Undercover cop pulls his gun for being hit with a snowball

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

JohnHwangDD wrote:

The simple fact that he's unholstered a deadly weapon is threat in and of itself.

Exactly. Even a police officer cannot draw a weapon unless there is potential threat of lethal harm to themselves or others (or evidently you throw a snowball at their tank of a truck).

**Emperors Faithful**

So throwing a snowball at someone is considered assualt in the US?

Must suck. If it snowed over here much I'd be chucking globs of the stuff left, right and center.

**Fateweaver**

Most people wouldn't bother to call the cops for having a snowball thrown at them but if a person felt inclined it is technically assault.

If it didn't end up a jury thing the judge would most likely throw it out unless the snowball caused bodily harm.

Not probable it'd be assault but possible and against a cop, if the cop wanted to it would be assault.

**Emperors Faithful**

As if that would hold up in court. (Insert skeptical orkmoticon)

I suppose the cop would have to say "Bah Humbug" before reading his rights.

**Fateweaver**

Again not probable but possible.

I sure as hell am not going to test that theory by throwing a snowball at a cop. Feel free to do so yourself and let me know how that goes for you.

What the cop did was dumb. What the crowd of mostly college kids was doing was dumb, even if it was allowed. It went from a simple snowball fight to attacking innocents based on the car they drove. Just funny how the video on youtube only shows the cop doing something wrong when it was proven the kids did something wrong too (throwing snowballs at cars) but that part of the video is left conveniently off youtube.

**Emperors Faithful**

Good God!

Those...those fiends were throwing snowballs at cars?!?

Those scoundrels!

**Kanluwen**

Emperors Faithful wrote:Good God!

Those...those fiends were throwing snowballs at cars?!?

Those scoundrels!

Once it stopped being a friendly all-comer snowball match and became hurling snowballs at cars that they disapproved of due to their political beliefs...it's a protest/demonstration.

Which requires a permit, advance scheduling, and police presence to ensure it stays peaceable. When you start throwing things at passerby, it's not a peaceable protest/demonstration.

Since they did none of those things, and were having a giant snowball fight/anti-gas guzzler movement in the middle of a busy intersection they were technically in violation of the law.

If it had remained just a bunch of people enjoying the snow and not chanting f**king pig or lobbing things at the officer as he was leaving, it would be a far different story.

But hey. Focus on the fact that those poor innocent hippie douches were brutalized by people telling them to move out of the road.

**Emperors Faithful**

Emperors Faithful wrote:Good God!

Those...those fiends were throwing snowballs at cars, which may or may not have been enviromentally friendly?!?

Those scoundrels!

Is that Ok?

(We really do need a sarcastic Orkmoticon)

**Kanluwen**

It doesn't change the fact that the crowd was also in the wrong in this situation, no matter the actions of the officer.

**ShumaGorath**

Kanluwen wrote:It doesn't change the fact that the crowd was also in the wrong in this situation, no matter the actions of the officer.

Yes, they were engaged in an unlawful snowball fight.

**Fateweaver**

That and it only takes one snowball to contain a chunk of ice or a rock, on purpose or not (sometimes when you scoop up a large handful of snow and pack it you don't always know that it's just pure snow) to cause damage and or personal injury.

That is why in the city I live in you stand on the street hurling snowballs at people you'll either get your ass kicked, arrested, or both (most likely both).

The cop was in the wrong and should be punished. The crowd was in the wrong the minute it became an illegal protest/assembly like Kan pointed out. It's not a matter of the cop being TFG as many, especially the poor hippies who's parents are paying for them to be able to even be called students, are pointing out. It became both sides are wrong and rather than focus on just the officer they Police Chief should have been fining the students who were throwing snowballs at cars. If nobody wanted to take blame arrest the lot until the guilty confess.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:It doesn't change the fact that the crowd was also in the wrong in this situation, no matter the actions of the officer.

Yes, they were engaged in an unlawful snowball fight.

Shuma, you are the master of attacks. I see you learn from HBMC or Albatross (or both).

The snowball fight wasn't unlawful but a snowball fight is no longer a snowball fight when you start hurling snowballs at cars, especially for political reasons. It then becomes an illegal protest.

But way to ignore facts just to further stroke your own ego.

**ShumaGorath**

That and it only takes one snowball to contain a chunk of ice or a rock, on purpose or not (sometimes when you scoop up a large handful of snow and pack it you don't always know that it's just pure snow) to cause damage and or personal injury.

All someone needs to do is slip on some ice and they can kill people with their cars. Cars are terrible.

The cop was in the wrong and should be punished. The crowd was in the wrong the minute it became an illegal protest/assembly like Kan pointed out. It's not a matter of the cop being TFG as many, especially the poor hippies who's parents are paying for them to be able to even be called students, are pointing out. It became both sides are wrong and rather than focus on just the officer they Police Chief should have been fining the students who were throwing snowballs at cars. If nobody wanted to take blame arrest the lot until the guilty confess.

