Pro-life vid of the day: Police ignore assault on pro-lifers
by Hans Johnson
Young members of Created Equal’s Justice Riders and Survivors’ Campus Outreach deterred two mothers from the Tampa Women’s Health Center. This did not please the abortion workers, who came out and washed off the pro-lifers’ messages chalked onto the sidewalk. But when a woman was directed to the pro-life pregnancy resource center next door, their anger grew. They began to splash buckets of water, and even turn the hose on the protesters.
While the intensity is not the same, this can’t help but bring to mind another occasion where water hoses were used against youthful protesters in a civil rights cause. The police were “just following orders” back then. In this case, they refused to step in on behalf of the assaulted parties.
[youtube]https://youtu.be/cmpsB3Vsl3k[/youtube]
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
[HT: Kelli]
The motto of the police department-ALL police departments is “To Serve And Protect”. I guess the Tampa Police Department’s motto is “To serve And Protect- whomever we CHOOSE to protect”.
SMH
6 likes
Sorry folks but the police have a point here. Sure spraying water on someone isn’t very nice, but it hardly breaks the law. By the given legal definition, I wouldn’t call it battery either.
The officers can’t make an arrest for this reason. They arrived after the fact and the mill staff hypothetically says “hey, we were washing off our fence and these folks wouldn’t get out of our way, they were harassing us”. Anyone got evidence, other than water? Who gets arrested or charged for what??
To compare this to the civil rights situation is beyond absurd. High pressure fire hoses and police dogs, both considerably more dangerous, were turned on peaceful black demonstrators by police.
4 likes
Thank you for helping women and saving lives!
Sorry that you got hosed for it, but don’t let that deter you!
8 likes
I wonder what the police would have done if THEY were the ones getting hosed?
6 likes
Tommy R,
Well then the police would know who was responsible and you may be facing charges for interfering with a police officer while in the performance of his/her duty.
3 likes
Intentionally spitting on someone is against the law, and that is a miniscule amount of fluid compared to a hose.
4 likes
Did this site really just compare some people getting water splashed on them to the civil rights movement and the treatment with fire hoses and police dogs?
Seriously, did that just happen?
Post sober site contributors – that’s an embarrassment to logic and history.
Wow
7 likes
MoJoanne,
If that person has hepatitis I will take the hose any day.
3 likes
Ex-GOP,
I’ve had no more than a sip here and there in my life. I said it was way down the line as far as intensity goes, but it was an assault meant to rebuff free speech just as much.
I wouldn’t go tit for tat and compare the urgency of sitting at lunch counters or staying silent about dismemberments.
Justice vs. injustice is a wide-reaching subject.
2 likes
WAAAYYYY down in intensity – and fire hose and police dog attacks were delivered by police.
I’m not going to pick a fight on this – but I will say that this is the sort of stuff that makes us pro-lifers looking like a bunch of out of touch lunatics. The post and video of anybody having their rights oppressed is a bad thing – but when it is compared to a historic moment in the history of this country where protesters literally risked their life – it is such an off-base comparison that it sort of demeans both groups of protesters.
6 likes
Personally I think there’s a huge knee jerk reaction here. The police didn’t swoop down and save the day so they’re not enforcing the law.
This does make PL people look silly and you are well aware that when arguing police matters, I have taken the PL side….when it was warranted. No pun intended. In this situation I see the police officers’ side.
They are trying to contain the situation, there really is nothing they can do, people can use hoses on their own property, if you got sprayed….well that happens. Stand out of the range of the hose. It will only reach so far. You can continue to protest all you want.
3 likes
Little issues sometimes become big issues if they are not nipped in the bud.
4 likes
A free tip, guys: only a comically gullible person would accept those groups’ word on a law. The Florida code says that battery is committed when someone
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2.?Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
You’ll notice that the protesters were not actually touched, and were therefore not actually victims of battery, no matter how many times they squawk the word at the police.
