Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

We Killed Your Daughter; You're Under Arrest

page: 11
82
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by HandyDandy
 


Yup thats the DMV definition of crosswalks.

The info I gave you is the California state law on j-walking and how it works. As I said before, they are separate issues.

What part of this -

21961. Local Authorities may establish more restrictive pedestrian laws - This chapter does not prevent local authorities from adopting ordinances prohibiting pedestrians from crossing roadways at other than crosswalks.


Again...for the slower ones among us. Notice it states "other than crosswalks"? And please show where in the law it states that an intersection is not considered a crosswalk. Since I have shown multiple sites that state it is. Even the jaywalking codes you yourself are linking to.


do you not understand or comprehend?


Right back at you. Show where it states in law that an intersection is NOT considered a crosswalk and I'll submit to your superior knowledge. Until then, .......


The info I gave also pointed out that political sub entities can create more strict laws concerning crossing the street and the manner its done in.


Are you stating the intersection in the report is one of these?


As I said, learn the law and how it works before spouting off. Its evident you are not understanding how this works, and to date Ive given you not only answer and explanations, but the places to look up the info and yet here we are.


Yeah, you gave me the same link I linked you to first. Very helpful.



Now your resorting to just posting definitions and nothing else.


So now definitions and meaning of the law has no relevance?


You can either accept the facts and laws as they are, or you can choose to continue being ignorant and in the dark on the topic. If its the latter, then please dont bother responding.


I respectfully say the same to you.

What part of an intersection being a crosswalk even when unmarked do you not understand?

Or are you just p[laying dumb so that you can put partial blame on the victims?




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Here is the latest news update -
Oildale crash

The one lawyer for one of the families is raising the crosswalk issue. The Highway patrol will complete their investigation in the next 30 -60 days and will submit the results to the PA's office for review and charges if applicable.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Here is the latest news update -
Oildale crash

The one lawyer for one of the families is raising the crosswalk issue. The Highway patrol will complete their investigation in the next 30 -60 days and will submit the results to the PA's office for review and charges if applicable.


I guess we'll see what happens and who is right. Until then I will respectfully agree to disagree.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Again...for the slower ones among us. Notice it states "other than crosswalks"? And please show where in the law it states that an intersection is not considered a crosswalk. Since I have shown multiple sites that state it is. Even the jaywalking codes you yourself are linking to.

I have and apparently you refuse to read it since it doesnt support your claim. Go back a few posts and read it.


Originally posted by HandyDandy
Right back at you. Show where it states in law that an intersection is NOT considered a crosswalk and I'll submit to your superior knowledge. Until then, .......

I did in my last few posts.. You are ignoring it or just not reading it because it doesnt support your argument.




Originally posted by HandyDandy
Are you stating the intersection in the report is one of these?

The initial news article states the locations of the nearest crosswalks, which was a few blocks down the road. I am also telling you that California law allows political sub entities to create more strict laws when it comes to crosswalks, again something you are ignoring. The status of crosswalk in that area resides with the municipality of oildale, where the accident occurred. If the city states its not a legal crossing point, then it impacts the investigation.


Originally posted by HandyDandy
Yeah, you gave me the same link I linked you to first. Very helpful.

Apparently not because I highlighted the portions you aren't comprehending. It states lawful crossing, and in this case the crossing was not lawful. Secondly, I followed up with the California State Law on J-walking, which established pedestrians must yield the right of way to vehicles. You are trying to use California DMV definitions in lieu of State law and it doesn't work that way. Hence the reason I posted and highlighted the state law that allows political sub entities the ability to create stricter laws.

Something you aren't comprehending or understanding.


Originally posted by HandyDandy
So now definitions and meaning of the law has no relevance?

The definitions are in place so there is no confusion as to what the laws are referring to. The DMV info you posted is giving the definition of pedestrian crossings and how they are treated.

The State Law I gave you establishes the criminal aspect and specifically explains how a person can cross the street and in what manner that is done. Also, the law I gave you allows municipalities to create more strict laws on crossing streets, something you are ignoring.

A DMV definition is not a law.


Originally posted by HandyDandy
I respectfully say the same to you.

Yet here you are, once again posting info with no relevance to whats going on.



Originally posted by HandyDandy
What part of an intersection being a crosswalk even when unmarked do you not understand?

What part of the law I gave you do you not understand where it states pedestrians DO NOT have the right of way? What part of DMV definition and actual state law do you not understand?



Originally posted by HandyDandy
Or are you just p[laying dumb so that you can put partial blame on the victims?

Not at all.. I am using the law to not only hold the deputy accountable, but to also hold the other players in this drama accountable as well.

Your hatred of the police has clouded your judgment, and all you see is evil police while ignoring any other law violation committed by people who aren't law enforcement.

Your bias is undermining your argument.
Your lack of understanding of law is undermining your argument.
Your lack of knowledge on Con law is undermining your argument.
Your lack of knowledge on case law is undermining your argument.
Your lack of knowledge on the concept of separate sovereigns is undermining your argument.

Is the officer at fault? Yes
Are the people who were killed at fault? Yes
Were the family members who were arrested at fault for their issue? - Yes

You want the cop held accountable, and we are in agreement on that. However, we differ on the 2 people who were killed. In that regard I view it through the law, where as you view it through blind hatred of the police.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Here is the latest news update -
Oildale crash

The one lawyer for one of the families is raising the crosswalk issue. The Highway patrol will complete their investigation in the next 30 -60 days and will submit the results to the PA's office for review and charges if applicable.


I guess we'll see what happens and who is right. Until then I will respectfully agree to disagree.


I agree

Thanks for the lively debate.





new topics

top topics
 
82
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join