http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/...y-theyre-not-sexually-assaulted-by-cops/Austin police chief says jaywalkers should be happy they�re not sexually assaulted by cops
The arrest of an Austin jogger on jaywalking charges earlier this week � dragged screaming to a police car after apparently failing to present ID properly � has become the stuff of viral video after a University of Texas at Austin student captured the incident.
Now, Austin�s chief of police has weighed in, telling the public they should be glad his officers aren�t treating people even worse.
�This person absolutely took something that was as simple as �Austin Police � Stop!� and decided to do everything you see on that video,� Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said at a press conference Friday, according to Austin NPR station 90.5 KUT. �And quite frankly she wasn�t charged with resisting. She�s lucky I wasn�t the arresting officer, because I wouldn�t have been as generous. � In other cities there�s cops who are actually committing sexual assaults on duty, so I thank God that this is what passes for a controversy in Austin, Texas,� Acevedo said.
Not long after that, it became clear that Acevedo had essentially told the public that they should be grateful that all the police officers did was bundle a woman who had been jogging through the streets of Austin into the back of a police car because she crossed against the light, instead of molesting her or charging her with more serious offenses.
Saturday evening, Acevedo issued an apology for his earlier comments, calling it the result of an emotional week.
�During the press conference I attempted to place the arrest into context by bringing attention to the fact that law enforcement deals with many acts of serious misconduct,� Acevedo wrote. �This includes recent instances in the news of sexual assault by police officers in other cities. In hindsight I believe the comparison was a poor analogy, and for this I apologize. I stand committed to transparent leadership and will continue to engage the community we serve in an open, honest, and timely manner.�
More weirdness in Austin. It's epic there.
The police chief is lucky citizens don't "rape" him?
I didn't see anything wrong with his comment.
You can spin anything into something if you try hard enough.
This Jack off needs to go.
I didn't see anything wrong with his comment.
You can spin anything into something if you try hard enough.
Me either...in a circle of intellectuals, but he needs to remember that malcontents and troglodytes will hear things differently.
I wondered when this would find it's way to the Fire.
i thought it was humorous more than anything else. its getting so that a person in the public light can not say anything without it being twisted one way or the other.
I didn't see anything wrong with his comment.
You can spin anything into something if you try hard enough.
Agree.
It wasn't the greatest analogy, but people love to spin stuff to get a negative reaction.
The bottom line is that some people simply look for opportunities to be offended.
I'm just glad he didn't name me specifically.
Just liberals getting the government they vote for !
I'm just glad he didn't name me specifically.
Don't worry, I've got your back.
I'm just glad he didn't name me specifically.
Don't worry, I've got your back.
Is that sort of like San Francisco PD's motto of 'never leave your fellow officer's behind'?
I am shocked and offended.
huh huh...huh huh...huh huh...
TYPICAL LIBERAL BS,HE NEEDS TO BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE NOW.
This Jack off needs to go.
TYPICAL LIBERAL BS,HE NEEDS TO BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE NOW.
Because what he said is true, or because what they did was right?
I know a few Austin PD officers personally. Ones wife works with me daily.
While I understand what he said, I don't know anyone that likes him.
He needs to go is for sure, and if this would do it, then take what you get.....
It's not so much the analogy as it is the "chiefs" mindset on things? Not the reasoning or logic I would want from a "chief".
i thought it was humorous more than anything else. its getting so that a person in the public light can not say anything without it being twisted one way or the other.
Or maybe people are just a little pissed at the fact that a woman was arrested and thrown in jail for f'ing JAY WALKING! and the top cop made a complete ass of himself in addressing the matter when questioned.
This Jack off needs to go.
TYPICAL LIBERAL BS,HE NEEDS TO BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE NOW.
Because what he said is true, or because what they did was right?
Yeah...that's what you get for voting for him!
I didn't see anything wrong with his comment.
You can spin anything into something if you try hard enough.
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 thought it was humorous more than anything else. its getting so that a person in the public light can not say anything without it being twisted one way or the other.
Or maybe people are just a little pissed at the fact that a woman was arrested and thrown in jail for f'ing JAY WALKING! and the top cop made a complete ass of himself in addressing the matter when questioned.
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.
i thought it was humorous more than anything else. its getting so that a person in the public light can not say anything without it being twisted one way or the other.
Or maybe people are just a little pissed at the fact that a woman was arrested and thrown in jail for f'ing JAY WALKING! and the top cop made a complete ass of himself in addressing the matter when questioned.
