If we allow people to lawfully kidnap people, hold them against their will then there has to be serious repercussions if anything happens to them while in custody. There is no right or fairness that should give anyone such power over another human being so all the burden has to lie with those of us that allow such custody to happen.

Sunday's incident took place on North 5th Street, near Lehigh Avenue, during what police described as a street party that takes place after the annual parade.

The department had no immediate comment on the video, which depicts a police officer hitting the woman while she is walking away from a group of officers. The officer apparently thought the woman threw beer at police.

City Councilwoman Maria Quinones Sanchez, a central organizer of the parade, said she spoke with Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey this morning, and that Ramsey was particularly upset because the incident involved a commanding officer.

"He was very concerned," Sanchez said. She noted that this year's parade theme was "The Puerto Rican Woman."

The lieutenant will be assigned to desk duty while the incident is investigated, police said.

Sanchez said she had met with police commanders before the parade in the hope of avoiding conflicts between police and paradegoers.

"It's unfortunate that this happened because we just talked about it before the parade," said Sanchez.

The woman, who is not identified, is shown falling to the ground, her face bloodied. In the seconds before the punch, the woman had been walking around a group of people and police officers. Someone near her in the crowd can be seen throwing some liquid into the air, toward the officers.

It appears in the video that she had sprayed silly string from a can.

The woman was taken into custody and issued a citation for disorderly conduct, police said, then released.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20121001_Video_shows_Philadelphia_cop_punching_woman_at_parade.html

you are welcome hon.
In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
Thank you so much, @lurgee!!!!!!!!
In reply to this comment by lurgee:
*promote

You know what else is fucked up, everyone in the world lashing at this comment immediately jumps to imagery of forceful rape. However, an 18 year old that has sex with a 17 year old is considered rape all the same. Or, a person who has sex with a mentally retarded adult is also considered statutory rape. In california, if two minors have sex with each other, they are considered to have raped each other. Further, the act itself is its own evidence of guilt, meaning that the accused individual(s) have no defense.

Before people blow off their cannon MRA junk, note that I never brought gender into this. Guys and girls are equally screwed by this law (in court AND in jail).

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^Kreegath:
How do you know if you're suffering from man hating and fear? ♫
I'll tell you how to spot, man hating and fear ♪
You're not sure you've got, man hating and fear ♬
Well here's a little lesson for you,
Tell me if the following things are true:
I think all rapists are men - man hating and fear
I think all victims are women - man hating and fear
I rub out all grey areas to prove a moot point - man hating and fear
Men should have no rights to defense against allegations of rape - man hating and fear ♬

Oh, looks like we've got an MRA-hole in the house. Let me guess: you're a white male with malignant priviligitis, amirite? Did any one line of the song suggest falsely accusing someone of rape? Or calling all men rapists? Or hating men?? Oh wait, you ticked the sarcasm tag, that makes it all an a-okay bit of humour right? Wrong.
Your kind disgusts me. And by that I don't mean "men"; no, real men (and women, and anyone in between) know to respect another person's consent and their choice to retract it at any given moment. No, by "your kind" I mean the slimy, any-one-who-points-out-the-sexism-in-our-society-is-a-man-hating-feminazi-and-fear-mongerer kind.
I won't stoop to the MRA-low of wishing rape on you, because I would not wish it on anyone. Instead, I'll kindly suggest you go fuck yourself, because anyone in their right mind, male female or otherwise, would not consent to it with you if they knew your sexist stance. /angry rant
quality song btw

You know what's fucked up? Yesterday I learned that 31 states in the US can make the mother of a rape conceived child to allow visitation rights of the father/rapist, they can even get custody! WTF??
http://youtu.be/hdSIHzeFPgo

Thank you so much, @lurgee!!!!!!!!
In reply to this comment by lurgee:
*promote

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^Kreegath:
How do you know if you're suffering from man hating and fear? ♫
I'll tell you how to spot, man hating and fear ♪
You're not sure you've got, man hating and fear ♬
Well here's a little lesson for you,
Tell me if the following things are true:
I think all rapists are men - man hating and fear
I think all victims are women - man hating and fear
I rub out all grey areas to prove a moot point - man hating and fear
Men should have no rights to defense against allegations of rape - man hating and fear ♬

