jay walking now a dangerous crime?

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I know the official story on Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Feddie Grey, Rodney King and every other official story about abuse of authority.

Its always the victims fault they suffered at the hands of police.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever. --George Orwell, 1984

originally posted by: intrptr
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever. --George Orwell, 1984

"Look what you made me do", the protest of the sociopath, is much more apropo.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: intrptr
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever. --George Orwell, 1984

"Look what you made me do", the protest of the sociopath, is much more apropos.

mmm hmm. Bullies alway say stuff like that.

You better watch it or your going to get it.

This is for your own good.

Look at what you made me do.

Edit: It only makes sense that bullies will seek venues were they can practice their logic on people with impunity. Like joining the military or Police.

originally posted by: husker13
A quick interaction with a cop, involuntarily, when nothing wrong was done is an affront to liberty.

You are playing pretend, here.

While I think that jaywalking laws are asinine, especially when applied to adults, the reality remains the same that they are laws that are on the books. The LEO was trying to enforce that law when he saw someone break it, by trying to talk to the guy about it.

Here's where things might get confusing to some--liberty generally falls under two catagories: 1) The ability to live a life free from oppressive authority, or; 2) The freedom to act as you want, as in taking the liberty to do something.

Mr. Cain certainly decided to take the liberty to ignore the LEO when then LEO was trying to discuss a legal infraction that he witnessed Mr. Cain doing, and it was that liberty that Mr. Cain invoked that led to the final outcome.

Yes, I have a quote about liberty in my signature area, and everything that I have said concerning the asininity of jaywalking laws has been consistent with the spirit of having the liberty to cross the street where one sees fit--but I'm also a realist, and one cannot bitch and moan on about oppressive police officers when they are enforcing laws (that they did not write) that we don't like, but then complain when they don't show up quickly enough to enforce the ones that we do like.

I'll tell you this much, though--like I noted in my original post, there was a crosswalk going in the same direction that Mr. Cain walked across that street not 20 feet away. His choice to not use the supplied crosswalk, then his subsequent choices leading up to the LEO arresting him, were his doing and his doing alone. It's not as if the law exists and then the city gives no reasonable way to stay within the law.

Liberty is not synonymous with anarchy or a lawless society--we must meet in the middle to live within a society, giving up some liberties in order to, say, have paved roads, or clean running water (Sorry, Flint...), or trash service so that we're not living in diseased filth lining the streets.

Again, jaywalking laws are unnecessary, in my opinion (and it is just an opinion), but they are laws that exist in most, if not all, municipalities in America. When a law ENFORCEMENT officer see someone breaking that law, it is their duty to confront them, even if the 'suspect' (I must use that term loosely concerning jaywalking) doesn't like to talk to LEOs.

Liberty, as you have used it, has nothing to do with Mr. Cain's chosen course of actions in the video, just like justifiable force has nothing to do with the LEO beating the hell out of Mr. Cain's face/head.

But just to be sure, people do NOT have the right to ignore police officers and just walk away when they are suspected of breaking the law--but they can take the liberty to do so, but not without consequences.

originally posted by: Greven
I appreciate the remainder of your post, but I want to point out something:

Unless police have probable cause, police do not have a legal right to stop you walking down the street.

That officer was threatening the man with violence, talking about taking him down.

But that's not a valid point to make, as Mr. Cain was suspected of a crime--as asinine as the crime was (jaywalking)--and a LEO was stopping him to talk about the infraction.

If you are a suspect in a crime, no matter how irrelevant the crime may be, you do not have the right to walk away from a police officer wanting to talk with/question you about it. If you choose to do that, that's whey you can be detained, back-up gets called, you could be 'taken down to the station' for questioning, and all of that fun stuff.

The LEO wasn't just simply trying to stop Mr. Cain from walking down the street, he was stopping him to talk about his infraction of the jaywalking law--as stupid as that reason may be. But dismissing that reality to pretend like the LEO had zero authority to stop Mr. Cain is not a realistic assessment of what happened. That LEO had all the right in the world--and a lot of patience, it seemed, up until his own ridiculous actions--to stop Mr. Cain and question him or talk to him.