Glad the name calling came into this. You guys almost managed to assemble a legitimate counter-argument together. Fortunately it broke up on entry because you guys couldn't stop saying hippie.

**JohnHwangDD**

Emperors Faithful wrote: (We really do need a sarcastic Orkmoticon)

Like what? ":eyeroll:"?

Yeah, because that'd improve politeness on Dakka a hundredfold. :eyeroll:

**Fateweaver**

ShumaGorath wrote:
That and it only takes one snowball to contain a chunk of ice or a rock, on purpose or not (sometimes when you scoop up a large handful of snow and pack it you don't always know that it's just pure snow) to cause damage and or personal injury.

All someone needs to do is slip on some ice and they can kill people with their cars. Cars are terrible.

The cop was in the wrong and should be punished. The crowd was in the wrong the minute it became an illegal protest/assembly like Kan pointed out. It's not a matter of the cop being TFG as many, especially the poor hippies who's parents are paying for them to be able to even be called students, are pointing out. It became both sides are wrong and rather than focus on just the officer they Police Chief should have been fining the students who were throwing snowballs at cars. If nobody wanted to take blame arrest the lot until the guilty confess.

Glad the name calling came into this. You guys almost managed to assemble a legitimate counter-argument together. Fortunately it broke up on entry because you guys couldn't stop saying hippie.

K. Green lover. Is that more PC Shuma. Throwing snowballs at people driving cars that aren't fuel efficient sounds like something Green Lovers would do. Most of the adult green lovers I know were hippies during that generation. Now instead of protesting Vietnam they protest cars getting less than 80mpg (which is to say everything but a bicycle).

Not sure where slipping on ice would result in death by car but great way to try to discredit me. Try again though because that statement is epic fail. Throwing a snowball with an unknown chunk of ice or a rock in it is very probable. I have this feeling you live in a state that never sees snow meaning you don't know what the feth you are talking about.

It does not matter what name we called those students. It cannot be denied that the minute they started protesting due to political views it was illegal. If I catch a black man breaking into my house and in court use the N word to describe him the judge will not throw the case out on the grounds he still broke the law.

So saying our counter-argument is void because I used the term hippie is just you wanting to make me look bad. Sorry but the argument Kan and I set forth is no less valid because I used a derogatory term to describe "green lovers".

**ShumaGorath**

K. Green lover. Is that more PC Shuma.

It's not so much about the term as it is about you not being able to formulate an opinion without either inventing or tearing down a group that exists in the fantasy playground that is your head. Oh those terrible hippie snowballers.

It cannot be denied that the minute they started protesting due to political views it was illegal.

You.. Don't.. Know how the law works..

**Kilkrazy**

I think Moderators should have Internetz gunz. That would improve politeness.

I would soon stop any illegal virtual snowball fights if I had an Internetz gun.

**Fateweaver**

Okay, let me spell it out for you in elementary english so that even you can understand it.

People who don't give a gak about the world going green do not care how fuel efficient a persons car is.

People who do care about how fuel efficient a persons car is or isn't will comment or rally against a group of people driving said car.

Those snowballers were throwing snowballs at cars they deemed "fuel inefficient". That narrows us down to 1 of 2 groups of people. Those that don't care and those that do. I'll give you 2 guesses Shuma to figure it out. I'll even give you a hint. It's not the group that doesn't care.

If you speak out against something you are obviously not in favor of it. I speak out against rape and pedophilia so it's obvious to anyone that I'm against those practices.

So, lets try again. That fantasy playground does not exist in my head. It was said they threw snowballs at hummers and other SUV's for political reasons. That obviously made it an illegal protest and obviously it was protesting how "ungreen" hummers and SUV's are.

The only way it wouldn't have been a protest in regards to hummers not being "green" is if they were protesting SUV's having red paint jobs or working headlights or tires that were of a certain height or made of chinese rubber and not US rubber. But I'd have to say it wasn't over any of those things.

So again, good try on the attempt to discredit me but it was epic fail.

I'm going by what Kan said. Far as I know you must obtain a permit to hold a demonstration or rally and unless someone in the crowd snuck down to the courthouse and got the necessary permit required I'm pretty sure that throwing snowballs "to protest fuel inefficient vehicles" aka "political reasons" is illegal demonstrating/rallying.

**JohnHwangDD**

Fateweaver wrote:I speak out against rape and pedophilia so it'd obvious to anyone that I'm against those practices.

Really?

You actually feel a need to tell people that rape and pedophilia are bad?

I thought that, by default, people would be against both of them.

Thanks.

