based his subsequent actions on what he thought was a truthful statement by her at the time.
What makes you so sure she didn't have legal authority to possess it? Maybe she was carrying it for her adult friends,or just watching it for them?
She was UNDERAGE. It was ILLEGAL and IMPOSSIBLE for her to lawfully POSSESS an alcoholic beverage. It was a not less than $500 offense. I posted the New Jersey statute.
She was UNDERAGE. It was ILLEGAL and IMPOSSIBLE for her to lawfully POSSESS an alcoholic beverage. It was a not less than $500 offense. I posted the New Jersey statute.
Define "possess". Sounds to me like you think it is illegal for her to be on a beach,or maybe even in a state,where alcoholic beverages exist.
Was she not a part of a family group,at least one of whom was an adult,who at that particular moment was in the water with her child?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Define "possess". Sounds to me like you think it is illegal for her to be on a beach,or maybe even in a state,where alcoholic beverages exist.
I posted the New Jersey statute. Try reading it.
NJ Rev Stat § 2C:33-15 (2013)
2C:33-15 Possession, consumption of alcoholic beverages by persons under legal age; penalty.
1. a. Any person under the legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages who knowingly possesses without legal authority or who knowingly consumes any alcoholic beverage in any school, public conveyance, public place, or place of public assembly, or motor vehicle, is guilty of a disorderly persons offense, and shall be fined not less than $500.00.
Was she underage?
Was she in a public place?
Did the police find the alcoholic beverage?
Did she argue that it was legal for her to possess the alcoholic beverage?
If either you or she need someone to define the word possess, a judge will do that for not less than $500.
Was she not a part of a family group,at least one of whom was an adult,who at that particular moment was in the water with her child?
Nope the "aunt" she claimed was on the way never showed. The baby daddy was playing in the water some distance away. You may have noticed she screamed for him a half-dozen times and it took him a minute or so to show up (seen in the tape by the cops yelling at him to back off).
The baby daddy was playing in the water some distance away. You may have noticed she screamed for him a half-dozen times and it took him a minute or so to show up (seen in the tape by the cops yelling at him to back off).
Well,he was probably foolish enough to think there was no danger of his wife being attacked on a public beach in broad daylight.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Well,he was probably foolish enough to think there was no danger of his wife being attacked on a public beach in broad daylight.
He was just a baby daddy, not a husband and has another 16.5 years of being on the hook financially for her baby. Assuming that it really is his baby and not some other guy's. IOW, he's a dumbass however you slice it.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.