I wholeheartedly agree, though, that the LEO could have and should have handled things differently, but we can only dismiss so much of the suspect's own actions before the LEO has to detain him in instances like this. The LEO even told Mr. Cain more than once why he wanted to talk to him, and Cain dismissed the reason and kept on keeping on--Cain was in the wrong at that point.

originally posted by: intrptr
Like I said originally, 'walking while black'.

Turns out he, 'dinna do nuffin', after all.

And just when I thought we were logically discussing this issue, you go and throw this stupidity into the mix, even when your own eyes can watch the video and see the reason why the officer was attempting to stop him and talk to him in the first place.

"Walking while black" is the mantra of fools.

"Turns out he, 'dinna do nuffin', after all" is the assessment of someone unwilling to accept reality.

I tried to discuss this with you intelligently, but when you're unwilling, I become unwilling, also.

Best regards.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

California law which I cited in the post immediately following that one, states that one can cross the street exactly where he crossed - between two corners with sidewalks at roughly right angles.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
when some one ignores lawful orders and is warned numerous times, and still ignores them and then challenges the cop to a fight, and he is taken down with force for resisting , and you have to remember he challenged the cop to a fight so the cop had no way to know if the guy was going to stand there or start throwing punches, the cop acted reacted appropriately.

Do explain how what happened here was 'lawful orders.'

e: Oh, also, if you go for the jaywalking angle... remember that this happened in California:

CVC §275
“Crosswalk” is either:

(a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street.

(b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing.

So, no, the jaywalking thing was bull#.

Also, where in the video is a marked crosswalk? I don't see it.

originally posted by: blackthorne
this occurred in sacramento a couple of days ago. an african american man with no criminal record, was walking home from work. the street was empty of cars except a cop car off to the side. the cop gets out and after a couple of words, body slams the man and hits him in the face with his fist several times. even the department found the cops behavior disturbing and troubling. and yes, the cop was white.
racist or not?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

In a country where you apparently get thrown in jail for just about anything, you just have to be a little bit stupid to get wrestled to the ground by the police.

The video seems to suggest he showed signs of not wanting to "cooperate with the police", by taking off his jacket like he was all "Let's dance!". Do this in front of a police officer who's having a bad day and your day turns bad as well.

Racist? I think a "white trash" individual would have gotten the same treatment. Who knows what was said - my guess is the jacket didn't come off to words of "Have a nice day, officer".

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Nice deflection. Can't handle simple truths, so attack the messenger.

The officer is under review , the victim was not charged.

There will be no charges for the officer either.

That why this continues to happen, they know they can act with impunity.

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776
a reply to: blackthorne

I don't think it's necessarily racist, just bad judgment by a power hungry police officer and maybe bad judgment by the citizen just trying to save 30 seconds by not going to a designated crosswalk. That being said I do jay walk on occasion but always look both ways and never with even a single car on the road, in an intelligent society it wouldn't be a problem.

Good point about "an intelligent society". In Norway, where I come from, nobody give's a rat's hind quarters about you crossing the road anywhere - as long as you're not obstructing traffic. In USA, it seems imposisble to not break the law constantly.

a reply to: Greven
The law that you quoted say, and I'll quote:

“Crosswalk” is either:

(a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street.

What that means is that there must be a continuation of the sidewalk (i.e.: Two white lines indicating the width or boundary lines of the sidewalks) running through that intersection. Where he crossed, there was not.

On the other side of the street, if you look at the dash cam video shown below, you'll see indications of said white lines where there are not said lines on the side that Mr. Cain crossed. This same video is included in my post on page 2 of this thread.

Well, s**t, now that I watch the video over and over again as the police vehicle pulls up to the intersection, I think that I mistook some pixels of piss-poor resolution of the camera as indications of faded crosswalk lines. This prompted me to research the intersection where this took place (Cypruss and Grand), and check out the satellite images of it, and sure enough, there's no crosswalk--the closest being one block (about 200 feet) away to the west (which isn't exactly a marathon distance, but I wouldn't have walked down to it, either, unless I had my 3-year-old daughter with me). But looking east on Grand Avenue, there isn't another marked crosswalk for six more blocks.



Like I've noted before, I think that the jaywalking laws in our country are asinine, and I'm quite certain that the officer would have let Mr. Cain off with a warning (he was in the middle of Grand Avenue when a white vehicle drove past him), but the choices of Mr. Cain cause the interaction to escalate.