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?
"...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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, sheeet lets get a bakers dozen of Duncans' best glazed over to the cop shop asap. A win win through better nutrition
.
Nobody's a victim.
Except maybe the cops that had to put down their donuts to go do something stupid.
Then what's the point in the arrest other than to slow arterial blockage in said cops?
I am shocked and offended.
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.
I didn't see anything wrong with his comment.
You can spin anything into something if you try hard enough.
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?
"Not being caught raping citizens" isn't what he said and you know it.
More spin.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Austin is full of people that are not road savvy enough to not get run over if it weren't for the police. I use the term "road savvy", because most of my clientele are stone stupid and still don't run out in traffic.
I can't believe there's video of the event.
Austin cops are obviously slacking since the videographer didn't die from a double tap to the chest, and have the video confiscated to protect its integrity...
At the very least, the videographer deserved a beatdown/tazing...
Officer Pork Chop and officer Tin Badge should be commended for ridding the streets of Austin of jaywalkers, they're almost as bad as those hillbilly terrorists living in the rocky crags of the mountains of Ashcanistan......why didn't a drone take that woman out and save those officers the trouble of having to put down their donuts??
Officer Pork Chop and officer Tin Badge should be commended for ridding the streets of Austin of jaywalkers, they're almost as bad as those hillbilly terrorists living in the rocky crags of the mountains of Ashcanistan......why didn't a drone take that woman out and save those officers the trouble of having to put down their donuts??
some of it does come down on higher ups....last mayor we had was constantly telling the police chief to crack down on petty BS stuff that would take up their time and take them away from doing useful chit.....but damn if we didnt have people loitering in our city parks
suring the meetings i was sitting next to the police chief and every time he would roll his eyes cause it sure in the hell wasnt what he wanted to take up his time with but his boss said otherwise
damn mayor was more concerned with littering and people hanging out in the parks all day than anything else.....so glad he is gone....
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.
Oh I agree on that one. I"ve damn near hit folks because they think they can walk out any time and place and be right... heck we rolled up to Wmart a few weeks ago, code 3, with the engine, actually to grab an officer for a large gas leak... .folks walked right out in front of the engine, to used to not paying attention... Granted I had flipped the siren off about 3 rows away from the front door, but folks stare at you as if, you won't run me over....
But then again I'm still convinced would she have stopped and answered the question, the end result probably would have been much different.
I ain't calling LEO dogs... but if you run from a dog.... don't be surprised when you get bit. And it was all in your control basically.
I disagree with you on the new or weird laws only... especially if you have not been enforcing with the same effort as anything else. If you are goign to start doing what you have not... I personally feel you should start easy...
BUT I've been in the same exact shoes.... and I have a job. To do.
Scenario: it's 1775 and the British redcoats harass American colonists for crossing streets at locations not approved by decree from King George III........
A few years back we started getting a rash of MVAs involving big trucks onone road. At a council meeting. People were up in arms about the trucks causing all of these accidents. So we were directed to target the area for traffic enforcement.
While doing this a few of us put together a survey of the traffic norms at different times of the day. Over the three week period we condicted the argeted enforcement, we noticed two things. One: the traffic sirvey showed us that the big trucks were not having traiifoc violations and most of the time were operating under the posted speed limit. 2: the passenger vehicles were issued 39 cotations in a three week period. Violations ranged from simple things such as failing to obey traffic control devices, to major over speed violations
The part of the ordeal that steuck me funny was that the same people who wete complaining at the council meeting were the same people we were citing, yet they continued to want blame laid at the big trucks simply, as one resident put it, " they should be ticketed just because they are loud and shouldn't be on this road.
During that three week period there were 5 accidents. Of those. It was determined that one of them was caused by a big truck
i miss the old Austin before all the hippies took over.
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.
Just because its a law doesn't make it a just law.
Then you should trot your ass down to city hall and lobby for the repeal of said law. Not break it at will or condemn those that enforce it.
She had "toe shoes" and looked like one of the Hanson brothers.
This is a non-issue.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/woman-arrested-on-street-615x345.jpg)
Her sunglasses on the ground in front of her almost looked like two giant snails head butting each other.
I'm beginning to enjoy this far-sightedness. Livens up the browsing.
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.
Just because its a law doesn't make it a just law.
Then you should trot your ass down to city hall and lobby for the repeal of said law. Not break it at will or condemn those that enforce it.
