Posted on 11/14/2019 8:12:05 AM PST by ObozoMustGo2012
How far would you be willing to go to reduce litter on public transportation? In the state of California, law enforcement is willing to handcuff a man for the crime of eating a sandwich.
According to KGO-TV in the Bay Area, 31-year-old Steve Foster was handcuffed and detained Monday on an open-air platform at the Pleasant Hill station in Walnut Creek, California.
A cop putting a man in handcuffs for eating a sandwich would have been business as usual, sadly — except, in the cell phone age, the whole thing was recorded and ended up inflicting a massive black eye on the Bay Area Rapid Transit public transportation system, not to mention California’s profoundly excessive nanny state laws.
In the interaction with the police officer — identified only as D. McCormick — Foster expressed disbelief that he was targeted for enforcement.
“You singled me out, out of all these people,” Foster said to McCormick.
“You’re eating. It’s against the law,” the officer replied.
”So what?” Foster responded.
There’s something called “selective enforcement,” something which our law enforcement readers will no doubt be familiar with. California’s law — which punishes people for eating on train platforms with a $250 fine or 48 hours of community service, according to the Washington Examiner — is patently ridiculous.
It’s the kind of thing that’s best ignored, the sort of thing that’s not worth a police officer’s time. At worst, it’s the kind of thing that should merit a ticket, no matter how truculent the eater in question is being.
This is California, though, so this isn’t how this ended. McCormick held Foster while another officer put him in handcuffs, in spite of protestations from bystanders. One of them pointed out that there were no signs on the platform informing commuters that eating on the platform was illegal.
All of this may be true, but we all know California needs that sweet, sweet $250.
Here’s the interaction:
WARNING: The following video contains profanity and vulgar language that some readers may find offensive. Viewer discretion is advised.
“It’s a violation of California law. I have the right to detain you,” McCormick said, “You’re going to jail.”
“For eating a f—ing sandwich?” Foster replied.
Yes, for eating a sandwich. That’s where California is right now.
“It would have been simpler if he would have come up to me and said hey, you can’t eat on BART nor on the platform. I should have been informed because I didn’t know I couldn’t eat on the platform,” Foster told KGO.
A statement from BART, however, says the officer did warn him.
“When the officer walked by again and still saw him eating, he moved forward with the process of issuing him a citation,” the statement read.
Foster said that didn’t happen.
“He never walked past me, I was at the end of the platform so it was impossible for him to walk past me. He just came straight to me from the escalator like I watched him come up the escalator and make a bee line straight to me,” Foster said.
The video was taken by Foster’s girlfriend, Nicole Hernandez.
“When he was grabbing him, like four, I don’t know if it was four or six officers who came running up about a sandwich, I was nervous,” she told KGO. “When they turned him around and grabbed him and put him in handcuffs, I was nervous.”
Foster admitted that after the officer asked for his ID and grabbed his bag, he used homophobic slurs and cursed at the officer. That’s uncalled for. But then, so is the entirety of this interaction.
The incident has now spurred protests and complaints that people of color are being targeted by law enforcement — a reaction which is predictable, given that we’re dealing with California, but which completely misses the point.
This is a law that simply shouldn’t exist in its current form.
Then again, its not like there aren’t plenty of needless laws on the books in California.
BART spokeswoman Alicia Trost said Foster “was not arrested. He was cited for eating, which is a violation of state law.”
She added that he was also handcuffed after refusing to give his name several times. This is all meant to make things sound better — and yet, the law shouldn’t exist in its current format nor should Foster have had to give his name in the first place.
BART general manager Bob Powers apologized for the interaction and, again, managed to miss the point entirely.
“The officer was doing his job but context is key,” his statement read. “Enforcement of infractions such as eating and drinking inside our paid area should not be used to prevent us from delivering on our mission to provide safe, reliable, and clean transportation. We have to read each situation and allow people to get where they are going on time and safely.”
“I’m disappointed how the situation unfolded. I apologize to Mr. Foster, our riders, employees, and the public who have had an emotional reaction to the video.”