I'm not dismissing the LEO's behavior at the point of the takedown and the strikes to the head/face, but I certainly am calling out Mr. Cain in his role in the escalation, as well as the reality that jaywalking laws do exist, and it gave the officer the authority to stop Mr. Cain after he witnessed him jaywalk.

So, no, the jaywalking thing is not BS, although I do think that it's a law that needs expunged from the books of all cities.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Nice deflection. Can't handle simple truths, so attack the messenger.

The officer is under review , the victim was not charged.

There will be no charges for the officer either.

That why this continues to happen, they know they can act with impunity.

So, calling you out on ignorant claims based off of your ideological assumptions is now a deflection? I have explained NUMEROUS times in this thread that a jaywalking law, as ridiculous as it is, is an enforceable law--LEOs have the authority to stop, question, and detain you over it, if necessary (and 9.999999999999999 times out of ten, it's not, because people don't generally act like asshats when the LEO comes to talk to them about it).

Whether or not you want to keep dismissing that reality is up to you--I don't care anymore, because this thread, like most others in the PC forum, has devolved to opinions and ideological rants more than actual logical debate.

The charge against Mr. Cain was dropped because, as it states in the linked story in the OP, it was determined that there was not enough evidence (probably visual) that Cain resisted arrest to a point where the charge was warranted--couple that with the actions of the officer during the arrest, and I wouldn't have charged Cain either, even if he did actively resist. It was a political move as much as an appropriate move on the side of the PD.

BUT, just because charges are dropped doesn't mean that the initial incident--jaywalking--and Mr. Cain's behavior once the officer tried to talk to him about it are not things that happened that shaped the outcome of this interaction.

So, let me reiterate the asininity of your comments:

He wasn't stopped for "walking while black"--that's just a BS excuse race-baiters throw around all of the time to elicit emotional responses and excuse behavior that often really did occur, and;

He did do something--he broke a jaywalking law, which gave the LEO the authority to stop him and talk to him (and detain him if necessary), and he refused to stop and talk to the officer after committing said infraction of the law. He then proceeded, right before he was taken town by the LEO, to posture himself aggressively in the LEO's face after disregarding the officer many times and then taunting him at least twice.

So, here's the deal, whether you accept it or not: You brought in ridiculous comments into a conversation that otherwise was going well, and I called you out on them (twice now, at this point).

If you continue to pretend that this is a deflection and what you said are "simple truths," then again, this discussion with you is over because it has devolved into your ideological ramblings instead of discussing the facts.

I bet you that the LEO does get brought up on charges--the fact that the PD dropped charges for resisting arrest is the first step toward admitting that the aggression of the LEO was unjustified, and quite honestly, I hope that the people of North Sacramento don't stand for it.

But with that said, Mr. Cain is not absolved from personal responsibility concerning the escalation of the incident--both deserve blame.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: husker13
A quick interaction with a cop, involuntarily, when nothing wrong was done is an affront to liberty.

You are playing pretend, here.

While I think that jaywalking laws are asinine, especially when applied to adults, the reality remains the same that they are laws that are on the books. The LEO was trying to enforce that law when he saw someone break it, by trying to talk to the guy about it.

Here's where things might get confusing to some--liberty generally falls under two catagories: 1) The ability to live a life free from oppressive authority, or; 2) The freedom to act as you want, as in taking the liberty to do something.

Mr. Cain certainly decided to take the liberty to ignore the LEO when then LEO was trying to discuss a legal infraction that he witnessed Mr. Cain doing, and it was that liberty that Mr. Cain invoked that led to the final outcome.

Yes, I have a quote about liberty in my signature area, and everything that I have said concerning the asininity of jaywalking laws has been consistent with the spirit of having the liberty to cross the street where one sees fit--but I'm also a realist, and one cannot bitch and moan on about oppressive police officers when they are enforcing laws (that they did not write) that we don't like, but then complain when they don't show up quickly enough to enforce the ones that we do like.

I'll tell you this much, though--like I noted in my original post, there was a crosswalk going in the same direction that Mr. Cain walked across that street not 20 feet away. His choice to not use the supplied crosswalk, then his subsequent choices leading up to the LEO arresting him, were his doing and his doing alone. It's not as if the law exists and then the city gives no reasonable way to stay within the law.

