Jogger arrested for not having ID

[mizzou]

She wasn't arrested for jaywalking. She was arrested for failing to provide identification.

You have to know someone's identity to write them a ticket.

Again, the cops could have handled the situation better (been more understanding of the fact that she didn't initially hear them), but they were completely in the right in enforcing the law.

The city has been cracking down on both pedestrians and drivers (as well as bicyclists) as we've had several years in a row with record breaking numbers of pedestrian fatalities.

Cop has two choices when enforcing piddly laws and the suspect won't cooperate.

1. Ignore it, let the suspect get away. This is a moral decision that may make it unreasonable to justify enforcing the law at all.
2. Enforce the law by all means necessary, including chasing the suspect down, and making an arrest. This causes a big scene, and makes everyone cry foul.

Both are a lose lose situation :\

 

[rudder]

She wasn't arrested for jaywalking. She was arrested for failing to provide identification.

You have to know someone's identity to write them a ticket.

Again, the cops could have handled the situation better (been more understanding of the fact that she didn't initially hear them), but they were completely in the right in enforcing the law.

The city has been cracking down on both pedestrians and drivers (as well as bicyclists) as we've had several years in a row with record breaking numbers of pedestrian fatalities.

Texas law says you do not have to provide ID until after you are arrested (this does not mean simply being detained). You do have to truthfully give them your name when asked, that is it. So I guess they false arrested her to then ask for ID and when she did not have any they could arrest her for real. The police were still douchebags.

 

[MrPickins]

Cop has two choices when enforcing piddly laws and the suspect won't cooperate.

1. Ignore it, let the suspect get away. This is a moral decision that may make it unreasonable to justify enforcing the law at all.
2. Enforce the law by all means necessary, including chasing the suspect down, and making an arrest. This causes a big scene, and makes everyone cry foul.

Both are a lose lose situation :\

True, but as you mentioned, #1 makes it unreasonable to justify enforcing the law at best, and opens the police up to liability at worst (think if the discrimination lawsuits). Selective enforcement is a recipe for trouble.

Also, as I mentioned, there is a citywide police initiative to crack down on this type of behavior on the part of pedestrians. Piddly or not, they were under specific orders to enforce the statute.

Texas law says you do not have to provide ID until after you are arrested (this does not mean simply being detained). You do have to truthfully give them your name when asked, that is it. So I guess they false arrested her to then ask for ID and when she did not have any they could arrest her for real. The police were still douchebags.

Do we have any proof she did this?




(edited out argument that didn't make sense on second reading )

 

[marvdmartian]

There's a lot of fail on the part of Texas here. Shit.

Please don't blame the entire state, just from the actions of a couple cops in Austin, a VERY blue city in a red state. Maybe the cops were just tired of seeing a bunch of liberal fitness freaks jaywalking??

 

[JumBie]

In other news: Two guys whose wives haven't touched them since they got out of the army got to strip-search a cute young blonde.

I'd say it's lawsuit time but they actually got her on something. (No ID.)

Also, vagrancy is bad. Always have an ID in your SPIbelt.

Also, SPIbelts are awesome.

They were just trying to "cop" a feel.

 

[slayernine]

In other news: Two guys whose wives haven't touched them since they got out of the army got to strip-search a cute young blonde.

I'd say it's lawsuit time but they actually got her on something. (No ID.)

Also, vagrancy is bad. Always have an ID in your SPIbelt.

Also, SPIbelts are awesome.

AKA fanny packs.

 

[pmv]

So much weirdness here!

For starters - a police chief who thinks the public should be grateful that his cops aren't committing sexual assaults while on duty? My God you have low standards over there!

Secondly I personally entirely disagree that there should be any such offense as 'jaywalking'. Motorists create the danger, motorists have the responsibility, end of story. Its like making it a crime to 'walk into the path of someone firing a gun in the street'. The burden of care lies with the one weilding the deadly weapon in a public place.

In my country pedestrians are not legally obliged to obey the lights, and that is as it should be. Clearly in the US the car is king, however.

The idea of putting a crackdown on pedestrian and cyclist behaviour on a par with one on motorists, when its almost exclusively the cars that kill people, is a bad joke. But justice and facts rarely come into these things. Power is all that matters, and drivers have power.

