>> ^Ryjkyj:

Genji, it sounds to me like you just have a problem with all cops in general.


-sounds like his problem may be with how police have evolved in the U.S.

This is my last response to you, it's quite obvious you're clinging to your attitude that laws are there for no reason, and that the government is just out for your money.

I never said any of that. And there's no need to be immature about it. It's just the internet, dude.

Find me a statistic that shows how jaywalking kills thousands annually

I read a statistic claiming 3% of people are killed by jaywalking. Is it true, who knows? But there you go.

However, I guess I should've seen your selfishness coming.

Are the ad hominem attacks really necessary?

...it will once again be something completely unrelated, and you'll be trying to make a point about something once again completely irrelevant.

I wouldn't say anything I've said is irrelevant. Maybe unpopular, but not irrelevant. If you're referring to the jaywalking death sentence, I was being extreme in light of your 'just because you disagree with the punishment, doesn't mean the law shouldn't be there" comment. Don't argue in spite of one small comment in the face of many larger cogent ones. Don't use misdirection.

If you let 1.2 million drivers on the road, the odds of some of them having an accident, sober or not, is increased. Putting 1.2 million drivers on the road who ARE inebriated, so their reaction times are slower, they're not seeing straight, and probably swerving on the road, puts them at a substantially higher statistic to have an accident, that's common sense.

Argumentum ad populum. Driving puts you in a substantially higher statistical rate to have an accident than not driving. Walking on sidewalks puts you in a substantially higher statistical rate to be hit by a car than staying at home. Where does this circular logic end? The point is, you can argue in favor of any type of behavior leading to higher fatality statistics, but that doesn't make it sound reasoning for creating a preemptive law.

And not everyone who is over .08 is inebriated. And their reaction times, sight and driving abilities may not be affected any more than you driving when you slept only five hours instead of eight. It's arbitrary.

And, no one is "putting" anyone on the roads. The people are "choosing" to be there whether sober or otherwise.

@blankfist

This is my last response to you, it's quite obvious you're clinging to your attitude that laws are there for no reason, and that the government is just out for your money.

If there's no victim, there's no crime. It's just unfortunate that you see it as that and not as the preventative measures put in place so there doesn't have to BE a victim. The bottom line is simple: if you don't want to spend a night in jail and be traumatized (As you seem to think that sitting in a cell for a few hours will scar you for life) then just don't fucking do it. Use a different method of getting home.

The way to resolve all of the victims, all of the jail time, all the fines, don't drive drunk.

You continuously compare apples to oranges by trying to equate it to some other "crime". We're not discussing murder, we're not discussing jaywalking. We're discussing driving drunk. Find me a statistic that shows how jaywalking kills thousands annually, or that murders could've been avoided by the person making a better choice.

Before you yet again try to twist my words, no, I'm not saying that we shouldn't do (A) to prevent (B) because it will once again be something completely unrelated, and you'll be trying to make a point about something once again completely irrelevant.

If you let 1.2 million drivers on the road, the odds of some of them having an accident, sober or not, is increased. Putting 1.2 million drivers on the road who ARE inebriated, so their reaction times are slower, they're not seeing straight, and probably swerving on the road, puts them at a substantially higher statistic to have an accident, that's common sense.

However, I guess I should've seen your selfishness coming.

@Shepppard, I'll explain this easily: if there's no victim, there's no crime. Out of the 1.2 million locked up, only 15,000 (11,000) of them created victims. That's a disparagingly low percentage.

Yes, I disagree with the punishment, but more importantly I'm disagreeing with the law. Read what I'm writing. It's not just the draconian punishment, but how stupid the law is. Yes, the punishment is draconian, and isn't that important to point out, as well? If jaywalkers were sentenced to death, would it be okay to point out how stupid that is as well as maybe how stupid jaywalking tickets are? I'm sure you're violating some logical fallacy I'm too lazy to look up at the moment.

"And, whereas locking up 1.2 million people may seem like it's ineffective, that's a helluva lot more people that could only ADD to the statistic of fatatalities."