Liberty is not synonymous with anarchy or a lawless society--we must meet in the middle to live within a society, giving up some liberties in order to, say, have paved roads, or clean running water (Sorry, Flint...), or trash service so that we're not living in diseased filth lining the streets.

Again, jaywalking laws are unnecessary, in my opinion (and it is just an opinion), but they are laws that exist in most, if not all, municipalities in America. When a law ENFORCEMENT officer see someone breaking that law, it is their duty to confront them, even if the 'suspect' (I must use that term loosely concerning jaywalking) doesn't like to talk to LEOs.

Liberty, as you have used it, has nothing to do with Mr. Cain's chosen course of actions in the video, just like justifiable force has nothing to do with the LEO beating the hell out of Mr. Cain's face/head.

But just to be sure, people do NOT have the right to ignore police officers and just walk away when they are suspected of breaking the law--but they can take the liberty to do so, but not without consequences.

Someone posted the California jay walking statute which confirms he did nothing wrong. The cop was ignorant of the laws he was enforcing which is no excuse for a civilian, but perfectly acceptable for cops. Nobody will ever convince me that cops are not an oppressive authority.

Don't get it twisted I do not advocate for a lawless society or anarchy, but in their current form with training and standard operating procedures used by the cops they walk all over your liberty. Guilty until proven innocent. No right to not to interact with them when doing nothing wrong. If you choose not to cooperate when your near an actual crime and choose not to talk they charge you for obstruction.

I don't mind people that support the cops. It's your own choice, but I'd say they have never been in a situation where they see them as the thugs they are. Never been stopped at gun point and handcuffed and illegally detained while "they figure it out". Never had a cop overstep his powers to bring personal retribution. Never been nickle and dimed with fines for some perceived slight. Cops have earned every bit of disdain people have towards them. They trample on liberty, as an oppressive authority.

a reply to: husker13

Careful, direct argument with poster results in longer and longer replies until you are swamped with pages of mumbo Jumbo.

Bails out, pulls rip cord...

a reply to: husker13
No, the statute confirms that there is no crosswalk there, as I clearly noted in response to the posting of that definition of a crosswalk--it specifically notes that the crosswalk must be marked at the boundaries of the sidewalk extending through the intersection.

But, that said, I did make a mistake in reviewing the dashcam footage and my claim that there was a crosswalk at that particular intersection--I noted it in this comment. The short version is that there really is no crosswalk (at all) at the intersection of Cypress and Grand.

Even so, I have since done further research into jaywalking, and California statute allows for tightening of state laws concerning crosswalks and jaywalking, and in the City of Sacramento, here is a city code concerning jaywalking:

10.20.020 Pedestrians must use crosswalks.

No pedestrian shall cross a through street within three hundred (300) feet of a crosswalk other than within such crosswalk, except at a location where a school bus is stopped and is displaying flashing red lights. (Prior code § 25.03.051)

So, municipal code specifically states that, if you are within 300 feet of a crosswalk, which Mr. Cain was (only about 200 feet away, according to the scale offered by Google Maps), then you are in violation of the above code if you jaywalk instead of walking to the crosswalk.

It's pretty cut-and-dry, and it's right there in the proverbial black and white (or ones and zeros, as this case may be)--the LEO had every authority to both cite Mr. Cain for jaywalking, and to detain him while discussing the issue, if necessary. But, obviously, the LEO went about the wrong way (and illegally, IMO, after the takedown).

The rest of your comment relies on anecdotal evidence and false assumptions. I have had, over my 38 years of life, quite a few run-ins with LEOs, most of which were my pre-Army days as a pot-head teenager. I even fled from a local cop one time when they broke up a keg party that I was at, and I was respectful to him and he was to me--even let me continue to walk home and come get my car in the morning. I can't count the number of times that I was pulled over with weed in my car (or bongs, or water pipes, or whatever else), and I was respectful EVERY time to the officers, and they were in turn respectful to me. I even got pulled over for suspected drunk driving twice as a teenager (I wasn't), and I was cool to the cops, and they were cool back and let me go on my way--didn't even search my vehicle, even though my front-seat passenger had an open container while being underage. I was escorted home in a police car at 2am once--my dad loved that (that cop was a dick until he realized that I wasn't trying to steal a car, I was just filling up my bong at someone's hose on my way home from work to help me get to sleep when I got home...he was cool after that, and I was respectful to him). I spent a few hours in a holding cell as a teenager for stealing lighters and Visine...there was no explaining my way out of the reason for those items. Those cops were cool with me, too, because I was with them.

