Video: Philadelphia Officer Sucker Punches Woman At Heritage Parade

This video shows a ranking Philadelphia officer sucker punching a woman during a parade for Puerto Rican heritage. There is no apparent provocation and the woman was walking away at the time. (Updated below)

The woman is showed being led away bleeding. Even if the officer was provoked by the woman or mistook her for someone else, he does not try to grab her or hold her before the sucker punch. The injury to the woman could have been far more serious as she fell to the concrete. Notably, she was surrounded by officers who could have easily restrained the petite woman.

The white shirt of the officer would indicate someone with supervisory authority. What is most striking is the lack of any reaction from officers. We have previously discussed how, even when departments are forced to act against abusive officers, they rarely move against officer who fail to report such abuse or file reports that omit or misrepresent what they clearly witnessed. I would be interested in reading not just the charge but the reports of other officers after this arrest.

UPDATE: The officer is being identified as Lt. Jonathan Josey and the woman is being cited for spraying silly string at officers at a vehicle stop. That’s right, silly string. If that report is correct, Josey responded with a sucker punch. Josey was previously involved in a shooting of a man who robbed a convenience store.

61 thoughts on “Video: Philadelphia Officer Sucker Punches Woman At Heritage Parade”

    1. Well, we all know how that really goes down. In a couple of years he’ll be re-instated with back pay and probably a promotion, once the news dies down. Cause we forget and are too stupid to remember NOR do anything about it. In the mean time he will probably get a job in YOUR city and due to his high ranking will probably be training your new officers.

  1. If she threw water on anybody, the most that should have happened was that she was arrested and charged with water assault. Arresting her should not have involved anything more physically forceful than regulations require for an unarmed, non-threatening suspect walking AWAY from the police at a normal speed. Not only is there no excuse for what the cop did, but any prior “bad acts” on her part are irrelevant to THAT CONDUCT. I think the cops would have been embarrassed to arrest her for malicious water splashing and that this was an unprovoked assault, just as it appears.

    Spitting is not the same thing, but had she SPAT upon an officer, she should be arrested for whatever the law calls a “more serious assault” because spit is not harmless.

  2. Did you guys all miss her tossing the water in the first second of the video? I rewound several times to make sure I could get a very good look. She definitely was throwing water on that group of cops. When the big guy came at her, he may have thought she threw that water- but she didn’t. Should it matter that she did it at all?

    Her water toss was just a little spritz compared to what the guy behind her apparently got her socked for.

    No, he was not justified in attacking her, but wouldn’t throwing water on cops be considered a form of assault? I recall something here where being spit on was found to be assault.

    If it is, it’s one of those ones where our officers should exercise their restraint and civility in dealing with these people.

    Cue ‘Dream On’.

  3. None of you are old enough to remember the first world war. It was characterized by so-called trench warfare. Soldiers could be dug in in trenchs for weeks with many battles fought but little ground being exchanged, only lives lost.

    The situaltion today with regard to civil liberties and direct threats to us by our police, etc advances very slowly, perceptibly if you watch,, but slowly.

    And there it resembles WW ONE. But WW ONE had other phases, when clouds of poison gas were released, and thousands died, and great advances (it is called so) were made.

    You see it coming. Yes, the question is: when do they release the gas on us????

    Oh, we won’t (hopefully) die directly, just what’s left of democracy will go to the gallows.

    Ask your great grandpa what a gallows is. Oh, you’ve seen western movies have you.

    And KKK films, you say. Your grandpa’s? Oh, I understand. Proud of him are you?

    Of course, I agree.

  4. The best censorship is self-censorship. Learning starts very early, part of growing up, right?
    And then you get the right to vote, which you thought also meant the right to speak your mind.

    But if your thoughts don’t pass muster, you get fired. So you get a new job, but it is harder now because you were fired for speaking up……for unions for example.

    And it gets tougher as time goes by. Finally, you are silent. The perfect citizen—-self-censored.

    Next step! Wha’ , there’s a next step?
    Yep, in the USSR they were required to smile—constantly. Seriously! Disgruntlement would get you investigated. And if they investigate you, then you are guilty. Guilty? Yeah, they will make you guilty. Interrorgations***. Enhanced interrorgations.
    You know, kinda like Guantanamo Bay. Oh, when does that start? It has. Don’tcha see that I am smiling?

    ***The spelling of “interrorgations” in intentional.
    Shall we keep it and use it at JT’s?

  5. Sniper, sniper, bellywiper.
    Approx as Skinny Dog said: Why didn’t they have their own protection with them–like snipers?

    Now lessee if that goes through.

  6. Jack2All and Skinny Dog,

    Snip*r has become a forbidden word. The guidelines published by GeneH recently as being official here, did not include that word.

    Nor even that a suggestion of an illegal action as being forbidden. We have of course seen many examples calling for murder and other acts of violence here. So why this?

    Perhaps another agency external to Turley’s?

    WordPress? NSA? CIA? Michele Obama? “Naughty words, children.”

    “Citizen Kane” asks:

    “Shall we protest on the grounds of repression of free speech?
    Oh! This is a “free speech free” zone. Well, where is the nearest zone where free speech is allowed?
    Outside Sarah Palin’s house? Why there? Because you can see the CIA gulags in Russia. The russies are contracting correction services to the CIA. Great record, you say. Wow, the things our government does to protect us. Makes me feel all warm. Oh, sorry wrong. That was actually a lie, and the warmth came from the sh*t leaking. You know, I’m scared. Should I be?”

  7. Very off-topic: I hope the Professor is happy – Bears 34, Dallas 10 with 3 minutes left in game. Go, Bears!

  8. I don’t care what she did or did not say. He had no right to use force on her. The problem is that police have a whole code (unlegislated) of laws that citizens violate at at their peril. The main theme is that you can not talk back to a police officer or similar official. You cannot swear, question. object or look at him or her in an inapproriate way, that is, not subserviant. The officer will determiine if you have broken the code and if you do he can basically do anything he/she wants and then charge you with resisting arrest, obstruciton of justice, striking a police officer and more. It is a scary feeling to be a citizen.

  9. Otteray Scribe summed it up well. It’s why if you are a citizen and start a bar brawl, you get jailed and charged. If you do the same thing as an off-duty cop, it may take months of paid Union vacation. Always remember, if there’s a video, the important part is what happened before the video was started. It is the part that will exonerate the cop, as any eyewitness can tell you after a visit from the cops. Yeah, I’m cynical because the arguments are so transparent, whatever Straw Man a cop will claim I have done. Too many videos, too many cop arguments claiming exactly what I stated, and too many cops claiming Straw Man after I repeat a cop argument.

  10. don’t worry, he’ll have a week off (with pay) to think about his behavior.

  11. raff, they have to investigate all the possible avenues of figuring out how they can keep this guy on the force and at the same time minimize risk to the city’s insurance carrier. That may take a while.

  12. Update from ABC News:

    It was decided today that the officer would be placed on “restricted status,” meaning that he is relegated to “administrative duties pending the outcome of the investigation,” according to Lt. Ray Evers.

    The video was taken at Sunday’s Puerto Rican Day Parade, an event that Evers said “usually goes off without a hitch.”

    “We were made aware of the video very, very early this morning. Internal Affairs opened up an investigation in reference to the incident and the actions of that officer,” Evers told “The incident is being fully investigated.”


Comments are closed.