How do you know that? There's no proof those 1.2 million would add to that statistic. Even if they doubled that statistic, I'd prefer the other 1,170,000 people who haven't created victims NOT be thrown in a cage and suffer stringent, life-altering penalties.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bike, messenger, courrier, business man, suit, crash, wrong way, crosswalk' to 'bike, messenger, courrier, business man, suit, crash, crosswalk, cyclist, jaywalking' - edited by Seric

>> ^ForgedReality:

THE ROAD IS FOR CARS...


And bikes, and motorcycles, and trucks, and a lot of other vehicles!

Fix'd.

There have been times where a friend of mine hit people that jumped out into the street, those people proceeded to get tickets for jaywalking and my friend would just get let go. True story.

Pedestrian crossings are for pedestrians and you have the right of way(unless otherwise specified by a traffic light), but everywhere else, you better watch out. What happened here can be misconstrued as malicious, but ultimately legal.

I think I just found the location for the First International Jaywalking competition.

It is true...I mean if you think about it when people say "you should never punch a female in the face" they are saying that there are times it's "OK" to punch a male in the face. I remember Damon Wayons (I think) had a bit about how men understand that their is a line you do not cross with another man and if you do cross that line you know that physical violence is possible and to expect it. Women on the other hand, because of the double standard we have of it being "OK" to punch males in certain situations and "NEVER" ok to punch a female lack this filter and cross the line as often as they please. Notice how the male in the video is trying to stop the females from crossing the line.>> ^gwiz665:

If people say "You don't hit women, because they're women" then guess what, those people are sexist.

Hey, fuck you and your offhand accusations of racism! You can tell the mob is hostile because of what they are shouting at the cop. It has nothing to do with race! If they were shouting "Calm down you stupid bitch!" or "Put the cuffs on her!" then I would not categorize them as hostile. But they were shouting to let her go, obviously on her side.

And peggedbea, while I would agree in any other circumstance, this is a police officer in the process of an arrest. He had to put one of them down hard and fast. Cops can't treat women differently than men, or women like this would get away with any shit they wanted to pull. It's bad enough when a girl cries and gets her way from her parents. That makes her spoiled. If she is able to pull the same thing with a cop, she'll turn into a hardened criminal. Which is what these two girls are already well on their way to becoming. I would have loved to see him deal with it in a different way, but mace or a tazer probably would have been worse. What would you suggest, harsh language?

>> ^tsquire1:

That 'angry mob' idea. I wonder if it was a group of white people asking the officer to stop, what you categorize them as an angry mob? These people, if angry, have a right to be angry: a cop is repressing two woman, one of which was hit in the face. There is no reason why humans can't resist when they feel it necessary to do so. Your claim of an 'angry mob' reveals alot of racism. Guarantee that if it were white folks, you would call them 'patriots' or 'concerned citizens'.

>> ^tsquire1:
I'm in favor of the second analysis. This is a pig, those are human beings resisting the state. Revolt is what makes us human


Have fun with ToKeyMonsTeR in Anarchy Land.

Not First Legal Run-In For Video Teens

Cop assault, robbery, auto theft on rap sheets of viral "victims"

JUNE 17--One of the teenage girls seen tussling with a Seattle cop on a recent viral video was arrested last year for assaulting a sheriff's deputy, records show. Marilyn Levias, 19, was busted last February after cops were called to a residential treatment center where the young woman had been abusive to staff (Levias was scheduled to be transported to a foster home). According to the below probable cause affidavit sworn by King County Sheriff's Office Detective Eleanor Broggi, Levias became "loud an uncooperative" and told two deputies to "Fuck Off." At one point, she allegedly pushed Deputy Amy Zarelli, causing her to fall, with Levias landing atop her. After Levias was handcuffed, she kicked Zarelli in the stomach and called her a "bitch." The charge against Levias, a first-time offender, was dismissed on "deferred disposition" after she completed the terms of community supervision. The other young woman seen in the recent video, Angel Rosenthal, 17, has been arrested twice in the past two years. She was busted in early-2008 for auto theft, as detailed in a probable cause affidavit sworn by a Kent Police Department officer. In an interview with police, Rosenthal admitted using a screw driver to "break the ignition and start" a Dodge Caravan. The juvenile case against Rosenthal was dismissed after Rosenthal received a "deferred disposition." She was arrested again last August for allegedly punching and robbing a 14-year-old boy, according to a Seattle Police Department probable cause affidavit. The robbery case was dismissed earlier this year. Levias and Rosenthal were arrested Monday afternoon after tangling with Officer Ian Walsh, who tried to cite Levias for jaywalking outside a Seattle high school. As seen in the video shot by an onlooker, Rosenthal was punched in the face by Walsh after she pushed the cop and tried to intervene in his arrest of Levias.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0617102punch1.html

