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: 28912
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. 
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?”
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. (1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-54) not displayed.
.
.
.
#55. To: misterwhite, sneakypete (#54)
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.
#56. To: Tooconservative (#55) (Edited)
Obviously I don't want to turn this into a CCW chat thread
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.
#57. To: misterwhite (#56) (Edited)
My nephew in Ohio open carries and when I'm there I feel unprepared for some upcoming shootout.
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.
#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. 🍿
God is not ABSOLUTE. God is relative to your capability & capacity to survive.
#59. To: Tooconservative (#57)
It's a right to carry but I really don't like open carry, don't like to see it.
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.
#60. To: Tooconservative (#57)
I also think that open-carry mostly hurts the gun rights cause more than it helps.
Only when it's done to intimidate. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
#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.
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.
#62. To: Tooconservative, GrandIsland (#34)
I'm pretty sure he's breaking some laws down there.
Nope. And I am whistling DIXIE!
#63. To: Tooconservative (#51)
If she wants no interference from the state, then stay off patrolled state-owned property. Like the beach.
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.
#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.
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.
#65. To: misterwhite (#54)
50 years ago if you were carrying concealed it was assumed you were the bad guy carrying it for nefarious purposes.
HorseHillary! I knew several local businessmen that carried concealed weapons on a daily basis 50 years ago,and nobody thought anything of it.
Why else would you have a concealed weapon?
Uhhhh,to protect yourself from robbery and assault?
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.
#66. To: sneakypete (#65)
HorseHillary! I knew several local businessmen that carried concealed weapons on a daily basis 50 years ago,and nobody thought anything of it.
I was at this country tavern out in the boonies about twenty years ago in the afternoon. The thing I noticed was this large .45 caliber revolver sitting next to the cash register against the wall, not the counter. The place had a reputation for rough types showing up. I doubt they were ever robbed though.
I think the name of it was The Black Cat. I had a beer or two with friends and a nice visit. Not sure if I'd want to be there after 11 p.m. though.
#67. To: sneakypete (#40)
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?
Suppose you came back into reality, fag patriarch.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#68. To: GrandIsland (#67)
Suppose you came back into reality, fag patriarch.
Suppose you eat shit and die,Fire Island?
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.
#69. To: sneakypete (#68)
Suppose you eat shit and die,Fire Island?
Speaking of death... how old are you again?
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#70. To: Tooconservative (#35)
He made a lawful arrest and he was within his rights and his duty to uphold the laws.
#71. To: hondo68, Tooconservative (#70)
He made a lawful arrest and he was within his rights and his duty to uphold the laws.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid.
This is succinctly stated as follows: 'All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.' Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803) 'When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.'
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.†- Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#72. To: sneakypete (#65)
Man, you gotta love how many ‘men’ are in this thread cheering a girl getting beat up by a guy. I bet they’re all tough guys too. Lol.
Maybe they beat their wives as well, wouldn’t surprise me, unless the only reason they don’t is because their wives could beat the hell outa them. What a country we live in now, eh?
'What kind of man gives cigarettes to trees?'
#73. To: Dead Culture Watch (#72)
Man, you gotta love how many ‘men’ are in this thread cheering a girl getting beat up by a guy. I bet they’re all tough guys too. Lol.
At what point was she actually beaten up? She struggled to resist arrest and got cuffed.
You sure do love to hurl those allegations though, a real petty liberal streak of accusation. Makes you feel morally superior apparently.
#74. To: Deckard, misterwhite, GrandIsland, sneakypete (#71)
Blah-blah-blah. You think a Class II Jersey beach cop is going to deliberate like Oliver Wendell Holmes while trying to decide to make an arrest?
Before you declare this woman more holy than the Virgin Mary, let's look at some other reporting on her little hobbies.
| Weinman, a Philadelphia native, whose Facebook page is filled with photos of her young daughter, is facing several felony charges that could result in several years in prison if found guilty. Wildwood Police are referring Weinman to the Cape May prosecutor’s office on two counts of aggravated assault on a police officer, and charges of aggravated assault by spitting bodily fluids at/on a police officer, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, obstruction and being a minor in possession of alcohol. This is not Weinman’s first run in with the law and not the first time she’s been combative, according to court documents. In September of 2016, she was arrested and charged with burglary, simple assault, criminal mischief, criminal trespass and recklessly endangering another person. In November of 2017, Weinman pleaded guilty to misdemeanor simple assault and misdemeanor “recklessly endangering another person.” She was sentenced to serve four years of probation and pay just under $10,000 in court costs and restitution. |
#75. To: Tooconservative (#73) (Edited)
I don’t watch videos. Opening sentence in OP mentions a beating.
Maybe you don’t read what you post? By the way? I am morally superior. It just is what it is.
'What kind of man gives cigarettes to trees?'
#76. To: Dead Culture Watch (#75)
I don’t watch videos. Opening sentence in OP mentions a beating.
So, offered a chance to see the evidence yourself, you prefer to remain ignorant and form opinions based on slanted second-hand reporting.
Maybe you don’t read what you post? By the way? I am morally superior. It just is what it is.
Maybe being gullible or lazy is the source of your moral superiority.
#77. To: Tooconservative (#74)
In November of 2017, Weinman pleaded guilty ... she was sentenced to serve four years of probation ...
So that means she has her probation revoked and she has to serve time for the 2017 crime in addition to these new charges?
I hope.
#78. To: Fred Mertz (#66)
I was at this country tavern out in the boonies about twenty years ago in the afternoon. The thing I noticed was this large .45 caliber revolver sitting next to the cash register ...