And finally - do you not have any fitness standards for police officers? (It's no better over here, in that respect, admittedly)

Against all that, being arrested for not having ID is the one bit of the story that seems perfectly normal. _If_ police have reason to think you've committed a crime then the only reason they would NOT arrest you is if they are satisfied they know who you are and you can be summonsed or whatever later. You don't _have_ to carry ID, but it might spare you an arrest if you do something illegal. I just don't think 'crossing at red' should be illegal in the first place.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Secondly I personally entirely disagree that there should be any such offense as 'jaywalking'. Motorists create the danger, motorists have the responsibility, end of story. Its like making it a crime to 'walk into the path of someone firing a gun in the street'. The burden of care lies with the one weilding the deadly weapon in a public place.

So you're ok with a weekend hike down the middle of the interstate? Jaywalking exist for a reason.

 

[pmv]

So you're ok with a weekend hike down the middle of the interstate? Jaywalking exist for a reason.

Yup - the reason being to shift responsibility from bad drivers to their victims. As I say, its about power.

This wasn't an interstate and nobody was hiking 'down the middle' of anything. Are you seriously suggesting people doing that is a real problem that needs addressing?

And there's a reason why jaywalking is not a crime in countries other than the car-centric US.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Yup - the reason being to shift responsibility from bad drivers to their victims. As I say, its about power.

This wasn't an interstate and nobody was hiking 'down the middle' of anything. Are you seriously suggesting people doing that is a real problem that needs addressing?

And there's a reason why jaywalking is not a crime in countries other than the car-centric US.

Well that's like your opinion man.

 

[spacejamz]

Secondly I personally entirely disagree that there should be any such offense as 'jaywalking'. Motorists create the danger, motorists have the responsibility, end of story. Its like making it a crime to 'walk into the path of someone firing a gun in the street'. The burden of care lies with the one weilding the deadly weapon in a public place.

So if I am driving and I have a green light through an intersection, but some cyclist/jogger decides to cross in front of me when their light is red and I hit them, it is my responsibility?

Yeah...that makes total sense...

 

[akahoovy]

In other news: Two guys whose wives haven't touched them since they got out of the army got to strip-search a cute young blonde.

I'd say it's lawsuit time but they actually got her on something. (No ID.)

Also, vagrancy is bad. Always have an ID in your SPIbelt.

Also, SPIbelts are awesome.

Did she get strip searched?

 

[purbeast0]

Secondly I personally entirely disagree that there should be any such offense as 'jaywalking'. Motorists create the danger, motorists have the responsibility, end of story. Its like making it a crime to 'walk into the path of someone firing a gun in the street'. The burden of care lies with the one weilding the deadly weapon in a public place.

winner of the "dumbest thing i've read all week" award.

and i'm not saying that anyone should be arrested for jaywalking, it definitely needs to be a discretionary thing. but that is just the dumbest thing i've read all week.

 

[spacejamz]

This thread makes wonder if those people posting "You are not required to carry ID" actually go out in public without their IDs so they can "inform" a cop that they don't have to carry it

Personally, when I go cycling on the weekends around my neighborbood (usually two hour 30 mile or so ride), I carry my ID, my health insurance card, my cell phone and some cash. It seems like common sense (at least to me, in case something happens)...

I can't imagine carrying that stuff for a jogger would be that big a deal (especially since you will never know when you might actually need it)...I guess I can understand not carrying a cell phone, but what happens on the off chance you turn/twist your ankle, cramp up, get hit by an idiot driver or whatever? I realize that this will probably never happen, but it is good to have something just in case, right?

 

[akahoovy]

Please don't blame the entire state, just from the actions of a couple cops in Austin, a VERY blue city in a red state. Maybe the cops were just tired of seeing a bunch of liberal fitness freaks jaywalking??

I wasn't putting all the blame on the cops. Sure, they could be more fit. I was also poking fun at the girl throwing a tantrum instead of being an adult. I wasn't clear about the need for ID but the cops apparently also went about this procedure incorrectly. Again, the girl should have known what to ask the cops, as in was she being detained or arrested, etc.

