Don't Jaywalk in Sacremento

[ahhell]

You're bending over to explain away a situation much more readily explained by the common US phenomenon of the Po-Po liking to ticket blacks. The stats provided by the SacBee show that blacks are ticketed in disproportionate amounts to their population in that district (District 2). 5:1 compared to white jaywalkers. Period.

Further, you're speculating that these are "probably major feeders". Where do you get that information?

I lived in and around Sacramento for a good 20 years and from the description in your earlier post.

I have no doubt that police unfairly target blacks in Much of the US, including Sacramento, however you're bending over backwards to see only racism in this. Why not just mention the 5:1 stat in the first place. Far better evidence for racism than incredulity at the laws in question which aren't that extraordinary by internationals standards.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I lived in and around Sacramento for a good 20 years and from the description in your earlier post.

I have no doubt that police unfairly target blacks in Much of the US, including Sacramento, however you're bending over backwards to see only racism in this. Why not just mention the 5:1 stat in the first place. Far better evidence for racism than incredulity at the laws in question which aren't that extraordinary by internationals standards.

Could you re-parse that first sentence? It makes no sense; the part after the conjunction seems unrelated to its antecedent.

The 5:1 stats are mentioned in one of the linked articles and certainly leave one to ask for an explanation other than the City's facile explanation (which is no explanation) about the different laws that might be enforced. They're still enforced 5:1 against black citizens.

I wouldn't want to have to stake my life that the explanation is fully Occam's razor, but I think it's an easier to reach conclusion than giving a blanket pass and saying, "well, because we don't have all the facts let's come down on the side of Law Enforcement". The statistical variance is too abnormal and without a full explanation I'll opt for "cops are in the wrong".

 

[Meadmaker]

I wouldn't want to have to stake my life that the explanation is fully Occam's razor, but I think it's an easier to reach conclusion than giving a blanket pass and saying, "well, because we don't have all the facts let's come down on the side of Law Enforcement". The statistical variance is too abnormal and without a full explanation I'll opt for "cops are in the wrong".

To be fair, there is one possible, and rather prosaic, explanation for why blacks get more jaywalking tickets than whites, and that doesn't involve police misconduct. It is because poor people are less likely to own cars, which means they are more likely to walk places, or take busses and have to walk home from bus stops.

If that's really the case, the Sacramento PD can produce evidence for this being the cause when they get sued.

Personally, I think jerk cops harassing black people is a more likely explanation, but I'm willing to listen to evidence to the contrary.

 

[Modified]

Personally, I think jerk cops harassing black people is a more likely explanation, but I'm willing to listen to evidence to the contrary.

It's certainly going to be a combination of both, as well as possible cultural differences, poverty bias, etc. I would guess that racial bias would still be a huge factor after correcting for everything else.

 

[CORed]

From that article:

I think the distance of 300 feet in the city code is pretty rich, but OK. The state code, however, is absurd. How do you know if the two nearest intersections have traffic lights? Do you have to check them out first and then come back to the place where you wanted to cross the street? The next intersection can be quite some more distance than 300 feet away. That law is by design meant to harass pedestrians.


This is even richer. The city's police officers seem not to know the jaywalking codes, and the city doesn't know the penalty. And that $197 is outrageous.


Say what? If those boulevards are more hazardous to cross, it's reason to have more crosswalks, with traffic lights, not fewer.

If I understand correctly, by the state law, if there were a traffic light one block away, in either direction, he was jaywalking. By city ordinance, this would only be true if said traffic light was withing 300 feet. I personally would not have gone a block out of my way to cross at a light, unless traffic was heavy enough to make crossing at the intersection the victim (I think that is the appropriate word here) used impossible.

This cop needs to be fired. I note that he was facing away from the cop when he took his coat off. It didn't look like a threatening move at all. The only thing remotely wrong he did was fail to comply with the cop's order to "get on the ground", but that was not a remotely reasonable order.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Never even heard of police stopping people for "jaywalking" in a residential area like that.


I would bet my life the cops wouldn't have stopped the guy if he was white.


Hope the cop gets fired, at least.

I've actually been ticketed twice for jaywalking in Southern California. It happened over twenty years ago. I don't know if they stopped cracking down on jaywalkers or if I haven't been ticketed because I don't jaywalk anymore. Whatever, I'm White so I know the cops will stop you if you're White. But I've never been beaten down by the Police. Of course, I don't mouth off to the Police or resist arrest in any way.

 

[Modified]

I've actually been ticketed twice for jaywalking in Southern California. ... Whatever, I'm White so I know the cops will stop you if you're White.

But in what sort of area? Jaywalking tickets in downtown areas, where crossing in the middle of the road is fairly dangerous, are common in many areas. On residential streets, most people wouldn't even consider the possibility if a cop was standing there.

 

[Meadmaker]

I've actually been ticketed twice for jaywalking in Southern California. It happened over twenty years ago. I don't know if they stopped cracking down on jaywalkers or if I haven't been ticketed because I don't jaywalk anymore. Whatever, I'm White so I know the cops will stop you if you're White. But I've never been beaten down by the Police. Of course, I don't mouth off to the Police or resist arrest in any way.

How long was your hair?

Back when I had long hair I had police encounters much more frequently than I do now.

 

[Information Analyst]

About the only think I agree with in this post is that $197 is absurd for a jay walking ticket. 100 meters is a pretty common rule for when you should cross at a crosswalk in Europe. 50 is more common but 100 is a thing, which is shows that 300 feet isn't some crazy distance that Sacramento came up with.

Examples, please?

 

[ahhell]

Examples, please?

http://bfy.tw/6rNK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking

 

[Information Analyst]

http://bfy.tw/6rNK

You make the claim, so you should be prepared to back it up, not expect others to look for your evidence for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking

Only 15 European countries are listed, of which only four mandate 100m. Seven have a range of 30-50, and the other four no distance rule at all. 27% clearly does not support your claim that, "100 meters is a pretty common rule for when you should cross at a crosswalk in Europe."

Your move.

 

[Modified]

You make the claim, so you should be prepared to back it up, not expect others to look for your evidence for you.

Only 15 European countries are listed, of which only four mandate 100m. Seven have a range of 30-50, and the other four no distance rule at all. 27% clearly does not support your claim that, "100 meters is a pretty common rule for when you should cross at a crosswalk in Europe."

I'd say 27% qualifies as "fairly common". 100 feels like it was chosen because it was a round number though, despite being a bit excessive.

 

[CORed]

I'd say 27% qualifies as "fairly common". 100 feels like it was chosen because it was a round number though, despite being a bit excessive.

Regardless of how common it is, 100 meters (or 300 feet, which is a little bit less) seems excessive. No way I'm going to add 200 meters to my walk to cross a street, unless the traffic is so heavy that it's impossible to cross safely without a light.