jay walking now a dangerous crime?

a reply to: Uberdoubter

Ironically, Americans are probably the most regulated society on Earth. So much for personal freedoms. That being said, most laws are overlooked, but handy when a government official wants to strike out at someone they target. We are not a nice society, exemplified by how we act internationally as well. In this case, regardless of what the victim might have said or done, he did not appear in the video to pose the officer any threat. In fact, the victim stood with his arms at his side as the officer viciously attacked him. It will never go to trial, but I wish it would. I'd love to send that officer to jail. Only until we make the bad seeds accountable will police brutality be curbed in America.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
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.

Welll, therein lies our fundamental problem. I look at that video and I don't see anything dangerous about him crossing. Cars cruise by and don't even slow down, which indicates all is well. There's 2 white cars, each one passing him on the opposite driveway from where he is. He timed it right, with time to spare in the end. So from the get-go we're not seeing eye to eye on this.

Do you have any remarks about the cop's own traffic violation, and the short timespan in which he escalated things?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
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.

This is not the correct interpretation of that statute.

CVC §275 (a) is talking about unmarked crosswalks - those without any lines indicating a crosswalk. CVC §275 (b) is talking about marked crosswalks:

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

The 'lines' in the context of CVC §275 (a) are imagining the sidewalk continuing through the road, and have been narrowly or broadly applied to mean even whole sections of a road, as best I could tell. California is somewhat notorious for ticketing drivers for failing to yield to pedestrians at unmarked crosswalks (usually by continuing by people waiting on the road instead of yielding, not by hitting people).

Pedestrians have a duty to not step in front of vehicles (CVC §21954), but by the same statute drivers too must yield. Indeed, the cars that came close to the man should have slowed down. It's a busy road, but he is not at fault.

CVC §21961 essentially says that local ordinances must be in place for there to even be jaywalking outside of crosswalks... but unmarked crosswalks are still crosswalks, as defined in CVC §275. Therefore, the local ordinance you cite cannot apply to where he crossed.

If he had walked up the road and crossed between the two blocks (within the X feet per that statute you cite), then that could be construed as jaywalking. He crossed the street between two sidewalks going the same direction he was going, well within the lines of the sidewalks. Thus, he's fine to cross there, and it's impossible for that to be jaywalking.

It looks like we have to go over the communications transcript between the officer and dispatch.

What he radioed in to dispatch, or what he was responding to from dispatch.

Is there any way for me to begin paying into a fund that pays my fines I haven't been cited for 'yet'?

a reply to: blackthorne

Yes, Jaywalking is a crime for a reason. A week ago in my neighborhood someone stepped out to cross a State Road and got creamed just feet from other people at the bus stop. There was a cross walk 50 feet in the other direction with signals. It's for a purpose. Now all of you liberals out there think the cop beat his ass for jaywalking, its not. Elements of the crime once met, are probably cause for arrest. Granted discretion can be applied. Here's a situation:

High pedestrians or bicyclists deaths over a town's history causes the mayor and police chief to tell the cops to start enforcing the jaywalking law. A cop conducts a traffic stop on a person just like in a car. You need to provide identification due to being issued a citation. That person refuses. After a short time that refusal becomes resisting a lawful order. Keep in mind that probable cause exists for the stop for you constitutional scholars. The cop now threatens that repeated resisting that lawful order to come over there, be detained, and provide ID will result in arrest. That person still wants to resist. Now it's an arrestible offense and discretion is removed further.

Cops comes over to go hands on to arrest, and that person pulls away, now it's a fight to the ground to secure the hands. That same person wants to resist even more, now force escalates.

How is force applied in a police force? Only when it's "Reasonable, and necessary". Apply that here. Is it reasonable that force is needed? Yes, the person is being arrested and not complying. Is it necessary? Yes, he's resisting and not complying. Now does the force match what is being dealt back from the suspect? NO, why? because if you simply have matching force, it's a draw. Cops are trained to basically use force +1 to affect the arrest. Quick and violent for safety. If a struggle is drawn out, fatigue, weapons, other people could become factors.

Any questions?

a reply to: blackthorne

Most likely the cop was trying to do his job since pedestrian injuries/death are in the tens of thousands. California and New York rank in the top 3 of those deaths.

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...

interesting cause when i heard the news i had heard he had a warrant in another county and was in jail because of that warrant. gotta say i dont agree with how the officer approached him. its in a neighborhood and everyone jaywalks in a neighborhood. like your really gonna go down to the corner to cross when its a 20 foot walk to the other side with no cars anywhere near you. if thats a crime i was a career criminal by the age of 10. btw i live in sacramento and if it makes any difference del paso heights where this took place is one of the more ghetto crime riddled areas in sacramento.
still doesnt justify the stop imo

a reply to: blackthorne

Another case of the govt demonstrating the power of the State to control the people.

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: blackthorne

Another case of the govt demonstrating the power of the State to control the people.

i think thats a bit of a stretch myself. i think its more indicative of how flawed the recruiting process is and the traits they look for in an officer are maybe not the traits they should have.

originally posted by: Greven
This is not the correct interpretation of that statute.

Agreed...I have researched it further.

If he had walked up the road and crossed between the two blocks (within the X feet per that statute you cite), then that could be construed as jaywalking. He crossed the street between two sidewalks going the same direction he was going, well within the lines of the sidewalks. Thus, he's fine to cross there, and it's impossible for that to be jaywalking.

We'll agree to disagree on the bolded portion.

Now, keep in mind, this conversation is now in its third day, and we've been nitpicking these laws and interpretations and citing code after code, only to realize (in my view, anyhow) that the laws are way too vague for the average person--and even the average LEO--to comprehend and follow 100% of the time.

