DC Police - gotta love 'em

[guiseppewv]

From the netscape.com main page:



Police Ticket Jaywalker With Fatal Injuries

Charles Atherton, 73, a prominent citizen of Washington, D.C. who formerly worked as the secretary of the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts that advises the government on architecture and design in official Washington, was hit by a car last week as he walked across busy Connecticut Avenue in the nation's capital. Even though he was in critical condition and unresponsive at the scene, D.C. police issued him a $5 jaywalking ticket, reports The Associated Press.

On Saturday night, Atherton died from his injuries. His family found the jaywalking ticket tucked into this belongings at the hospital. He was found to be at fault for the accident since he was jaywalking.

Facing a public relations crisis, Police Capt. Willie Smith told The Washington Post, "We knew it was a serious injury, but we didn't know it was life-threatening." He acknowledged that had the police known Atherton would die, they would not have issued the ticket.

Gotta love the DC Po-po :rolleyes:

[nickel]

:2far:

[chadlnc]

Not every day you can say something like this, but "the same thing happened to me". Minus the dying part, I think. When I was 13 I got hit by a car and was taken to the hospital. Later I found out that I was cited for jaywalking. The charge was later dropped because it was invalid. Jaywalking here is only an offense in the downtown district which I was not in.

[Grimm]

Easiest time to kick a man is when he is down... :(

[molecularfire]

I really don't see what is wrong with what happened. I mean it would be different if they delayed treatment of him or if it contributed to his death in any way but the fact is that he did break the law and their job is to enforce the law. I don't see why he should be given a break because something bad happened secondary to his breaking the law.

[bachviet]

I wonder if the police is going to collect the money.

[guiseppewv]

I really don't see what is wrong with what happened. I mean it would be different if they delayed treatment of him or if it contributed to his death in any way but the fact is that he did break the law and their job is to enforce the law. I don't see why he should be given a break because something bad happened secondary to his breaking the law.


It is really hard to perform basic first aid, while you are waiting on EMS, if you are busy writing a ticket. That is my problem with it. If someone is bleeding all over the street your primary concern should be to provide first aid not write a ticket.

[jstreet]

All I could think of when I read this is the fact that DC police cruisers hit two students on my campus last year who were crossing the street. One was crossing at a crosswalk and the cop ran the stop sign without his lights on until the last second. Classy.

[Grimm]

I really don't see what is wrong with what happened. I mean it would be different if they delayed treatment of him or if it contributed to his death in any way but the fact is that he did break the law and their job is to enforce the law. I don't see why he should be given a break because something bad happened secondary to his breaking the law.
An officer that is concerned with an infraction of the law, the lowest form of crime (you probably inadvertantly commit several a day) while a human life is at rist is not performing his primary responsability. Protect and serve. He's not doing his job. Something is wrong. A person who gets hit should not be fined $5 for jaywalking. He got hit, that is punishment enough.
Tickets for jaywalking are inteneded to disuade people from the practice. If getting hospitalized isn't going to disuade someone a $5 ticket certainly won't.

[molecularfire]

Ok, let me clarify something... or maybe you guys can clarify it for me... did the police officer issue the ticket after the guy received first aid or did he see a guy dying on the ground and gave him a ticket before administering first aid. I agree with you guys... in that scenario first aid should be administered first before he even thinks about issuing the ticket... that said after the paramedics are on the scene and it is safe to do so (which I was assuming was the scenario here because they didn't mention it and I figure anyone doing something that stupid would get mentioned) I don't see the problem with issuing the ticket. As for the guy getting punished enough... yeah he did suffer for his stupidity... I don't see how that excuses the guy from getting the ticket. If we are going to make rules, we must be consistent in our enforcement of them otherwise we send mixed messages to people. I don't see why random, unpredictable outcomes should affect the way we look at someone's actions. It isn't like we can say that the guy had a good reason for jaywalking (which I could understand as being used as a reason to make an exception). The guy most likely knowingly broke the law and I don't see why we should not enforce the law on him that we do on others simply because he had a bad outcome secondary to his own impatience, greed, or thoughtlessness.

[Grimm]

The guy most likely knowingly broke the law and I don't see why we should not enforce the law on him that we do on others simply because he had a bad outcome secondary to his own impatience, greed, or thoughtlessness.
Because you don't kick a man when he is down. It's cruel. It shows that the police in DC are no longer human bengs. They have no heart or soul. Which is a bigger crime, moraly I mean, jaywalking or being cruel to people? Courtesy is something we should always demonstrate. When that "officer" failed to demonstrate courtesy by not letting an infraction slide when the man was seriously injured he showed he has no respect for society. Why is a man with no respect for society charged with protecting it?

