Hacker News Reader

I do see a cop coming up along side her and grabbing at her and then getting hit in the face. The handprint bruise on her chest paint a clearer picture than this grainy video. But we don't know what happened. I'll also say there's a big difference between an activist having trouble with the law and a thief or other criminal. She says she got grabbed and reacted, and didn't know who it was. She doesn't think you should hit cops either. Nothing you've brought up suggests other motives.

You can draw your own conclusions, but what I see is somebody preparing, consciously, to use the force of slamming their elbow into a police officer's face in order to escape from that officer.

What is the point of the wording "preparing consciously"? Can you prepare for something unconsciously? If someone gropes you from behind, some conscious effort is required to defend yourself.

Fact-free magazines like Cosmopolitan may display sympathy for people like Ms. McMillan, but here at HackerNews we should not.

Please don't use the term "we". I'm not a sociopath and I have sympathy for people who were treated unjustfully.

>What is the point of the wording "preparing consciously"? Can you prepare for something unconsciously?

The point was probably to emphasize the premeditation of it, and I agree it was needlessly verbose. But yes, you can prepare unconsciously, like when your body has the fight-or-flight response.

> Please don't use the term "we". I'm not a sociopath and I have sympathy for people who were treated unjustfully.

A thousand times this.

> I don't see how a fair-minded person can agree that we ought to go around solving our problems by elbowing officers of the law in the eyeball

Why exactly is it not a correct response to having your breasts groped from behind by an unknown assailant?

When you put yourself into such a situation as this, bad things can happen to you, and it may be you who must be prepared for those bad things and the consequences of your actions. Don't blame others for putting yourself into that situation.

Nope.

You don't know what events led up to that officer grabbing her. If I show up a a protest, emotions running high, walking around with a sign and I'm suddenly grabbed from behind... I will attack without identifying who grabbed me. That's not something I should be arrested for. The person grabbing at me unexpectedly is the one who better be prepared for bad things to occur. Now if the officer approached her from the front and identified himself as an officer of the law and attempted to explain why he stopped her then suddenly she elbows him in the face, that's another story.

When you walk into a protest, with "emotions running high" to the point that police need to be there, bad things can happen. You put yourself in the middle and bad things can happen to you. Quit blaming others.

No,

Who decides when the police need to be there? How can there be a protest without emotions running high? That's pretty much what a protest is; people who've reached their limit and want change. If whatever they're protesting wasn't so emotionally/physically stressful they probably wouldn't be protesting to begin with.

It doesn't matter. When you put yourself into such a situation, bad things can happen to you. Quit blaming others when you elbow a cop in the nose. Elbowing anyone in the nose will not bring you any good for that matter.

In this case, the cop felt the need to grab her to keep her from moving. No cop is going to do that without reason. Again, she put herself into that situation, too. That her breast was grabbed is inconsequential. Her article brings it up as if it was intentional or that she had every right to elbow someone in the nose over it. (The video linked to make the action itself questionable but I won't get into that.)

A jury of her peers has found her guilty. Why does this article need to be written as if she were innocent? She wasn't. Why is anyone trying to justify it?

I'd also bet there are far more facts not told in the article that the jury heard but we never will.

>> It doesn't matter. When you put yourself into such a situation, bad things can happen to you.

Why does this apply to me and not the cop?

>>In this case, the cop felt the need to grab her to keep her from moving. No cop is going to do that without reason.

You're kidding me. Are you not aware of the many examples of excessive force by police? There are apparently plenty of cops that would do that without any reason other than getting off on their power-trips.

I'm sure you can find many examples of excessive force but you are assuming this is the case when no one else thought so, specifically a jury of her peers.

> No cop is going to do that without reason.

Your inability to accept that there are bad cops is frustrating.

Obviously police do sometimes grab people for the wrong reasons.

More frustrating is that you automatically think this is a bad cop. No jury thought so. Why do you think so?

I don't think so. Back to what you actually said: "no cop". You didn't say "most cops".

You would be most unwelcome at any protests I've been on.

The idea is to be arrested, and to passively resist that arrest. Go limp, let them drag you. You document any rough treatment you get and sue accordingly.

There is almost no justification for punching an officer and in almost all cases it's going to end badly for the puncher.

Yes, the police are mere automatons with no choice but to behave as they do, driven by inevitable forces of nature. It's always the fault of people who are abused by the police for being near police.

If pulling her away from where she was not supposed to go is abuse by the police, what is her action of elbowing a cop in the nose?

