Random Thought Thread

[Duckman]

I actually don't have access to RoC intentionally.  Sorry.  That discussion will have to be left as an exercise for the student.  😉

 

[dalmer]

paxmiles,

And to add to the confusion, local ordinances also can come into play.  Up here in the Bellingham area (WA state), a "vehicle" is different than a "motor vehicle" and we even have specific bicycle lanes.  And then there are pedestrian laws intermixed with the local ordinances!

The vast majority of our agency's view:  who has legal standing at the time of the collision?  If a pedestrian jumps in front of a vehicle so that the vehicle cannot stop, even though some claim "a pedestrian always has the right of way!," no they don't.  The pedestrian is at fault.  You're bicycling along and suddenly a shopping cart comes out?  Same thing.  A shopping cart is in the crosswalk and crossing legally and you go into them, you're at fault.

In keeping with some of the other poster's comments, just do your best to follow the rules and be safe and you're okay in most folks' eyes. 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, VonVilkee said:

Start a realm of chaos post? I'm intrigued...

I feel like we're on the topic of history. Though definitely a short leap away. 

 

3 hours ago, dalmer said:

paxmiles,

And to add to the confusion, local ordinances also can come into play.  Up here in the Bellingham area (WA state), a "vehicle" is different than a "motor vehicle" and we even have specific bicycle lanes.  And then there are pedestrian laws intermixed with the local ordinances!

The vast majority of our agency's view:  who has legal standing at the time of the collision?  If a pedestrian jumps in front of a vehicle so that the vehicle cannot stop, even though some claim "a pedestrian always has the right of way!," no they don't.  The pedestrian is at fault.  You're bicycling along and suddenly a shopping cart comes out?  Same thing.  A shopping cart is in the crosswalk and crossing legally and you go into them, you're at fault.

In keeping with some of the other poster's comments, just do your best to follow the rules and be safe and you're okay in most folks' eyes. 

 

Good job, get us back on topic. 

Regarding Oregon, the distinction is if they are predestrians then if they are "waiting to cross" at a marked crosswalk, I have to wait, even if they aren't in the intersection. 

Regarding right of way, when the pedestrians cross, have to leave a clear path in front of them until they have pass my "lane." Meanwhile, with the bicycle, it's very easy to avoid pedestrians while not waiting for them. It's not an issue of coliding(?spelling) with them, it's about giving them extra space to cross.  

If they aren't pedestrians it doesn't mean I can be wreckless. It just means I have the option to go past their front if I can do so in a safe (and otherwise legal) manner. Also suspends laws regarding how fast I can go while within a 5ft of them (though this rarely applies to bicycles due to our low top speed).  

[InfestedKerrigan]

I'm pretty sure Oregon doesn't have jaywalking laws, and that pedestrians always have right of way without regard to the existence of "white lines" permissing crossing.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, InfestedKerrigan said:

I'm pretty sure Oregon doesn't have jaywalking laws, and that pedestrians always have right of way without regard to the existence of "white lines" permissing crossing.

I've been pulled over for jay walking. Though I'm still not sure if I did it, or if the police officer was just making up an excuse to run my ID. Either way, I got a warning and that was the end of it. Washington County has a lot of really bored police officers....especially in beaverton.

Really late at night. Officer in their car had to "catch up with me" at my walking pace because the street was that empty and he wasn't anywhere near me when they allegedly saw me jaywalk. I didn't dispute it with him. I had just missed the last bus and was on a very long walk home, so it was just one of those things that tends to compound an existing bad situation. It wasn't raining, so it had to be something..

In hindsight, I'm pretty sure the issue was that I, at the time, was using a hiking backpack for my school books, and so the officer thought I was homeless (which is a bad thing to officers for unclear reasons, but they needed cause to run ID and they needed to run ID to verify I didn't live in beaverton). Anyway, they ran the ID, realized that I wasn't homeless and was, in fact, walking home, at that was the end of it, after briefly explaining I shouldn't jaywalk again.

Whole thing just left me thinking that police are really, really bored in beaverton. I mean, the street was entirely empty, so even if I were jaywalking, there was no safety concern. And if homeless, that's just stupid too, just bullies preying on the weak (police are the bullies when they go after the homeless).

[InfestedKerrigan]

I was pulled over last night under the guise of my rear license plate light being out. I had DL and Insurance out when he got to the window. He thanked me, ran my DL through dispatch while he let me know my light was out. I expressed my thanks for letting me know, as the van was purchased maybe 12 days ago and we thought we'd checked all the lights. Admittedly, I did the check, and I did not check the plate lights. Anywho, he never asked where I was coming from or heading to. He said get the light taken care of and bid me a goodnight. 

