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: 25959
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
Comments (1-24) not displayed.
.
.
.
#25. To: GrandIsland, Deckard (#24)
I will ensure my criticisms of your stupid, silly FUCKING GAWD AWFUL posts are cast off with rational debating skills during your awkward rebuttals; as .... unlike yourself I am not perfect.
You should go immediately to Hell, without passing go or collecting $200.00... for even typing those two words together. lol
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You should go immediately to Hell, without passing go or collecting $200.00... for even typing those two words together. There is no objective evidence of "HELL," officer. Why did you pull me over? Is your opinion admissible in a court of law within the boundaries of the USA?
And that will be not less than $500 for disorderly stupid. NJ Rev Stat § 2C:33-15 (2013) 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. [snip]
If you lived a few years ago you wouldn't believe in germs and you would be telling deckard that it is a conspiracy theory that the world is not flat. 🍿
NJ Rev Stat § 2C:33-15 (2013) We can always count on you to bring some relevant facts. I hope they throw the book at her. I'm sick of seeing all these videos of people who don't know the laws and don't care what they are and then start mouthing off to cops who are just doing their jobs. When it's all done, I think this mouthy beach bitch will have a lot more respect for the police. And she will learn some valuable facts about the laws and why we should obey them.
So predictable in all these videos. Yes,and it NEVER means the cops are right to beat on and abuse citizens who aren't being violent or threatening.
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.
...said the sheep to the butcher.
HorseHillary! We are NOT subjects,we are free citizens with rights,and the cops had no right to start the physical confrontation over such a nickel and dime "offense". Most cops today are assholes because the job is a asshole magnet.
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.
Can't you get some extradition order and fly down to Spiclandia and just arrest buckeroo? I'm pretty sure he's breaking some laws down there.
He made a lawful arrest and he was within his rights and his duty to uphold the laws.
And YOU are a dumbass if you think that FACTS can change. PERCEPTION can change,but not facts,and the FACTS are those pompous asses in blue were the ones that committed assault and battery.
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.
Someone should beat the stupid out of her... Because she was right and knew her rights? Is that you,Cartman?
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.
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?
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.
The asshole CREATED a situation that borderline gave him the authority to make an arrest. If she were a lawyer or made it known her father was a lawyer,he would have tucked his little tail up into the crack in his ass and fled,whimpering for mercy. IF she goes to court and tries to represent herself she WILL be found guilty of resisting arrest,but that represents nothing more than the thugs in the legal system protecting themselves and the system by scratching each other's backs. 99 percent of the time what will happen is the cops will threaten to charge her with felony resisting arrest unless she drops her charges they beat her and used excessive force,and that she was not guilty of the original charge. That is NOT justice,it is abuse of official power and it goes on every day in every state in this nation,while idiots like you stand by and applaud. IF she has a close friend or relative that is a lawyer and is bored and interested in taking the case,all the charges will be dropped against her in exchange for a written agreement that she will not sue the cops or the PD they work for for excessive use of force. It ain't right,it ain't justice,but it is what happens everyday in every courtroom in the country.
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.
Someone should beat the stupid out of her... Why,because she is right and you are mad because she was questioning the authora-TAY of goobermint dawgs? Supposes she was with her family and carrying the beer because her father was carrying the umbrella and towels,and her mother was carrying something else? Carrying is NOT consuming. Even you should be able to understand this.
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.
Bullshit! He CREATED the confrontation because citizens not breaking any laws stood up to him and pointed that out,and it pissed him off.
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.
Really? Let's take another example of a class of gun laws. How many states in this country allowed civilians to carry a concealed handgun lawfully 50 years ago? How many allow CCW now? The underlying facts of a crime don't change but the laws change all the time, state by state. And that is a fact.
So carrying narcotics is just fine as long as the cops don't observe you selling them or using them? Alcohol is a powerful, addictive, regulated recreational drug.
I saw no egregious use of force. The arresting officers acted lawfully based on what we have seen. There's a rising lawlessness on beaches around the country. Local PDs are strained in dealing with it.
You're an a-hole, like your homo friend FireIsland. She did nothing wrong to deserve what happened. I hope you post a follow-up article once the dust settles. Apparently NJ cops are a-holes too. What a crock.
