Cracking down on Crime in the District... - Page 2

sabotai · 07-29-2004, 03:07 PM

My opinion is they were both in the wrong.

1) The officer overreacted. Simple as that. If the law is there to cut down on litter, and she threw the wrapper in the trash and had the last bite in her mouth as she entered...let it go. Nobody gets pulled over for doing 31 MPH on a 30 MPH limit road.

2) When told to stop, the woman should have. An officer tells you to produce ID, you do it. End of story. She should have been pushed against the wall, handcuffed and humiliated in front of everyone for not stopping and producing ID when told to. (Not because she was eating)

3) 10 hours? And a court date? She did not need to be arrested, she did not need to be put in jail and she does not need to go to court...for a $10 fine. Does that even cover the gas for the cop cruiser that took her from the Metro to the jail? How much money was spent processing her? How much money will be spent in paper work leading up to the court? How much money will be spent on the trial and after the trial?

For a $10 fine? No wonder government on every level is hemorrhaging money.

Bee · 07-29-2004, 03:09 PM

Well, I'm headed to the Metro in a little bit so I better go the bathroom in case I'm arrested.

L8rs

Franklinnoble · 07-29-2004, 03:09 PM

Hey, ten bucks is cheap for a night of prison sex...

rkmsuf · 07-29-2004, 03:10 PM

being felt up by a female officer...priceless.

RPI-Fan · 07-30-2004, 01:51 PM

The idea that the cop is wrong because she's not handling "real crime" is ridiculous.

The cop is told to monitor the subway, and I'm guessing particularly enforce the no-eating rule (by doing as she did... telling people who have to stuff to finish it before getting on).

The lady kind of did this in a slightly wiseass manner, disrespecting the cop. The cop doesn't appreciate it, and decides to write a ticket. Was that completely and absolutely necessary? No - but given that the lady was kind of a jerk, it's not indefensible.

Everything after that is CLEARLY the defendant's fault. Making wiseass comments to a cop who you've already pissed off is just freaking stupid.

Ksyrup · 07-30-2004, 02:05 PM

To me, this whole situation is akin to a baseball ump instigating an argument with a player. Player voices a challenge to a strike call, but doesn't outwardly show the ump up, and then the ump unnecessarily takes it a step further by arguing back and engaging the player when the issue could have been let go. Once that happens, the player blows up, gets ejected, and throws bats and gatorade onto the field.

The ump is wrong for forcing the situation to get out of hand; the player is wrong for his actions once he's ejected.

They both should be fined.

JeeberD · 07-30-2004, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subby

If you used FireFox 0.92 with the BugMeNot extension, you would never have to register with another on-line newspaper...

Viva la FoxFire!!!

Awesome! Thanks, Subby!

WSUCougar · 07-30-2004, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

To me, this whole situation is akin to a baseball ump instigating an argument with a player. Player voices a challenge to a strike call, but doesn't outwardly show the ump up, and then the ump unnecessarily takes it a step further by arguing back and engaging the player when the issue could have been let go. Once that happens, the player blows up, gets ejected, and throws bats and gatorade onto the field.

The ump is wrong for forcing the situation to get out of hand; the player is wrong for his actions once he's ejected.

They both should be fined.

Good call. I concur.

mgadfly · 07-30-2004, 03:00 PM

When a law enforcement officer tells you to stop, you should probably stop. However, in this case (say if it came before the Judge I work for), the police officer didn't have any probable cause that a law was being violated to begin with (the woman had complied and there is no law against being a smart ass).

The cop was clearly wrong in asking her to stop to give her the citation, and everything after that point, regardless of how cooperative the woman was, is moot. If it comes before our court in context of the ticket (which it wouldn't since I'm in Federal District) you give the state counsel a major tongue lashing and hope that it gets back to the officer (which it would).

If it is a civil case you find as a matter of law that the police officer had no right to stop the woman (she completely lacked probable cause for a Terry stop-or a stop for a citation) award her summary judgment and listen to argument about damages.

Celeval · 07-30-2004, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgadfly

When a law enforcement officer tells you to stop, you should probably stop. However, in this case (say if it came before the Judge I work for), the police officer didn't have any probable cause that a law was being violated to begin with (the woman had complied and there is no law against being a smart ass).

The cop was clearly wrong in asking her to stop to give her the citation...

I still disagree.

The woman was asked to finish before entering the station. She entered the station with the bar, finished putting it in her mouth when going through the pay gates, and was still chewing (and mouthing off to the cop) while riding up the next escalator. Does she deserve a citation? Probably not, but was the cop in the right to give her one? Yep - just as you can get a speeding ticket for going 60 in a 55, and get hit with a late fee at Blockbuster for bringing it back at 2pm. If she didn't want a citation, she should have finished eating before she entered the station. Anything other than that was taking a chance. Talking back to the police officer pretty much guarenteed that she wasn't going to get the benefit of kindness.

mgadfly · 07-31-2004, 02:23 AM

When does "eating" stop and "digestion" begin?

I'm not sure the government has a right to be stopping otherwise orderly people, forcing open their mouths, and giving them citations based upon what they find there. (At least when the public interest, as it is in this case, is so minimal.)

The purpose of the law is to prevent people from making a mess of the subway. The woman didn't violate the purpose of the law (in fact the officer saw her put the garbage in the can and the food in her mouth as she entered, thus complying with the request and living in accordance with the purpose of the rule). Additionally, the garbage can she put her wrapper in is there for just the purpose the woman used it for (at least that is the way I used it--and everyone else I observed--when I worked in DC... last bite of food into the mouth, garbage into the can, scan my metro pass, and through the turnstile I go).

The smartass attitude of the woman might be a factor when considering damages, but just as citizens have to live within the rules, so must the police (at least here in our country). The police officer was way out of line and used her power to get back at the woman for the attitude, rather than any real infraction. (I'm actually kind of glad the woman got roughed up and tossed in the tank for a few hours, but at the same time the police officer's actions were ultimately illegal and she should pay the consequences of those actions. Next time someone is a smartass maybe she'll just be a smartass back and be on her way rather than abusing her position.)

clintl · 07-31-2004, 10:18 AM

The cop was wrong throughout the whole incident after the woman threw the wrapper away. What the woman was stupid, but some judge needs to seriously crack down on the cops' enforcement methods there. Nobody should have to put up with being harassed by cops AFTER they have complied with the law.

07-29-2004, 03:10 PM	#54
rkmsuf Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2001	being felt up by a female officer...priceless. __________________ "Don't you have homes?" -- Judge Smales

07-30-2004, 01:51 PM	#55
RPI-Fan Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Troy, NY	The idea that the cop is wrong because she's not handling "real crime" is ridiculous. The cop is told to monitor the subway, and I'm guessing particularly enforce the no-eating rule (by doing as she did... telling people who have to stuff to finish it before getting on). The lady kind of did this in a slightly wiseass manner, disrespecting the cop. The cop doesn't appreciate it, and decides to write a ticket. Was that completely and absolutely necessary? No - but given that the lady was kind of a jerk, it's not indefensible. Everything after that is CLEARLY the defendant's fault. Making wiseass comments to a cop who you've already pissed off is just freaking stupid. __________________ Quis custodiets ipsos custodes?

07-30-2004, 02:05 PM	#56
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	To me, this whole situation is akin to a baseball ump instigating an argument with a player. Player voices a challenge to a strike call, but doesn't outwardly show the ump up, and then the ump unnecessarily takes it a step further by arguing back and engaging the player when the issue could have been let go. Once that happens, the player blows up, gets ejected, and throws bats and gatorade onto the field. The ump is wrong for forcing the situation to get out of hand; the player is wrong for his actions once he's ejected. They both should be fined. __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

07-30-2004, 03:00 PM	#59
mgadfly High School Varsity Join Date: Dec 2003	When a law enforcement officer tells you to stop, you should probably stop. However, in this case (say if it came before the Judge I work for), the police officer didn't have any probable cause that a law was being violated to begin with (the woman had complied and there is no law against being a smart ass). The cop was clearly wrong in asking her to stop to give her the citation, and everything after that point, regardless of how cooperative the woman was, is moot. If it comes before our court in context of the ticket (which it wouldn't since I'm in Federal District) you give the state counsel a major tongue lashing and hope that it gets back to the officer (which it would). If it is a civil case you find as a matter of law that the police officer had no right to stop the woman (she completely lacked probable cause for a Terry stop-or a stop for a citation) award her summary judgment and listen to argument about damages. Last edited by mgadfly : 07-30-2004 at 03:04 PM.

07-29-2004, 03:09 PM	#52
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Well, I'm headed to the Metro in a little bit so I better go the bathroom in case I'm arrested. L8rs

07-29-2004, 03:09 PM	#53
Franklinnoble Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Placerville, CA	Hey, ten bucks is cheap for a night of prison sex...

07-31-2004, 02:23 AM	#61
mgadfly High School Varsity Join Date: Dec 2003	When does "eating" stop and "digestion" begin? I'm not sure the government has a right to be stopping otherwise orderly people, forcing open their mouths, and giving them citations based upon what they find there. (At least when the public interest, as it is in this case, is so minimal.) The purpose of the law is to prevent people from making a mess of the subway. The woman didn't violate the purpose of the law (in fact the officer saw her put the garbage in the can and the food in her mouth as she entered, thus complying with the request and living in accordance with the purpose of the rule). Additionally, the garbage can she put her wrapper in is there for just the purpose the woman used it for (at least that is the way I used it--and everyone else I observed--when I worked in DC... last bite of food into the mouth, garbage into the can, scan my metro pass, and through the turnstile I go). The smartass attitude of the woman might be a factor when considering damages, but just as citizens have to live within the rules, so must the police (at least here in our country). The police officer was way out of line and used her power to get back at the woman for the attitude, rather than any real infraction. (I'm actually kind of glad the woman got roughed up and tossed in the tank for a few hours, but at the same time the police officer's actions were ultimately illegal and she should pay the consequences of those actions. Next time someone is a smartass maybe she'll just be a smartass back and be on her way rather than abusing her position.)

07-31-2004, 10:18 AM	#62
clintl College Starter Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Davis, CA	The cop was wrong throughout the whole incident after the woman threw the wrapper away. What the woman was stupid, but some judge needs to seriously crack down on the cops' enforcement methods there. Nobody should have to put up with being harassed by cops AFTER they have complied with the law.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)