And you all should be offended that the makers of the video assumed that you were too lazy to check the statute for yourself.
4 likes
Definitely not legally battery in any way. Lisa posted the relevant statute, it is correct.
Honestly from what I remember of Florida law the only thing that might fit is menancing, but even then I sincerely doubt that this follows under that.
2 likes
Hi DLPL,
I definitely agree with Lisa’s post. Situations like this tend to produce knee jerk reactions. Everyone should just take a deep breath and get their facts.
It looks to me like the police are doing what they probably have to do a hundred times a day….defuse the situation. Yes it may be very frustrating that the police can’t do what we want them to, or anything at all, but the law is the law. If you don’t like it, write to your city councilperson.
1 likes
Hi Prax 10:22PM
I agree. As such, I believe the officers did just that.
1 likes
It’s crystal clear to me that the police are proaborts and/or answer to proaborts.
0 likes
No Prax,
The police were following the law as LisaC pointed out. The police have only the word of everyone to go on and each side will give their own version of events. There is no evidence to back either side, except that some people are wet. This often happens when you walk by someone’s house as they use the water sprinkler.
I notice the male officer says he plans to speak to the mill escorts as well. Very likely(or so I’m told) he ended the discussion with…”and I don’t want to get called back here again, is that understood”? I think when an officer tells us that we get the message.
Were there any further incidents? Did the situation escalate? Not that we are aware of. It sounds to me like the officers did their job as best the law allows them to without taking sides.
Also what evidence is there that they are “proaborts”. Did they say so?
Unless you can tell me what law was broken, the proof, and what should have been done.
1 likes
The video shows evidence of the prolifers being purposefully sprayed i.e. touched against their will. The prolifers didn’t choose to walk into the water and I’m not sure how you compare this to walking by someone’s house who has a sprinkler going.
If someone was watering their yard by hand and then PURPOSEFULLY sprayed people on a public sidewalk as they passed by, what would the police do? What about touching people with a long stick as they pass by on public property? What about throwing rocks at people walking by? It would be totally different if the prolifers had actually trespassed or broke a restraining order to go onto someone’s private/rental property but this is not the case here.
I think the woman with the hose should have been given a warning and told that if she sprays people again, the hose will be confiscated. If she hooks up another hose, have the water shut off.
Like Tommy R said, what would happen if someone sprayed the police while they were standing on a public sidewalk?
2 likes
Hi Prax,
The police arrive after the fact. They can only go by the version of events being given to them. The video only shows a hose spraying at people and a camera. The people spraying can argue it was not deliberate, the police cannot prove otherwise. To say “touch” includes spraying with water, especially if you can’t prove it was deliberate, is ambiguous at best. As DLPL points out, maybe a case of menacing, and that’s pushing it. BTW, I’ve been sprayed with more sprinklers and hoses while walking on public property than I can even remember and I didn’t deliberately walk on someone’s property, so yes it happens. Was it deliberate? Could have been. How would I prove it?
PURPOSELY spraying people MIGHT be a different matter. First it would have to be established that it is indeed purposeful. If this is established beyond a doubt, and it may take several complaints, then police can speak to the sprayer and advise him there have been complaints, he is to be more careful, and again, they don’t want to have to return and speak with him again. They might also remind him he could face criminal charges or a lawsuit if someone is injured and its determined he deliberately sprayed the person. Hopefully he’ll have the good sense to stop spraying people. If not, then police may have to take action. This would be would be in accordance with city/state law and police procedure.
Throwing rocks can actually endanger someone’s life and safety and is considerably more dangerous than spraying someone with water.
Its entirely possible the woman was given a warning. We don’t know what the officer said to her do we? If she hooks up another hose? Maybe she needs to water her flowers.
I addressed Tommy R’s question in my 4:45PM post.
Prax you know better than anyone that I won’t hesitate to criticize police action if I’m convinced they are in the wrong. I also won’t hesitate to defend them. IMO(OK, a retired police officer advises me), they handled this situation as the law allowed and apparently there were no further incidents. They did their job.
