Skip to main content

See also:

What kind of a man punches a woman in the face?

What kind of a man punches a woman in the face? Why, a California highway patrol officer, (1) that's who!

LA Patrolman punching a woman in the face as she attempts to shield herself from his blows. Photo:
LA Patrolman punching a woman in the face as she attempts to shield herself from his blows. Photo:

The Associated Press reported yesterday that a California highway patrol officer, chased a woman onto the freeway, then went berserk, beating her incessantly in the face.

What is even more shocking is that this officer is either so emotionally unbalanced or so cocksure of himself that he can get away with it, that he had no concern over the many witnesses watching his crime.

"What we understand to have occurred," said CHP Assistant Chief Chris O'Quinn, as he wiped the jelly from his lips, "was that she started to walk down the on ramp, and then turned around and came back up and crossed the lanes of traffic endangering herself and the motoring public."

Looking more like a scared little tattletale than an officer, O'Quinn waved his arms as he spoke, trying to convince reporters that the defenseless woman was to blame for what the officer did.

"She endangered herself and the motoring public," he said.

Frankly, she was in more danger from the woman-punching officer than from any of the traffic.

This is a common tactic of the guilty who have been backed into a corner with no defense. They put all their effort into trying to distract others from the real criminal and put the focus on the victim.

But wait, it gets better.

And then there's Earl Ofari Hutchinson from the urban police round table who did the same arm waving thing. ("Look at the left hand . . .")

"A homeless woman . . ."

So? What does that have to do with anything? Is that all you got?

"Someone who, no telling what her state of mind is . . ."

Yep, the video plainly portrays that her beating was all her fault.

"Obviously, if you're near a freeway, I think it's a fair assumption that something's wrong."
Actually, no, "Earl," it is not a FAIR assumption that's something wrong. What is a fair assumption is that you and your good 'ol boys have been caught with your pants down.

If you'd like a good laugh, watch Hutchinson's little speech, paying attention to the few sheeple who surround him, looking extremely concerned and nodding their heads in complete agreement.

It is currently unknown if they are Hutchinson's colleagues or people they picked up off the street and paid to stand in front of the camera and nod their heads in agreement (kind of like the crisis actors that the Obama administration hires to pretend they've been killed in terror attacks).

AP reported, that O'Quinn claimed that he could not say what could have prompted the officer to act as he did.

So while the California highway patrol frantically searches for a way to blame this ordeal on the homeless woman, let's take a look at why an obviously robust, healthy man would attack a slender, defenseless woman.

Steve Taylor, PhD, is a lecturer in psychology at Leeds Metropolitan University, UK and the author of "Back to Sanity: Healing the Madness of the Human Mind." (2) In an August 2012 article in Psychology Today, "Why Men Oppress Women," (3) he addresses the reason why a man would hit a woman.

Taylor states in his article that in his opinion, a man's abuse of a woman indicates deep-rooted psychological causes.

The oppression of women is a symptom of this disorder ["humania"]. It’s one thing to take over the positions of power in a society, but another to seemingly despise women, and inflict so much brutality and degradation on them. What sane species would treat half of its members—and the very half which gives birth to the whole species—with such contempt and injustice? Despite their high level of testosterone, the men of many ancient and indigenous cultures revered women for their life-giving and nurturing role, so why don’t we?

Notice that he questions why a "sane" species would behave this way, implying that such behavior is not sane.

Taylor goes on to state that a man's oppression of women stems from his desire for power and control, (hence the badge and gun). This need for a feeling of power goes back throughout history as men sought to conquer and overpower other nations, or in a more modern situation, "oppress other classes or groups in their own society." This same testosterone-driven urge is what compels men to dominate and oppress women.

Understand that Taylor is not speaking of "healthy" men when he states,

Since men feel the need to gain as much power and control as they can, they steal away power and control from women. They deny women the right to make decisions so that they can make them for them, leave women unable to direct their own lives so that they can direct their lives for them. Ultimately, they’re trying to increase their sense of significance and status, in an effort to offset the discontent and sense of lack created by "humania."