You're right. Screw the fact our elected officials, law enforcement, judiciary etc. etc. swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. Just because I am forced to pay the taxes for their salaries, why should I have any expectation of them actually following through on that oath. Crap man, that whole separation of powers is way overrated, they're just doing their jobs, rights? Just like pres. barry?
How do jaywalking laws conflict with the Constitution?
Jaywalking ordinances are unconstitutional?
You're right. Screw the fact our elected officials, law enforcement, judiciary etc. etc. swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. Just because I am forced to pay the taxes for their salaries, why should I have any expectation of them actually following through on that oath. Crap man, that whole separation of powers is way overrated, they're just doing their jobs, rights? Just like pres. barry?
How do jaywalking laws conflict with the Constitution?
Who is the victim caused by the act of jaywalking?
Should there be speed limits around elementary schools and should crossing guards be able to stop traffic in those areas?
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.
Oh well hell, she should answered and said my name is Hillary Clinton, seriously, I get teased all the time, I'm even a republican, can you imagine that?
How do jaywalking laws conflict with the Constitution?
Who is the victim caused by the act of jaywalking?
If I hit a jaywalker, I'm the victim.
My car will be damaged, my insurance company will be harmed, and I'm going to be shaken, upset and in need of alcohol.
It absolutely amazes me that people that draw the word "unconstitutional" like a gun completely skip over the fact that the constitution was written to protect us from the Federal Govt, it tells what the fed . Govt cannot do to us, not the state Or local govt
Should there be speed limits around elementary schools and should crossing guards be able to stop traffic in those areas?
Not the same. Obviously the potential for someone getting hurt/injured is much higher, again, context.
How do jaywalking laws conflict with the Constitution?
Who is the victim caused by the act of jaywalking?
If I hit a jaywalker, I'm the victim.
My car will be damaged, my insurance company will be harmed, and I'm going to be shaken, upset and in need of alcohol.
Yep, already laws, pre-jaywalking, dealing with property damage, mental injury. Forced into alcohol consumption? not so much.
It absolutely amazes me that people that draw the word "unconstitutional" like a gun completely skip over the fact that the constitution was written to protect us from the Federal Govt, it tells what the fed . Govt cannot do to us, not the state Or local govt
The basic tenants of the bill of rights crosses state borders and is included at the state/local level. The states have power over the feds , the individual has power over both.
Should there be speed limits around elementary schools and should crossing guards be able to stop traffic in those areas?
Not the same. Obviously the potential for someone getting hurt/injured is much higher, again, context.
Nope. Neither have victims. Both are laws to protect people from getting hurt in dangerous situations.
One situation is driving fast where kids are walking. The other is walking where people are driving fast.
Should there be speed limits around elementary schools and should crossing guards be able to stop traffic in those areas?
Not the same. Obviously the potential for someone getting hurt/injured is much higher, again, context.
Nope. Neither have victims. Both are laws to protect people from getting hurt in dangerous situations.
One situation is driving fast where kids are walking. The other is walking where people are driving fast.
Protecting children(not responsible for themselves) is different than trying to protect me (an adult) from myself.
How do jaywalking laws conflict with the Constitution?
Who is the victim caused by the act of jaywalking?
if this ditsy broad dings up the front of my car, will she have insurance to pay for the damage? Not likely. I'M the victim. Or how about if I have to swerve to miss her and hit something? Will she pay? Again, I'M the victim.
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.
Square on the head.
Blue,
Human life is rife with potential of "getting hurt in dangerous situations". We don't need or want laws for every potential situation, otherwise according to your logic we should all hand in our firearms, sharp pointy things, car keys etc etc. and become total cradle to grave wards of the state.
It absolutely amazes me that people that draw the word "unconstitutional" like a gun completely skip over the fact that the constitution was written to protect us from the Federal Govt, it tells what the fed . Govt cannot do to us, not the state Or local govt
The basic tenants of the bill of rights crosses state borders and is included at the state/local level. The states have power over the feds , the individual has power over both.
If thats so. Then why do states have their own constitutions that more or less mirror the fed.
I didn't see anything wrong with his comment.
You can spin anything into something if you try hard enough.
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?
"Not being caught raping citizens" isn't what he said and you know it.
More spin.