I think the initiative to students to jay walk less is good, for the sake of safety and aggravation. I'm sure that causes some road rage in the area.

 

[Capt Caveman]

So much weirdness here!

For starters - a police chief who thinks the public should be grateful that his cops aren't committing sexual assaults while on duty? My God you have low standards over there!

Secondly I personally entirely disagree that there should be any such offense as 'jaywalking'. Motorists create the danger, motorists have the responsibility, end of story. Its like making it a crime to 'walk into the path of someone firing a gun in the street'. The burden of care lies with the one weilding the deadly weapon in a public place.

In my country pedestrians are not legally obliged to obey the lights, and that is as it should be. Clearly in the US the car is king, however.

The idea of putting a crackdown on pedestrian and cyclist behaviour on a par with one on motorists, when its almost exclusively the cars that kill people, is a bad joke. But justice and facts rarely come into these things. Power is all that matters, and drivers have power.

And finally - do you not have any fitness standards for police officers? (It's no better over here, in that respect, admittedly)

Against all that, being arrested for not having ID is the one bit of the story that seems perfectly normal. _If_ police have reason to think you've committed a crime then the only reason they would NOT arrest you is if they are satisfied they know who you are and you can be summonsed or whatever later. You don't _have_ to carry ID, but it might spare you an arrest if you do something illegal. I just don't think 'crossing at red' should be illegal in the first place.

Wow, so it's alright for pedestrians just run into the street with traffic and the fault of the car driver if they hit someone? Never been in a city have you?

 

[WelshBloke]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26073797

 

[surfsatwerk]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26073797

So explain why I am to blame when you jump out in front of my car.

 

[WelshBloke]

So explain why I am to blame when you jump out in front of my car.

Crossing the road =/= jumping out in front of a car

 

[spacejamz]

Crossing the road =/= jumping out in front of a car

Obviously you have not driven through a downtown intersection of a major US city during rush hour.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Crossing the road =/= jumping out in front of a car

If you cross the road and get hit, you chose a time to cross that wasn't safe. I'm all for people being able to cross roads wherever they want as long as they do it safely. That means the only cars you can see in either direction are so far away from you that you could make it across the road before they reached you even if they floored it the moment they saw you. If the traffic situation is such that this is impossible, then you have to make use and obey the rules of crosswalk/pedestrian traffic lights. That's the way it should work.

 

[yuchai]

I personally commit the horrendous crime of jaywalking pretty much every work day. I also don't normally carry ID when jogging, so all of this hits home. In this specific instance, I think the "victim" escalated the incident. If she had cooperated, I doubt any of this would have happened.

Jaywalking is a necessary evil to a degree. Frankly, if nobody jaywalks in NYC, you're going to end up with significant "traffic jams" on the sidewalks, and walking anywhere would probably take more than twice as long.

That said, I also drive and have seen my share of people who are talking on their cellphones and crossing on a red without even looking up. I'd say ticket the crap out of them.

I guess my point is that you can jaywalk responsibly or negligently. I'm fine with keeping jaywalking an offence conceptually, with the caveat that you only enforce the rule when there was negligence on the part of the pedestrian.

 

[BoberFett]

Secondly I personally entirely disagree that there should be any such offense as 'jaywalking'. Motorists create the danger, motorists have the responsibility, end of story. Its like making it a crime to 'walk into the path of someone firing a gun in the street'. The burden of care lies with the one weilding the deadly weapon in a public place.

In my country pedestrians are not legally obliged to obey the lights, and that is as it should be. Clearly in the US the car is king, however.

The idea of putting a crackdown on pedestrian and cyclist behaviour on a par with one on motorists, when its almost exclusively the cars that kill people, is a bad joke. But justice and facts rarely come into these things. Power is all that matters, and drivers have power.

So as long as you're on foot, you should be able to do whatever you want? Me and a few friends could stand around on the Autobahn and cars would just be shit out of luck because, hey, I'm a pedestrian?

 

[WelshBloke]

Only on ATOT.
"But if we don't have laws stopping it people would be leaping in front of speeding cars. We must legislate common sense. People can't be trusted to cross the road safely, get the government involved! "

 

[surfsatwerk]

If the whole world was some rural middle of nowhere you would be right.