You are stating that the cop was somehow at fault for grabbing her. Can you state why the cop grabbed her in the first place? I'm sure you don't know but why are you so certain the cop grabbed her for a bad reason? How do you know what happened right before that? Was she warned not to go where she went but she did so anyway? Did the cop see she was getting ready to step on a broken bottle and actually rescued her?

You don't know but you have automatically deduced the cop was in the wrong, despite what the jury said.

"If pulling her away from where she was not supposed to go is abuse by the police"

This interpretation of events is not one I agree with based on video footage and the other available evidence. He was clearly very violently "pulling her away" to the point that that's not a very honest description of his act.

"You are stating that the cop was somehow at fault for grabbing her."

It does appear that way.

"Can you state why the cop grabbed her in the first place?"

Not definitively, though I'd assume it was some form of poor judgment.

"I'm sure you don't know but why are you so certain the cop grabbed her for a bad reason?"

Why are you so certain the cop was justified in the attack?

"How do you know what happened right before that?"

I don't know, though it doesn't matter. From the evidence and information I have available the cop wasn't justified in the attack regardless.

"Did the cop see she was getting ready to step on a broken bottle and actually rescued her?"

If this is the level of fever-dream required to justify his assault on her, it pretty clearly shows that justifying his attack is very difficult to do.

"You don't know but you have automatically deduced the cop was in the wrong, despite what the jury said."

Yes, we are actually permitted to disagree with juries. Juries have failed in their judgment often enough that it would be naive not to be skeptical. Understanding the basis by which jurors are selected, and the methods used by which prosecutors go about misinforming juries I don't have a lot of confidence in their decisions.

You've said, "It does appear", "I'd assume", "I don't know", but then you claim, "the evidence and information I have available". No, it doesn't sound like you have any of that but please produce it for us all to see and read.

"we are actually permitted to disagree with juries. Juries have failed in their judgment often enough"

So now you want to say the jury and the cop are wrong. Based on what? Though you have none of the information other than what you read in the article, you feel you know more than the jury? I think not.

"Though you have none of the information other than what you read in the article, you feel you know more than the jury? I think not."

As a matter of fact, I do know more than the jury. The judge suppressed key evidence in the case. There were photos of the cops abusing her that were never presented, and a slam-dunk photo of the cop grabbing her from behind that the jury was not permitted see, as well as more video that made it very clear how out aggressive and out of line the police behavior was.

I qualify what I say since I don't have a perfect view, only the bits and pieces of evidence that exist. Based on those I am assuming what is most likely, and you are doing just the same, as that's all any of us can do.

"You don't know but you have automatically deduced the cop was in the wrong, despite what the jury said."

One other point I forgot to mention - the judge suppressed key evidence in the case. There were photos of the cops abusing her that were never presented, and a slam-dunk photo of the cop grabbing her from behind that the jury was not permitted see.

Quoting a Youtube comment from the video you posted:

"Finally some justice for these ass holes who illegally protest and then claim police brutality all the time. I hope she rots in jail."

Is it come kind of totalitarian sect behind this video? Anyway, don't ever want to have anything with you.

Broad swaths of society hate protestors, because they threaten order, and order is something that everyone benefits from. I imagine you have this idea of protestors and revolutionaries leading society to higher states of justice, but more often they just indulge in chaos and violence (e.g. "pro democracy" protests in the middle east turning into support of islamic extremists; pro-republican protests in revolutionary France turning into the Reign of Terror).

That's a bit strong, of the protests I've seen 90%+ just wave their placards and chant for a few hours , then go home.

Edited slightly to clarify my point: the vast majority of protests are ineffective; the ones that are effective lead to violent injustice more often than they lead to justice.

Doesn't make sense to interfere with ineffective protests. As you can see in comments below, this leads some protesters to become badass revolutionaries and then dictators. And you only helped them while discouraging good citizens from spreading their point of view.

I'm not saying it makes sense to interfere with ineffective protests (and I don't support doing so). I'm explaining why many, ordinary, people hate protestors.

By doing so they further tear apart the fabric of society which, when it rips apart, will destroy the Order they love so much.

To be precise, by demanding to narrow the feedback of the society and radicalize the protesters. This isn't going to end well if that sentiment you describe is widespread.

I'm struggling to think of a violent protest, at least in the western world that caused a change in government policy, beyond causing police departments to invest in watercannons.

Of course it's difficult to measure the effectiveness of a peaceful protest, but it wouldn't surprise me if vocal opposition to say the Iraq war had an impact on foreign policy for Syria for example.