It was just after 2am, I imagine he was hoping to get a DUII, not a contractor heading home.

[Duckman]

6 hours ago, InfestedKerrigan said:

It was just after 2am, I imagine he was hoping to get a DUII, not a contractor heading home.

Perhaps I am naive (and I'd love @Raindog to weigh in on that) but I suspect he was pulling you over because your license plate light was out and hoping not to get shot by the guy he pulled over.  Cops have a job and demonizing them for doing their job or even thinking worse about them for it is one of the reasons there is a battle being waged in our streets.

I would never want to be a cop.  Talk about conflicting instructions....  Maintain control of the situation for your own safety. Don't infringe on their rights or hurt them. Keep them from shooting you. Practice hard control of potentially hostile civilians for your own protection. Draw but don't shoot unless you are absolutely certain that your life is in danger.

I'm sorry...  We train cops to protect themselves and protect the public and then we judge them based on their ability to be psychic about what a person intends or is carrying.  Ain't no way for them to get a fair shake for just trying to do what they are trained to do.  (And yes, there are people who are out there abusing their badges but it's no easier to spot them than it is to spot the guys carrying the concealed gun when you make a traffic stop.)

[WestRider]

Something uniquely stupid could be referred to as "idiotsyncratic".

[Guest]

@DuckmanDidn't mean to push this thread into one about Police-hate. Someone was mentioning they didn't jaywalking was against the law in oregon, so I was just pointing out that it's been enforced on me in Oregon. That was my point. 

On the new topic of police hate, I have found that most of my understanding regarding police is related to how they are portrayed on television. I don't think I've seen any TV shows in quite a where police are portrayed as good guys (like the police as a whole, not just some). I think it's hard to relate to real police when they don't really have any positive PR on TV.

My in-person encounters are very minimal and greatly vary based on the county or city that I encounter police in.

-Not had any personal issues with Portland Police. I will note that portland police often seem stretched thin, as if they don't have the numbers to police the entire portland area. On the other hand, when you do see them, you often see lots. The few times I've talked to them, they were polite and well organized.

-My thing above was in beaverton, which I heard many similar stories about the police being more "active" than in other areas. I did get a chance to ask some beaverton police about it, they said it's intentional. They call it "proactive" policing, which the theory (as I understood their explaination) is that if they enforce petty stuff, people remember that the laws get enforced there and don't try bigger crimes. Apparently Beaverton is a pretty safe place to live, at least from a crime standpoint.

-Washington County sheriffs. Only positive encounters so far. Authoritative, but polite. They seem to know the laws pretty well. 

-Hillsboro police. I live in hillsboro now. I don't think there are that many police in hillsboro. I live a few blocks from a precint and I rarely encounter them aside from at the grocery store. I had a fun encounter a while back where police officer was slowly driving towards me, so I asked if he coming to me. Apparently, he's required to drive and type on the computer to report violations of the no texting while driving. Yeah, he noticed in the irony there, but it's the rules. So he wasn't coming to me, he was just slowly driving while typing in a parking lot...

-Transit Police (sort of a coalition of police from various groups that ride tri-met and enforce the rules there): Consistently a-holes. I'm unclear if being a transit police officer is a punishment duty for police with bad attitudes, or if being with the public as a transit police officer transforms them into a-hole police, but they are very consistently lacking basic customer service skills and are intimidating (in a counter-productive way).

 -And a special note regarding Pioneer Place Mall cops (security guards): Bigoted. Not sure why. I've heard quite a few bad stories from non-white males regarding their security guards, and so I started to look for it. Yeah, they kick out hispanics and indians for innoxious reasons. It's a thing, though I can't figure out what the mall stands to gain by kicking out locals and tourists whom aren't white (that mall has barely any people in it at all...). I had a female friend that kept getting harrassed at the pioneer place mall max stop, by an on-duty mall security guard of all things. Just strange behaviour.  

[WestRider]

9 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

On the new topic of police hate, I have found that most of my understanding regarding police is related to how they are portrayed on television. I don't think I've seen any TV shows in quite a where police are portrayed as good guys (like the police as a whole, not just some). I think it's hard to relate to real police when they don't really have any positive PR on TV.

