The Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office has decided that the police officer who slapped at woman at Miami International Airport last year will not be charged. Officer Antonio Clemente Rodriguez slapped Paris Anderson without, in my view, proper justification or cause. This would seem a clear case of battery, but Rodriguez was allowed to retire with back pay after being removed from the force.
The June 2020 confrontation was captured on video.
Police say that Anderson was mad about a flight and intoxicated. She is seen arguing with Rodriguez and another Miami-Dade police officer. At one point, she says “You acting like you white when you really Black? What you going to do?”
Rodriguez then strikes her in the face and she is brought to the ground by other officers and arrested. She was charged with felony battery of a law-enforcement officer.
That charge was entirely abusive and unsupported. While prosecutors soon dropped that case, no one seems concerned that there was never any reasonable basis for the charge and there was a videotape that clearly established that fact. It is not clear which officers supported the meritless charge or whether any were sanctioned as a result.
Prosecutor Sandra Miller-Batiste determined that Rodriguez had “no duty to retreat,” and that it was not unreasonable for him to believe that he was in danger. I disagree. Anderson is rude and unruly but she is not presenting a physical threat to the officer. The slap was entirely unjustified and seems more a response to the insult than any threat.
The police department initially sought to fire Rodriguez but the South Florida Police Benevolent Association successfully opposed the termination. After arbitration, Rodriguez was allowed to retire and claim back pay.
Under Florida law, this would seem an open-and-shut case of battery:
784.03 Battery; felony battery.—
(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
Again, I do not see the exercise of any privilege or justification by the officer. He was being verbally abused and then took violent action. The police manual states that “[f]orce can be used against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend one’s self or others from the imminent use or threat of unlawful force.”
These encounters show how much we demand from officers. This is a tough job. They often face abusive and insulting treatment from citizens but are trained not react or escalate the situation. Indeed, under the Miami-Dade police manual, officers are expected to deescalate such confrontations:
De-escalation: The strategic slowing down of an incident in a manner that allows officers more time, distance, space and tactical flexibility in which to assess the unpredictable, dynamic nature of a police scene. Applying de-escalation skills increases the potential for resolving the situation with minimal force or no force at all, reducing the likelihood of injury to the public, increasing officer safety, and mitigating the immediacy of potential or ongoing threats. Some examples of deescalation strategies include proportionality, using distance and cover, tactical repositioning, slowing down situations that do not pose an immediate threat (tactical pause), engaging communication, subject containment, and calling for supervisory and other resources( i.e., backup officers, crisis managers, family members, clergy, etc.).
That takes a great deal of training and control by officers but it is an essential part of their job. They are trained to overcome the natural inclination to react in this way. Officers are given the authority to use lethal force and, as part of that power, they are expected to exercise greater levels of restraint than we would expect from average citizens.
This criminal case began with a clearly meritless charge of battery against Anderson. That alone is chilling when it was the officer, not Anderson, who committed the battery in my view.
149 thoughts on “Miami-Dade Police Officer Will Not Be Charged Over Slapping Woman at Airport”
If she was charged with felony battery, what was the battery? She might have touched him with her body when she rudely got in his face, but she did not shove or strike him. Did something happen we can’t see on the screen?
The officer’s actions, and the charges against her, seem excessive.
She was allegedly drunk, belligerent, rude, racist, and uncooperative. People who act like that are difficult to deal with. If she kept advancing on him he could have arrested her. I can’t see any justification for striking her.
He should have just arrested her for drunk and disorderly, or whatever the appropriate charges would be.
As for her, it is dangerous to get in any stranger’s face like that. He’s a cop, so he should have remained under control. However, he snapped and struck her. Whether it’s someone on the street, or a cop, you don’t know that person. That’s a stranger, and today might be a bad day for him. I’m not blaming the victim. This is about personal safety and mitigating risk. Don’t walk down a dark alley. Don’t go meet a stranger you met online in a dark cornfield. And don’t get in a stranger’s face and dare him to do something about it. Too risky. If he does strike you, he’d be wrong, but you’d still be hurt.
Karen, S. Meyer claims she directly spit at his face. Do you see anything that corroborates that claim? I don’t see it but he claims it is what she did.
Spitting and yelling occur at the same time.
S. Meyer, let it go. You were clearly lying. You should follow Witherspoon’s words of wisdom.
Svelaz, you made an a$$ out of yourself. It seems you don’t know that when you yell, split exits the mouth. Investigate the many ways the word spit and spitting can be used. Oh, I forgot, you don’t know what a dictionary is. LOL
Seth Myers is not funny at all. This is pathetic and atrocious. It would be a public service to get this crap off of television. Steven Crowder is a million times funnier. It’s too bad that comedians don’t get TV shows based on the merit of their comedy.