[molecularfire]

It's not a matter of kicking a man when he's down, it's a matter of being consistent in your treatment of people. All you are saying really in that last post is a lot of judgements and insults for a person who as far as I could tell just did his job. I didn't read anything in the article that indicates to me that the police officer received any joy in giving the guy the ticket. Cruelty involves enjoyment out of a harmful act... I don't see anything that indicates that he received enjoyment or that his act is harmful. I don't see how that is cruel.
As for insulting them by saying that they aren't human beings... that they have no heart or soul, those aren't arguments, they're flat out just insults. As for which is morally worse being cruel or jaywalking, I don't even agree with you that what the guy did was cruel. You are just insulting the guy and using the insult to justify the fact that you insulted the guy to begin with.
As for the insult to society thing... huh? What the heck are you talking about. Because the guy didn't let a guy get away with breaking the law because his actions caused a bad outcome for himself shows that he has no respect for society and is therefore not fit to be a police officer? Where did you get that from? Should a guy who tries to carjack someone be let off because he got hurt during the carjacking? Should a guy who speeds be let off because he got into an accident? Where do we draw the line and other than you who gets to make that decision?

[Grimm]

It's not a matter of kicking a man when he's down, it's a matter of being consistent in your treatment of people.
Consistancy is situational. Should a cop give a jaywalking ticket to every person he sees? No, only to those who jaywalk. So some criteria is evidenced here.
Now, if you have inclusive criteria you can have exclusive criteria and still be consistant.
You just have to be consistnat with the exclusion. If someone gets hit, don't write them a ticket. It's simple.

And yes, the cop was being cruel. In my eyes he is not a human being. Human beings have compasion.

[ShawnLee]

I'm with MF. The cops gave the guy a ticket he otherwise deserved. Assuming that they didn't delay treatment for his injuries, this isn't THAT bad. It's a PR nightmare, but I think it's completely understandable and am fine with it.

[brainsmile]

Most cops won't ticket their coworkers or family members of other cops. How is that consistent?

[molecularfire]

Consistancy is situational. Should a cop give a jaywalking ticket to every person he sees? No, only to those who jaywalk. So some criteria is evidenced here.
Now, if you have inclusive criteria you can have exclusive criteria and still be consistant.
You just have to be consistnat with the exclusion. If someone gets hit, don't write them a ticket. It's simple.

And yes, the cop was being cruel. In my eyes he is not a human being. Human beings have compasion.
You're trying to say that because police officers use the actual breaking of the law as a criteria for punishing someone for breaking the law they have to not enforce it (despite there being nothing in the law about this) because in this case you feel bad for the guy? If you want to make a blanket exception that says if a guy who is stupid enough to jaywalk gets hit by a car he is exempt from a ticket then get it written up as a law. I don't believe in telling a guy to do something then insulting him for doing it.


Most cops won't ticket their coworkers or family members of other cops. How is that consistent?

It isn't. I will criticize police officers who make those exceptions. That is one of the reasons why I am against criticizing this guy... we need to give police officers a clear criteria of what their job entails. It makes sense to me that the criteria be the actual law. I think that if we have a law that says police officers should ticket jaywalkers that the police officer should ticket all jaywalkers not let some off because he is supposed to know better based on what Grimm believes.

One of the major flaws in the police system that we have currently is that it is very inconsistent on it's enforcement of the laws because we allow individual officers too much leeway on enforcement of those laws and as a result different officers will or will not punishment based on many different factors. One of the first rules of punishment is that it is to be swift, consistent, and directly related to the actual event otherwise the effectiveness of the punishment gets lost. People speed regularly because they see others who do it and don't get ticketed. We've let it go so far now that so many people speed that police officers don't have the manpower to ticket everyone who speeds now even if they wanted to and as a result over 30000 people die every year because of auto accidents. We don't see police officers as individual officers, we see them as a group and interpret their actions as a group... as a group they have to be consistent and I think that the law (that thing they're supposed to be enforcing) is not a bad guideline for them to follow.

[Grimm]

You're trying to say that because police officers use the actual breaking of the law as a criteria for punishing someone for breaking the law they have to not enforce it (despite there being nothing in the law about this) because in this case you feel bad for the guy? If you want to make a blanket exception that says if a guy who is stupid enough to jaywalk gets hit by a car he is exempt from a ticket then get it written up as a law. I don't believe in telling a guy to do something then insulting him for doing it.

It isn't. I will criticize police officers who make those exceptions. That is one of the reasons why I am against criticizing this guy... we need to give police officers a clear criteria of what their job entails. It makes sense to me that the criteria be the actual law. I think that if we have a law that says police officers should ticket jaywalkers that the police officer should ticket all jaywalkers not let some off because he is supposed to know better based on what Grimm believes.

