Allegedly the officer initiated contact, off-duty, for no legitimate reason:
Yeah, they're getting paid.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Lesbian Couple Arrested for Kissing in Public
- Thread starter ApharmdX
- Start date
- Status
Allegedly the officer initiated contact, off-duty, for no legitimate reason:
Yeah, they're getting paid.
It is, this was a rogue cop.
After Seattle softly decriminalized weed, a single cop was writing more than 80% of the tickets. Every organization has some NUTS in it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/30/seattle-cop-marijuana-tickets_n_5636307.html
According to the lawsuit, they didn't even do that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/29/honolulu-police-officer-allegedly-arrested-lesbian-couple-for-kissing-in-a-supermarket/
The cop flat out assaulted the women. He should be locked up.
Omegasquash
Member
The Board of Education.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Should be witnesses too, if that is how it happened the local PD is fucked.
TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared
Member
Presumably theres CCTV available of the incident when the case goes to court or whatever.
A hefty settlement, no doubt.
The concern moving forward is the officer on active duty "pending an investigation" and what happens to him. We can all guess how little will happen.
Byakuya769
Member
We all need to discuss that the most prudent action was for them to stop kissing and comply with the officer. They could have easily written a sternly worded letter afterwards.
Not victim blaming.
Not victim blaming.
If off duty cop tells you to stop doing something legal in a grocery store you should throw yourself to the floor and apologize.
Wonder how many people cops have justified putting in the grave for approaching an officer the same way this guy approached the girls.
Byakuya769
Member
And tip him for his service to the community.
This guy wasn't even on duty. It was nothing more than his irrelevant opinion.
Krappadizzle
Member
I apologize on behalf of Native Hawaiians. We are big proponents of love and respect and this poho showed none of that. It's not typical there I can say.
Byakuya769
Member
Does Justus ever rest? Can it ever be off-duty?
join in the applause of the bystanders when he doesn't shoot anyone.
Foodland issued an apology to them, so you know, alls well that ends well.
This is the sort of stuff I bring up when someone tells me discrimination of homosexuality is gone. :/
Mad Season
Banned
is this 1950?
Captin Quacker
Member
Ohana means family
Provided that family is right in the eyes of my religious believes
Cap'n Cook
Member
Can we please get a reenactment of this incident? Starring Sophie Turner and Aubrey Plaza, thanks.
They didn't do anything wrong? Why should they have to comply with anything a plainclothes officer has to say unless he addresses them as such and they are doing a crime?
Dude was using is job as an outlet for his homophobia.
stump sock
Member
hah, I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought she looked like Sophie Turner. It's the eyes I think
Omega Kirby
Member
Ice cold
Mechanized
Member
Last I checked store staff aren't junior police officers. Why the fuck did they help that asshole? The store should get fucking sued to hell for this, assault, forced restraint. Tied up and taken to the basement? What the fuck.
According to KHON, their lawyer says he asked for the surveillance footage but was told it's missing. Huh.
Captin Quacker
Member
well isn't this new and different
CadetMahoney
Member
no just russia.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
...this happened in Hawaii ? shocked
Agent Gibbs
Member
This is made up right? right? SMH
I just don't know where to begin with how disgusting this is
I just don't know where to begin with how disgusting this is
Shit reminds me of those fast food phone hoaxes.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Point taken, the cop clearly saw one of the women transferring illegal weapons to her partner through a kiss. What a Hero Cop™.
EDIT: Further, can you not talk about "wait for the facts" when you claimed that an employee asked him to intervene based on nothing more than "otherwise the cop is a horrible person"?
Thaedolus
Gold Member
Jesus fucking Christ you gotta be kidding me with this strawman bullshit. I never said he was a hero, I said I thought the reasons for the initial encounter sound stupid.
I never claimed the employee asked him to intervene, I said I inferred (meaning deduced that this was at least possible, but without hard facts or evidence) that an employee was involved due to what was stated in the article. I specifically said we don't know this for a fact, but if it's true then the officer was right to respond to a trespassing complaint.