How many states in this country allowed civilians to carry a concealed handgun lawfully 50 years ago? How many allow CCW now? The underlying facts of a crime don't change but the laws change all the time, state by state. And that is a fact. There ARE no facts in your brain fart. It only proves that what people like YOU call "Facts" are temporary things that change with the wind. AND.......WTF is up with your rabid approval of a state ALLOWING someone to enjoy a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT? Here is a little factoid for you,it is the nature of authorities,including cops and states to try to expand their power,and there is nothing they would forbid themselves from doing if it weren't for the US Constitution preventing them from overreaching.
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.
So carrying narcotics is just fine as long as the cops don't observe you selling them or using them? Alcohol is a powerful, addictive, regulated recreational drug. If they are legal prescribed narcotics,the obvious answer is "YES!" If they are illegal narcotics,as you so obviously want to imply,the answer is "No,and it would not be legal for them to be carried if the girls had been over 21,either. Alcohol is a powerful, addictive, regulated recreational drug. So what? Are you their daddy? Who died and gave you the authority to regulate who can and can not BE AROUND BUT NOT CONSUMING legal,tax-paid alcoholic beverages?
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.
You are ok with a 200+ lb cop punching a minor female in the head that is on the ground? Good to know.
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.
It's somewhat of an honor to be considered an a-hole by you. I must be doing something right.
Well, only if it is too inconvenient to just kick her in the head.
If she wants no interference from the state, then stay off patrolled state-owned property. Like the beach.
. . . So what? Are you their daddy? Who died and gave you the authority to regulate who can and can not BE AROUND BUT NOT CONSUMING legal,tax-paid alcoholic beverages? You sure switched fast from "Of course, it's against the law" for narcotics and went to "you ain't their daddy" when it comes to alcohol.
This is why the cops say nothing when they're detaining someone and they ask, "What I do?" Because if they tell them they start spouting bullshit like this.
It does demonstrate the radical changes of the character of our society. 50 years ago if you were carrying concealed it was assumed you were the bad guy carrying it for nefarious purposes. Why else would you have a concealed weapon? Today, there are numerous examples of why people carry concealed for defensive, not offensive, purposes.
Obviously I don't want to turn this into a CCW chat thread but it seemed like an example of radical changes in criminal law that have happened in a class of what were once uniformly serious crimes. In the case of CCW, the radical change in state laws has happened in just 25 years.
Especially after you bragged on the other thread how you stayed on-topic despite numerous posts. "In the case of CCW, the radical change in state laws has happened in just 25 years." The NRA deserves a lot of credit for that, I think. Plus the criminals, of course. But the point is that there's no reason not to -- assuming you're a trained, responsible adult (even though most armed criminals aren't). It's hard to argue against self-defense, especially when that self-defense has the side effect of protecting others. Plus, no one knows you're armed, so they can't be offended. Civilian open- carry is disconcerting. My nephew in Ohio open carries and when I'm there I feel unprepared for some upcoming shootout. Like, "What do you know that I don't know?" The funny part is that he liked his girlriend's 9mm better as a carry weapon, so they swapped. But hers is powder blue and looks like a squirt gun. A 9mm squirt gun.
It's a right to carry but I really don't like open carry, don't like to see it. I don't even like to see cops wearing a holster. If you want to carry, get a CCW and stop making gun-shy people nervous. Of course, I'm sure I'm very much in the minority on this, at least on this forum. And I do live in a state with a fairly low barrier to get a CCW. I also think that open-carry mostly hurts the gun rights cause more than it helps. I'm thinking of the rather aggressive open-carry nuts down in Texas especially. There's another bunch in California.
God is not ABSOLUTE. God is relative to your capability & capacity to survive.
I get nervous at a gun store when I see gang-bangers (well, they look like gang-bangers) handling firearms. I have this strange feeling we'll be meeting again.
Only when it's done to intimidate. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Statistically, you're more likely to face off in a gunfight against someone of your own race. This is true for both blacks and whites. You are several percent more likely to be killed by a black man than a non-black. So while your thought of fellow gunshop customers as possible assailants is ironic, outside of some improbable circumstances you are still much more likely to be in a gun fight with another white. I think you probably do know all of this already. John Lott and others have posted some well-known studies on gun violence for some years and the results regarding interracial vs. intraracial shootings is pretty consistent.
Nope. And I am whistling DIXIE!
Ahhh,"The State" is your massa,and you are happy with that. Good to know.
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,Bubba,you specified ILLEGAL narcotics,and legal beer.
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.
Comments (65 - 135) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#26. To: buckeroo (#25)
rational debating
#27. To: GrandIsland (#26)
#28. To: Tooconservative (#0)
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.”
2C:33-15 Possession, consumption of alcoholic beverages by persons under legal age; penalty.