Why should I care about the bad things that happen to other people when other people
don’t care about the bad things that happen to me, as evidenced by how they sometimes cause them?
Absolutely no justification at all. The officer committed an assault without provocation. The woman’s hands were down, there was NO threat posture at all coming from her. Charges against the officer were completely in order. Shameful that he got away with it.
I wonder if he had a history of this sort of behaviour? It seems likely to me, because he looks too young to resign with adequate service for a pension.
it’s really hard dealing with idiots. she was brazen and aggressive. cops are not God like. rule is you NEVER touch a cop. maybe she learned a lesson the hard way.
This uppity fool got exactly what she had coming! The continuing saga of the13%/90%/100% club…..13% of the population, committing 90% of the crime, and 100% of their criminal deeds forgiven and even celebrated by the Left.
Hey, you twittering twit (or twat as the case may be), the drunken woman didn’t touch the cop…. You are obviously functionally illiterate. Further, I remind you, grammar is not your mommy’s mommie.
Humans are perpetually stupid creatures that can never see the light and come to their senses, operating on all manner of fallacies, so why not nuke them, ridding the universe of stupidity?
Why not let officers act like Sledgehammer? It would be very effective. The fear of being shot and experiencing pain can modify behavior. If we won’t let officers do what has to be done to modify behavior, then the behavior will continue.
If behavior modification is what you want, then instant corporal punishment is the way to go, so why not issue switches to officers with which they can whack people who get out of line, like they do in Indonesia?
Indian police have small rattan sticks for that purpose.
Return to Sam Browne Belts……and use them on Traffic Violators…..bend them over the trunk of their cars and give them an old fashioned fanny whooping!
There would never be a complaint as the embarrassment of admitting you got a whipping for driving in t he left lane after passing would be too much for even a scoff law.
For the Snowflakes and other easily triggered…..this post is made with tongue well in cheek!
estovir, comes through, again, with additional information. While the police report is written by the officer in question, meaning it puts everything in the best possible light for the police officer, it is evidence to be vetted. Stiil, the slap is bridge too far. The officer should be disciplined, as an example to the rest of the force. But you can’t ignore the incentives in play. Unless officers are allowed more tools and unwavering support from the powers above the street cops, frustration will continue to grow. We need to learn and use incentives in play for both cops and the public they are tasked with being a part of.
Reading the needlessly long paragraph from the police handbook, I distilled the essence of the protocol. increase distance and time. That is common sense, unless both of those parameters are limited. The police are in the terminal, as a visual deterrent. A “show” of force. The reality, the police have been stripped of all their tools. Air travel has gotten so cheap, the lowbrow segment of the population has access. Why police officers in that sittuation. Seems to me, the private business that is the airport ,should be managing their own crowds.
In this case the officer snapped and should have first asked the woman to put her hands on her head to be prepared for handcuffing, or both officers would make it happen. Put her in detainment at the airport for 3 hours and let her free with a disturbing the peace ticket, payable to prevent going to booking. The airport then needs to create a communication program so every traveler knows how many air travelers missed their flights due to their own actions
People of all stripes respond to incentives, Government actors are locked into incentives that dont prevent bad actors, but punishes them after the fact. We can work to change incentives
That would be a cop using his power to punish a person with zero due process. That is not how we do criminal justice in this country and it scares me that there are still those who think due process and rule of law means nothing.
That would be a cop using his power to punish a person with zero due process.
Exactly what action are you speaking of. I only mentioned things well within the law. Detainment and writing a civil ticket.
This is today’s Sammy. This anonymous has been around for a while without a name. It’s hard to count the number of aliases he has held. He is well known to the list, but gets withdrawal when he can’t post.
Why is freedom a good thing when free people are more likely to do you wrong than the government?
Clear battery unjustified by anything excepting only natural justice to a miscreant who was screaming provocative and demeaning obscenities at a grown man twice her size using her gender as some sort of immunity. The laws of the universe will rarely yield in cases like this. Caveat little batteree!
Mespo, it wasn’t battery. What she did did not meet the legal definition of battery felony or misdemeanor. Brushing up against the officer for being too close is not battery. If she poked her finger on his chest THEN it would constitute battery.
Ironically the slap from the office if he were to be charge does meet the definition of felony battery as he caused bodily harm.
Read my comment again.
Mespo, what did you mean by “clear battery”? What action constituted battery?