1 likes
“Maybe she needs to water her flowers.”
If her aim is that poor, maybe she shouldn’t be allowed to hold a loaded hose.
2 likes
What I meant Prax was that intent can’t be proved. Tell her she can’t hook up her hose? For how long? What if she does need to water the lawn and flowers and that’s all she intends to do? Maybe the officer did warn her to “be more careful” in the future. There were no further incidents, the situation did not escalate right? The officers did their duty.
It really shows just how absurd this whole thing can get and we can forever go in circles and still no one can say what law was violated or even prove any law was violated. That’s the whole point.
1 likes
Mary,
Some of your “maybes” sound an awful lot like that saying: “Don’t…on my leg and tell me it’s raining”.
If – and only if – the personnel there were told “Don’t make us come out here” as well would I move on.
0 likes
Hi Hans,
I really don’t quite get your point. Could you use some specific quotes?
Well we don’t know what the personnel were told do we? Whatever it was it apparently worked.
Funny how it works. The last time I criticized the police, and got a slew of angry PAs. This time I back the police, and PL people are angry.
It seems it always boils down to who’s ox is being gored.
0 likes
“I have no doubt that it happened.”
The PLs did nothing wrong but yet are treated like they have and are told to keep quiet, “don’t call me back.”
I would not support prolifers purposefully hosing prochoicers, Mary, so it doesn’t always come down to who’s ox is being gored.
Just from the part we do see in this particular video, I see that the police are a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.
1 likes
Hi Prax,
Reviewing the video it looks like the male officer is exasperated that no matter what he says, he still gets an argument. It also looks like a segment was edited so I don’t know what transpired there. He has told them what the law is and what police can/can’t do. Either listen to me or don’t bother calling me would be my interpretation.
Also, do we know what he told the mill workers? Do we know he wasn’t every bit as stern with them? Whatever he said the situation did not escalate.
I wouldn’t support spraying water either. That’s not the point.
What anyone sees is a matter of perspective. I see the police trying to settle a dispute, there is no law broken, they can’t arrest anyone, very irate people won’t accept this(not uncommon, especially when it comes to traffic tickets), the officer is going to speak to the mill workers and we don’t know what he told them. He may have had some very heated words for all we know. The point is the incident didn’t escalate and to use your phrase, it was nipped in the bud.
Officers deal with these types of situations all the time and I doubt everyone is always happy with the officers’ handling of it or thinks they were so fairly treated.
0 likes
Don’t p*ss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
I might be dumb, but I’m not stupid.
0 likes
Hi Prax,
I consider you neither, in fact I have a great deal of respect for you.
“I have no doubt that it happened”. Its obvious what happened. Proving intent may not be so easy. Its the word of one person against another.
0 likes
Do we know he wasn’t every bit as stern with them?</i?
Well, if the protesters had audiotape of him telling the workers "Don't do that again!" they would have posted the clip of him saying "…do that again!" So we know that he was not every bit as stern with them within earshot. But that's all we know.
If she hooks up another hose, have the water shut off.
If we lived in a police state, that could be done. But we don’t. And you hate that with every fiber of your being, don’t you?
2 likes
LisaC,
Would you be so kind as to tell me what </i? means?? I've seen it before and I'm embarassed to say I have no clue what it means. :)
1 likes
I’ve seen it before and I’m embarassed to say I have no clue what it means. :)
Hee! It means that someone hit ? instead of > when they tried to type the “close italics” tag.
0 likes
Hi LisaC,
LOLL, a typo. I knew I’d seen the “close italics” tag before so I wondered if this was a variation of some sort that indicated a different meaning. Thank you for the clarification.
0 likes
“And you hate that with every fiber of your being, don’t you?”
And you know me so well. Your right, it’s always been a dream of mine to have nazi police lurking around my corner.
0 likes