For the record, I'm against rape and pedophilia too.

And animal cruelty. That's wrong, too.

Also, I don't like people who drive slow in the left lane. Those people should be shot!

With snowballs!

**Fateweaver**

I don't protest against them but by speak out I mean I'll never defend a rapist or pedo for any reason and I don't think pedo or rapists deserve a fair trial (though this isn't the thread to discuss that in).

**ShumaGorath**

and I don't think pedo or rapists deserve a fair trial

Then how do you determine that they were guilty? Do you really have no idea how the law system works?

**Fateweaver**

I won't get into this with you Shuma, we've danced this dance before.

In some cases, like with MJ it couldn't be proven. In other cases like lets say it's videotaped and the perp is clearly identified through visual and DNA evidence then no, they should not get a fair trial. They should be taken behind the courthouse and have a .45 put to the dome.

I mean as a DA how can you defend a man who is clearly guilty of molesting or raping someone? The only plea I could think of is insanity and that is so overused it shouldn't even be allowed 50% of the time.

**ShumaGorath**

I mean as a DA how can you defend a man who is clearly guilty of molesting or raping someone? The only plea I could think of is insanity and that is so overused it shouldn't even be allowed 50% of the time.

And when I get you convicted falsely in order to have you thrown in jail you're trial will be swift and harsh. Just like the king wanted.

**Fateweaver**

Fine, I will reword that statement to say "Rapists and Child molesters proven guilty should not get jail time but should be shot".

Does that fit more into your perfect little, grass is green all over, world Shuma?

Or is that still unfair to the man who can only seem to get off when he is fondling a preteen boy or girl?

**JohnHwangDD**

I'm just gonna step away from the thread and leave you two lovebirds with some privacy now.

Good thread while it lasted, tho.

**ShumaGorath**

Fine, I will reword that statement to say "Rapists and Child molesters proven guilty should not get jail time but should be shot".

Does that fit more into your perfect little, grass is green all over, world Shuma?

Yes, because the whole world knows what you mean when you say "without a fair trial". Especially when you aren't even talking about the fairness of the trial but the severity of the punishment.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm just gonna step away from the thread and leave you two lovebirds with some privacy now.

Good thread while it lasted, tho.

No this things been dead on arrival since it landed.

**Fateweaver**

Get over yourself Shuma. Who the feth died and elected you God. Far as I know Obama is still alive (unfortunately) so unless God.....err Obama handed you the Presidency (God help us all I'd for sure leave the country then) I think you need to step down off the thrown you made in your parents basement out of Life cereal boxes and cookie dough.

But yeah you are right. If eyewitness and DNA can prove a man raped a woman/man or a little girl/boy he should be executed without trial. If it can't be proven right away but he/she is found guilty than it should be immediate death penalty with no appeals.

**ShumaGorath**

If eyewitness and DNA can prove a man raped a woman/man or a little girl/boy he should be executed without trial.

It's a function of the trial to bring that evidence together and actually prove it.

Get over yourself Shuma. Who the feth died and elected you God. Far as I know Obama is still alive (unfortunately) so unless God.....err Obama handed you the Presidency (God help us all I'd for sure leave the country then) I think you need to step down off the thrown you made in your parents basement out of Life cereal boxes and cookie dough.

How much do you really have to say before the mods slap you on the wrist?

**Kanluwen**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:It doesn't change the fact that the crowd was also in the wrong in this situation, no matter the actions of the officer.

Yes, they were engaged in an unlawful snowball fight.

Psst. Political leanings indicate a protest.

If a KKK member organized a snowball fight in downtown DC, and SUDDENLY it turned into them hurling snowballs and verbal abuse against any black/ethnic passerby--your ass would be in here hollering for them to be arrested.

Yes, it was a SNOWBALL FIGHT. We get that smartass. What you seem to fail to comprehend(or choose to ignore, as the case may be) is that the moment the crowd began throwing snowballs at people in "gas guzzlers"--it becomes a political action.
The fact that the police didn't break it up at that point was silly, but still. The laws are on the books. And what to your wondering eyes should appear...

The District of Columbia wrote:A. DC Charges

Incommoding. This is blocking vehicle or pedestrian traffic on the streets, sidewalks, and other walkways. This is by far the most common charge we see when protestors sit down in the street. Sidewalks are trickier because you generally have a right to engage in free speech activities on the public sidewalks; but if you so clog them that no one else can use the sidewalks, you might be charged with incommoding. Maximum penalty is a $250 fine and/or 90 days in jail. DC Code § 22-1107. The charge of disorderly conduct is essentially the same. DC Code § 22-1121.

Note that Obstructing bridges connecting DC and Virginia is punishable by an additional fine of at least $1,000 and up to $5,000, and/or up to 30 days in jail. DC Code § 22-1123.

