Because jaywalking is very frequently used by police to target communities of color. As an example, 90% of the jaywalking citations given in NYC in 2019 were issued to people of color.
"You were Jaywalking, so I'm going to check you for Weapons / Weed / etc. etc."
----------
I think there should be some provision for Police to officially detain someone if they think there's an issue (but can't quite find a legal reason of doing so...). But at the same time, "abusing" the Jaywalking laws to do so is certainly the wrong way of doing it.
I recognize that racial profiling happens, even in urban centers where Police are given plenty of anti-racism training. I don't know what to do about that however, aside from making people at least aware of the issue.
Police need some leeway to do their job correctly. But whenever its because "I smell weed" or "You were Jaywalking", that just makes people angry and is counterproductive.
> I think there should be some provision for Police to officially detain someone if they think there's an issue (but can't quite find a legal reason of doing so...). But at the same time, "abusing" the Jaywalking laws to do so is certainly the wrong way of doing it.
why exactly? it's hard for me to imagine a situation where a cop reasonably needs to detain someone but can't come up with even one possible charge.
not quite sure if you're being sarcastic, as this is a fairly controversial topic. just for the record, my personal position is that the police should not be stopping or detaining anyone without at least reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or about to be committed. "effective at scaring people off from doing X" is not a sufficient justification.
I'm not being sarcastic. I understand that in the abstract, people talk about all sorts of situations that may or may not be grounded in reality. Which is why I point out real life situations and real life case.
I don't think I've ever met someone who has campaigned against random DUI checkpoints. You're not allowed to leave until you've completed the DUI-test at the checkpoint. There was no evidence for a crime. So under most definitions of "detained" or "detention", it seems to fit the bill.
I've heard that DUI measures can be too strict or that gaining a criminal record from DUIs is too harsh, but never really heard complaints about police enforcement of this particular issue. (DUI leading to jailtime is more of a judge / jury issue than a police officer issue anyway).
>As an example, 90% of the jaywalking citations given in NYC in 2019 were issued to people of color.
Do you have a citation for that?
Apparently, another poster did[0] have a citation.
In a three month period 80 people were cited for "illegal crossing" in a city of 8.5 million. I can tell you that at least half of those 8.5 million folks jaywalked in that same period.
I've lived in NYC since 1966 and I've never seen anyone receive a citation for jaywalking.
What's more, "jaywalking" in NYC is generally referred to as "crossing the street."
In the busiest of intersections, it's often useful to wait for the light, but that's no guarantee that the operators of vehicles will yield -- even if the signal is against them.
As such, I generally don't even look at the traffic signals; I watch the traffic coming my way and only cross if it's safe to do so, regardless of the status of the signal.
In fact, crossing at a marked intersection with the signal is no guarantee of not getting struck by an automobile. I'm at least as vigilant when crossing in a crosswalk with the light as when I cross against the light or in the middle of the street.
Is it possible that "people of color" account for 90% of the total people who jaywalked in NYC in 2019? Unless all data and all variables in the argument are made available for inspection, it is difficult to derive any meaningful conclusions.
> Is it possible that "people of color" account for 90% of the total people who jaywalked in NYC in 2019?
No.
I cannot say this in strong enough terms: every single person in NYC jaywalks.
Jaywalk ticketing is part of a longstanding policy of the NYPD, which is to use any occasion that presents itself to frisk people they deem "suspicious." The NYPD's definition of "suspicious," in turn, looks a lot like a colorwheel.
There's different levels of jaywalking.
There's walking across the streets when there's no car and everyone is doing it. And then there's the crazies who walk across open traffic on a green light where there are cars speeding along causing accidents. A large percent of the homeless and drug addicts in cities are minorities.
> A large percent of the homeless and drug addicts in cities are minorities.
I'm sorry, but what exactly are we supposed to derive from this claim? That unprompted police frisking under the pretense of jaywalking is acceptable so long as the jaywalker is a member of a vulnerable class?