One of the major flaws in the police system that we have currently is that it is very inconsistent on it's enforcement of the laws because we allow individual officers too much leeway on enforcement of those laws and as a result different officers will or will not punishment based on many different factors. One of the first rules of punishment is that it is to be swift, consistent, and directly related to the actual event otherwise the effectiveness of the punishment gets lost. People speed regularly because they see others who do it and don't get ticketed. We've let it go so far now that so many people speed that police officers don't have the manpower to ticket everyone who speeds now even if they wanted to and as a result over 30000 people die every year because of auto accidents. We don't see police officers as individual officers, we see them as a group and interpret their actions as a group... as a group they have to be consistent and I think that the law (that thing they're supposed to be enforcing) is not a bad guideline for them to follow.
A police officer is supposed to use his judgement on enforcing all laws. He isn't supposed to be a machine. You are confusing consistancy with mindless devotion.
Police officers do not administer punishment in our society. They merely identify those people that need to be punished and detain them.
A seriouly injured person does not need to be punished for an infraction of the law, it is not productive to society. The time the officer used to write that ticket was wasted. There were many other productive things the officer could have been doing to serve his community.

I know about being consistant. I worked as a prison guard for two years and was know for being consistant. It made my job very easy, because inmates kenw exactly what to expect around me. But when a situation occured that required me to break a minor rule in order to protect the security of the unit I did so without hesitation. My senior officers backed up my decision every time, because what I did was the right thing to do. It's because I was a professional and knew my job. I knew when to obey the letter and when to ignore the letter and obey the spirit.

Police work is similar in this respect. A good cop knows when to bend the rules. This was the time to do so. Anyone with a lick of common sense can see that. The cop was either a rookie or incompetant.

[dougadam]

That is sad

[molecularfire]

A police officer is supposed to use his judgement on enforcing all laws. He isn't supposed to be a machine. You are confusing consistancy with mindless devotion.
Police officers do not administer punishment in our society. They merely identify those people that need to be punished and detain them.
A seriouly injured person does not need to be punished for an infraction of the law, it is not productive to society. The time the officer used to write that ticket was wasted. There were many other productive things the officer could have been doing to serve his community.

I know about being consistant. I worked as a prison guard for two years and was know for being consistant. It made my job very easy, because inmates kenw exactly what to expect around me. But when a situation occured that required me to break a minor rule in order to protect the security of the unit I did so without hesitation. My senior officers backed up my decision every time, because what I did was the right thing to do. It's because I was a professional and knew my job. I knew when to obey the letter and when to ignore the letter and obey the spirit.

Police work is similar in this respect. A good cop knows when to bend the rules. This was the time to do so. Anyone with a lick of common sense can see that. The cop was either a rookie or incompetant.
This wasn't about using common sense to break a rule for the greater good. I fail to see how him refraining from giving the ticket does any good. Like I said, if the guy was jaywalking to try to help someone that would be different... however there wasn't anything in the article to indicate that. As for a good cop knowing when to bend the rules, that's just the problem... it's very subjective and last time I checked common sense isn't dictated by what your opinion is. That's the problem I've always had with people using the they should know better because it's just common sense argument... common sense isn't common. Different people have different beliefs and different priorities... common sense becomes at best a miserably defined variable. IMO, common sense tells me that you don't criticize a guy for doing his job because you feel bad for the other guy. That seems more like an emotional response than a common sense one.

[Grimm]

This wasn't about using common sense to break a rule for the greater good. I fail to see how him refraining from giving the ticket does any good. Like I said, if the guy was jaywalking to try to help someone that would be different... however there wasn't anything in the article to indicate that. As for a good cop knowing when to bend the rules, that's just the problem... it's very subjective and last time I checked common sense isn't dictated by what your opinion is. That's the problem I've always had with people using the they should know better because it's just common sense argument... common sense isn't common. Different people have different beliefs and different priorities... common sense becomes at best a miserably defined variable. IMO, common sense tells me that you don't criticize a guy for doing his job because you feel bad for the other guy. That seems more like an emotional response than a common sense one.
Greater good?
I'm talking about common decency.

Courtesy is the lubrication that keeps our society running smoothly. Police officers depend heavily on that common courtesy to do their job. When they don't display courtesy themselves they are reducing their abilty to do their job. As they do not display courtesy it makes people who see this less likely to continue to be courtious. The example they set is important.
Police are less effective in a hostile environment. When people avoid taking to police and don't vollunteer information it makes investigations harder.
Look at police in Japan. They are very professional and the people there respond immedately to any request for information. The police catch just about everyone over there. It is a very courtious society.
Here, a perpitrator gets out of the line of sight of a cop where the population is alienated by the police and he loses them. No one is gonna help the cop. And the criminal is free to strike again. Who's fault is it? The people who don't trust the police enough to talk to them? Or the police who alienated them in the first place?

MF, in your perfect world of automatons you are absolutely right. Give a ticket to they dying jaywalker. But in the real world it is a serious mistake.