Lady allegedly went on a jog and ended up thrown in the back of a squad car

[BehindBlueI's]

Without being facetious in the least, what does a law against jaywalking do? People who wish to jaywalk will still do so, and if one happens to do so and become injured or dead, that law certainly didn't prevent or stop the death or injury.

What do laws do - pre-emptively - against actions? What do laws do to prevent a committed individual from carrying out any crime? What do laws do to actually stop any crime? All we can do is pass laws that deal with situations that have already occurred and to triage and deal with those situations from that point forward, after the crime has been committed. What good does legislation - any legislation at all - do except denounce certain activities and punish them ex-post-facto?

I would trade all the laws in the nation for the deterrents and personal responsibilities of common sense and self-defense.

Laws tell you what the consequences are if you choose to engage in a certain action or omission. No one believes it stops everyone from the act. Theft laws have never resulted in the elimination of thieves in the history of mankind, but most folks like a way to segregate them from society and punish them for their actions. We do that with laws. However its also disingenuous to pretend that laws have no deterrent effect, and that some people decide not to steal because they fear the legal repercussions should they be caught.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Laws tell you what the consequences are if you choose to engage in a certain action or omission. No one believes it stops everyone from the act. Theft laws have never resulted in the elimination of thieves in the history of mankind, but most folks like a way to segregate them from society and punish them for their actions. We do that with laws. However its also disingenuous to pretend that laws have no deterrent effect, and that some people decide not to steal because they fear the legal repercussions should they be caught.

Is there a deterrent effect? Would there be more thievery if laws prohibiting it were not on the books? If so, how much more? To what degree? It's difficult at best to say what the level of deterrence provided by any particular law truly is, because by definition, deterrence prevents a course of action, so would 100% of people steal if left to their own devices without punishment? Ninety? A plurality? Or would it still be the same small immoral minority who does as they please without regard to law or societal order or human decency?

I might agree that there is some deterrent effect to making a particular action or course of action punishable by law, but what is that effect? To what degree?

 

[LEaSH]

Today I walked across E Washington Street wearing headphones and didn't even use the crosswalk.

eff you society.

 

[mrjarrell]

You're probably a serial killer, too. If they had caught you all would have been revealed.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Today I walked across E Washington Street wearing headphones and didn't even use the crosswalk.

eff you society.

You're probably a serial killer, too. If they had caught you all would have been revealed.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Without being facetious in the least, what does a law against jaywalking do? People who wish to jaywalk will still do so, and if one happens to do so and become injured or dead, that law certainly didn't prevent or stop the death or injury.

What do laws do - pre-emptively - against actions? What do laws do to prevent a committed individual from carrying out any crime? What do laws do to actually stop any crime? All we can do is pass laws that deal with situations that have already occurred and to triage and deal with those situations from that point forward, after the crime has been committed. What good does legislation - any legislation at all - do except denounce certain activities and punish them ex-post-facto?

I would trade all the laws in the nation for the deterrents and personal responsibilities of common sense and self-defense.

It assigns liability should there be an accident.

 

[KG1]

It assigns liability should there be an accident.

Kinda like? "You were jaywalking and got hit. It's your fault"

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Laws tell you what the consequences are if you choose to engage in a certain action or omission. No one believes it stops everyone from the act. Theft laws have never resulted in the elimination of thieves in the history of mankind, but most folks like a way to segregate them from society and punish them for their actions. We do that with laws. However its also disingenuous to pretend that laws have no deterrent effect, and that some people decide not to steal because they fear the legal repercussions should they be caught.

I always think about something John Madden said about coaching. He said that most coaches have far too many rules and the players had to ultimately figure out which rules were the most important. Madden said he asked two things of his players - Be on time, and play like hell, and on those two things he was uncompromising.

Jay walking is just one of those laws that seem "Mayberry-ish" to most people, and to many police officers too I would guess. Sure, the law has a good intention behind it, but if it was really important, why is it almost NEVER enforced? I have always believed that if a law is worth having, it should be worth enforcing, because failing to enforce a law (any law) sends the message that it really isn't that important a thing, then when someone is gang-tackled, cuffed, and arrested for violating the law, it's always gonna invite the question: What's different about THIS jay walker THIS time? Because people automatically suppose that there had to be something other than doing that thing that they see being done all the time, every day with a much different result.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kinda like? "You were jaywalking and got hit. It's your fault"

Yeah.... vs "pedestrians always have the right of way, and there's no law that says I can't cross the street when the light in red. You hit me in a crosswalk, now you owe me lots of money"

What's a driver's defense?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Is there a deterrent effect? Would there be more thievery if laws prohibiting it were not on the books? If so, how much more? To what degree? It's difficult at best to say what the level of deterrence provided by any particular law truly is, because by definition, deterrence prevents a course of action, so would 100% of people steal if left to their own devices without punishment? Ninety? A plurality? Or would it still be the same small immoral minority who does as they please without regard to law or societal order or human decency?

I might agree that there is some deterrent effect to making a particular action or course of action punishable by law, but what is that effect? To what degree?

It varies. How does society view the law? The outlawing of blue jeans tomorrow would be viewed as arbitrary and against the culture, while the outlawing of synthetic marijuana was viewed as addressing a public health issue, and the results of both will be different. What's the overall culture as far as respect for authority? A law passed in Japan vs a law passed in Afghanistan won't have the same result, nor will it have the same result in different parts of our own cultures in the US. What do people believe the odds of being caught are? Would your driving be different if you believe there was a 100% chance you'd be caught speeding vs the reality of going years without getting detected and stopped? What is the perceived risk vs reward? If I really need some hydrocodone and figure that I wont' be caught, and even if I am I'll probably just get probation, that's different than if I believe I'll get life in prison (and, again, what do I believe the chances of being caught are). If you really want answers to your questions, pick up some textbooks or academic journals and start looking at the studies and results of research.

Jay walking is just one of those laws that seem "Mayberry-ish" to most people, and to many police officers too I would guess. Sure, the law has a good intention behind it, but if it was really important, why is it almost NEVER enforced? I have always believed that if a law is worth having, it should be worth enforcing, because failing to enforce a law (any law) sends the message that it really isn't that important a thing, then when someone is gang-tackled, cuffed, and arrested for violating the law, it's always gonna invite the question: What's different about THIS jay walker THIS time? Because people automatically suppose that there had to be something other than doing that thing that they see being done all the time, every day with a much different result.

I agree to some extent on the "petty" laws. If they eliminated the jaywalking statute tomorrow it would have zero effect on anything I do. If you obstruct traffic, there's still a code for that. Rules of right-of-way could be codified for assigning fault without having any civil infraction attached to it. I'll also point out that we've went from grabbed to gang tackled, and I'm not sure how we got there, but we'll ignore that for now. In this instance the person was not arrested for jaywalking any more than Timothy McVeigh was executed for having no license plate. The reason for the initial stop was not the cause of the end result. Folks here have been quick to say how the police could have handled it better, but a few people have also pointed out that she could have as well. Instead of screaming and arguing, she could have given her ID and then fought the ticket or paid the fine and went on with her life. I used to write about 30-50 tickets a month and did that for years, so I've probably written a couple thousand traffic tickets. I have had exactly one person refuse to ID for no other reason than the traffic ticket (as opposed to lying about who they are because of a warrant or something) and that person when to jail for it. Had that motorist given an ID, the result would have been a ticket like thousands of others, and that's it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Yeah.... vs "pedestrians always have the right of way, and there's no law that says I can't cross the street when the light in red. You hit me in a crosswalk, now you owe me lots of money"

What's a driver's defense?

In Jordan there are still people who make their living "getting hit" by passing cars. They'll smack your mirror as you drive by and then claim you hit them if you don't pay baksheesh (tip/bribe) to not call the police.

 

[squirrelhntr]

That's what you got out of what he posted?

Ya. wud I miss?

 

[HeadlessRoland]

It varies. How does society view the law? The outlawing of blue jeans tomorrow would be viewed as arbitrary and against the culture, while the outlawing of synthetic marijuana was viewed as addressing a public health issue, and the results of both will be different. What's the overall culture as far as respect for authority? A law passed in Japan vs a law passed in Afghanistan won't have the same result, nor will it have the same result in different parts of our own cultures in the US. What do people believe the odds of being caught are? Would your driving be different if you believe there was a 100% chance you'd be caught speeding vs the reality of going years without getting detected and stopped? What is the perceived risk vs reward? If I really need some hydrocodone and figure that I wont' be caught, and even if I am I'll probably just get probation, that's different than if I believe I'll get life in prison (and, again, what do I believe the chances of being caught are). If you really want answers to your questions, pick up some textbooks or academic journals and start looking at the studies and results of research.



I agree to some extent on the "petty" laws. If they eliminated the jaywalking statute tomorrow it would have zero effect on anything I do. If you obstruct traffic, there's still a code for that. Rules of right-of-way could be codified for assigning fault without having any civil infraction attached to it. I'll also point out that we've went from grabbed to gang tackled, and I'm not sure how we got there, but we'll ignore that for now. In this instance the person was not arrested for jaywalking any more than Timothy McVeigh was executed for having no license plate. The reason for the initial stop was not the cause of the end result. Folks here have been quick to say how the police could have handled it better, but a few people have also pointed out that she could have as well. Instead of screaming and arguing, she could have given her ID and then fought the ticket or paid the fine and went on with her life. I used to write about 30-50 tickets a month and did that for years, so I've probably written a couple thousand traffic tickets. I have had exactly one person refuse to ID for no other reason than the traffic ticket (as opposed to lying about who they are because of a warrant or something) and that person when to jail for it. Had that motorist given an ID, the result would have been a ticket like thousands of others, and that's it.

Now we're getting down to the nitty-gritty, the true essence of law and the effects of law. Excellent questions you pose.

 

[rambone]

When I left to go into Investigations, that same area was ran by three officers and no late tac. If you get a domestic at a residence and a shoplifter at Wal-mart at the same time, that's all 3 out of service, and that's not exactly uncommon. If you get an armed barricaded suspect, that's all three and probably an officer from a neighboring beat out of service at least until SWAT can respond and start taking over. Now response times for any new crime are going to be longer, resulting in fewer apprehensions.

I think this is another great reason not to touch the "petty" crimes. When something real goes down it leaves officers tied up with nonsense. It would be unfortunate if backup couldn't arrive quick enough because the other cops were transporting some guy to jail for growing illegal plants. Or because some girl wouldn't give a cop her name and number while crossing the street.

Pursuing these sorts of crimes is a misallocation of limited resources and puts officers at risk.

 

[reeseg45]

For Jay walking? And on top of this she did right by pulling away and the super cop is just being a super cop

 

[mrjarrell]

 

[jamil]

Looks like the cops that busted her could use some time jogging, too. Maybe they need to lay off the Oreos. Too bad she didn't take off running, those two would have likely stroked out giving chase. Here's hoping that Karma catches up to those fatasses one of these days.

[/QUOTE]

I'm getting to this thread pretty late. But maybe putting stricter weight limits on cops would greatly impact the number of these instances. Seems like the JBTs mostly come in size XXL.