I have no way to know exactly what he "said" and, if you are merely going by the OP, neither do you. But I read the info there and read the posts by those who reacted to what was there - and my reponse was to that point. For accuracy, I should have used the term "sexual assault" rather than "rape" - reportedly, that is what the chief said. When the guy apologized for his remarks, he seems to have acknowledged his poor choice
Not long after that, it became clear that Acevedo had essentially told the public that they should be grateful that all the police officers did was bundle a woman who had been jogging through the streets of Austin into the back of a police car because she crossed against the light, instead of molesting her or charging her with more serious offenses.
Saturday evening, Acevedo issued an apology for his earlier comments, calling it the result of an emotional week.
"During the press conference I attempted to place the arrest into context by bringing attention to the fact that law enforcement deals with many acts of serious misconduct,� Acevedo wrote. �This includes recent instances in the news of sexual assault by police officers in other cities.
Those in other cities were caught doing so - he said his community should be grateful that his officers were not molesting in this case. We would not know they had done so if they were not caught - that's one point. The other point is that I don't want my police chief - anytime - trying to pass something off by lamely telling tell me that I should be grateful because our local police officers did not commit sexual assault when they apprehended someone. Why should any citizen be grateful for absence of sexual assault, or other crimes, by a LEO? Warped values there.
It absolutely amazes me that people that draw the word "unconstitutional" like a gun completely skip over the fact that the constitution was written to protect us from the Federal Govt, it tells what the fed . Govt cannot do to us, not the state Or local govt
The basic tenants of the bill of rights crosses state borders and is included at the state/local level. The states have power over the feds , the individual has power over both.
If thats so. Then why do states have their own constitutions that more or less mirror the fed.
Isn't that basically what I said?
OK, I did some detective work: the Starbucks where the "incident" occurred is on 24th St., about 1.5 blocks west of the UT Campus. Anybody familiar with Austin and can say if this is a street with lots of traffic or is it pretty slow traffic-wise?
I know if I were a cop and I yelled at a jogger with earphones that I would not expect them to hear me, that's just reality. Officer discretion would have gone a long ways in this situation, I suspect that they had a ticket-quota and they were going to tap into the student population for some $$$
How do jaywalking laws conflict with the Constitution?
Who is the victim caused by the act of jaywalking?
if this ditsy broad dings up the front of my car, will she have insurance to pay for the damage? Not likely. I'M the victim. Or how about if I have to swerve to miss her and hit something? Will she pay? Again, I'M the victim.
Yes, you're the victim when she steps in front of you, impeding your progress while you are exercising your right to travel something that is already illegal. As stated earlier, there are already laws dealing with property damage, failure to pay debts etc. Been around for centuries.
If she crosses at the same place when no one is around she has caused no victim as in the OP. This being the case why should she be detained, arrested, forced to pay fines etc. etc. whilst no victim has been caused?
She had "toe shoes" and looked like one of the Hanson brothers.
This is a non-issue.
Her sunglasses on the ground in front of her almost looked like two giant snails head butting each other.
I'm beginning to enjoy this far-sightedness. Livens up the browsing.
She should have stepped on the gas and left them staring at her shapely arse.
It's ridiculously congested right there, with pedestrians and cars. One of my favorite restaurants is right there and I usually have to park a block away and walk through an alley to even get there. It's crowded.
I believe his point was that this isn't newsworthy. And it's not.
But in the absence of real scandal, people will find something to rage over. In this case it appears that "something" is a princess being told no and then pitching a fit.
It absolutely amazes me that people that draw the word "unconstitutional" like a gun completely skip over the fact that the constitution was written to protect us from the Federal Govt, it tells what the fed . Govt cannot do to us, not the state Or local govt
The basic tenants of the bill of rights crosses state borders and is included at the state/local level. The states have power over the feds , the individual has power over both.
If thats so. Then why do states have their own constitutions that more or less mirror the fed.
Isn't that basically what I said?
Sort of. But you insinuate that the federal bill of rights dictates what state and local gov. Can and cant do to us. I'm saying thats not the case or each state would not need it's own constitution
It's ridiculously congested right there, with pedestrians and cars. One of my favorite restaurants is right there and I usually have to park a block away and walk through an alley to even get there. It's crowded.
I'm calling for a truce whether we agree or not, Blue. I live in a small town with a hundredth the traffic you deal with so I am biased/jaded in my thoughts on the issue. I just think that people have a choice of how they cross the street. If they use the provided cross walks and go with the flow or if they choose otherwise, such as "jaywalking" they're on their own and suffer the consequences ie take responsibility for themselves. Laws that purport to protect me from myself, but instead are used more for filling city coffers with extra tax money are an unnecessary burden on society and should be revoked.