Oh, looks like we've got an MRA-hole in the house. Let me guess: you're a white male with malignant priviligitis, amirite? Did any one line of the song suggest falsely accusing someone of rape? Or calling all men rapists? Or hating men?? Oh wait, you ticked the sarcasm tag, that makes it all an a-okay bit of humour right? Wrong.
Your kind disgusts me. And by that I don't mean "men"; no, real men (and women, and anyone in between) know to respect another person's consent and their choice to retract it at any given moment. No, by "your kind" I mean the slimy, any-one-who-points-out-the-sexism-in-our-society-is-a-man-hating-feminazi-and-fear-mongerer kind.
I won't stoop to the MRA-low of wishing rape on you, because I would not wish it on anyone. Instead, I'll kindly suggest you go fuck yourself, because anyone in their right mind, male female or otherwise, would not consent to it with you if they knew your sexist stance. /angry rant
quality song btw


You know what's fucked up? Yesterday I learned that 31 states in the US can make the mother of a rape conceived child to allow visitation rights of the father/rapist, they can even get custody! WTF??

http://youtu.be/hdSIHzeFPgo

GL with the custody battle man!

The idea that they, and many others, have it worse I wouldn't argue for a second. But rather than say that it doesn't apply to us I'd think that we're talking more matters of degree. We've got a larger percentage of our people under direct control of the criminal justice system than any other nation so the term police does seem accurate in that sense. They've got goons that will kill you instead of lock you up. Sure, they get locked up too, but I'm not sure the police as such are their problem so much as the death squads and such are. Terrorist state for them perhaps? Something else in other cases. But for us, sure, police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

In 2009 some 3.1% of adults were under correctional supervision, in custody, parole or probation. In "2008 more than 1 in 100 adults in the United States were in prison or jail". This has kinda been a pet project of mine since I was a kid, there's no nation out there with more of their people under police supervision. I don't disrespect others at all. I just tend to call it what it is. Perhaps the term police state isn't the right one for them, rather than it being the wrong one for us.

This is actually the point I'm making: these underlying factors are not separate from the discriminatory effect they have on wage disparity. We do not ameliorate discriminatory practices by imposing equal discrimination on all parties. Rather, we raise awareness and consciousness of the issues impacting men and boys, just as we attend to those impacting women and girls. >> ^davidraine:

>> ^Trancecoach:
There are statistics by which the disparity in wages could be held in the light of (stats which are outside the scope of my work-week to specifically cite here), which indicate, for example, that men are more likely to spend more time away from the families than women, more years of their lives in careers than women, more involved with physically debilitating occupations than women, more likely to be sent to (and die in) wars than women, more likely to be held financially liable for the support of children with or without legal custody, etc. What I am suggesting is that while each of these taken individually might be considered an "lifestyle choice," as a whole, they are part of a much larger underlying societal expectation which then holds men accountable if they are unable to serve their male function as "providers" or "protectors."
I think there's merit in this argument, but I have an issue with it. I don't think we can adequately measure the impact these factors have and the effects on compensation they should be given without first closing the pay gap. Discrimination plays such a large and varied role in the wage gap that it completely dominates the effects of the other variables you cite below. Furthermore, many of those variables them have substantive effects on job performance. If discrimination's effects are removed from wages, those variables' effects on wages should become self-evident.

>> ^Trancecoach:
There are statistics by which the disparity in wages could be held in the light of (stats which are outside the scope of my work-week to specifically cite here), which indicate, for example, that men are more likely to spend more time away from the families than women, more years of their lives in careers than women, more involved with physically debilitating occupations than women, more likely to be sent to (and die in) wars than women, more likely to be held financially liable for the support of children with or without legal custody, etc. What I am suggesting is that while each of these taken individually might be considered an "lifestyle choice," as a whole, they are part of a much larger underlying societal expectation which then holds men accountable if they are unable to serve their male function as "providers" or "protectors."

I think there's merit in this argument, but I have an issue with it. I don't think we can adequately measure the impact these factors have and the effects on compensation they should be given without first closing the pay gap. Discrimination plays such a large and varied role in the wage gap that it completely dominates the effects of the other variables you cite below. Furthermore, many of those variables them have substantive effects on job performance. If discrimination's effects are removed from wages, those variables' effects on wages should become self-evident.

It was indeed dead, those bums changed the embed code. Fixed it for the time being.>> ^jimnms:

Is this dead? I don't see a video, just white space where the embed should be.