What do you mean by “natural justice”. Where is that defined in state statute?
Sounds like Svelaz has a lot of problems with words.
I meant the cop is legally guilty (clear battery) but the victim was all too deserving (natural justice – to each according to their due). No problem. I’m pithily obtuse sometimes!
Svelaz looks things up and adds words that never existed in the comments he is responding to. That is because the terms of the law he read are out of reach for his tiny mind. He copies what he sees and what he sees contains the words never said by anyone else. He is one of those low IQ folk that fails to listen and thus never learns anything.
S. Meyer is just upset about being caught making stuff up and then trying to defend it by making it worse. Covering up his deficiencies by insulting others is his only excuse. He wouldn’t be able to argue against a 5 year old if he wanted to.
Svelaz, are you too dumb to look up your own words and then compare them to what Mespo wrote. It seems so.
You keep saying I made things up, but so far you haven’t demonstrated that to be true. What you show is ignorance of words and the human body.
“ You keep saying I made things up, but so far you haven’t demonstrated that to be true.”
Still making stuff up?! Wow. I demonstrated that you did. You keep changing your rationale. First yelling in his face is spitting according to you THEN you say she yelled AND spit at his face. OBVIOUSLY you’re lying S. Meyer.
“ Svelaz, are you too dumb to look up your own words and then compare them to what Mespo wrote. It seems so.”
Mespo wrote one run on sentence. What was not clear was what he was referring to as battery. The officer?
“yelling in his face is spitting “
Svelaz, I didn’t say that. The sentence I wrote was different. Yelling and spitting occur at the same time. This demonstrates your reading comprehension is at a very low level as is your logic and knowledge.
You don’t seem to understand the easiest phrases, so I don’t expect you to ever understand that when you yell you also spit. The reverse is not true and that is why you have to better understand the meaning of words that you use.
“ Svelaz, I didn’t say that. The sentence I wrote was different.”
You implied it and that was before you claimed she directly spit at his face.
You keep changing the phrasing of your lie trying to avoid the obvious fact that you lied.
“ Yelling and spitting occur at the same time.”
That’s not always true and you still have no proof that did other than your claim she did when nobody else is saying anything close to that. You were making stuff up S. Meyer.
The only reason you said that was so you could have an excuse to at least justify what the officer did was not surprising. You were looking to paint her in the worst light possible. Now that you’ve been caught you have been fruitlessly contorting and evading any accountability for clearly making stuff up.
“You implied it”
Svelaz, first, you said that I said it. Now you say, I implied it. Make up your mind. A person whose vocabulary doesn’t understand words will get confused as you do. I hope this isn’t a familial trait.
“You keep changing the phrasing of your lie”
Yes, I know you get confused easily. All my statements mean the same thing. This further demonstrates your deficits. You can’t deal with more than one meaning.
You say that yelling and spitting at the same time isn’t always true. Take note, you are now admitting that yelling and spitting do occur at the same time but not always. That is something I told you a while back (dry mouth), but your memory seems impaired, like your intellect. You say there is no proof. You can prove it yourself. Get yourself in a tizzy, which shouldn’t be hard for you, and then start angrily yelling close to the mirror. When you are finished, examine the mirror. You are a dummy.
“at least justify what the officer did was not surprising.”
Again, you are too stupid to remember what was initially said. My initial comment was that the officer should have taken a step backward and arrested her. He stepped back once, and she followed closely. He should have repeated the action and promptly arrested her.
You missed out on ending up as dinner this past Thanksgiving. I wonder if you will survive another,
Mespo– Nicely put.
“This criminal case began with a clearly meritless charge of battery against Anderson. ”
The charge was dropped, which is not unusual after using the retrospectoscope. Many arrests are not prosecuted and dropped. However, the article shows a woman engaging in behavior that is out of control. Additionally, she spits at the officer. These are actions that cannot be tolerated.
The officer should have taken a deep breath or a step back, cuffed her, and placed her under arrest.
“ Additionally, she spits at the officer.”
Nope. She didn’t do that at all. Quit making stuff up. Yelling in his face is not spitting at the officer.
“Quit making stuff up. ”
I can’t do anything for a stupid person like you, Svelaz. When a person starts yelling, spit flies from the mouth. I noted that the officer took a step back, and the woman approached him, directing her yelling and spit directly at his face.
Svelaz quit being stupid.
Intentionally spitting and yelling are two very different things. You said she spits at the officer. She didn’t do that. None of the reports, even the officer’s mention spitting. Spitting is chargeable as assault, not battery.
