Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Austin police chief says jaywalkers should be happy

Yeah...that's what you get for voting for him!

Most folks probably would not see much wrong with what the chief said as long as they are comfortable with his being pleased that his own officers are not being caught raping citizens, as in other places. Not much wrong with that, is there?

I am interested in the full story. Was she arrested for J-walking and not having ID, or what all was involved. I have a hard time believing seriously that she was arrested just for that. Do the police have that much free time that j-walking takes such a high priority?

Apparently, she was caught jaywalking and tried to scoot when approached by an officer. Then when she was physically caught, she refused to ID herself. Maybe she thought they couldn't cite her and would have to let her go if they didn't know who she was.

When they tossed her spoiled, entitled little ass in a squad car, she gave them her name.

Video here: http://www.policeone.com/chiefs-she...fter-jaywalking-arrest-video-goes-viral/

It's for your own safety.

Obey or we drag you through the streets and handcuff you and take you downtown.




So as I understand it, a jogger with head phones on doesn't stop when yelled at by a cop so the cop grabs her and probably jerks her to a halt. She takes the head phones off and tells the cop to take his hands off of her. He refuses, she doesn't ID herself immediately, she's handcuffed and hauled downtown.

Seems the whole thing should have been easily de-escalated, but maybe the girl was being a total jerk and deserved it. But handcuffs and dragging to the car for jaywalking... Not good PR for the cops, even if they were technically entitled to do it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-deal-police-sexually-assaulted-her.html

"...The Austin Police Department has denied that the officers seen in the video were specifically targeting jaywalkers, claiming instead that they were working 'pedestrian enforcement' to ensure traffic safety.

The agency spokesperson told MailOnline Miss Stephen has been charged with failure to identify and a class B traffic signal violation."


I would think warnings would be a more realistic approach, not only from a rights stand point but community relations as well. But as it stands now, the scene of 1200lbs of Austins finest man handling, cuffing and tossing the 130lb. girl jogger in the back seat of the squad car tends to rankle the peons just a bit.

THEORETICALLY.....This is what MIGHT have happened.

People regularly walk into traffic and get run over, particularly around a place with as much pedestrian traffic as where this occurred. The city gets all in an uproar because folks keep getting hit by cars and demand that the cops do something about it.

So cops are sent out to do something about it. When the cops get out and start paying attention they realize that it's not the cars at fault, it's people walking out into moving traffic. So they start writing jaywalking tickets, because apparently folks don't have the good sense to not walk into traffic and by golly-the citizens want SOMETHING done about all the people getting run over.

Now this girl comes ditty bopping across the street (and the citizens told the cops to do something about this), so the cops stop the girl to write her a ticket. But she won't tell them who she is. Well, it's awfully hard to write someone a ticket if you have no idea who they are. So they take her to jail.

She wasn't arrested for jay-walking. She wasn't arrested for not having an ID. She was arrested because she refused to say "My name is ______" and be on her way.

Then everybody gets in a hissy fit because the cops went out and did what the now-hissy fitting people told them to do.

The exasperated Chief throws up his hands because the citizens of one of the safest cities in the country can't find anything else to gripe about but cops arresting a special snowflake that refused to say "My name is ______".

That's all she had to do....."My name is _______".





Allegedly that's what might have happened. I heard it from my neighbor's cousin.

On another note.....

Everyone wants cops to be accountable to the citizens and respond to their complaints. Well, some do. And this is what you get......Cops wasting their time writing tickets instead of eating donuts.

I guarantee you, cops don't go out and write jaywalking tickets because they think it's cool or they want to. What cops want to do and what they think is cool is to eat donuts and chill. But somebody from outside the agency demands that problem X be dealt with.

So cops put down their donuts, respond to their citizens' complaints and go off do do the thing that people ask them to do and then complain when they do it.

And who is the victim in this case for the jogger not giving her name?

Nobody's a victim.

Except maybe the cops that had to put down their donuts to go do something stupid.

Well, sheeet lets get a bakers dozen of Duncans' best glazed over to the cop shop asap. A win win through better nutrition .

Then what's the point in the arrest other than to slow arterial blockage in said cops?

Would you like to join the fan club...if so pm NWA and LostHiway

Very possibly her in the future if she gets hit, and or the driver having hit her in the future has to deal with it.

IMHO you start something like this with an ad campaign if possible by media, there is a problem, we are going to start writing warnings for the next month or such and if folks don't get it, will start writing the real thing come April 2 or such...

UNLESS she was running with her walkman so high she didn't hear them, whats the problem with stopping and answering the question? My guess is she would likely only have been spoken too and noted name in case they caught her again.

Its amazing folks want thigns done, but then if its them caught in the middle....

Dad was president of a HOA years ago. We had folks in Houston cutting through the neighborhood as shortcuts due to traffic. Not a big deal at all, except for their speed with kids around and such. So they as a board went to the N Sheperd substation, and come about a week later mom and I were not up and rolling early to get to church... IE we put us late getting out the door... you can guess the rest. Bingo... Dad signs the ticket laughing, explains it to the officer and laughs some more and thanks him for a job well done! Cheap ticket to pay, because they acutally slowed the traffic down as a whole after that.

I am not LEO, but I am code enforcement, and I know here I have a right to ticket you right away, but I generally defer to a conversation, and see if we can get it going the right way, and then if you ignore me after that.... or if you totally ignore me to start with, my level goes up a notch so to speak.

While I realize that the tin foil folks want NOTHING like give name etc... and I wear one of those hats at times even, they are the first to complain when something else happens.

I'll give you my name, no biggy. We can talk and such. But then after that if you wanna look see in my chit... nope, we all draw the line somewhere. I suspect by how I handle it that I'll probably never have a warrant by my refusal... but I may be wrong.

There are always bad apples.

So much stupidity. A simple, "Listen, honey, I'm going to write you a ticket for jaywalking. If you give me your name and address, I'll write you the ticket and you can go on your way. If you don't, I'll have to arrest you and take you to jail." would have gone a long way.

"Not being caught raping citizens" isn't what he said and you know it.
More spin.

Rost you obviously have some good points, however I think it comes down to context. In your scenario you are talking about people in vehicles that have a high probability of causing a "victim" by crushing them. In the case with the jogger, for practical discussion, the probability for victimization caused by the jogger was extremely low. In this context, being arrested for not giving her name and jaywalking is stupid and a waste of time for everyone involved. Yes, she could have given her name and paid the fine and possibly avoided the arrest. However LEO could have just as easily given her a verbal warning and had the same effect of deterrence.

What's stupid? The city has a j-walking ordinance. Nobody has campaigned to remove it so it's the law. When a person violates the law, he must identify himself or be arrested. It's that simple. She refused to obey the law and those were the consequences. If you don't like a law, take steps to have it repealed or leave. She did neither.

We've had a number of joggers and bikers hit by cars here. Usually the reason is loud music and not paying attention. Bikers are the worst because they ride in traffic lanes and never look back. They're oblivious to what's around them. They're also going faster so they hit harder.

Jeff, I agree about PSAs and grace periods for new or weird laws. But "Don't run out in traffic" is pretty basic stuff. My kids have got it down anyway.

Just because its a law doesn't make it a just law.
I suppose if you think guv should baby sit everyone and arrest anyone for "potential" regardless of the severity of the "crime" would be one way of looking at it. I prefer just constitutional laws, liberty and personal responsibility.