Completely disagree. I assume you're imply protests around slavery/discrimination. I think those protests had to reach a boiling point before real change could occur. If it just stayed super-peaceful and nobody ever showed pure rage I doubt anything would have changed. In fact, when I think about history, I believe most major changes happened only after protests reached a boiling point because the people in power who benefit from the broken system won't be convinced with words alone. That doesn't mean I support wild violence, but I think that's just the unfortunate fact of society that a bad social structure can't be changed without it reaching extreme stress.

> I'm struggling to think of a violent protest, at least in the western world that caused a change in government policy

IRA is the [edit] obvious example.

It's a stretch to call the IRA "protesters".

What's meant by violent protest then?

Perhaps we can use animal rights protests in the UK. These started off by increasing welfare for farm animals; reducing use of animal testing in cosmetics; reducing the amount of fur sold in department stores. But then other changes included tighter controls on what demonstrations could do and now UK government is hardline on supporting vivisection and denying rights to (even peacefully) protest such.

I would say something where people organise an event and bring placards rather than outright terrorism.

The difference is probably that a majority of people don't support the fur trade but most people support animal testing for medical research and it's unlikely that any form of protest would really change public opinion.

Placards at events is not violent protest! Vigorous, maybe, but not violent.

I'm thinking of the tuition fee protests from a few years back.

Dude, as a law person you are pretty fucked.

How are you defining effectiveness? Many campaigns for justice take years if not decades, and can produce numerous protests during that time. Those protests are only 'ineffective' if you imagine that conducting a single protest march or camp might change the established order overnight. That is not the point of protests, which are instead designed to register contesting views with those in power, and promote those views to other potential supporters. In that way many protests are, in fact, highly effective, and non-violent to boot.

The view point which you are espousing, whether you believe it or not, is a time-worn tactic of disinterested or opposed parties who aim to curtail freedom of expression by claiming offences to public order. There are plenty of laws for dealing with violence against people and property, but also laws protecting people who are engaging in free speech, and the fact that someone happens to be promoting social change shouldn't be taken as an excuse to ignore the latter, or misapply the former.

>Is it come kind of totalitarian sect behind this video?

It seems to be a lone Republican who is rather bitter about Obama getting elected.

Why? Obama is not very keen on protesters, and anyway next President would be Republican likely. What's the problem?

Compare that to countries where unrest is squashed and the same bad guy sits in the office for decades, and then bloody coup. You should be happy you still get protests.

I don't want to disagree with what you're saying, I just want to disagree with your methodology here. Just one point:

How can you start up ad hominem attacks on the woman here, "repeated problems with the law", while completely (and I'm hoping not knowingly) omitting all that similar information about the officer? I don't understand.

How can you be so slanted in your presentation? Let me just fill in the details, from your link [1], that you dropped:

    Officer Bovell said that the police department’s Internal Affairs
    Division had suspended him for five days without pay, docked him 25 
    vacation days, rescinded his second job as a bank security guard and put 
    him on probation for a year. He said that in addition to the three 
    tickets that he was penalized for, he had also fixed three other parking 
    tickets.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/nyregion/officer-stands-by...

Nice uppercut.

mcendella I despise you. Obviously you have never been the victim of the police. Even if she did a roundhouse kick knocking him down and teabagged him afterwards that would be no excuse for her treatment.

There is a difference between a violent protester and a violent policeman. The policeman is trained and armed. He is also getting paid to suppress the protest. The protester on the other hand has a non-commercial agenda, which might be idealistic and in a way not voluntary. The protester has no combat training, no armor. The protester does not choose to enter a violent conflict with the police. The police on the other hand chooses to act as a more often that not active, as opposed to passive, violent force opposed to the protest.

During duty, police officers do not deserve the protection of civil law. It can not be crime to insult, hurt or kill a police officer during a heated protest, as it is no crime for a police officer to insult, hurt or kill a civillian in the course of his duty.

To argue on this specific case, there appears to be proof that she was groped. So there should be a sexual harrassment charge (might be dropped due to "not on purpose"). She reacted violently, within seven seconds. In germany thats called "Affekt". Completely legal, actually she had the right to spontaniously choke the guy even if he was civillian (in germany, as long as she was fast enough).

So lets just say the cops had a reason to arrest her (btw on a protest cops usually arrest anyone for anything, because why not), they beat her up doing so.

Quote from your video: "Is she getting beat up?", "Yes, shes getting beat up."