Brooklyn 99 and Elementary are both pretty good in that regard. I mean, obviously in Elementary, Holmes is constantly upstaging them, but those are always clearly made out as being extraordinarily difficult cases, and the general conduct of the police is presented well.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, WestRider said:

Brooklyn 99 and Elementary are both pretty good in that regard. I mean, obviously in Elementary, Holmes is constantly upstaging them, but those are always clearly made out as being extraordinarily difficult cases, and the general conduct of the police is presented well.

I'll look into Brooklyn 99, thanks.

I didn't really enjoy Elementary. It's just too similar to that other show (Sherlock) which is hundreds of times better and was released about the same time. Kinda ruined it for me.

[WestRider]

56 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

I'll look into Brooklyn 99, thanks.

I didn't really enjoy Elementary. It's just too similar to that other show (Sherlock) which is hundreds of times better and was released about the same time. Kinda ruined it for me.

A matter of taste, I guess. I find Elementary to be by far the superior of the two series.

[dalmer]

Watch "The Wire" and/or "Southland."  Some pretty good points of view in those series.

 

[generalripphook]

I really hope that reference librarians have good social lives and dont constantly have to say "ah man, you didn't get that one?" 

[Duckman]

12 hours ago, paxmiles said:

On the new topic of police hate, I have found that most of my understanding regarding police is related to how they are portrayed on television. I don't think I've seen any TV shows in quite a where police are portrayed as good guys (like the police as a whole, not just some). I think it's hard to relate to real police when they don't really have any positive PR on TV.

My in-person encounters are very minimal and greatly vary based on the county or city that I encounter police in.

You have in-person encounters with them a lot and you don't think about it.  We have Raindog and others right here.  It's easy to go into a grocery or fast-food joint and strike up a conversation with an officer and odds are if you are at all out-going you've talked casually with one or more officers without knowing it.  I live out in the country so when I move (not very often) I make a point of finding a local officer and striking up a conversation with them about how enforcement works locally, what numbers I should call, who (as in which department) is going to respond, etc.  Never had a bad experience with that and in one case actually wound up talking to my next door neighbor's nephew.

You can also figure out a whole lot by comparing Raindog's blog to what you see on TV.  Raindog talks consistently about how he evaluates a situation and handles people he runs into while working and then compare that to what you see on TV about police training and police complaints.  It's not hard to identify the double-standard that is being applied by society (often through the media).

I would not look to recreational TV as indicative of anything because reality always takes a backseat to TV writing to one degree or another.  Talk to officers and look at the news.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Duckman said:

You have in-person encounters with them a lot and you don't think about it.  We have Raindog and others right here.  It's easy to go into a grocery or fast-food joint and strike up a conversation with an officer and odds are if you are at all out-going you've talked casually with one or more officers without knowing it.  I live out in the country so when I move (not very often) I make a point of finding a local officer and striking up a conversation with them about how enforcement works locally, what numbers I should call, who (as in which department) is going to respond, etc.  Never had a bad experience with that and in one case actually wound up talking to my next door neighbor's nephew.

You can also figure out a whole lot by comparing Raindog's blog to what you see on TV.  Raindog talks consistently about how he evaluates a situation and handles people he runs into while working and then compare that to what you see on TV about police training and police complaints.  It's not hard to identify the double-standard that is being applied by society (often through the media).

I would not look to recreational TV as indicative of anything because reality always takes a backseat to TV writing to one degree or another.  Talk to officers and look at the news.

I've encountered Raindog 1 time in uniform and that was at WOW. Off-duty police are just people in my book, not police. And I like Raindog, but he's not a police officer when I normally encounter him. And in fairness, I really shouldn't encounter police provided I'm adhering to law, so it's catch 22 issue on that front.

Regarding TV, it's abscence of actual information that makes mythology (or TV) into a regarded-as-credible-source. I've never seen a Hydra, probably never existed, but the myth says it's got multiple heads, so my mental image of a hydra has multiple heads. Police end up villains because on TV they are villains, and I don't otherwise encounter police. Yeah, even knowing that TV is fictional, the absence of actual information lends credibility to fictional explanations. 

Anywho, sure has been a long random thought. Mind if we drop this sub-topic?

[Yarbicus]

6 hours ago, generalripphook said:

I really hope that reference librarians have good social lives and dont constantly have to say "ah man, you didn't get that one?" 

Welcome to my world.

[Munkie]

On 9/25/2018 at 7:28 AM, Duckman said:

You can also figure out a whole lot by comparing Raindog's blog to what you see on TV.  Raindog talks consistently about how he evaluates a situation and handles people he runs into while working and then compare that to what you see on TV about police training and police complaints.  It's not hard to identify the double-standard that is being applied by society (often through the media).