The only relatively crappy encounter that I remember having with a LEO was a Tennessee Highway Patrol--I was going 85 in I-24 heading into Nashville because we were later than planned trying to get to the airport (me and my wife and son). He pulls me over with a sh**ty attitude from the start, claiming that I was going over 100mph and that he was going 115 just to try to catch up to me. Meanwhile, two sports cars were driving faster than me that he could have pulled over, but he chose me instead. I called him out on the BS about going over 100, stating that I looked at my speedometer when I noticed him behind me and that it said between 80 and 85. He didn't admit to being wrong, but only wrote me up for 80mph in a 70 zone. He did think it was appropriate to lecture me on ensuring that I don't endanger the lives of my family like that just to make a flight (I think his words were something like, "Well, I'm pretty sure that his [my son's] grandma would rather see him alive and late than at his funeral)...I think I ended that interaction by telling him to just give me my ticket so that I could go. I also audibly laughed when he said that about getting my son to the airport alive.

But, regardless, I haven't lacked negative interaction with LEOs before, I'm just smart enough to know that they interact with assholes every day that they're on the job, and that if you treat them respectfully, even if you think that you've been wronged, things will be a lot easier on you and them.

I walked away from my teenage years without a single citation on my record, even with all of that interaction (and there are many more that I didn't mention that have nothing to do with drugs or drinking), and I'm quite certain that it had everything to do with my attitude during those interactions than with me just being 100% lucky and getting the implied tiny percentage of good LEOs every time.

It also doesn't hurt that I'm a decade into working in the legal field, as was my wife, and we know the law quite well--generally much better than people who post legal definitions of what a crosswalk is and can't even get the interpretation of that correct (that's not a slight at you, but it is directed at the original poster of that data).

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: husker13

Careful, direct argument with poster results in longer and longer replies until you are swamped with pages of mumbo Jumbo.

Bails out, pulls rip cord...

Hmmm...just because you can't seem to fully comprehend my replies does not make them "mumbo Jumbo." Also, I was the last to respond to you, so who has bailed out?

Don't get upset because I fully explain my position on things and you seem to prefer Cliff's Notes versions so that you can misinterpret them and misrepresent what is said. If I walk away from that type of a conversation (as I have had to do with you many times before), there's a very valid reason: When the point of futility has been reached, what's the point in wasting any more time?

But just to make this reply to your Ad Hominem attack be relevant to the topic of the OP, please review the actualcode concerning using a crosswalk in Sacramento:

10.20.020 Pedestrians must use crosswalks.

No pedestrian shall cross a through street within three hundred (300) feet of a crosswalk other than within such crosswalk, except at a location where a school bus is stopped and is displaying flashing red lights. (Prior code § 25.03.051)

But, let me guess, citing actual municipal code showing that the officer had legitimate authority to stop Mr. Cain is more of this "mumbo Jumbo" that you accuse me of speaking?

ETA: I starred that comment to Husker13 for you, because I find your contribution to this thread at this point nothing less than cute and funny--that deserves a star

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: husker13
No, the statute confirms that there is no crosswalk there, as I clearly noted in response to the posting of that definition of a crosswalk--it specifically notes that the crosswalk must be marked at the boundaries of the sidewalk extending through the intersection.

But, that said, I did make a mistake in reviewing the dashcam footage and my claim that there was a crosswalk at that particular intersection--I noted it in this comment. The short version is that there really is no crosswalk (at all) at the intersection of Cypress and Grand.

Even so, I have since done further research into jaywalking, and California statute allows for tightening of state laws concerning crosswalks and jaywalking, and in the City of Sacramento, here is a city code concerning jaywalking:

10.20.020 Pedestrians must use crosswalks.

No pedestrian shall cross a through street within three hundred (300) feet of a crosswalk other than within such crosswalk, except at a location where a school bus is stopped and is displaying flashing red lights. (Prior code § 25.03.051)

So, municipal code specifically states that, if you are within 300 feet of a crosswalk, which Mr. Cain was (only about 200 feet away, according to the scale offered by Google Maps), then you are in violation of the above code if you jaywalk instead of walking to the crosswalk.