I still hold fast in my opinion that the LEO had full authority to stop him, but at this point, only because he was in the middle of the road while a car was approaching at seemingly its full speed--I don't care how you want to slice it, that's a dangerous game to play, and doing that negates any sort of right-of-way stated or implied in any of the pedestrian laws that I have read.

But I do semi-concede at this point--where Mr. Cain crossed was probably legal, but it's the circumstances of when and where he was standing when a vehicle was passing by that causes the problem. Also, California statutes allow municipalities to tighten jaywalking and crosswalk laws, so I'm still of the opinion that the Sacramento City Code 10.20.020 still says that Mr. Cain should have walked to the marked crosswalk that was less than 300 feet away--and I'm guessing that's what was going through the LEO's mind, although that's pure conjecture, and he may have just been being an ass because he could be.

Regardless, thanks for making me research it further even for a third day, but I'll tell ya, at this point, we should all be experts on crosswalks in California by now...

Here's a good, concise explanation concerning an unmarked crosswalk from a personal-injury attorney's website that makes it much clearer than the verbiage in the law does:

Essentially, Vehicle Code Section 275(a) codifies every parent's instructions to their children - "cross at the corner." Even if there are no painted cross walks, someone crossing at a corner of two streets which meet at right angles is considered walking within an unmarked cross-walk and approaching drivers have a duty to yield to them.

There's a simple diagram on that site, too.

I just wish that he would mention that stepping in front of or into the road when oncoming traffic is close is not covered under the pedestrian's right of way.

Again, thanks for making me continue to dive in--I like being correct on the matter, and I was obviously only half-interpreting the noted law on crosswalks correctly.

originally posted by: Balans
Do you have any remarks about the cop's own traffic violation, and the short timespan in which he escalated things?

The officer didn't violate any traffic law--he was conducting official business, and he can park his cruiser wherever he deems necessary at the time. Should he have pulled over to the curb? Maybe, but I don't know how they are trained. In any event, he obviously wasn't fully blocking the road, as the other PD vehicles apparently made it down the road without too much trouble.

I would, however, like to know if his lights were flashing while he left his car there...if not, I think that there's a problem with that, considering he basically stopped right at the entrance to that road.

As for the short time span of escalation, I think the bulk of that culpability falls on Mr. Cain for acting like a jackass from the start of the interaction--it's not like the LEO jumped out of the car and screamed at him to get on the ground with his weapon pulled.

Like I have noted more times than I should have to--they both have culpability in the escalation of this incident.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

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.

And herein lies a large part of the problem: too many laws.

I have been racking my brain trying to remember a specific instance where a law was repealed without another law, usually a more restrictive one, being put in place. I haven't come up with a single instance.

I will concede the officer had cause to detain Mr. Cain, but had the jaywalking law not existed, there would be no confrontation. This entire episode was the direct result of over-regulation, but those who passed the needless laws have not been mentioned, much like the little guy who starts a bar brawl, then sneaks away to watch everyone else fight it out.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
I agree 100%, and have complained about exactly that which you mention (adding laws, never repealing any) more times than I care to imagine.

I'm just much longer winded when I comment on things--it's a curse from a decade of working directly in or with the legal field, I suppose.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

As have I.

Simple logic would suggest that creating new laws without repealing old ones will only lead to oppression over time. In reality, we call people who accumulate new things without ever parting with old ones "hoarders" and it is not considered a compliment.

Your insight probably exceeds mine. Mine comes from a decade of learning the laws in order to escape police who wanted hot rodders in jail. Of course, that was from a time when there was much less illegality running loose...

TheRedneck

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Both are likely in the wrong...once the cop started hammering away he became a goof.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
and so it would seem that they are placating the public.

Or, they realize the cop's behavior is going to not play well in court. And knew that the guy did not commit a crime, and so dropped the charges.

The next chapter is where Sacramento loses in federal court to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars. The cop should end up footing that, but he won't. The local taxpayers will pay for it.

And since there's no direct feedback, the cops won't change a thing. The settlement should come from the police in some fashion. Perhaps the "equitable sharing fund". If they lost a few margarita machines and some bonus money, maybe their co-workers would begin to apply some negative feedback from within. It would be a start, anyway.

In the end this guy hopefully gets a better life...cop wanted to bother a guy who was clearly tired and in NEED of being left alone.

Seems he wanted to make a point at which time he did not need too..

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

The question is why defend the officer then..either?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Some Cops behave with impunity, officer is on leave pending review and there are no charges being filed agains said "jaywalker".

Meh, who cares about the hospital bill...

I fixed that for you...and I already know that the officer is on leave pending review (SOP) and that no charges are being filed. That addresses nothing that I just responded to you about.

Absolutely nothing.

But I would agree with others on here that the lack of charges against Mr. Cain doesn't reflect the reality he did break some laws--it just means that the PD felt it better to not pursue charges in this particular instance.

Can i just go up to police and give them a scolding and a ticket for being stupid and dangerous at times?? In your opinion..cause i do not care who is being foolish personally.

I get all of your points but in this case when you start frantically drilling someone in the head who is barely resisting YOU need to be held to account as well.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
I get all of your points but in this case when you start frantically drilling someone in the head who is barely resisting YOU need to be held to account as well.

I never disputed this point--in fact, I echoed it numerous times. Why do you feel that you reiterate that point to me as if I have stated in any way in this thread that I disagree with it?

Hold the officer accountable, but don't condemn the entirety of the profession because of this guy, or one or two cops in another incident, or that other cop in that other incident...that's not the same as accountability, that's employing the guilt-by-association logical fallacy. Logical fallacies, by definition, are irrelevant in a logical discussion.

They are to discussions as this officer is to his police department--toxic.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

A good cop also puts himself in other's shoes...