I don't know that any of that indicates a double standard so much as examples of bad police work gain much more attention than examples of good police work. 

I think the source of a lot of the frustration is the handling of bad police work. Police don't want their reputation smeared and will circle the wagons and defend bad cops and bad police work. The supreme court has already set a precedent of almost  no accountability in excessive force instances and police know it, and are trained on what to say and do just in case they kill an innocent on the job. 

99% of the time police are doing a very difficult job exceptionally well. The issue is the 1% of the time they don't, and there are very rarely proportional consequences for it. The response to the community is not "we'll get better" it's "we're doing fine and your concerns aren't real." Police union PR is pretty oblivious, it seems to me.

[Duckman]

1 hour ago, Munkie said:

The supreme court has already set a precedent of almost  no accountability in excessive force instances and police know it, and are trained on what to say and do just in case they kill an innocent on the job. 

99% of the time police are doing a very difficult job exceptionally well. The issue is the 1% of the time they don't, and there are very rarely proportional consequences for it. The response to the community is not "we'll get better" it's "we're doing fine and your concerns aren't real." Police union PR is pretty oblivious, it seems to me.

Ask Raindog about that.  I think you'll be surprised by his answer.  Also, remember that a Grand Jury is civilians, not a court.  If a Grand Jury comes back with a decision not to indict an officer that is far different from a court giving an officer a pass.

I'm not saying that there are not bad cops.  Don't get me wrong.  What I am saying is that if an officer follows his training, training which has been reviewed and approved by civilians in almost all cases, then you are welcome to take issue with the training but it is absurd to blame the police as a whole for their methods or blame a specific officer for following his training.  (The double standard I was referring to above.)

[Munkie]

12 minutes ago, Duckman said:

Also, remember that a Grand Jury is civilians, not a court.  If a Grand Jury comes back with a decision not to indict an officer that is far different from a court giving an officer a pass.

I'm not talking about a grand jury. I'm talking about the Supreme Court.

It was ruled that if a "reasonable man" has, at any point, regardless of any circumstance or context that lead to that moment, has cause for concern for their well-being or that of others, then the excessive force is justifiable.

So when cops shoot a child with a toy gun in a park, they can justify it by saying they had no time to react. Does it matter that they drove off the street, onto the grass, and so close to the kid that they didn't give themselves time to react? No. Literally the ONLY thing that can be considered by the jury is the brief moment after the cops already [big bad swear word]ed up, when they saw the kid holding something and move.

Bad cops aren't getting away with things because the juries get it wrong, they're ruling exactly how they are allowed to rule. The can't consider context. They can't consider what lead up to the incident and they can't consider what what we know with the benefit of hindsight. The supreme court handed police a giant umbrella that looks to the general public like a license to kill. It's not, but the difference is fairly academic.

 

[InfestedKerrigan]

We're in RoCland, folks.

[Ish]

39 minutes ago, Munkie said:

It was ruled that if a "reasonable man" has, at any point, regardless of any circumstance or context that lead to that moment, has cause for concern for their well-being or that of others, then the excessive force is justifiable.

Emphasis added.

This is flat-out wrong. 

Use of excessive force is  a violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment constitutional rights. A person who believes they had their rights violated may bring claim against the officer, his department, and possibly the municipality or state he works for under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

When such a claim is made, courts and juries must look at whether a reasonable law enforcement officer in similar circumstances would have used the amount of force in question. If the ruling is that the amount of force used was justified, then by definition, it is not excessive force.

[InfestedKerrigan]

1 minute ago, InfestedKerrigan said:

We're in RoCland, folks.

Emphasis added.

[Munkie]

1 hour ago, Ish said:

Emphasis added.

This is flat-out wrong. 

...If the ruling is that the amount of force used was justified, then by definition, it is not excessive force.

Fair, you have me on the semantics.

My point was that it is nearly impossible to prove that force used is ever excessive, given the parameters juries are allowed to use.

But as pointed out, we're well into RoC territory so I'll say no more on the subject.

 

[Ish]

Changing topics: Is it just me or are laundromat dryers really, really, really inefficient? I swear, it takes me three times as long (and thus many more quarters) to get a load dry in a laundromat than it does at home.

No, I have no empirical evidence of this and have not bothered to actually research it. I’m stuck at the laundromat and feel the need to vent.