I'm not saying I think the officer or employees were right in what they did in any way, but I've been around long enough to know better than to dial up my outrage to 11 every time a one-sided article like this comes out.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
I'm still trying to decide which is funnier..the throwing away of a modern art display or this shit here. Arrested..for kissing? Not fucking on a park bench? Not living pearls? Fucking kissing? America..we need help..
Geezuz..I'm actually getting tired of reading the word outrage. I'm gonna start using my ignore list..
Geezuz..I'm actually getting tired of reading the word outrage. I'm gonna start using my ignore list..
A Link to the Past
Banned
" So from the other article it looks like an employee complained to the officer about it? "
"I'm inferring from this that the employee was the one who wanted them gone, because normally a cop isn't going to threaten you with trespassing unless the establishment has asked you to leave. "
You're spreading misinformation, and the reason is because you made an incredibly loose inference of one single detail in the story.
If they assaulted the officer, it was because they were defending themselves. People aren't upset for you "not upping your outrage to 11", people are annoyed that you are being pedantic and saying "the sole reason why the officer even acknowledged their existence, and the reason he was going after them, isn't why they got arrested." As you talked about "waiting for all the facts", you declared - as a matter of fact - that the reason they were arrested was because they assaulted the officer. In doing so, you:
1. Assumed that this was a legitimate charge, and not another example of a trumped-up charge by an overzealous officer looking to justify their use of force.
2. Assumed that the alleged assault was unjustified (if it is justified self-defense, the charge is not warranted). If we assume that it was justified, then the cop was assaulting them. So unless we're not supposed to protect ourselves from violent individuals, the charge has no basis.
Using the information we have, we cannot determine that an employee asked of the officer anything. We can however determine that the altercation between the officer and the women couldn't exist without the officer becoming outraged by a kiss.
So, since you have been declaring that the purpose of the arrest was assault, and that the claim by the women that he physically assaulted her when she tried to call 911, prove it. Otherwise, how are you doing anything other than assuming good faith in the officer based on nothing, and bad faith in the women based on nothing? Why can you complain about people making assumptions when your posts amount to literally nothing but assumptions?
"I'm inferring from this that the employee was the one who wanted them gone, because normally a cop isn't going to threaten you with trespassing unless the establishment has asked you to leave. "
You're spreading misinformation, and the reason is because you made an incredibly loose inference of one single detail in the story.
If they assaulted the officer, it was because they were defending themselves. People aren't upset for you "not upping your outrage to 11", people are annoyed that you are being pedantic and saying "the sole reason why the officer even acknowledged their existence, and the reason he was going after them, isn't why they got arrested." As you talked about "waiting for all the facts", you declared - as a matter of fact - that the reason they were arrested was because they assaulted the officer. In doing so, you:
1. Assumed that this was a legitimate charge, and not another example of a trumped-up charge by an overzealous officer looking to justify their use of force.
2. Assumed that the alleged assault was unjustified (if it is justified self-defense, the charge is not warranted). If we assume that it was justified, then the cop was assaulting them. So unless we're not supposed to protect ourselves from violent individuals, the charge has no basis.
Using the information we have, we cannot determine that an employee asked of the officer anything. We can however determine that the altercation between the officer and the women couldn't exist without the officer becoming outraged by a kiss.
So, since you have been declaring that the purpose of the arrest was assault, and that the claim by the women that he physically assaulted her when she tried to call 911, prove it. Otherwise, how are you doing anything other than assuming good faith in the officer based on nothing, and bad faith in the women based on nothing? Why can you complain about people making assumptions when your posts amount to literally nothing but assumptions?
TheSlySoul
Member
You are right, I misread the person getting shoved. The article could have been better written.
Thaedolus
Gold Member
Question mark. Inferring. Very clearly showing I don't know these things to be true, but it seems like there's something in the article to support it, because it seems exceedingly rare and/or unlikely that a cop would just approach two customers and tell them they're trespassing. But again, I didn't rule it out. I've totally allowed for the possibility the cop was a total dickwad.
It's not all that loose. Why was he confronting them with an employee?
1. Stating that it's possible such a thing is the case isn't the same thing as assuming it, for fuck's sake understand the nuance of what I've put forth.