So why are those guys not tried and sentenced to fucking death (what do you have the death sentence for again)? Even I could arrest that girl without hurting her ffs. These guys should be trained to do so.

To sum this up, the mind of a violent protester goes something like this:

"Fuck they're gonna hurt/kill me, im scared im enraged im panicking, i want to get out of this situation."

The mind of a police officer during a protest goes something like this (actually exactly):

"Fucking protesters, im standing here like an idiot, these fucking broad minded fuckers. Hey, wait, did she just kinda look violent? FINALLY a reason why I can assault one of these fucks."

I got hit by a baton once[1], trying to escape out of a "Kessel" (a circle of policement surounding protesters while throwing tear gas inside). Hit my leg, beside my leg being fucked, i weant deaf for ten minutes (might be an adrenaline/pain/shock think who knows). And thats nothing. I've seen 13 year old girls getting beaten by 4 cops with batons and cops spraying maze into your face from a 1 foot distance because you decided to shout at them.

These are not rare cases. This happens on every protest, its the police's job to make it happen on every protest.

If you ever get arrested during a protest, you can count on being beat up during that arrest. Also expect verbal assault. Unless you are verbally assaulted multiple times during arrest, you must have met a jesus-like cop.

Try it for yourself, there are some things that will get you arrested which will actually not be procecuted (in germany thats for instance being masked), also try to run away when they try to arrest you otherwise you might not get the whole getting kneed in the back while on the ground experience. Its a pretty weird feeling. Afterwards go to a doctor, tell him you've been beaten up. Watch their concerned facial expression while asking you "Who'd do such a thing?". I bet you don't feel nearly as violated as the doctor thinks you have been.[2]

So I must say, every time someone gets sentenced for hurting a police officer during protest:

BOO FUCKING HOO, poor little officer. Really. Poor personfied violence of the state. You got hurt, during your job, which is to hurt adversaries of the state. Someone should play a violin.

Edited, footnotes: [1] I think I was 16, it was a counter protest against a Neo-nazi parade. [2] Also first hand experience. I was 17, it was a student protest for better education. I have video footage. No charges against me but I have a medical certificate that I was violated.

PS: If you think I am a radical activist. Quite the opposite, the few protests I have been to made me stay far away of any kind of police presence (including protests) since then. Its telling that of five protests I've been to in my life, on four I would consider having seen serious human rights violations.

This rant has no relevance to the article or to anything much in general, save perhaps as an obvious illustration of projection and the proverbial chip on one's shoulder.

The maladjusted low-life vagrant in the article should consider herself lucky that all she got was a slap on the wrist for this. She very much embodies the majority archetype present at those protests: the entitled, middle class out-of-town suburbanite hell bent on stirring up trouble in a city which has up until then been extremely tolerant of the juvenile, disruptive behavior of extremists it's native population largely disagrees with. These dirtbags spent six months trashing, pissing and shitting on an iconic neighborhood with no real purpose to speak of. The only mistake the city made (and forced the police force to uphold) was allowing this charade to go out beyond the first day it started, at a massive monetary and logistical cost despite an overwhelming negative sentiment against this movement from the local population - the only one's whose opinions really matter.

What's is truly amusing are the many sentiments of those in the comments immediately rushing to condemn the police - clearly, non-native arm chair judicial hobbyists drawing the entirety of their opinions based solely on one-sided articles. Its amusing because save for a few of the pre-planned, large scale "demonstrations" (read: interference of traffic/public transportation and harassment of native New Yorkers just trying to get to work) the police were there NOT to keep the OWS protesters in check; they were there to PROTECT them from the rest of New York which was irate and on the verge of tearing them apart. Had they not been around to guard these parasites and ultimately clean up the filth and squalor they had created, the NYC Vigilante justice would have been far less measured in their response.

No one took kindly to these fuckers attempting to infiltrate and occupy their backyard and rightly so. Let's have assholes fuck, shit, piss, and bang drums right outside your door for over 6 months straight and see how you feel in the end. Then let's multiply that by 100 - let's see who you call to help sort that nightmare out.

Am I the only person that can't see anything in that video? Without hearing any explanation of what's going on in that video, I can't see it as proving, or disproving anything.

She probably didn't know who was groping her from behind.

I didn't see what you saw, the video isn't clear at all. I am left wondering how/why she received so many injuries herself though.

Is this really Marc Cenedella? (http://www.linkedin.com/in/cenedella)

I didn't know he was such a misogynist and bigot.

What do you expect from Hardward and Yale?