It's pretty cut-and-dry, and it's right there in the proverbial black and white (or ones and zeros, as this case may be)--the LEO had every authority to both cite Mr. Cain for jaywalking, and to detain him while discussing the issue, if necessary. But, obviously, the LEO went about the wrong way (and illegally, IMO, after the takedown).

The rest of your comment relies on anecdotal evidence and false assumptions. I have had, over my 38 years of life, quite a few run-ins with LEOs, most of which were my pre-Army days as a pot-head teenager. I even fled from a local cop one time when they broke up a keg party that I was at, and I was respectful to him and he was to me--even let me continue to walk home and come get my car in the morning. I can't count the number of times that I was pulled over with weed in my car (or bongs, or water pipes, or whatever else), and I was respectful EVERY time to the officers, and they were in turn respectful to me. I even got pulled over for suspected drunk driving twice as a teenager (I wasn't), and I was cool to the cops, and they were cool back and let me go on my way--didn't even search my vehicle, even though my front-seat passenger had an open container while being underage. I was escorted home in a police car at 2am once--my dad loved that (that cop was a dick until he realized that I wasn't trying to steal a car, I was just filling up my bong at someone's hose on my way home from work to help me get to sleep when I got home...he was cool after that, and I was respectful to him). I spent a few hours in a holding cell as a teenager for stealing lighters and Visine...there was no explaining my way out of the reason for those items. Those cops were cool with me, too, because I was with them.

The only relatively crappy encounter that I remember having with a LEO was a Tennessee Highway Patrol--I was going 85 in I-24 heading into Nashville because we were later than planned trying to get to the airport (me and my wife and son). He pulls me over with a sh**ty attitude from the start, claiming that I was going over 100mph and that he was going 115 just to try to catch up to me. Meanwhile, two sports cars were driving faster than me that he could have pulled over, but he chose me instead. I called him out on the BS about going over 100, stating that I looked at my speedometer when I noticed him behind me and that it said between 80 and 85. He didn't admit to being wrong, but only wrote me up for 80mph in a 70 zone. He did think it was appropriate to lecture me on ensuring that I don't endanger the lives of my family like that just to make a flight (I think his words were something like, "Well, I'm pretty sure that his [my son's] grandma would rather see him alive and late than at his funeral)...I think I ended that interaction by telling him to just give me my ticket so that I could go. I also audibly laughed when he said that about getting my son to the airport alive.

But, regardless, I haven't lacked negative interaction with LEOs before, I'm just smart enough to know that they interact with assholes every day that they're on the job, and that if you treat them respectfully, even if you think that you've been wronged, things will be a lot easier on you and them.

I walked away from my teenage years without a single citation on my record, even with all of that interaction (and there are many more that I didn't mention that have nothing to do with drugs or drinking), and I'm quite certain that it had everything to do with my attitude during those interactions than with me just being 100% lucky and getting the implied tiny percentage of good LEOs every time.

It also doesn't hurt that I'm a decade into working in the legal field, as was my wife, and we know the law quite well--generally much better than people who post legal definitions of what a crosswalk is and can't even get the interpretation of that correct (that's not a slight at you, but it is directed at the original poster of that data).

I can understand this, and I respect the you reap what you sow side of you your argument.

My first encounter was with a gun pointed at me and in handcuffs for walking to my car in the wrong area after a concert. No apology after they cut me loose, just a lecture about where I should or shouldn't be. My next encounter stemmed from an argument with an off duty police officer in plain clothes out with his family that he instigated (I used my horn when he almost backed out into me, he decided to follow me and pick a fight as I was walking into the store). Wrote my plate number down, looked me up, and waited in my neighborhood the next day. Ticketed me and made sure I knew it was because I disrespected him in front of his family.

I'll be the first to admit my attitude to police is the reason I never get the warning. It my own stupidity, but as far as I am concerned they are all guilty by association. They don't do anything to stop the bad ones within their ranks therefore they are all bad.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


The LEO wasn't just simply trying to stop Mr. Cain from walking down the street, he was stopping him to talk about his infraction of the jaywalking law--as stupid as that reason may be.

After all you wrote I still don't get how you can say Mr. Cain is at fault here.