“ I noted that the officer took a step back, and the woman approached him, directing her yelling and spit directly at his face.”
You keep making stuff up S. Meyer. That “step back” you mention is just him shifting his weight long before she approached him.
He didn’t spit directly at his face. Quit lying. If she did it would have been noted on his report.
“ When a person starts yelling, spit flies from the mouth.”
That’s not directly or intentionally spitting at an officer. You’re making stuff up man. You got caught lying about the situation and now you’re making it worse by making more stuff up. Jesus S. Meyer. Show us documented proof that she spit on his face. If she clearly did as you claim you would have no problem posting the relevant report citing she spit directly at his face.
By the way this is your original statement,
“ The officer should have taken a deep breath or a step back, cuffed her, and placed her under arrest.”
At no point did you mention him stepping back prior to her approach.
Svelaz, you can interpret the spitting any way you wish, but the officer stepped back from her yelling and spitting, followed by her moving forward, yelling and spitting in his face. What the officer did is commonly done to protect oneself from spit flying from the mouth. She pointed her face directly at the officer, placing it within inches of his face.
You are deaf, dumb and blind, so I don’t expect you to understand. You probably permit someone to talk an inch from your face, so you have to wipe the spittle off eventually.
“At no point did you mention him stepping back prior to her approach. ”
The two videos (one linked by Turley) demonstrated everything I said. Don’t you like my interpretation? Too bad. You are a liar that has neither carefully reviewed both videos nor read my comments carefully. As already proven by you, you don’t know how to read, and your accusations are baseless.
“ Svelaz, you can interpret the spitting any way you wish, but the officer stepped back from her yelling and spitting, followed by her moving forward, yelling and spitting in his face. What the officer did is commonly done to protect oneself from spit flying from the mouth. She pointed her face directly at the officer, placing it within inches of his face.”
S. Meyer, she wasn’t spitting at all. You’re just lying more. Jesus man. Nobody, NOBODY but you is claiming she was directly spitting at his face.
Yelling is not spitting just as accuracy doesn’t mean excellent. LOL!!!
Both videos show the same thing. You’re just trying to save face from a bad lie you got caught telling.
He didn’t step back S. Meyer, he was shifting his weight. She was a good 6ft away when she was yelling at him. That “spitting” wouldn’t go very far. It is so obvious you’re full of $hit.
“ You are a liar that has neither carefully reviewed both videos nor read my comments carefully. ”
The fact that I know you’re lying and making stuff up is precisely because I did review the videos and your comments carefully.
“ Svelaz, you can interpret the spitting any way you wish,…”
There’s only one way to interpret what you said when you literally said she spit directly at his face. Not yelling, but spitting. There’s a world of difference between yelling and spitting S. Meyer. Lobbing insults won’t save you from getting caught making stuff up.
“S. Meyer, she wasn’t spitting at all. ”
Unless she had a medical condition causing a dry mouth, then spit exits the mouth along with yelling. I wonder if, after the incident, he had to wash the ‘alleged’ spit off his face. I guess your constant drooling makes you unaware of that fact.
[“accuracy doesn’t mean excellent” This quote is derived from a former discussion where your logic states that a textbook is excellent even if it is wildly inaccurate. Your FK reading skills are below 1.]
One question Svelaz, Did her spit end up on his face? The answer is almost certainly yes. In fact, this is one of the reasons why masks were worn.
“ Unless she had a medical condition causing a dry mouth, then spit exits the mouth along with yelling I wonder if, after the incident, he had to wash the ‘alleged’ spit off his face.”
Are you now guessing about her medical condition? You’re now saying she allegedly spit after claiming she did? Holy Jesus S. Meyer, you’re truly nuts.
That’s a lot of guessing for something that you claim happened when it clearly didn’t.
“ One question Svelaz, Did her spit end up on his face? The answer is almost certainly yes. In fact, this is one of the reasons why masks were worn.”
No, because you have absolutely no proof that she did spit on his face. Obviously he was wearing a mask. So how can you claim he had spit on his face?
Masks are worn so people can protect themselves from Covid. Prior to covid. Nobody including TSA was required to wear a mask.
“ [“accuracy doesn’t mean excellent” This quote is derived from a former discussion where your logic states that a textbook is excellent even if it is wildly inaccurate. Your FK reading skills are below 1.]”
S. Meyer, honesty isn’t your strong suit.
You claimed “excellent” is synonymous with “accuracy”. 🤦♂️
Five year olds know better.
“Are you now guessing about her medical condition?”
