Posted on 11/14/2019 8:12:05 AM PST by ObozoMustGo2012
If he had pissed or shat upon the platform he would have been ok...................
California doesn’t have bigger problems...
It would be okay if he shoplifted, or dropped a deuce on the sidewalk. Eating chicken, not okay!
False. He was handcuffed for resisting arrest and failing to identify himself.
I ride BART. 99.9% of the riders appreciate the cops enforcing the clearly posted law.
A few years ago, a teen girl was arrested for eating fries in the subway.
In CA, a very, very bad thing to eat a sandwich but it’s ok to take a dump on the sidewalk.
Ah, California.
You can take a bodacious Obama on the street, but you cannot eat a sandwich on already dirty public transportation.
Mexifornians, you are long overdue for an overthrow of your repressive government. We’ll look the other way if you resort to violence (which you will have to).
$1,000 fine for throwing a frisbee or football on any LA County beach outside of a specially-designated zone.
$1,000 fine for digging a hole IN THE SAND over 18 inches in depth on any LA County beach.
He was cited for eating, which is a violation of state law.”
= = =
That is why I do not eat in California.
Drink? Maybe.
Except that he wasn’t put in handcuffs for eating a sandwich, he was put in cuffs for thinking he did not have to obey the law, or the lawful direction of the officer while yelling at him. Had he simply put the sandwich away or stepped to a place he could lawfully eat it, this would have never occurred. You can say the law is silly, and maybe it is, but these laws are usually made at the complaints of people who are affected. If you don’t like the law, change it.
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. Why not prohibit eating or drinking on public streets as well?
It is harder to support a legislature that passes such a law. And requires income from police officers charged with enforcing such a law.
Interestingly, if he had finished the sandwich and “pooped” on the same platform he probably would have not been arrested. It’s California.
He’s lucky he wasn’t smoking. Probably would’ve been shot on sight.
Better that he shat on the street. No violation there!
So why was the cop trying to take his bag at the beginning? To search it? Because he had probably cause to suspect he was carrying dessert with him too? Perhaps a nice key lime pie? Or perhaps this ridiculous law gives cops pretext to selectively harass people based on nothing actually bad being done.
For those who think that the police wouldn't goose step into your house and confiscate your firearms over your dead body keep this example in mind.
Misleading headline. He wasn’t handcuffed for eating a sandwich. He was handcuffed for being belligerent and arguing with the officer. But yeah ... it’s a stupid law.
If you don't agree with the law, take it up with the lawmakers. But don't harass the cop on the beat that's just doing his job. This guy was a total jerk.
So, our side is using the misleading use of selective facts the way the left does? Notsogood.
[Except that he wasn’t put in handcuffs for eating a sandwich, he was put in cuffs for thinking he did not have to obey the law]
How did he know there was a law? As the woman filming said, there’s no sign on the platform indicating as such. Should he just be a good sheep and do what authority tells him to?
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.