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. First off, when I said I'd like to hear a realistic and better system proposed, I wasn't being snarky; I really would be interested in hearing ideas of that sort. Your implication that I think the system is perfect and cops should be free to do as they see fit is way out of line.

What I am saying is don't dig your hole deeper by assaulting the officer who is trying to arrest you (or someone else). You're not accomplishing anything. If you were innocent of the crime you were being arrested for, you've damaged your character and committed a crime that you're practically guaranteed to be convicted of. If you were guilty of the first crime, now you're guilty of two. These girls just went from paying a piddly fine to (probably) extended probation and maybe some jail time.

Being suspected of something doesn't make a bit of difference. I could say I suspect you're a meth-head based on your inability to communicate in complete sentences. Does it mean anything without substantiating evidence? No. Have your rights been violated? No.

The police are there to protect our collective interests. Perhaps certain individuals aren't but, collectively, that is the purpose for their existence. If you think the law should be changed then work to change it. Violent retaliation against the police only weakens your position, whether you're right or wrong.

Personally, I'd love to see all drugs legalized and I'd also love to see some reform in and around traffic tickets/court. These don't involve restructuring the system, however. Claiming that you are "guilty until proven innocent" in a system intended to be the exact opposite implies something along the lines of starting with a clean slate, IMO.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So because you personally can't think of sensible reforms to law-making and enforcement.. that makes it okay for anyone who's willing to complete police academy to misuse the law to arrest anyone for any reason and abuse/assault them as much as the feel the need to?
http://videosift.com/video/Dont-Talk-to-Cops @min 5:22
Being arrested means you're "suspected" of being guilty of violating a law.
Since the law is written so that any actions you take can be construed or later be found to be a violation of the law..
You are in effect. Guilty until the State can't or doesn't feel like prosecuting you.
Stop acting like police are there to protect your interest.
Police only exist to protect business and political interests of the power elite.
Arrest quotas & the "war on drugs" only exist as excuses to keep police in business.

Unless you are in the drivers seat of a motor vehicle, asking for ID without charging you for something is just an intimidation technique, and really isn't related to this discussion. If you have been pulled over, or if you have been caught doing something illegal, show ID. Anything else is a topic for another discussion.

And you are absolutely right about keeping silent *IF* you are accused of doing something bad enough to be taken to jail, say "I want a lawyer" until you get one, and nothing else.

But if we are talking about petty offenses, like jaywalking or something else that would just get you a citation, be polite, show ID, obey instructions. You are far more likely to get a warning that way, but even if you do get a citation at least you won't get taken to jail.

This is a great video series that talks about the kind of common sense I'm referring to: http://www.youtube.com/user/FlexYourRights


>> ^longde:

So what happens when the officer declines to tell you what you are being charged with? Do you refuse to give identification?
Also, you should always take advantage of your right to be silent.

Me too. But don't forget that the cops are not part of the elite class structure. They are pretty low on the totem pole and as such, if we focus on the police in issues like this, we make the divide and conquer strategy pay off even bigger for the upper class.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
I have a problem with bureaucracies, the power elite and apologists that justify that abuse of power.

Law enforce is part of that.

In reply to this comment by Ryjkyj:
Genji, it sounds to me like you just have a problem with all cops in general.