No, Svelaz. Spit projects from the mouth when yelling. If there is no spit, it might not happen, but even with those diseases that cause a dry mouth, I can’t believe spit doesn’t exit with the yelling. Again, sit in the theater’s front row and watch the spit fly. ( Her mouth was very close to the officer.) In any event, you are changing the subject because you already realize how stupid you have been.
“Obviously he was wearing a mask. So how can you claim he had spit on his face?”
Now you realize that spit exited from her mouth, but your excuse is that he had a mask on. That doesn’t change my claim, but it shows how dumb you can be.
“Masks are worn so people can protect themselves from Covid. ”
Actually, masks are better at protecting other people, not the mask’s wearer—another Svelaz error.
“You claimed “excellent” is synonymous with “accuracy.”
That is a lie. My claim was more to the point that one who was inaccurate on facts couldn’t write an excellent textbook.
To summarize: Svelaz made three significant mistakes above, along with one crazy assertion. Most realize that you win the prize for the most ignorant poster on this blog.
You can tell when S. Meyer is lying.
First he claims that yelling is spitting because it comes out of the mouth. THEN he says. “… but the officer stepped back from her yelling and spitting,…”. Now it’s TWO different actions. Yelling AND spitting. Clearly S. Meyer is making stuff up and he’s desperate to save face. It’s a truly pathetic spectacle.
“yelling is spitting”
Svelaz, even people who aren’t intelligent know that you spit simultaneously when you yell. It seems that knowledge is beyond your capability. Suggestion: Get a front-row seat at a play and watch the spit fly when the actors raise their voices.
“but the officer stepped back from her yelling and spitting,”
Yes, he did. Then she moved forward about as close to the officer as possible.
What is it you don’t understand? It’s simple. The officer moved away from the woman, and she moved toward the officer spitting as she yelled. Why is that so difficult for you to understand. Are you mentally challenged?
“ What is it you don’t understand? It’s simple. The officer moved away from the woman, and she moved toward the officer spitting as she yelled. Why is that so difficult for you to understand.”
It’s not an issue of understanding. It’s about you willfully or psychologically making stuff up. Compulsive liars have that problem.
The officer wasn’t stepping back he was shifting his weight. Plus he was wearing a mask and was 6feet away.
“ It seems that knowledge is beyond your capability. Suggestion: Get a front-row seat at a play and watch the spit fly when the actors raise their voices.”
S. Meyer, you’re implying EVERYONE who yells spits as an excuse for making up stuff about what happened.
I’ve been to plenty of plays and concerts in the front row. I’ve never come out of those performances covered in spit. Nobody has unless they are deliberately spat on.
“making stuff up. Compulsive liars have that problem.”
So far, Svelaz, you have been wrong on almost everything. That is amazing since most of the stuff under discussion is very simple.
“The officer wasn’t stepping back he was shifting his weight. Plus he was wearing a mask and was 6feet away.”
Here is both another lie and an error that can simply be checked by looking at the video. Not only that, do you think the officer has six-foot arms? LOL
“S. Meyer, you’re implying EVERYONE who yells spits as an excuse for making up stuff about what happened.”
The exiting of saliva in droplets is one of the reasons people were told to wear a mask. That is something else where you are wrong.
“I’ve been to plenty of plays and concerts in the front row. I’ve never come out of those performances covered in spit. ”
The spit flies in the direction the head is facing, generally towards another actor. The first row is not on the stage, you dolt.
Meyer, I know its frustrating.
But understand, that is the only purposes Svelaz has on his plate. He will always argue, parse, lie, etc. He attacks on a personal, not a policy, opinion level. Just ignore him and let him starve. Reasonable people visiting here understand you are correct in your assessment.
Thank you, Iowan. I think many people do not post. Showing Svelaz to be a fool convinces others that his regurgitated left-wing arguments are dumb.
I have no desire to convince Svelaz not to make a fool of himself. Firstly, he isn’t intelligent enough, and secondly, I want his foolishness shown to everyone.
You and I are on different sides of the law on this one based on the actual facts.
Ignore the verbal altercation, because it’s all posturing and there’s nothing illegal there, and pay close attention to the actual physical actions of each person involved in the altercation, here’s the video that’s not behind a paywall.
I just watched the video in detail and the initial aggressor that’s guilty of the offense of battery according to the law “(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person: 1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other…” was clearly Paris Anderson, she is the one that physically approached the officer that was standing his ground and pressed her body against his, therefore SHE intentionally touched the police officer against his will and therefore by law she is guilty of battery. That’s the actual fact as dictated by the actual law. That said; the officer clearly overreacted and I think it was completely appropriate for the officer to be removed from his job for physically overreacting to the situation.