There are those men, according to Taylor, who resent the sexual power that women have over them. An abusive childhood may cause a man to feel animosity to those who stimulate their sexual desires. In their disturbed minds, that sexual power insults their need for control, causing them to feel an inability to completely dominate a woman resulting in a feeling of loss of control over their own bodies.

They might be able to force women to cover their bodies and faces and make them live like slaves, but any woman was capable of arousing powerful and uncontrollable sexual impulses inside them at any moment. The last 6000 years of man’s inhumanity to woman can partly be seen as a revenge for this.

So there you have it. This woman-punching officer's mother must not have breastfed him long enough.

The following information was taken from the Shouse California Law Group website at

The legal definition of battery in California is as follows:

  • You touched someone else,
  • Willfully,
  • In a harmful or offensive manner

For many people, the term “battery” conjures up images of severe beatings. But, in fact, you can be guilty of California battery, under California Penal Code 242, even if you didn't cause the 'victim' pain or injury of any kind. All that matters is that you touched him/her in an offensive way.

But if a California battery does in fact result in a serious injury, then you may be charged instead with the separate but related crime of battery causing serious bodily injury, Penal Code 243(d) PC.

Notice that O'Quinn made a point to state that the woman was uninjured. How can they prove that? Will there be photographs? Is it possible that a man as strong as the officer who was repeatedly punching her in the face caused no injury at all? He was punching her with his fists while in an obvious rage.

"Penal Code 243(d) PC California's "battery causing serious bodily injury" law is a wobbler. A "wobbler" is a crime that may be filed as either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on
the circumstances of the case, and
your criminal history.

  • If convicted of aggravated battery as a misdemeanor, you face up to one year in a county jail and a maximum $1,000 fine.
  • If convicted of aggravated battery as a felony, you face two, three, or four years in the California state prison and a maximum $10,000 fine.11

"The officer's on administrative leave while the patrol investigates," AP reported.

So an officer beats a woman in public—obviously not in self defense—and his punishment is to be put on leave (how much you wanna bet he's getting full salary). "Here you go! If you beat up an old lady, we'll double your salary!"

"And this is one of those circumstances," O'Quinn said as he vigorously nodded his head up and down, "where we will be looking at what transpired and why it occurred."

To quote Bubba's mother in "Forrest Gump": "Are you stupid or somethin'?"

The entire country knows what transpired! How is it that you're not getting it? Cop throws woman on the ground and starts beating the flap out of her. Period.

What O'Quinn's statement really means—translated from police-ese into English—is, "we need some time to cover our asses."

O'Quinn states that "Despite what the video shows, O'Quinn says the woman was uninjured and is undergoing psychiatric evaluation.

"The woman is undergoing psychiatric evaluation." Really? You've got an obviously psychologically-disturbed man, with a gun, walking around free and on paid vacation, and you're evaluating the victim?

Why is this man not in jail? If the police go to a house where a man is beating a woman, don't they take him to jail?

Why does he still have a job? And more importantly, why does he still have his gun? Did he have to shoot her (as many others in our police state are doing) before you take his gun away? Do you not see some anger issues here?

Anybody wanna bet that the woman-punching cop is going to come back to work once this all blows over, and the helpless woman whom he viciously attacked will never been seen or heard of again?

So out in California, there is a massive gun-grab going on. And the liberals are just cheering them on!

Do any of you liberal Californians out there understand that you may be next? Do you think that you have a "Get Out of FEMA Free" card? You're gonna be the first ones to go ''cuz ya' ain't got no guns!

If you all just let this slip through the cracks, if you don't go down en masse and peacefully and constitutionally picket the police station, put the pressure on them and stay on top of this, then when it happens to you, you have no one to blame but yourself.