The problem isn’t the police officer or the context of the incident.
He was, and it pains me to say this, doing his job. Perhaps he should have exercised a bit of selective enforcement, but he was still simply enforcing a law that’s already on the books.
The problem is the law that led to the man being handcuffed.
If Foster was littering, fine. There was no evidence of this.
What there’s evidence of is a law that needn’t have been enforced and a mentality toward enforcement of minor crimes in California that needs to change — like so much else in the state.
All I have to say is, thank goodness this guy wasn’t using a plastic straw.
That might have required a SWAT team.
Was it a Chick-fil-A sandwich?
Selective enforcement renders a law invalid and not binding. At one time, the ACLU made people aware of that fact.
This is CA, where you can pee on the streets.
Perfect example of what statism gets you. Totalitarian fascism. They use their power to destroy your life. Encourages the folks to become bleating, submissive sheep, in fear of committing a “crime”.
What I think of government fascism would get me banned on this platform.
If you read the story, the cop was trying to write him a ticket but he wouldn’t cooperate. (at least that was in the story I read yesterday) It appears to me the cop is holding the bag to keep the guy from walking away as he clearly refusing to comply.
Which might partially explain why Kalifornistan has the totalitarian government that it does. I wonder what percentage of the riders voted for Gavin Noisome? Hillary? Pelosi? Feinstein?
[False. He was handcuffed for resisting arrest and failing to identify himself.]
The cop was ask why he was being detained, cop said because he’s eating. Didn’t quote a specific statute, etc.
Wasn’t until well into the interaction that there was a resistance of arrest.
In the story I read yesterday, which was a news story, the cop had previously walked past him and told him he could not eat there.
You’ve got some boot polish on your lip.
It is amusing how you’re so proud of this arrest because its a clearly posted law.
So is shooting up in a BART station.
Bottom line...when a cop stops you co-operate. Period.
but in San Fran, you can still poop and pee on the train platforms with impunity, right? I guess you could also do that IN the cars as long as they were under SF ...
He should have explained that since it’s perfectly OK for him to take a crap there, he was just engaging in the necessary precursor activity, and to arrest him for eating a sandwich is to deny him his right to later poop in public.
I watched the entire video.
The man:
-Didn’t say “sorry” and offer to put the sandwich away.
-argued with an officer who was just doing his job.
-refused to provide ID.
-didn’t cooperate at all.
-Seemed to want go to jail.
I hope it was a good sandwich worthy of going to jail for.
“For some reason, there’s a prohibition on eating or drinking on or near anything to do with public transit, in many transit systems around the globe. I don’t understand why this stricture exists.”
For what it’s worth (zero!), I like the rule. I used to commute into NYC and on the ride home, often somebody near me would be eating something smelly such as Indian food or something loud and crunchy like a loaf of bread. (Yes, they sell loaves of bread in Grand Central which some people eat on the train home. There is a brilliant eating habit.) Anyway, I would prefer a quiet, non-smelly ride home without crumbs on the seats and food liter on the floor. (Drinking is allowed, which I am all for!)
It was a stupid biased propaganda article designed to create outrage among the anti police types, among a great majority who commented on the article.
Eating in transit areas brings litter, garbage and rats. Duh. You have to be particularly stupid not to understand the reason for the law.
This clown was warned once and chose to disobey the law. Too bad.
The officer was actually trying to reason with the man.
Same place with a new communist terrorist Scion district attorney who won’t prosecute against openly sh*tting on the public streets
Hey stupid, what state are you licensed to practice law in? I didn’t think so.
Selective enforcement does not invalidate a law.
Bingo! When people ask if there might be non-human, completely-alien life forms anywhere in the universe, I tell them, "Sure - just go to California!"...
State of Californication. Shit on streets is okay! A possible food wrapper, though, gets you handcuffed and arrested a dnc paradise ! ( just open carry a drinking straw and they’ll crucify you right there in Union Square!? ).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.