Both Officer Rodriguez and Paris Anderson were wrong and Jonathan Turley’s opinion that the Officer’s actions were “without… proper justification or cause” is, in my opinion, not fact based or inline with the actual law.
Witherspoon, the charge against Anderson was FELONY battery. Which did not occur. That’s what Turley disagrees with.
Just touching a police officer does not meet the legal definition of FELONY battery. She didn’t touch him at all. She approached the officer and got in his face. That’s not battery. She would have to physically bump her chest on him and she didn’t do that. The officer moved forward as she got into his face and for less than a second both touched. She had her hands on her sides. Her actions don’t meet the legal definition of battery especially FELONY battery.
The slap was indeed without justification.
Svelaz wrote, “the charge against Anderson was FELONY battery. Which did not occur. “
I literally quoted THE LAW you gaslighting troll.
I can’t fix your kind of stupid.
Quoting the law doesn’t change the fact that she was charged with FELONY battery which did NOT occur.
Merely touching someone, even an officer is not legally defined as FELONY battery. Pay attention to what you’re saying. Here’s the DIRRCT quote from Turley’s column.
“ She was charged with felony battery of a law-enforcement officer.”
The specific law states,
“ 784.03 Battery; felony battery.—
(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (2) or subsection (3), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.”
Pay attention to this part Witherspoon.
(b) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (2) OR SUBSECTION (3), A PERSON WHO COMMITS BATTERY COMMITS A MISDEMEANOR OF THE FIRST DEGREE, PUNISHABLE AS PROVIDED IN S. 775.082 OR S. 775.083.
In order to be charged with a FELONY battery of an officer BODILY HARM must occur. She didn’t bodily harm the officer.
Her moving up to the officer and getting close enough to just touch for less than a second is not battery. If she intentionally bump him with her chest then it would have been battery. She didn’t do that.
I stated my opinion and you’re free to disagree with my opinion even when your opinion completely disregards these actual words in the statute “(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person: 1. Actually and intentionally touches… another person against the will of the other“ there is no requirement of bodily harm. That literally reading of the statute describes exactly what Paris Anderson did and it’s on video. The only way you can interpret the statute in the manner in which you are reading it is to completely ignore the use of the word “or” in the statute and replace that word in your brain with the word “and”, which is a comprehension problem that I can’t fix.
You’re LITERALLY wrong.
I won’t go down your rabbit hole and argue this any further.
Witherspoon, actually you’re the one who is wrong here.
To be able to be charged with battery there would have to be proof of intent. Getting into his personal space and brushing up against him is not battery. You say you say the video multiple times. Obviously you KNOW they made contact for less than a second before he slapped her.
She was charged with FELONY battery. In order for that charge to be justified BODILY HARM must occur.
“ The only way you can interpret the statute in the manner in which you are reading it is to completely ignore the use of the word “or” in the statute and replace that word in your brain with the word “and”, which is a comprehension problem that I can’t fix.”
Witherspoon, I’m not ignoring the word “or”. The statute states,
“ b) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (2) OR SUBSECTION (3), …”
Your citation does not include what subsection (3) says. Which is likely to include further definition of what can be defined as a FELONY battery charge.
What is in subsection (3) Witherspoon?
I will reiterate, Anderson did not commit battery against the officer. Merely brushing up against him is not an intentional act. The officer moved forward as well which made the contact inevitable. Legally that doesn’t constitute battery.
Your opinion doesn’t conform to the facts just as S. Meyer’s claim that she spit directly at his face.
Here’s the ENTIRETY of the statute you keep citing.
“ 784.03 Battery; felony battery.—
(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (2) or subsection (3), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.
(3) A person who commits a battery in furtherance of a riot or an aggravated riot prohibited under s. 870.01 commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or 775.084.”
Subsection (3) doesn’t apply at all because she was not in a riot obviously.
I just proved you wrong 7 ways from Sunday.
What part of “I won’t go down your rabbit hole and argue this any further” did you not understand.
Go troll elsewhere.
Svelaz, JeffB, and the other trolls have you wrapped around their middle finger. It isn’t difficult to scroll past their comments but you can not resist, and they know it.
This is to Steve Witherspoon a few weeks ago who told blog members to ignore the trolls. Good times
She clearly entered his personal space in a threatening manner. The slap may have been a little more than what was needed, but it wasn’t a punch. –
There’s no law barring a person from entering another person’s “personal space.”
The act of one does not need to be criminal before self-defense becomes lawful. In other words, I don’t have to wait for you to assault me, before I can stop you.