Failure to obey a Police Officer. Often called "failure to disperse," this charge is possible when the police decide to close a street or clear a path and you refuse to move. The order they give you must be "lawful," which means that if the police issue an unconstitutional order, there is no offense in ignoring it. But police authority is very broad and we won’t know if the order was unconstitutional until trial. If the order turns out to have been lawful and you failed to obey it, you can be fined $100-$1,000. DC Muni. Reg. §§ 18-2000.2 & 2000.10.

Resisting or interfering with a police officer is a violation of the same law as assault on a police officer (below). You may not stand in the path of an officer (especially if they are trying to make an arrest) or pull away from them or help another person to pull away from an officer trying to make an arrest. In addition to violating this law (which is quite serious in itself -- up to 5 years), you may be charged with aiding and abetting (below). Resisting arrest is unlawful even if the officer has no rightful basis for arresting you.
False statement. This can come up with forms you are asked to complete before being released. If you put something untrue on a form that says making a false statement is punishable by criminal penalties, you can be fined $1,000 and/or be sentenced to 180 days in jail. DC Code § 22-2514.

The following charges are inconsistent with compliance with the Nonviolence Code of Conduct that everyone involved in the A16 action has agreed to follow. We therefore do not expect to see these, but mention them in case of overcharging by the police.

All participants in this particular action are asked to agree to these action guidelines. Having this basic agreement allows people from many backgrounds, movements, and beliefs to work together. They are not philosophical or political requirements or judgments about the validity of some tactics over others. These guidelines are basic agreements that create a basis for trust so that we can work together for this action and know what to expect from each other.

1) We will use no violence, physical or verbal, towards any person

2) We will carry no weapons

3) We will not bring or use any alcohol or illegal drugs

4) We will not destroy property

Assault on a Police Officer. Any unwanted touching of a police officer is an assault. Touching anything they are holding (nightstick, bullhorn, etc.) is the same as touching the officer. Same for throwing anything at an officer, even if you only accidentally hit them. This is a serious offense, a felony, with a possible $5,000 fine and/or 5 years in prison. DC Code § 22-505.

Destruction of property. Less than $250 in damage is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $1,000 fine and/or 180 days in jail. More than $250 in damage is a felony, with a maximum penalty of a $5,000 fine and/or 10 years in prison. DC Code § 22-403. Even if there is no "destruction," there is a separate crime of defacing public or private property. DC Code § 22-3112.1.

Rioting or inciting to riot. A group that acts violently and creates "grave danger" of injury or property damage can be fined up to $1,000 and/or sentenced to 180 days in jail. If anyone is harmed or if more than $5,000 in damage occurs, everyone to urged others to take part can receive up to 10 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.

Unlawful assembly; profane and indecent language. Most jurisdictions have laws like this on the books. As applied to political protest and speech, they are generally unconstitutional and unenforceable. Only individuals in the crowd who become violent or threatening can be convicted under this law. Maximum punishment is $250 fine or 90 days in jail. DC Code § 22-1107.

Obstruction of justice. Interfering with a police officer is illegal. Please see resisting or interfering with a police officer above, as the conduct described there is a serious crime. However, bad television has confused some people as to what "obstruction of justice" means. It is not illegal to tell someone being arrested to keep quiet, to ask for a lawyer, etc. It only becomes obstruction of justice if you threaten a witness, intending to intimidate them into refusing to testify truthfully, or if you destroy evidence. DC Code § 22-722(a) & 723.

http://www.portaec.net/library/action/exercising_your_rights.html Enjoy the link.

Funny how if you watch the tape...there's quite a few of those being broken. Funny how y'know...the crowd was just being a whole bunch of angels and only recording what they wanted put out there.

**Fateweaver**

ShumaGorath wrote:
If eyewitness and DNA can prove a man raped a woman/man or a little girl/boy he should be executed without trial.

It's a function of the trial to bring that evidence together and actually prove it.

Get over yourself Shuma. Who the feth died and elected you God. Far as I know Obama is still alive (unfortunately) so unless God.....err Obama handed you the Presidency (God help us all I'd for sure leave the country then) I think you need to step down off the thrown you made in your parents basement out of Life cereal boxes and cookie dough.

How much do you really have to say before the mods slap you on the wrist?

So once proven do you still feel a child rapist should be put in jail for 5 years and then let out only to do it again? or possibly do it again?

Shooting someone in the head and killing them instantly will in most states result in a needle in the arm. Shouldn't forcing yourself sexually on a teen or preteen boy/girl garner the same punishment. If I was 10 I'd rather be shot in the head then suffer being raped but that's just me so maybe I am a nutjob.

**Kilkrazy**

Good luck getting re-elected as mayor of a town where people get arrested for snowball fights because they are "illegal political demonstrations."