• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Don't Jaywalk in Sacremento

ahhell said:
Do you have those don't walk signs at busy intersections? If you do, what happens if someone violates it?


Side note, jaywalking applies pretty much everywhere there isn't a marked or unmarked crosswalk. Its just that they're almost never enforced in residential streets for because there isn't much reason to. I know a guy who was ticketed twice in 2 months for jaywalking in Oakland CA. Clearly just the Popo raising funds.

According to Wiki, you are somewhat mistaken in your understanding of the laws in Europe as it is illegal in some countries depending on the road in question in others.

It seems lots of places have rules to the effect of "you must cross at the zebra crossing if you are with in XXmeters of one."
Click to expand...

No, we don't have Don't Walk signs. The police would do a absolutely nothing if you went across when the pedestrian light was showing red because it's not an offence. As already stated the only place you're not allowed to walk is on a motorway, you wouldn't get beat up if you did though, just given a lift off it!

I was talking about my experiences in many countries in Europe, I don't know the specific laws. If there are any I've never seen them enforced.
 
ponderingturtle said:
You can just walk into traffic at any point on the road at any time?
Click to expand...

Yes! Obviously you could end up getting mown down by a car, but it's not illegal. Cars have no more right to be on a road then pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, etc.
 
Meadmaker said:
It is not possible to tell from the video, and I'm sure it will be investigated, but it looks to me like the jaywalker took off his coat in order to demonstrate that there was no danger from a concealed weapon. A fair number of headlines have been made after someone died when a cop thought they were reaching for a gun.

There will of course be an investigation, but it seems to me that the cop has some 'splainin' to do.
Click to expand...

This interpretation is being reported in news sources

https://photographyisnotacrime.com/...cop-suspended-beating-choking-man-jaywalking/

That source came up on google news, but the blog author didn't cite a source. The text of the article says that the policeman interpreted the victim's removal of the jacket as a threat. The victim says he was removing it to demonstrate he was not armed. No sources or direct quotes available on the blog.
 
ponderingturtle said:
You can just walk into traffic at any point on the road at any time?
Click to expand...
In the UK, except on a motorway (freeway) or some dual carriageways, yes. You can cross a road anywhere you please, it's not an offence. It's sensible to wait until until there is no traffic, but there's no laws mandating that you be sensible. After all, if you cross where there is traffic, it's you that is likely to be wiped out.

Pedestrians found on a motorway are mostly drunk or foreign or mentally ill; they'll get picked up by the police and taken off to the nearest exit. It is very rare that they'll be prosecuted, it's a great deal more likely that they'll be referred to other agencies such as social services or refugee charities.

What with jaywalking and Home Owners' Associations mandating that you mow your lawns, and not being allowed to live in a hoarded house, and having to shovel snow, I sometimes wonder if the USA is as free as it thinks it is.
 
We are definitely not as free as we think we are.

Like I said before, jaywalking tickets are primarily a way to generate revenue. Its pretty rare that that its even a misdemeanor and the beating is.....problematic. The cop in question should be fired at the least. Cops have strong unions though.
 
Again, an only in America moment...... yes here you could also cross the road in a stupid manner without being assaulted by a cop
 
Meadmaker said:
It is not possible to tell from the video, and I'm sure it will be investigated, but it looks to me like the jaywalker took off his coat in order to demonstrate that there was no danger from a concealed weapon. A fair number of headlines have been made after someone died when a cop thought they were reaching for a gun.

There will of course be an investigation, but it seems to me that the cop has some 'splainin' to do.
Click to expand...
Meadmaker thank you for that post,
I saw him taking his coat off and dropping it, which suggested aggression to me.
I'm from the UK.
you suggested that the jaywalker took off his coat in order to demonstrate that there was no danger from a concealed weapon,

that makes perfect sense and shows that I should not make assumptions about other cultures, so thx for pointing that out.
 
neilg said:
Yes! Obviously you could end up getting mown down by a car, but it's not illegal. Cars have no more right to be on a road then pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, etc.
Click to expand...
I might be wrong but dont pedestrians have more right of way than cars, bikes etc, in the sense that if your car hits a pedestrian then you need to explain why you weren't watching for pedestrians in the first place.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
You can just walk into traffic at any point on the road at any time?
Click to expand...

You are expected to look both ways and make sure there is no oncoming traffic, that's as far as it goes. The emphasis is on drivers maintaining situational awareness and watching their speed in residential areas.
 
Meadmaker said:
This interpretation is being reported in news sources

https://photographyisnotacrime.com/...cop-suspended-beating-choking-man-jaywalking/

That source came up on google news, but the blog author didn't cite a source. The text of the article says that the policeman interpreted the victim's removal of the jacket as a threat. The victim says he was removing it to demonstrate he was not armed. No sources or direct quotes available on the blog.
Click to expand...

So one cop interpreted taking the coat off as a threat. Then again, his partner might have interpreted his coat on as a threat. You never can tell with cops. Heads they win, tails you lose.
 
fuelair said:
It is not crossing the road, it is crossing the road in an unsafe way/place, thus only allowed under special safer conditions of way/place.
Click to expand...

Note location, I press the button as required by law to tell me when to walk, roll wheel chair, what ever and I still keep my head on a swivel there are some *********** stupid people driving cars.
 
pgwenthold said:
So one cop interpreted taking the coat off as a threat. Then again, his partner might have interpreted his coat on as a threat. You never can tell with cops. Heads they win, tails you lose.
Click to expand...

But if cameras are rolling, you end up winning the lawsuit, so it's a sort of good deal.

In this case, I don't think the cop has a prayer, career wise. Of course one single incident does not define a career, but for this particular incident, he seems to be way over the line. The jacket dropping seemed like a very passive activity. If you give the cop every benefit of the doubt, the absolute worst you could say about it was that the man was signaling a willingness to fight back if assaulted. And even that was disproven by the fact that he didn't fight back when assaulted.

So, first, the cop stops someone for jaywalking. Right there, we have an issue. No one gets stopped for jaywalking. Then, the man takes off his jacket, which the cop seizes as an opportunity to attack. Then he beats the man repeatedly despite the fact that the man appears not to be fighting back. They make up some trumped up "resisting arrest" claim. And they did it all with a private camera rolling.

This cop, and the taxpayers of Sacramento, had better hope that there was something that happened before the camera started rolling, and they can convince people that it justified a beating like he gave that evil jaywalker. If not. He's off the force and the lawyers are going to try to settle out of court.
 
So here's how this one plays out. Either the suspect's attorney or the Internal Affairs investigation will have hours of this moron's dash cam video showing him doing nothing to many, many jaywalkers. It will become obvious that this was a pretext stop. Cop gets fired and suspect settles for large sums of money. All it takes is a couple of white people jaywalking on idiot boy's dash cam and the city and the cop eat it.

"Officer dumb****, why did you stop the defendant?"

"He was jaywalking."

"Officer dumb****, I draw your attention to this video taken from your dash cam two days before the incident in question, would you describe what this person is doing in the video?"

"He appears to be jaywalking."

"Why didn't you stop him?"...

It all goes downhill from there.
 
Meadmaker said:
It is not possible to tell from the video, and I'm sure it will be investigated, but it looks to me like the jaywalker took off his coat in order to demonstrate that there was no danger from a concealed weapon. A fair number of headlines have been made after someone died when a cop thought they were reaching for a gun.

There will of course be an investigation, but it seems to me that the cop has some 'splainin' to do.
Click to expand...


It actually is possible in the video, at least if the subtitles are accurate.

The man says something like, "If you were a real man you'd drop that gun and fight me" as he removes his jacket. Paraphrased.

Highly edited video. I'd like to know what happened in between the officer tackling the guy and the beating he gave him. Did the suspect do anything? We see them on the ground, then the next frame he's already hitting him.

I'd like to know why the cop really stopped him.

Too little information. IF he did what the video and article implies then he's an idiot/bad guy. We shall see.

One more very serious question: Why do people always shoot video in portrait mode? Stop that!
 
Last edited:
Just adding that I can't tell how much he hit him. Even if he needed subduing he may have overdone it, regardless of how it started. I can't watch the vid again now so I dunno.
 
mgidm86 said:
Just adding that I can't tell how much he hit him. Even if he needed subduing he may have overdone it, regardless of how it started. I can't watch the vid again now so I dunno.
Click to expand...

The suspect was always passive noncompliant. He never crossed into active resisting. The office didn't attempt a come-along or attempt to get him in cuffs initially. Most damning, he doesn't give instructions after he starts using force. The suspect didn't have a chance to comply because the officer didn't tell him what to do once he started using force. In the video, the officer just punches the suspect without attempting to get him into cuffs or telling him how to comply. If you're going to hit someone, you have to tell them what you want them to do. That's the difference between enforcing the law and just beating the **** out of someone.
 
mgidm86 said:
It actually is possible in the video, at least if the subtitles are accurate.

The man says something like, "If you were a real man you'd drop that gun and fight me" as he removes his jacket. Paraphrased.
Click to expand...

The video in the link has been changed since it was posted. The original video was unedited cell phone footage. Later, the video you saw, was an edited news report that included dash cam footage and cell phone footage, and commentary, mixed.

In the dashcam footage, he does say that line, although it is not the first thing he says as he takes off his jacket. The first thing is "I ain't got nothing." Then, after the jacket is off, he utters the line above, which prompts the cop to attack.

It is unclear what happened before he took off his jacket. Did the officer ask if the man had a weapon? Or possibly did he even ask the man to remove the jacket? I couldn't tell.

The added footage does make me very slightly more sympathetic to the officer, and who knows, perhaps even more information will come out that makes the attack justified. We'll see. That's what investigations are for. Still, I don't think it is looking good for the cop. It still seems like the best case scenario for the cop is the "If you don't do exactly what I demand the moment I demand it, I have the right to beat the hell out of you" defense.

It's a tough sell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom