Citizen wins 3-year battle on bogus jaywalking ticket,
July 20, 2001 6:37 AM   Subscribe

Citizen wins 3-year battle on bogus jaywalking ticket, but his lawyer pockets most of the $27,500 settlement. Ahh, well, at least he fought the good fight and won.
posted by fleener (10 comments total)
It would be more satisfying for me if the cops publicly apologized.
Never happen though, that's too much like what grown men would do.
posted by dong_resin at 7:34 AM on July 20, 2001

Getting the police department to admit that they improperly trained their officers is a pretty big accomplishment, too.
posted by waxpancake at 8:26 AM on July 20, 2001

That's a good story, and a damned fine one to read first thing in the morning. Thanks.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 9:10 AM on July 20, 2001

Too bad Judge Kent wasn't presiding- oh, imagine the fun if this case had taken place in good ol' Galveston, Texas!
posted by hincandenza at 9:55 AM on July 20, 2001

"This statute describes in which circumstances the motorist or pedestrian should receive right of way. It also tells you which side of the crosswalk you are expected to walk on."

As far as I can tell, jay walking is a bullsh*t 'crime' designed to incriminate those who would rather walk convenient routes between places rather than drive. I've never heard of anyone being fined or arrested in the UK for this offence. Getting a fine for crossing when it says Don't Walk? Puh-leese!
posted by wackybrit at 1:06 PM on July 20, 2001

I've been told that you're not a true Seattleite until you've received a ticket for jaywalking.
posted by kindall at 3:26 PM on July 20, 2001

The roads, after all, are for the cars.

Actually, the roads are for ALL means of conveyance. That would include bicycles, horse-drawn carriages, roller skaters, pogo-sticks, skipping enthusiasts, etc. Because your car may make these other activities unsafe to pursue on a public roadway does not mean that you and your car are the sole possessors of the road - although the vast majority of those who drive seem to believe this fallacy.
posted by BoyWithFez at 10:25 AM on July 21, 2001

"The roads, after all, are for the cars."

the world, however, is for people [AND all the other life that we have the priviledge of sharing our planet with].

why is it that people inside of a car can't seem to conceive of people outside of a car? as a person who has never owned a car (partly be choice, partly by prohibitive cost), i've heard one too many Person Who Always Drives, Even To The Corner Store A Block Away complain about how bikes and pedestrians and buses get in their way and clog up the world. the world does not exist soley for you, Drivers.
posted by raedyn at 9:50 PM on July 21, 2001

If the world does not exist for drivers, why did God pave it?
posted by kindall at 9:59 PM on July 21, 2001

God had nothing to do with it, kindall, for if he had, it certainly would have been done by the first or second day. Hell, it takes these guys about 3 months to finish doing whatever they're doing to one single city block in San Francisco. (And exactly what is it that they're always doing?)

Of course, that could be because God wasn't being paid by the city to do nothing more occasionally break up the monotony of sitting around on his ass (while taking up valuable parking space) by starting up a large piece of diesel machinery at 7am and ogle even less-than-attractive women before taking a 3-hour lunch break...
posted by fooljay at 11:37 PM on July 21, 2001

« Older Slumping Sales.   |   Germans to build Dracula theme park Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments