Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath

[RavenSky]

Well that is quite the circular reasoning...

The cop confronted him because Brown must have inconvenienced a car as proved by the fact the cop confronted him

The cop was in a car. That means there was a car there and people walking down the middle of the road certainly inconvenience a car.

Again, very circular reasoning.

Moreover, if the cop car was the ONLY car anywhere on the road, which seems to be your claim, there is no possible way two men walking on the road "inconvenienced" that vehicle.

 

[Davka]

Well that is quite the circular reasoning...

The cop confronted him because Brown must have inconvenienced a car as proved by the fact the cop confronted him

The cop was in a car. That means there was a car there and people walking down the middle of the road certainly inconvenience a car.

The cop that harrassed me on Thanksgiving was in a car, too. He was in the only car on the road. He was a block or more away when I jaywalked, and pulled up next to me afterwards, while i was walking down the sidewalk. And he would have ticketed me if I'd had any I.D. on me.

He wasn't inconvenienced, he was bored on a slow day and trolling for easy marks.

Your logic is illogical.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

If the cop was in a car and was inconvenienced y the jaywalkers, then they jaywalkers inconvenienced a car. While there are any number of problems with loren's logic, that seems pretty straightforward.

 

[Jarhyn]

If the cop was in a car and was inconvenienced y the jaywalkers, then they jaywalkers inconvenienced a car. While there are any number of problems with loren's logic, that seems pretty straightforward.

yes, how dare he inconvenience someone using a road, someone whose only reason for using the road was so that they could be inconvenienced by doing it. It's like suing someone for putting a clearly bear trap out, because you stepped in it for the sake of being able to sue them. How dare they give a cop the opportunity to inconvenience themselves on purpose!

 

[Testy Calibrate]

If the cop was in a car and was inconvenienced y the jaywalkers, then they jaywalkers inconvenienced a car. While there are any number of problems with loren's logic, that seems pretty straightforward.

yes, how dare he inconvenience someone using a road, someone whose only reason for using the road was so that they could be inconvenienced by doing it. It's like suing someone for putting a clearly bear trap out, because you stepped in it for the sake of being able to sue them. How dare they give a cop the opportunity to inconvenience themselves on purpose!

Yes. That is also true. However, it doesn't really matter why the cop was on the road since roads are to drive on, not to drive for specific purposes on. I think you might be overthinking this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The cop was in a car. That means there was a car there and people walking down the middle of the road certainly inconvenience a car.

Ah, the logic of eight-year-olds.

Bill: Ted punched me in the face!
Ted: I did not! I just punched the air and his face got in the way! He should keep his stupid face out of the way of my fist!

Are you saying a cop car is not a car?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The cop was in a car. That means there was a car there and people walking down the middle of the road certainly inconvenience a car.

Again, very circular reasoning.

Moreover, if the cop car was the ONLY car anywhere on the road, which seems to be your claim, there is no possible way two men walking on the road "inconvenienced" that vehicle.

I have no idea if there were other cars about--that's completely irrelevant to my argument. I'm just noting that the cop car is a car and thus we have a car that was inconvenienced by the jaywalking. (Even if they aren't actually in the lane the car is using you can't trust that they'll stay where they are--thus a driver is going to have to either have a lot of space or will have to slow while passing them.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the cop was in a car and was inconvenienced y the jaywalkers, then they jaywalkers inconvenienced a car. While there are any number of problems with loren's logic, that seems pretty straightforward.

yes, how dare he inconvenience someone using a road, someone whose only reason for using the road was so that they could be inconvenienced by doing it. It's like suing someone for putting a clearly bear trap out, because you stepped in it for the sake of being able to sue them. How dare they give a cop the opportunity to inconvenience themselves on purpose!

Roads are for cars, not pedestrians. We have the law against jaywalking specifically because it's a problem. I've been in a lot of third world countries and I've been in China almost every year this century--I've seen a *LOT* of jaywalking. It really snarls up traffic.

As the actual problem involves interactions I feel that it's a harmless offense (and thus shouldn't be an offense) if the pedestrian is sure there are no cars about.

 

[Rhea]

yes, how dare he inconvenience someone using a road, someone whose only reason for using the road was so that they could be inconvenienced by doing it. It's like suing someone for putting a clearly bear trap out, because you stepped in it for the sake of being able to sue them. How dare they give a cop the opportunity to inconvenience themselves on purpose!

Yes. That is also true. However, it doesn't really matter why the cop was on the road since roads are to drive on, not to drive for specific purposes on. I think you might be overthinking this.

Yet even if one stipulates that the jaywalker "inconvenienced a car" one still has to ask why that warranted the repsonse that it got. The cop backing up to right next to the jaywalker in, from the cop's testimony, something of a huff, such that he opens his door and hits the jaywalker with it (if I recall the cop's testimony correctly) inciting the violent "get off my back!" response from the jaywalker that escalated into the cop making one bad choice after another.

Because you can't just holler out at the jaywalker to get off the road and keep driving or anything. You gotta show them who is boss over something like jaywalking.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Yes well, that is definitely the broader issue.

 

[bilby]

There is no such offence as 'jaywalking' in the United Kingdom.

Pedestrians are banned from motorways, and some places such as road tunnels and underpasses; but on ordinary roads, pedestrians have the right to cross where and when they choose.

Oddly, this has not resulted in carmageddon. The ability of motorists to get around, and the ability of pedestrians to survive crossing the road, do not appear to be adversely affected by the failure of British authorities to make walking on the carriageway an offence in its own right.

It is almost as if the offence of 'jaywalking' was stupid and pointless, and exists only to provide an excuse for law enforcement where no other excuse is readily available, but the cops would like to hassle someone anyway.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

That does seem to be the case.

 

[RavenSky]

Again, very circular reasoning.

Moreover, if the cop car was the ONLY car anywhere on the road, which seems to be your claim, there is no possible way two men walking on the road "inconvenienced" that vehicle.

I have no idea if there were other cars about--that's completely irrelevant to my argument. I'm just noting that the cop car is a car and thus we have a car that was inconvenienced by the jaywalking.

no "thus"... You have zero evidence that the cop car was "inconvenienced" in any way.

 

[George S]

There is no such offence as 'jaywalking' in the United Kingdom.

Pedestrians are banned from motorways, and some places such as road tunnels and underpasses; but on ordinary roads, pedestrians have the right to cross where and when they choose.

Oddly, this has not resulted in carmageddon. The ability of motorists to get around, and the ability of pedestrians to survive crossing the road, do not appear to be adversely affected by the failure of British authorities to make walking on the carriageway an offence in its own right.

It is almost as if the offence of 'jaywalking' was stupid and pointless, and exists only to provide an excuse for law enforcement where no other excuse is readily available, but the cops would like to hassle someone anyway.

That does seem to be the case.

And there are thousands of such silly laws. My friend was targeted by the local police.
The reason for the harassment? He hired a lawyer for his son instead of letting him (a 6 yr old) be interviewed by the police. This convinced the police that he was guilty since only guilty people ask for a lawyer.

When the police want to investigate you any excuse will do.

 

[laughing dog]

The cop was in a car. That means there was a car there and people walking down the middle of the road certainly inconvenience a car.

The cop that harrassed me on Thanksgiving was in a car, too. He was in the only car on the road. He was a block or more away when I jaywalked, and pulled up next to me afterwards, while i was walking down the sidewalk. And he would have ticketed me if I'd had any I.D. on me.

He wasn't inconvenienced, he was bored on a slow day and trolling for easy marks.

Your logic is illogical.

At least he hasn't introduced "purple drank" into the discussion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is no such offence as 'jaywalking' in the United Kingdom.

Pedestrians are banned from motorways, and some places such as road tunnels and underpasses; but on ordinary roads, pedestrians have the right to cross where and when they choose.