The BOR does protect everyone from the government (local-state-federal) in those rights that they individually mention through the 14th. That protection was extended to all agencies of the government through Tinker v Des Moines ISD (SCOTUS in 1969).
But none of it has anything to do with jaywalking.
[/quote]
Sort of. But you insinuate that the federal bill of rights dictates what state and local gov. Can and cant do to us. I'm saying thats not the case or each state would not need it's own constitution[/quote]
The states must not violate the rights of the individual as laid out by the bill of rights and the constitution. And the fed has the authority(or at least was supposed to under original intent of the constitution) to make sure the states follow those basic tenants. The states have extra rights/power above and beyond what the fed has( again,under original intent of const. and bill of rights) to insure that the fed guv doesn't over step its authority. Of course we all know how that has worked out.
I've been by that corner a few times too... as a driver I EXPECT a college kid to step out or run out... It is a good place to enforce it for sure.
RE teh WE don't need this or that protection from SBTCO...WE is a large word, from your post it should read I don't want that protection.
And this doesn't mean I don't agree with some of what you said.
OTOH I posted earlier, if she causes me to hit her, or someone else etc.... rare for there to be victimless crime.
And would is it still theft if you break into the bank at night while no one around and get away with the money without "endangering" anyone else. I'd venture most would still say its a crime.
Either way. I enjoy arguing so I don't mind.
Traffic is absurd right there. And the area is full of transients and losers who, if they step out in traffic and cause a wreck, will have no means or inclination to make restitution. The cops were protecting the hard working car drivers just trying to get across town as much as they were protecting the jaywalkers.
As is usual people tend to view situations through the lens of their own experiences, which don't always correlate to what happened elsewhere.
Thank you for giving the background on that location.
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.
Just because its a law doesn't make it a just law.
Then you should trot your ass down to city hall and lobby for the repeal of said law. Not break it at will or condemn those that enforce it.
You're right. Screw the fact our elected officials, law enforcement, judiciary etc. etc. swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. Just because I am forced to pay the taxes for their salaries, why should I have any expectation of them actually following through on that oath. Crap man, that whole separation of powers is way overrated, they're just doing their jobs, rights? Just like pres. barry?
As much as I dislike ol Skeeter, this is one instance where he has nothing to do with it. Jaywalking is a local ordinance.
That's why I said "trot your ass down to CITY HALL and lobby for a change in the ordinance.
Didn't your daddy ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right.
Besides,,,,, we all know that Skeeter's the only one allowed to disobey laws he doesn't agree with.
Austin into the back of a police car because she crossed against the light, i
That is not why she was thrown into the back of the police car, this instead shows somebody's bias.
The attitude down there on "The Drag" area is Pedestrians Always Have the Right of Way.
I've been by that corner a few times too... as a driver I EXPECT a college kid to step out or run out... It is a good place to enforce it for sure.
RE teh WE don't need this or that protection from SBTCO...WE is a large word, from your post it should read I don't want that protection.
And this doesn't mean I don't agree with some of what you said.
OTOH I posted earlier, if she causes me to hit her, or someone else etc.... rare for there to be victimless crime.
And would is it still theft if you break into the bank at night while no one around and get away with the money without "endangering" anyone else. I'd venture most would still say its a crime.
Rost,
If the law worked so good then you wouldn't have the need to "Expect" college students to step out in front of you while driving there. I doubt very much that the homeless in Austin are somehow more disciplined in their restraint from breaking the law than other areas of the country as well.
As to the bank scenario, I've already posted the fact that laws against theft,property damage etc. have been "on the books" for centuries. A person doesn't have to be physically injured or even present to be victimized.
FieldGrade,
Are not your local constabulary and judiciary members required to swear and oath to defend the state and fed constitution?
I've been by that corner a few times too... as a driver I EXPECT a college kid to step out or run out... It is a good place to enforce it for sure.
RE teh WE don't need this or that protection from SBTCO...WE is a large word, from your post it should read I don't want that protection.
And this doesn't mean I don't agree with some of what you said.
OTOH I posted earlier, if she causes me to hit her, or someone else etc.... rare for there to be victimless crime.
And would is it still theft if you break into the bank at night while no one around and get away with the money without "endangering" anyone else. I'd venture most would still say its a crime.
Rost,
If the law worked so good then you wouldn't have the need to "Expect" college students to step out in front of you while driving there. I doubt very much that the homeless in Austin are somehow more disciplined in their restraint from breaking the law than other areas of the country as well.