At that point I turn arond and find another bar.
#79. To: Deckard (#71)
Which New Jersey law violated the U.S. Constitution here?
#80. To: Dead Culture Watch (#72)
Man, you gotta love how many ‘men’ are in this thread cheering a girl getting beat up by a guy.
So you don't believe in gender equality?
#81. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland (#77) (Edited)
So that means she has her probation revoked and she has to serve time for the 2017 crime in addition to these new charges?
Judges in most states have flexibility and the probation laws vary. I have no idea what NJ does. I would think there would be some jail time.
Some additional info from Heavy.com:
| You can read Weinman’s full, now-deleted Facebook post below: I did not do anything wrong and anything could’ve been written down on that paper so I wouldn’t give it to him. At that point I was told if I don’t give it to him he’s going to arrest me. I told him I have my 18 month old daughter with me and there’s no need for all of it and that again, I’m not gonna give him my information knowing I didn’t do anything wrong. He told me he’s arresting me and started coming towards me to put handcuffs on me. I cautiously was backing up from him (facing him) and yelled for my daughters father. (he was playing in the ocean with our daughter at the time).. I tripped and fell and the cop tackled me to the ground and smashed my head into the sand. At that point I blacked out and fought any way possible trying to get up and push him off me. Thats when he head locked me me by his arm around my neck, punched on me in my head and then he head locked me again but this time choking me, I was gasping for ear. Yes, i know I should’ve gave him my name.. I was partly wrong in a way but I was scared; Like I said I didn’t do anything wrong and anything could’ve been written on that paper, the whole situation was iffy and I didn’t trust it.. especially being aware of the fact of how grimy law enforcement can be now a days. & honestly, I can say if I took even a sip, then I would’ve gave them my information and called it a day; I’m underage, so I know better. But this whole situation was handled wrongly and blew out of proportion all because these pigs didn’t do their jobs the way they were TRAINED to do so. maybe that’s just how they train them nowadays, who knows with the world we live in today🤷🏻♀️ Now, I’m over here with a sore body, banging headache and the thought of ever trusting a police officer again if anything were to happen in the future. That’s what we call them for right?🤦🏻♀️ We are supposed to feel safe and trust our police officers for anything. Oh, did I mention that they didn’t even take the beer (like they’re supposed to since we were underage) and finish getting my friends info?? They obviously were there to stir the pot. I know I’m not the first this happened too and definitely am sure that I will not be the last!! |
So she admits that it was her alcohol and defends it by alleging that 90% of the young people on the beach were also minors in possession. The mayor was interviewed too, "Troiano told local media underage drinking is a problem. 'I don’t understand why it seems to be that this is a God-given right that they can come here and drink underage,' he said." Obviously, this is another major beach with problems of rising lawlessness as we have seen around the country in recent years.
| Wildwood Chief of Police Robert N. Regalbuto told local media, “From what I see on the video and only on the video, from not even talking to the officers, I think they did a decent job.” Cannon, Nillman and Jordan are seasonal cops. Earning just $10 an hour, NJ.com says, they’re called Class II officers who get the same training as police recruits. To qualify for the job they must be 18, have a high school diploma and pass a background check. In its initial statement Sunday, the department said it has “received reports of a video on various social media sources, regarding an incident that occurred on the Wildwood beach yesterday afternoon with our officers.” |
So these are just summer beach cops, with minimal police training. Security guards with a badge. Maybe they're hoping to hired by a PD. You kinda notice the police chief is trying to be supportive but maybe he's not fighting for these seasonal cops like he would for his full-timers.
Like any police incident, the who/what/where/when starts to give you a better picture of the incident. I'm not sure whether it's ordinary or not for seasonal beach cops to be as aggressive as this. Maybe some of the public resentment is due to the fact that they are seasonal cops, not full-time cops or deputies who have a lot more training.
#82. To: Tooconservative (#0)
I just watched a few seconds. Did they get a search warrant for that breathalyzer.
You constitutionally need one. You know that right?
#83. To: A K A Stone (#82)
You constitutionally need one. You know that right?
I don't think you can cite a Supreme Court opinion to support that. I've never heard that before.
It is moot anyway. She gave the breath sample as requested. Apparently, so did her friend though you don't really see that.
#84. To: A K A Stone (#82)
Did they get a search warrant for that breathalyzer. You constitutionally need one.
She was a minor in possession of alcohol. That gave them probable cause to test her.
But it's a moot point. They asked and she voluntarily complied. Twice, I think.
#85. To: Tooconservative (#83)
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."
#86. To: misterwhite (#84)
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.
#87. To: Tooconservative (#81)
anything could’ve been written down on that paper so I wouldn’t give it to him.
She says that twice. Can't she read?
#88. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#85)
"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.
I don't think the Fourth Amendment applies here.
#89. To: misterwhite (#87)
She says that twice. Can't she read?
She doesn't write badly so she can read pretty well.
I'll bet her lawyer just loved her posting that little Facebook confession. : )
#90. To: Tooconservative (#88)
And they didn't search her at all.
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.
The plain words of the constitution were violated.
#91. To: A K A Stone (#90) (Edited)
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.
I still don't see a search or a seizure.
#92. To: A K A Stone (#90)
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.
#93. To: Tooconservative (#91) (Edited)
It doesn't say you can search if someone is stupid and agrees to your illegal search. It says no searches.
#94. To: Fred Mertz (#92)
That is the first positive comment I have received from you in many moons.
#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.
.
.
.
Comments (96 - 135) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]