with a $114 dollar ticket for taking too long.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/8599286/detail.html

Aren't the cops supposed to help little old ladies cross the street? Not wait on the other side for them and then give them tickets?

It is California, that makes it somewhat less surprising to me... the Mecca for dumbasses and douchbags....

No, the Mecca for douchbags is New Yawk, get it right.

I still think California is one of those states that needs to sink into the ocean.

give it time

The cop's only purpose is to protect and serve the general public. They have no duty to protect and serve an individual person, not even if your house is being robbed.

If someone was driving a very underpowered car across an intersection and they didn't make it across before the light turned red, they would get a ticket too. The lady knows that the light always changes when she is only halfway through, yet she keeps doing it, which is unsafe. A ticket was in order to preserve the safety of the general public.

California doesn't need to fall into the ocean. The stupid people just need to move out and leave all that nice real estate to the rest of us.

I don't think she jeopardized "safety" did she? I mean, so what if cars had to wait a little longer because she was in the intersection, she didn't endanger them in any way shape or form, she wasn't TRYING to inconvinience anyone. I would like to see where that is written. I have to say that I am skepticle that that is the job description.

Naw, New Yorkers are OK, but I can't stand native Californians. Feel priviledged proportional to their cost of living.

She may have not totally jeopardized all safety, but being in the middle of the street during a green light isn't very safe. Imagine that there are no cars waiting at the intersection. She pushes the cross button and the light turns red, so she crosses. The light turns back to green while she is still out there. A car approaches the intersection, and seeing a green light, doesn't slow down. Not seeing the old lady, he smacks her dead right there. You could argue fault either way. It could be his fault because he wasn't looking where he was going. It could also be her fault because she was trying to cross a street while the light was green. I know that it was red when she started, but to the driver approaching the intersection, it wouldn't make any difference if she had pushed the cross button or not because it would have changed to green by the time he arrived at the intersection.



What is this in reference to?

wtf is wrong with californians? i was born there, the only areas that really suck are LA and Sacremento, everything else is laid back and full of winerys and hippies

Heh...the first time I looked at the title, I thought it said "Friendly pokemon helps a little old lady cross the street".

• DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
• Hernandez v. City of Goshen, U.S.C.A. 7th Cir. Mar. 31, 2003
• Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 709, 45 P.3d 1171 (2002)
• Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 510 A.2d 1078 (1986)
• Everton v. Willard, 468 So.2d 936 (Fla. 1985)
• Fox v. Custis, 712 F.2d 84 (4th Cir. 1983)
• Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981)

The Supreme Court (and other lower courts) has consistently and persistently ruled that the police have no duty to protect an individual, only society in general. Police have been exonerated for standing by or walking away while they knew rape and murder was happening right there where they could do something about it.

Most recently, Castle Rock vs. Gonzales: Woman with restraining order against husband tries to get police to protect her and her children, while her husband kills her children and then attacks that very police station.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?ei=5090&en=31f13e0f86d7d177&ex=1277611200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1144963983-LSAwbX1uRp5FRS19x/5fOw

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0628scotus-cia28.html


Other cases (by no means exhaustive) which have historically said the same thing:
US Supreme Court, South v. Maryland, 1856
7th Circuit US Court of Appeals, Bowers v. DeVito, 1982
New York Court of Appeals, Riss v. City of N.Y., 1968


Slightly off topic, but the New York Court of Appeals wrote "in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York, which now denies all responsibility to her." Your safety is in your own hands. The police can't protect you, and are not required to even if they could.

how many of you fucking people have even been to californina? damn cock suckers making shit up about shit you know nothing about. get a fucking life