…What?
What are cops for then? 
Does an on-duty paramedic not have to respond to a severely wounded bystander?
But in this instance, he did witness it. Or am I not understanding your point?
I’m sure Bricker can cite chapter and verse, but the general reasoning (as I understand it) is twofold:
-
If cops were required to arrest for any crime they witnessed, that would severely limit their latitude with “letting the small fish go” and they’d spend all their time handing out minor offenses instead of worrying about the big stuff. If you’ve ever had a cop let you go with a warning instead of a speeding ticket, this is an example of officer’s discretion.
-
Cops understandably don’t want to unnecessarily put themselves in harm’s way if they can avoid it. If a lone beat cop sees 20 gang members beating on a guy in an alley, it’s completely reasonable of said cop to wait for a backup of 50 other cops instead of striding in and announcing those 20 guys are under arrest.
I realize neither of those objections really apply here, but I’m sure the policy is written broadly enough that the cops are legally in the clear.
Similar reasoning goes for paramedics - they don’t have to assist someone if they have a bigger case to get to or if they wouldn’t be safe themselves.
You can sue for anything, but you’re going to be hard pressed finding a case where someone won a lawsuit against a police department for not intervening in a scuffle lasting less than a minute where no one was hurt, like the ‘assault’ by the woman. When there was actually serious violence, the police sprang into action when he was actually pushed over and kicked.
And again, this ignores that the video is suspiciously short, if the guy actually provoked the fight then it’s his fault there was a fight in the first place. You are going to have a really bad day in court if you pick a fight then try to sue the police because they didn’t stop you soon enough.
Cops have no obligation to intervene to protect any individual. Generally you should expect something like the video if you’re picking a fight at a protest, cops will look on if it’s a minor scuffle like the woman semi-hitting the guy, and intervene quickly if a serious fight breaks out. If you expect the cops to instantly arrest anyone who lightly taps you, especially if you’re a neo-nazi stirring up trouble at a protest, then you’re going to be disappointed.
This has gone all the way to the Supreme Court in a case more than a decade old, cops don’t have to protect any particular individual from harm. If you think that police are there to protect you, you’re simply not correct. This comes up a lot when people are discussing self-defense laws. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html?_r=0
This is what I’m thinking. There must be established policies and tactics for crowd control. Arresting everyone who gets out of line will escalate the situation, while leaving fewer cops to control the crowd while the arrestees are escorted away.
She was try8ing her best. She’s tiny so not much came of her efforts alone. But would she be able to say, rip off a pair of eyeglass with impunity?
As far as the length of the video, yes there may be more information. But based on what we can see, the white supremacist guy is steadfastly not only not being aggressive, but doing little to even protect himself. As much of an asshole he may be, I do think you have to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
That makes sense as far as not doing anything to the girl during her punching, but the fas that no one was arrested after things escalated is a travesty.
Sure, if she stole someone’s glasses, the cops would probably force her to give them back. But she didn’t take anything. Actual cops deal with real world situations, and make evaluations based on common sense instead of weird ultra-specific interpretations of the law.
No, I never give Nazis the benefit of the doubt. If the first part of the video supported his victim stance, it would be in there, but it was cut, and I’m perfectly willing to draw the conclusion that it was cut for a reason, simply because he is a cheerleader for racist genocide. The other videos by the account posting this one are pretty awful (lots of virulent anti-gay propaganda), which also argues against giving the benefit of the doubt. And finally, giving the Nazi the benefit of the doubt means not giving the cops the benefit of the doubt, when they seem to be handling the situation well.
It doesn’t make any sense to complain that a situation was handled badly when you make a broad array of assumptions not backed by the evidence, and give all of the ‘benefit of the doubt’ to one person and not to anyone else involved in the scene.
If you think that the cops not making arrests after a minor fight where no one was hurt is a ‘travesty’, you’re in for a lot of travesty viewing in your time. Also, the video doesn’t support your claim that no one was arrested, it cuts off before an arrest would be made. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were no arrests, but the video ends right after the fight is broken up, before the cops would have time to formally arrest someone.
Sorry. I didn’t make that clear. My point was that the code very much restricts a police officer from making an arrest, unless and until he sees a misdemeanor or has PC for a felony.
My point was that the Virginia code restricts when an officer may make an arrest. Quite the opposite of mandating an officer to make an arrest when they witness what may be a crime.
I wonder how much the police paid her, for doing something they’re not allowed to.
Nice way to knock down a few political opponents, in any event.
Not saying that itwould have played out any different, but around here the police have a sworn duty to preserve the peace and prevent crime:
.
That does not, of course, require them to arrest people, but they may do so to preserve peace or prevent crime. “Preserving the peace” doesn’t actually require that any “crime” has been committed.
Yes, the video is cut off at the end. Good point. I’d be curious to know if there was an arrest.
But I am detecting disregard for the Nazi…maybe even glee in him getting beat. As much as I hate Nazi’s and wouldn’t mind if they all got the shit kicked out of them daily, this is about the principle of free speech and crossing the line into assault. You know, the lines we learned about in kindergarten. Today a Nazi-type gets treated that way. Who tomorrow. I believe in a bright line between touching and not touching; yelling and assault. I think keep that line bright is a good thing for society.
Again, there are two problems with what you’re saying. First off, the video is edited to avoid showing what the Nazi did before the fight, which means in all likelihood he provoked the attack in the first place, which makes him not a victim but an instigator. (No, I do not give their ilk the benefit of the doubt). Second, you keep acting like the cops let him get ‘the shit kicked out of him’, but the cops intervened immediately when the altercation moved from some minor scuffle into a serious attack.
There’s another open thread about the assault by Yvette Felarca, in which links have been posted to videos of
[ul][li] the run-up to the attack on the neo-Nazi (the same cameraman had been interviewing him for a while) — he doesn’t wield his flagpole as a weapon except once shortly after a young Ninja-dressed woman steals the neo-Nazi flag from the end of it;[/li][li] the general mêlée after the assault by Ms. Felarca;[/li][li] an interview of a wounded Ms. Felarca bragging about their success in driving off the neo-Nazis.[/ul][/li]Felarca and her followers brag about fighting speech with force. But apparently the “neo-Nazis” did eventually injure Felarca and others with knives.