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: 21918
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 # 130.
#28. To: Tooconservative (#0)
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]
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.
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?
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).
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.
So what?
So: you were factually inaccurate. Neither he nor his Feckless Cunt baby mama had any lifetime commitment to each other.
That's just pathetic. Desperation in order to try to win a losing argument is never pretty,but you are taking it to new lows.
The article describes him as "her daughter's father". Not a husband, not a fiancee. The child is an infant only 18mo old. And that makes him the baby daddy.
So what? In WHAT important way does that make any difference at all? How does it change anything?
You were suggesting they were a pair with legal status or declared intentions. I was merely correcting this impression. They aren't married, they aren't engaged, she and her baby live with her mom, I think.
I was suggesting there was an adult of legal age to possess beer as a part of the group.
#131. To: sneakypete (#130)
There wasn't. She told the cops her "aunt" was on the way. The "aunt" never showed. She made a CreepBook post after that said she was M.I.P. and excusing it by saying the 90% of the minors on the beach were also M.I.P. Then she deleted the post but someone snapshotted it before she got it deleted.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 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.
#38. To: nolu chan (#28)
Any person under the legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages who knowingly possesses without legal authority
#117. To: sneakypete (#38)
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?
#118. To: nolu chan (#117)
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.
#120. To: sneakypete, nolu chan (#118)
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?
#122. To: Tooconservative (#120)
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).
#123. To: sneakypete (#122)
Well,he was probably foolish enough to think there was no danger of his wife being attacked on a public beach in broad daylight.
#124. To: Tooconservative (#123)
He was just a baby daddy, not a husband
#125. To: sneakypete (#124)
So what?
#126. To: Tooconservative (#125)
(Edited)
So: you were factually inaccurate. Neither he nor his Feckless Cunt baby mama had any lifetime commitment to each other.
#127. To: sneakypete (#126)
Desperation in order to try to win a losing argument is never pretty,but you are taking it to new lows.
#128. To: Tooconservative (#127)
The article describes him as "her daughter's father". Not a husband, not a fiancee. The child is an infant only 18mo old. And that makes him the baby daddy.
#129. To: sneakypete (#128)
(Edited)
#130. To: Tooconservative (#129)
You were suggesting they were a pair with legal status or declared intentions.
Replies to Comment # 130. I was suggesting there was an adult of legal age to possess beer as a part of the group.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 130.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]