Not only did she enter his personal space, she actually made contact with him. Was the slap reasonable force? That should have been left to a jury to decide.
She didn’t touch him intentionally. They touched for less than a second. It doesn’t meet the definition of battery.
Just because someone enters your personal space still doesn’t give you the right to slap or punch that person. Only when full intentional physical contact occur you likely can push back, but not slap or punch someone.
The officer may not have been required to back up, BUT the best course of action would have been to back up. If she continued to invade his personal space he would have her perfectly justified in arresting her, but not slapping her as he did.
“She didn’t touch him intentionally”
I won’t deal with her intentions since that is impossible to know. However, we know that the officer took a step back while she moved her body right next to him. The contact is difficult to evaluate from the videos.
There is something wrong with your head. What she did was WRONG and ABUSIVE. You are trying to show how smart you are by dealing with minutia. What you prove is what you always prove. You are dumb and don’t know it.
Unmasked racial taunting right in his face? No person should have to kowtow to those kinds of morons, what good does it do society to allow that behavior? The fact that he was in uniform empowered her to taunt him, she would never pull that stunt on a free person. Police brutality, nope, she was the abuser. She should be in jail. She needs to learn some respect.
In his essay,
“Donald Trump’s Megaphone-
Fox News news hosts knew that Trump’s lies were lies—and they amplified them anyhow,”
Jonah Goldberg says:
“For most of the Trump years, when I was invited on Fox it was to talk about anything but Trump. And as a conservative, I was perfectly willing to criticize Democrats and progressives. But opportunities to criticize Trump were studiously avoided.”
My guess is Turley, like Goldberg, is studiously avoiding talking about Trump. Any irrelevant news item will do, like this slap in Miami, rather than addressing a Congressional investigation closing in on Trump and his collaborators, the result of which could effect the very future of our democracy!
I would sooner read Turley discuss the Durham investigation or criticize the MSM ignoring the Hunter laptop than read these inane stories he dredges up. There are a multitude of interesting Constitutional issues arising of the 1/6 investigation, but nothing seems to pique Turley’s scholarship! Something is not right with this picture.
BTW, I commend everyone to read Goldberg’s article. I totally agree with his arguments about whataboutism. He also exposes the hypocrisy of his Fox colleagues. I wonder what Turley must be thinking when his relatives, friends and colleagues read such a damning expose’ from a long-time Fox insider. It must make him feel very sheepish.
How long is this blog going to tolerate these blatant trolling attempts to hijack the blog commentary and deflect to topics that are completely unrelated to the blog content?
“How long is this blog going to tolerate these blatant trolling attempts to hijack the blog commentary and deflect to topics that are completely unrelated to the blog content?”
You’re darn tootin’!
And.Here.We.Go! Dang nab it – why don’t you blog about this? I find it more important, and besides, I get paid to do this
“And.Here.We.Go! Dang nab it – why don’t you blog about this? I find it more important, and besides, I get paid to do this”
“But opportunities to criticize Trump were studiously avoided.”
What does that mean? Studiously avoided by whom? Why? Goldberg is a good writer, and I read at least one of his books. He is a never Trumper, always ready to promote himself, and finds creating a bit of mischief provides him press to spur on his new efforts in publishing.
Jeff, are you supporting pretentious self-promotion? Is that what you are trying to do? You are using a nebulous sentence to promote your repetitive behavior regarding Turley and Trump. That’s kooky.
And the parasite speaks again.
Silberman doesn’t have a forum or an audience so he hijacks Turley’s blog to reach an audience that his talents cannot earn him.
Basically a one trick pony (Fox).
“Silberman doesn’t have a forum or an audience so he hijacks Turley’s blog to reach an audience that his talents cannot earn him.”
I didn’t ask for this job, but I didn’t see your hand rise up to volunteer. If no one else will bring up topics that are germane, I guess I’ll have to do it. We can’t allow Turley to avoid discussing the burning issues of the day. He correctly faulted the MSM for avoiding the Hunter laptop scandal; likewise, I am critical of his ignoring the daily facts revealed by, and the lawsuits brought against, the Congressional committee’s 1/6 investigation.
Entitled people deserve to be slapped. Kudos, Antonio!
Welllllll, nah. He should have walked away and be the adult in the situation. This is what happens when codes of human conduct evaporate in society.
According to her arrest report, Anderson went behind the re-booking counter to grab her boarding pass and threatened and cursed at employees when she was told she was not allowed to be there.
Rodriguez wrote in his report that the supervisor told Anderson she would not be allowed to fly with American Airlines and that her fare would be reimbursed.