Just because there's laws on jaywalking (which you also call asinine and I agree because just looking at this instance somehow I don't find it any safer having to cross another street just to cross the street you're intending to cross) doesn't mean the officer should act upon them. That whole onus is on him.
Nobody else in blue was there with him, so why did he choose to act upon it then? Did he really feel like his intervention would do any good?
This goes back to the questions I asked in my previous post on page 4.

Considering how the officer just slammed his car down in the middle of the road while there was plenty of room to park it out of harms way mere meters away, then within 20 seconds of interaction starts yelling he'll take the guy down to the floor, then within 50 seconds pummels his face, tells me his primary concern wasn't for the civilian's or other car drivers' safety concerning traffic laws.

I know police take a lot of flak and they equally deserve to be defended, but all I see here is a powertrip, plain and simple.

Edit: And come to think of it, when exactly did this officer call for backup? I think it was just before he got out of his car. Is that normal procedure when giving a man a talking to for jaywalking?

originally posted by: husker13
I'll be the first to admit my attitude to police is the reason I never get the warning. It my own stupidity, but as far as I am concerned they are all guilty by association. They don't do anything to stop the bad ones within their ranks therefore they are all bad.

Yeah, the bad cops certainly do ruin it for the good, at least as far as public perception goes--and it's always the crooked cops (seemingly) that make it up the chain of command the quickest. Go figure.

Yeah, it sounds like you have dealt with a few doozies, that's for sure, but I can't lie--calling your attitude "stupidity" made me laugh. I've just always been the type of guy (in person, at least) who defuses volatile situations quickly with lightheartedness and humor, which seems to go a long way in life. But, that said, I do sometimes have to dig really deep to find that happy attitude in some situations, or I feel my wife touch me on the shoulder to remind me to stay calm.

The older I get, I do find that my acceptance of pissy attitudes by authority figures wanes and wanes as years go buy, but I just try to put myself in their shoes at times and realize that the guy that they interacted with before me may have been a stinky homeless man trying to rape a child who vomited on him while he put him in the car--I try to cut them some slack, because they deal with more crap in a day that I generally do in a month.

I hope that you fought that ticket by that jackass cop that gave it to you a day after the incident--that's some creepy stalker junk right there.

originally posted by: Balans
After all you wrote I still don't get how you can say Mr. Cain is at fault here.

Just because there's laws on jaywalking (which you also call asinine and I agree because just looking at this instance somehow I don't find it any safer having to cross another street just to cross the street you're intending to cross) doesn't mean the officer should act upon them. That whole onus is on him.

Law ENFORCEMENT Officer. They enforce laws, even ones with which they don't agree. Yes, they have discretion, but honestly, Mr. Cain was in the middle of the road when a white vehicle drove past him at a relatively high rate of speed. Had Mr. Cain waited to enter the roadway until there were no vehicles close, there may have been a different outcome.

The bottom line is that there were myriad different approaches that Mr. Cain could have taken to both crossing the street and interacting with the officer that could have stopped this situation from escalating.

THAT is the culpability on behalf of Mr. Cain that I am referencing.

Nobody else in blue was there with him, so why did he choose to act upon it then? Did he really feel like his intervention would do any good?

Citing jaywalking could be a semi-priority for the department. I found this 2011 link in doing my research where a SPD officer discusses a little about jaywalking:

I spoke to our traffic section about jaywalkers. They told me that there has been an increase of vehicle versus pedestrian fatal accidents in the past year. The Sacramento Police Department Motor Unit has been cracking down on jaywalkers in the city limits because of this. Even more reason to use a crosswalk.

There can by a lot of reasons why a particular police department may see certain "asinine" (as I put it) laws as a priority for citations, but the bottom line to your question is that, yes, the officer probably thought he was going to do some good by trying to talk to Mr. Cain, even if he could have done it in a better way. I found a couple articles from 2009, too, that referenced a large problem with jaywalking in the city.

Edit: And come to think of it, when exactly did this officer call for backup? I think it was just before he got out of his car. Is that normal procedure when giving a man a talking to for jaywalking?

Doubtful, but I'm with you in wondering when backup was called, too, but obviously it was. It would be a good question to have answered, though, as it might lend credence to Mr. Cain's comments when he was in the vehicle when he was wondering why the cops can't just leave him alone.