Oddly, this has not resulted in carmageddon. The ability of motorists to get around, and the ability of pedestrians to survive crossing the road, do not appear to be adversely affected by the failure of British authorities to make walking on the carriageway an offence in its own right.

It is almost as if the offence of 'jaywalking' was stupid and pointless, and exists only to provide an excuse for law enforcement where no other excuse is readily available, but the cops would like to hassle someone anyway.

I've been in many places with rampant jaywalking. It is a considerable disruption to the traffic flow unless the pedestrians are careful to stay out of the way of the cars. If they stay out of the way it's harmless. Walking down the middle of the street is not staying out of the way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have no idea if there were other cars about--that's completely irrelevant to my argument. I'm just noting that the cop car is a car and thus we have a car that was inconvenienced by the jaywalking.

no "thus"... You have zero evidence that the cop car was "inconvenienced" in any way.

It's pretty hard for someone walking down the middle of the road not to inconvenience a car. A driver can't trust that the pedestrian will stay out of the traffic lane and thus must be prepared for them to move into their lane. (Note that this is a different case from someone standing in the median looking for a safe time to cross. A driver can reasonably conclude that such a person isn't going to simply step into traffic.)

 

[laughing dog]

Cars have no feelings and cannot be inconvenienced. On the otherhand, people can be inconvenienced. However, claiming that a driver is necessarily inconvenienced by someone's presence in the middle of road is ridiculous - any inconvenience would be the result of a multitude of factors. A non-exclusive list would include the number and width of the lanes, time of day, weather conditions, traffic density, speed of traffic, the mental and physical condition of the driver etc.....

 

[Derec]

Pedestrians are banned from motorways, and some places such as road tunnels and underpasses; but on ordinary roads, pedestrians have the right to cross where and when they choose.

Do they also have the right to walk down the middle of the road?

 

[Derec]

You made an appeal to law.

And you made a comparison between a liberal democracy like US and an Islamic theocracy like Iran. Perhaps we need a 21st century counterpart to the Godwin's Law.

Either the law IS justification or the law ISN'T sufficient t justification.

A police officer is justified in stopping somebody if he observes them violating a law. There is no requirement the violation be a serious one. It doesn't require Jarhyn agreeing with said law. Thus a police officer witnessing somebody breaking the law and stopping that person is neither bullying nor harassment. I do not know how that can be controversial.

You don't get to have it both ways. It is either a or !a. You just proved my point that it is !a. you have agreed that the law is not on its own a justification. it doesn't in Iran, it doesn't here, it doesn't justify bullying and abuse anywhere.

How is police stopping somebody because they saw them breaking the law "bullying" or "abuse"? And does that only apply to pedestrians? Or is police similarly "harassing", "bullying" or "abusing" motorists if they stop them for minor moving offenses?
There are plenty of laws that I do not like and that I would like to see repealed. However, I do not claim police enforcing those laws are engaging in "bullying", "harassment" or "abuse".

You are what is 'nerds' generally refer to as lawful evil: gaming the law to get whatever you want. Newsflash: it's still fucking evil.

I am not gaming anything. I am merely pointing out that police are justified in stopping somebody whom they witnessed breaking a law. At most that would be "lawful neutral" although I never claimed that a law is necessarily good just because it is a law, so even that is stretching it.

A jury acquitted you? You're innocent.

]
Not necessarily.

The cop gave you a ticket and you have no means to adequately contest it? You're guilty!

Legally, yes. Factually, not necessarily. In this case, there is no dispute that Johnson and Brown violated the law which is adequate reason for Wilson to have stopped them.

Someone you don't like has a nicer yard than you? Call the city and get them cited for an overgrown lawn when they're on vacation! It's LEGAL after all.

How much nicer can the yard be if it is overgrown enough to violate a city ordnance. That said, I do not particularly care about lawn height. That said, authorities enforcing local ordinances are not "bullying", "harassing" or "abusing" anyone by issuing citations to violators. If you don't like it you can lobby to change it or research local ordinances before moving there.