Hilarious, but only partially agreed. It would be a mad world were cops to start ticketing everyone who jaywalked anywhere, at any time, no matter what. Agreed that if you’re a total shit-for-brains who “saunters” out in the middle of the street, with no apparent regard for traffic or safety, you should be strangled, or failing that, ticketed. If there’s no one around, and you’re not at some weird angle, or in front of a parking ramp or something, where cars could be coming out at any second, and you decide to cross at some place other than a designated crosswalk, jaywalking isn’t really that big of a deal.
Pedestrians (theoretically) are smart enough to know when they’re being careless or endangering others, and cops (theoretically) are smart enough to recognize same.
In light of Mean Old Lady’s objection to excessive jaywalking citations, it seems fair to point out that the article posted above lists the street where this cop was citing jaywalkers as one of the streets that has seen a significant number of pedestrian incidents.
Looks like they’re attempting to reduce the roadkill.
You seem to have the attitude that anything that results from something not serious is also not serious. Someone kills 12 people and steals 3 cars and breaks traffic laws? Well, that’s not a big deal, they were just running from the cops who wanted to give him a ticket for having an expired inspection sticker.
Oh, double post! Because what I have to say is twice as important!
In case anyone cares what I think, I reckon citing people for jaywalking is like anything else: You don’t *have *to cite someone for every violation you see, and should employ some Og-Given judgment on when you should act. If you’re jaywalking, is your sorry ass just going balls first into traffic, completely ignoring safety, traffic, common sense and decency? Are you crossing through a low-traffic road with lots of visibility? If law enforcement has decided to initiate a jaywalking crackdown in an area with people getting run over left and right, I’d say that’s a good thing.
I still don’t think I would’ve punched the girl in the face. I don’t know what I would have done. Those little fuckers were behaving like shits, and making no effort to be cooperative. Beyond simply not being cooperative, they were being downright combative. Part of me thinks as a police officer, you should be trained to deal with combative shits, and not use that kind of force unless absolutely necessary. Another part of me says if I were dealing with those fuckers, I’d have maced them, then shot them just for good measure. But I am not a cop (thank gods).
Nah, people like Kyla aren’t into little things like “proximate cause.” If something starts from something minor, then it’s minor, and that’s the end of it.
That cop didn’t look like a big guy, and those women seemed like a handful. I don’t know why people expect the police to be master ninjas who take people down with leg sweeps and judo throws. All things considered, the punch in the face largely settled things down. Maybe he could have called for backup, but then people would have complained about the cops calling in the cavalry over a jaywalking ticket.
I noticed the guy that was with those girls was smart enough not to get in the cop’s face, even after he threw that punch.
Why couldn’t he have just finished cuffing the first girl? It looked like he could’ve shrugged off the push from the second girl and gotten that situation under control, then dealt with the friend (verbally, or cuff her or arrest her or take her down).
That punch looked like a last-ditch desperate attempt by someone that’s lost control-- of the situation, of perspective, and of himself.
Seriously? I totally agree that what she did was wrong, but punching a kid in the face is way over the top. If it was okeydokey, it probably wouldn’t be a news story in the first place.
Punching a girl in the face is not a good plan to defuse the situation. Many people get very defensive over a man hitting a girl. When he slugged her ,I expected the crowd to get angry. I was surprised they did not. But there is no way to say a man hitting a girl in the face is how you quiet down a potential problem. He was lucky there wasn’t a nasty reaction from the people around him.
Considering that he already had one person resisting a lawful arrest, and a second person physically intervened in said lawful arrest by assaulting him, what do you think he should be allowed to do?
If you lay hands on an officer of the law, you should count yourself lucky if punched is all you get.
Punched and convicted for felony assault in the 3rd Degree, for example. Imprisonment not to exceed 5 years in the state of Washington.
The use of force is always a news story. The use of force here was appropriate; they basically gave him no choice but to defend himself and he chose a method which was expedient and likely least injurious under the circumstances. His boss said he should have used more force and knocked her down. Do you agree?
White cop, black citizen…of course it’s going to be a news story. Any and every effort to make the police look bad, and the liberal media just delights in airing this shit.
In the middle of the night, deserted streets, should you really have to wait for a red light to turn green before you drive through? Maybe not, but try doing it in front of a cop and I’ll bet he disagrees with you.
If they are serious about getting people to obey jaywalking laws, an effective method is to enforce it no matter what. When word gets out that there is no quarter given, chances are most people will get with the program.
This is ridiculous. Shot From Guns is completely correct. The proper expression is to “effect an escape.” It’s not a regionalism; it’s standard English.
You don’t know what you’re talking about, Pleonast. The expression “affect an escape” is nonsensical, and I’ve never heard it in my life by anyone with a good grasp of English grammar. It ranks up there with the expressions, “for all intensive purposes” (sic) and “would of” (sic).
Another way to get your message out is a few horrific articles about people being run over with insult to injury added when they are the ones ticketed and fined for the aftermath.
In Boston people are dam well aware if you J walk you do so at your own risk. Drivers seem more then eager to run people down if that lack the common sense to use a crossing and obey the signals. This attitude seems to keep people in check. Last I heard the fine for J walking in Boston was a dollar and I’ve never known anyone to get even a stern talking to.
There was no article written, but a year or so ago a relative was pulling out of our subdivision when she collided with a twentysomething budding genius who was riding his unlit bicycle through the pitch-dark night on the wrong side of the road. Thankfully he was not badly hurt, although his bike was twisted into scrap under the front of the car. The police, competent enough to determine that his claims that a) he was actually riding on the correct side and b) his bicycle was equipped with a headlight were both bullshit, cited bike boy rather than my badly shaken relative and moved quickly to subdue the kid’s redneck parents who showed up and immediately began bellowing threats that they would sue. No punches thrown, unfortunately.
It’s a shame you wasn’t at the London Poll Tax riots; you might have had pause to reflect on the sanctity of the police uniform. If someone acts like an asshole, it shouldn’t be mitigated by them wearing a certain uniform. So, if the girl was acting like an asshole for getting involved, and the officer acts like an asshole by punching her, it should then be okay for someone to be a bigger asshole - from the officer’s perspective - by kicking the shit out of him. Seems a fairly logical progression to me.