As to the bank scenario, I've already posted the fact that laws against theft,property damage etc. have been "on the books" for centuries. A person doesn't have to be physically injured or even present to be victimized.
Pretty simple, laws even though they are on the books, are not all enforced. If you don't enforce them, its like they aren't there.
First person or three do it, no reprocussion other than getting run over and killed possibly, and the word gets out. I'm lazy so I will just cross where ever when ever.
The irony to me on this on, she was exercising... she didn't need to take a short cut and you can jog in place till you have the ROW...
We were in Baltimore almost a year ago. My wife got tired of me hollering at the idiots crossing at wrong places and times...
So I actually heard about this jaywalking issue becoming a bigger issue before this all happened It was on the local news. Not like folks didn't know it wasn't going to be enforced more.
And of course there are so many laws on the books, and so few police, its hard to be everywhere all the time.
She had "toe shoes" and looked like one of the Hanson brothers.
This is a non-issue.
Her sunglasses on the ground in front of her almost looked like two giant snails head butting each other.
I'm beginning to enjoy this far-sightedness. Livens up the browsing.
Those phat ass cops could stand to do some exercising, disgraceful.
The downtown area is filling up fast with well to do hipsters living
in high rise condos. City demographics have changed. The piss pants
schizo-homeless and winos have been displaced.
One day soon one of them diabetic garbage men in blue is going to kill
some connected guys son or daughter over some trifle. That little jogger
gal is the tip of the iceberg.
1- The chief is an epic dumbazz for throwing out the "sexual assaults" comment when responding to a question about a jay walker. WTF?
2- How in the Sam Hell did that girl get caught by those two pudding asses? She should of hung 'em the bird and kept jogging. They would of stroked out in a block...max.
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.
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.
Nobody said it's just but it's still the law at this time. We have mechanisms for repealing unjust laws and until that's done, it's still the law. In this country, you don't repeal a law by ignoring it. You take steps to have it officially repealed. She obviously hasn't done that (but maybe she will now).
That's all she had to do....."My name is _______".
"Where is your yellow Star of David Juden?? You refused to identify yourself? We have a train waiting for your type of social deviant."
I've had a change of heart. Jaywalking laws are unconstitutional and stupid.
This is a much better solution...
![[Linked Image]](http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z118/Bluedreaux/Traffic_zps54202c96.jpg)
...and who says they DON'T have jaywalking laws?
Were you deprived of oxygen at birth?
I'm just glad he didn't name me specifically.
ROR
oh to be thankful and grateful, that's the ticket Lt.
as an aside if you get promoted past Lieutenant, that's gonna play hades with us around here
I certainly hope they consider such during your performance reviews
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.
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.
Nobody said it's just but it's still the law at this time. We have mechanisms for repealing unjust laws and until that's done, it's still the law. In this country, you don't repeal a law by ignoring it. You take steps to have it officially repealed. She obviously hasn't done that (but maybe she will now).
Save your breath RC.
SBTCO clearly has no desire to change the laws when he can simply set behind his keyboard and bitch about em.
The picture you posted above looks very much like a street scene in India, New Delhi maybe. And yes, they do have jaywalking laws there too. Working out mighty well.
But I don't know, maybe the runner chick had it easy. Better to to just beat the shyte out of 84 yr. old guys for the same infraction.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/kang-wong-jaywalking-ticket-nypd/2014/01/21/id/548037AS to your misguided perception/attack of my theoretical lack of oxygen at birth, it only lowers you to the level of progressive socialists who have failed to bolster their argument but if you must, forge ahead.
But in the absence of real scandal, people will find something to rage over. In this case it appears that "something" is a princess being told no and then pitching a fit.
And there you have it.
'Tis hard to know the full deal - maybe she brought most of it onto herself, maybe the police went overboard - maybe both - such things seem to happen every day. If so, can't rage over that. But, that chief telling citizens they should be glad that his troops didn't sexually molest anyone - that calls for some hard critique.
Looks like another failure in responsible and professional law enforcement from the street to the chief.
If any of those who believe this is a non-issue would have been sitting on that sidewalk with Austin's finest on either side, that perception would change. Of course, most think that not possible since they are law abiding folk. That's just stinking thinking. Unless you're boss hog of some podunk, no one is immune to power gluttony and it's abuses in these United States. You just haven't experienced it yet.
Des Moines hippies are different than Austin hippies.