2. We have one side of what happened during the altercation, coming from a lawsuit. Surely you understand there are multiple sides to every story? Have you ever managed employees before and settled disputes between multiple parties? Everyone has their own side to the story. This isn't rocket science. You hear both sides of the argument, and thus far we've only heard one.
No, we can't determine that the employee asked for anything, I offered it up as a possibility based on some evidence in the story. I disclaimed it both times with a question mark and the fact I was inferring something from a sole piece of evidence. Your second point is complete is nonsense, though, because we only have one version of events. "We were just having a kiss" could have been something completely different if you get more witnesses. That's why I want to wait for more details. Obviously this couple is going to put their best foot forward, downplaying what they were doing and uplaying the response. This is exactly what you'd expect in a typical dispute, and especially in a lawsuit.
The reason for the arrest was assault. I'm not declaring that, the arresting officer declared that. What led up to that is relevant but not the reason for the arrest, and I would agree even if the employee asked to have them removed, that's ridiculous of the employee to do so (that is, assuming they were just kissing). I am 100% open to the possibility that the cop was a complete douchebag. It's happened before and it'll happen again. I'm not convinced of it based on what we know from one side of the dispute, however. How is that an untenable position? Meaning, my position as I state it, not as your strawman me in restating it in absolute and concrete terms (something I haven't done).
From the news story I saw last night it sounded like investigators viewed the footage when they were deciding whether or not to prosecute the women...but now it seems to be missing...
A Link to the Past
Banned
The officer to my knowledge has not denied doing what he was accused of doing. As such, the only side that's willing to speak stated that when she tried to call the police, he grabbed her arm. He was physically exerting himself onto her, and appeared prepared to detain her. At that point, the officer had not once been assaulted. So:
1. The police haven't denied their version of events
2. The security footage is conveniently missing
The "wait and see" logic is a win for cops because people will give them the benefit of the doubt even if they don't ever defend their actions, while victims have to go well beyond any burden of proof.
Oh, and I'll not take responsibility for vague and unclear - or as you like to call them. "nuanced" - posts. You are an adult, and considering that I'm not the only one who took the many posts you've made that lack any indication of them being speculation rather than an affirmation. Instead of everyone being unable to detect your nuance, maybe you are just not very good at getting your message across?
Assuming good faith is basically simply not assuming bad faith unless there's reason to. Well, we know that the encounter happened because of bigotry. We know that the case of assault against them was weak enough to not pursue. We know that one side is giving more information than the other (and thus has a greater chance of being proven wrong). We know that security footage has mysteriously disappeared without any explanation. There's a point where you should stay in the middle, and there's a point where you should look at a bigoted officer who charged them with a crime that was dismissed, who appears on a security tape that doesn't exist anymore, who himself is accused of assault, and say "hmm, it sounds to me like everything points to him being a scumbag."
1. The police haven't denied their version of events
2. The security footage is conveniently missing
The "wait and see" logic is a win for cops because people will give them the benefit of the doubt even if they don't ever defend their actions, while victims have to go well beyond any burden of proof.
Oh, and I'll not take responsibility for vague and unclear - or as you like to call them. "nuanced" - posts. You are an adult, and considering that I'm not the only one who took the many posts you've made that lack any indication of them being speculation rather than an affirmation. Instead of everyone being unable to detect your nuance, maybe you are just not very good at getting your message across?
Assuming good faith is basically simply not assuming bad faith unless there's reason to. Well, we know that the encounter happened because of bigotry. We know that the case of assault against them was weak enough to not pursue. We know that one side is giving more information than the other (and thus has a greater chance of being proven wrong). We know that security footage has mysteriously disappeared without any explanation. There's a point where you should stay in the middle, and there's a point where you should look at a bigoted officer who charged them with a crime that was dismissed, who appears on a security tape that doesn't exist anymore, who himself is accused of assault, and say "hmm, it sounds to me like everything points to him being a scumbag."
A Link to the Past
Banned
Considering that there's no security footage to speak of (and it'll likely be settled out of court with an NDA), I think the cop is going to benefit since he's not going to have to say anything.
AcademicSaucer
Member
OH my
I was expecting Russia, but I'm not surprised it's in the US. Hawaii's a curveball though.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
- Status