@NetRunner, you wrote: "In other words, you don't dispute that women are being paid less as a group, you just believe that this is because women as a group aren't doing equal work. They stay at home to raise children, don't pursue advanced degrees, or maybe they just weren't raised to be as outspoken/competitive/aggressive as men. Whatever the cause, you posit that it is this deficit in quality or quantity of work from women which is the primary reason women get paid less than men on average. That's not a basic agreement with A, that's a wholly different assertion."

>>>Actually, that's not my argument. There is a disparity between the ways in which men and women are expected to contribute value to the society and this disparity is reflected, generally speaking, in the kinds of jobs that are sought/provided, responsibilities that are sought/provided, and roles or identities that are sought/provided by and for the genders. This is a distinction from lifestyle choice, which is not as socio-culturally pernicious as what I'm attempting to convey. However, if you are suggesting that I disagree with PL for EW, you're only partially correct. There are statistics by which the disparity in wages could be held in the light of (stats which are outside the scope of my work-week to specifically cite here), which indicate, for example, that men are more likely to spend more time away from the families than women, more years of their lives in careers than women, more involved with physically debilitating occupations than women, more likely to be sent to (and die in) wars than women, more likely to be held financially liable for the support of children with or without legal custody, etc. What I am suggesting is that while each of these taken individually might be considered an "lifestyle choice," as a whole, they are part of a much larger underlying societal expectation which then holds men accountable if they are unable to serve their male function as "providers" or "protectors."
As I asked before, what value is lost by the wage disparity?

@NetRunner, you wrote: And yes, I get that you're saying it in a soft, non-accusatory tone -- it's not that women are intrinsically inferior, it's that our society as a whole is shaping them into less valuable workers, whether they want that or not.

>>>Closer. The society is also shaping men into 'wage earners' whether they want that or not.


@NetRunner: Still, I think anytime you go around saying pay discrimination is in any sense justified, you're wading into some dangerously misogynistic waters. Worse, I think if you use the word "myth" to describe the idea that women face unjust pay discrimination, you've pretty much jumped in with both feet.

>>>Show me where I have posited that the pay discrimination is justified! I will immediately retract it. There are ingrained habits of this argument into which you seem to want to place me, but that is not the position I am taking. It is, by no means, a "myth," that women get paid less than men for equal work. That much is mathematically accurate. What is "mythical" about it is that circumstances under which that wage disparity exists is identical between the genders. It is not, but is instead indicative of a much larger, deeper, societal disparity between the genders... one that did/does not get adequate attention.

Man if that is true I am even more upset with the DEA. If you were going to be fair dealers should not be in trouble as much as users because dealers are further removed from any supposed harm and don't actually cause any harm at all.

>> ^entr0py:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^jonny:
"he spent in a 5 ft. by 10 ft. cell, where he could not spread his arms out wide."
How long are this dude's arms?!?!

He was handcuffed. Odd wording but it's the only explanation.
All they seized were some soft drugs - shrooms, weed, ecstacy, some other crap and "some weapons" ie. various things that you'd find in a normal house that can be used to fluff out the report and make sure such drugs are associated with violence!
Someone remind me again what's so terrible about taking those things in the privacy of your own property?

Here's a more recent CNN story.
Yes, he was handcuffed in the cell. The house that was raided seemed to be an MDMA distribution center, and the DEA claims they seized 18,000 pills, as well as several guns and cases of ammo. But it also wasn't the kids house; it seems he was just there with friends to get high. Which is why he wasn't charged and supposed to be released.

>> ^entr0py:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^jonny:
"he spent in a 5 ft. by 10 ft. cell, where he could not spread his arms out wide."
How long are this dude's arms?!?!

He was handcuffed. Odd wording but it's the only explanation.
All they seized were some soft drugs - shrooms, weed, ecstacy, some other crap and "some weapons" ie. various things that you'd find in a normal house that can be used to fluff out the report and make sure such drugs are associated with violence!
Someone remind me again what's so terrible about taking those things in the privacy of your own property?

Here's a more recent CNN story.
Yes, he was handcuffed in the cell. The house that was raided seemed to be an MDMA distribution center, and the DEA claims they seized 18,000 pills, as well as several guns and cases of ammo. But it also wasn't the kids house; it seems he was just there with friends to get high. Which is why he wasn't charged and supposed to be released.


I'm glad there's a company line being towed on why an innocent person nearly died thanks to the war on drugs