According to the report, Rodriguez told Anderson to gather her belongings so the two officers could escort her away from the airport’s secured side, but she became “belligerent,” yelled obscenities and said, “I should go over there and punch him in his face,” referring to the American Airlines supervisor.
Body cam footage showing the interaction between Anderson and the officer shows Rodriguez appearing to taunt Anderson, telling her “go punch him,” although that part was not mentioned in the arrest report.
Anderson then gets close to Rodriguez’s face, telling him “You act white but you’re really black…what you gonna do?” before he hits her in the face and both officers handcuff her while she was on the floor.
In the arrest report, Rodriguez wrote that Anderson violated his personal space, bumped him with her body and struck him on the chin with her head.
Estovir, so when she was bobbing her head while saying, “what you gonna do”, her head came in contact with his chin? It looked like it would have been really slight.
Cooler heads should have prevailed.
I once had a patient grab my neck and gripped my throat tightly. My team members came to my rescue but there was another part of the story that kept me alive. The patient was intoxicated, had a compound fracture and was thrown off of his motorcycle doing 100 mph, intoxicated, and hit a car. We were preparing him for surgery. I took the lead in the room and when I directed the team to transfer him from the stretcher to the table, he writhed in pain and reached for my neck, since I was at the head of the table. Although I froze at what he did to me, I knew I had to remain calm and not react. After the event, he had no recollection of it post- surgery.
The cop reacted. It appears to me the woman is under the influence (chemical, alcohol, or psychiatric), like the above patient. Miami is an aggressive city, and the airport features all types of cultural clashes. Cops know this. If they lose their cool in potentially violent situations, then all is lost. This cop lost his cool. The woman is not unique in her comportment being insulting, aggressive and stoking a situation in hopes of creating a scene. She won. The cop lost. It should have never ended the way it did and that is the fault of the cop for losing his professional composure. He is supposed to be a professional and show others the way. He succumbed to her level. Bad message for his peers. Never lose your composure as a professional.
The Professor and I can agree to disagree on this one.
It takes two to Fandango…..had the drunken woman not continued to act the aggressor in the incident she might not have gotten her Chops slapped.
Officers today are expected to do everything possible to deescalate a situation…..even when doing so only leads to a much less desirable outcome.
In my time we were taught to be polite and courteous, but be firm and consistent, but never to engage in a debate or argue with a Suspect.
When a Suspect got into our face as did this drunken Woman….she would have been immediately arrested and we would have used whatever force was necessary to effect the arrest.
If….that tried and true method was in vogue today….there were be far fewer such incidents as seen in the video.
The reason…..folks would know that such conduct invariably leads to a trip downtown to the Gray Bar Hotel.
They also would know the getting into a Cop’s face in an aggressive manner NEVER ends well for the Perpetrator.
Respect is a two way street….it takes two….but so does the Fandango.
Rather than argue about the Cop assaulting the Woman…..why do we not argue about why it is not wise to taunt a Police Officer?
A better link to the video……watch the Woman aggressively approach the Officer…..and carefully look for what she does with her left hand…..did she make contact with the Officer?
Never argue with a Woman…especially a drunk Woman….Policing is not a Debating Society.
Ralph, I could not positively identify the movements made, but the officer made a movement with his left arm preceding the slap. However, I note that as she became more belligerent, the officer took a step back to create a path for her and distance between the two. She then advanced on him. I believe she should have been arrested, but the slap or blow appeared excessive at the moment.
It’s tough being a police officer, and such disrespect should not occur. We permit it, and then we blame the police officer for being human and protecting himself. Something is wrong with that situation. The PBA officer was likely right. The officer was convicted before the facts were in.
Thanks, Ralph. That’s a better video than the clip I saw on another site.
Did he say, “she head butted me?” Was that the cop who struck her? Was he saying that’s what started the incident, or did she head butt him during the jumbled takedown where you can’t see what’s going on?
Did she bump him slighting with her head when she was bobbing her head while in his face? Is that what triggered him? I can’t see what she’s doing with her hands, which are close to a sensitive area.
I can’t see what she could have done that would have constituted felony battery. From what I can see, it appears the officer over reacted. Unless there’s more evidence, such as another angle, I think he should have just arrested her without striking her.
Police can and often are abusive.
This sort of behavior by the police (both the initial attack and the subsequent response) are what fuels the “Defund” movement and BLM.
It is almost impossible for an individual to fund a legal challenge on his own.
And the FBI is no help, they are totally occupied in pursuing 1/6 terrorists and uppity parents.
Comments are closed.