#29. To: buckeroo (#27)
#30. To: nolu chan (#28)
And that will be not less than $500 for disorderly stupid.
#31. To: misterwhite (#2)
It includes such favorites a "girl tells cop what the law is", quibbling about "we can carry alcohol if we're not drinking it", refusing to empty the bottle, not giving her name, cursing, and walking away. Then BLAM! It all goes to shit.
#32. To: Tooconservative (#30)
And she will learn some valuable facts about the laws and why we should obey them.
#33. To: Tooconservative (#3)
Right at the moment to put her hands up to push the cop's face or hit him weakly on the face to fend off his lawful arrest. As soon as she so much as tried to push his face away open-palmed, it became an assault on the police, possibly battery. And resisting arrest.
#34. To: GrandIsland, buckeroo (#26)
#35. To: sneakypete (#33)
HorseHillary! We are NOT subjects,we are free citizens with rights,and the cops had no right to start the physical confrontation over such a nickel and dime "offense".
#36. To: Tooconservative (#12)
You are a dumbass if you think what some guy told you about assault and battery 50 years ago in one state is somehow still the relevant standard for assault and battery in all 50 states today.
#37. To: GrandIsland (#17)
You’re allowed to carry alcohol if you’re under age.
#38. To: nolu chan (#28)
Any person under the legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages who knowingly possesses without legal authority
#39. To: Tooconservative (#35)
He made a lawful arrest and he was within his rights and his duty to uphold the laws.
#40. To: GrandIsland (#17)
You’re allowed to carry alcohol if you’re under age.
#41. To: Tooconservative (#35)
He made a lawful arrest and he was within his rights and his duty to uphold the laws.
#42. To: sneakypete (#36)
And YOU are a dumbass if you think that FACTS can change.
#43. To: sneakypete, GrandIsland (#40)
Carrying is NOT consuming. Even you should be able to understand this.
#44. To: sneakypete (#39)
IF she has a close friend or relative that is a lawyer and is bored and interested in taking the case,all the charges will be dropped against her in exchange for a written agreement that she will not sue the cops or the PD they work for for excessive use of force.
#45. To: Tooconservative (#0)
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.
#46. To: Tooconservative (#42)
Really? Let's take another example of a class of gun laws.
#47. To: Tooconservative (#43)
Carrying is NOT consuming. Even you should be able to understand this.
#48. To: Tooconservative (#44)
I saw no egregious use of force. The arresting officers acted lawfully based on what we have seen.
#49. To: Fred Mertz, GrandIsland (#45)
You're an a-hole, like your homo friend FireIsland.
#50. To: sneakypete (#48)
You are ok with a 200+ lb cop punching a minor female in the head that is on the ground?
#51. To: sneakypete (#46)
AND.......WTF is up with your rabid approval of a state ALLOWING someone to enjoy a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?
#52. To: sneakypete (#47)
If they are illegal narcotics,as you so obviously want to imply,the answer is "No,and it would not be legal for them to be carried if the girls had been over 21,either.
#53. To: nolu chan (#28)
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.”
#54. To: Tooconservative (#42)
How many states in this country allowed civilians to carry a concealed handgun lawfully 50 years ago?
#55. To: misterwhite, sneakypete (#54)
#56. To: Tooconservative (#55)
(Edited)
Obviously I don't want to turn this into a CCW chat thread
#57. To: misterwhite (#56)
(Edited)
My nephew in Ohio open carries and when I'm there I feel unprepared for some upcoming shootout.
#58. To: A K A Stone (#29)
If you lived a few years ago you wouldn't believe in germs and you would be telling deckard that it is a conspiracy theory that the world is not flat. 🍿
#59. To: Tooconservative (#57)
It's a right to carry but I really don't like open carry, don't like to see it.
#60. To: Tooconservative (#57)
I also think that open-carry mostly hurts the gun rights cause more than it helps.
#61. To: misterwhite (#59)
I get nervous at a gun store when I see gang-bangers (well, they look like gang-bangers) handling firearms. I have this strange feeling we'll be meeting again.
#62. To: Tooconservative, GrandIsland (#34)
I'm pretty sure he's breaking some laws down there.
#63. To: Tooconservative (#51)
If she wants no interference from the state, then stay off patrolled state-owned property. Like the beach.
#64. To: Tooconservative (#52)
You sure switched fast from "Of course, it's against the law" for narcotics and went to "you ain't their daddy" when it comes to alcohol.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]