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.
You get it.
Most FReepers just post knee-jerk responses about how its OK to poop in the streets but not eat a sandwich.
Or worse, lots of Freepers here just post the usual “cops are scum” responses.
The guy clearly wanted to stage an incident. He wanted to go to jail. He created a problem and showed this world his asshat.
Did it shine a light on a stupid law? Yes. Were mistakes made by the cops also? Yes again.
But the main point of this cunning little stunt was clear. Sandwich guy is an idiot.
I saw the video. He wasn’t handcuffed for eating.
He refused to put the food away as if the law doesn’t apply to him.
Just another entitled Democrat Socialist who thinks rules apply to others, not him.
There’s no smoking on the platform or train either. What if he was smoking and refused to stop?
Don’t blame the police, blame the legislators. They create the laws that the police are required to enforce.
A lot of cities have zero-tolerance rules on public transport, Atlanta, for one. I always marvel how nicely kept Atlanta’s public transportation is. Of course, in Atlanta, you can’t evacuate yourself in public, because those people there actually have some sense.
“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.”
To lawyers, this is an absolutely logical line of defense.
[ Bottom line...when a cop stops you co-operate. Period. ]
Remember this when they come for your guns...
That’s what I was thinking. Defecating probably would not have gotten him in trouble - as long as he looked homeless, or Muslim, Hispanic, LGBQTXYZ... Good thing California has this whole rampant sandwich thing under control. Diety-knows that’s far more important than solving those other petty issues like homelessness, drug use, water shortages, power outages, illegal immigration, wildfires... Yes sir, California “leadership” sure has their eye on the ball, taking care of what is really important... (does that even need a sarcasm tag?)
True but these retards here vote for that shit then get indignant when it hits them in the face. Sandwich boy should think about how he votes.
Maybe their thinking is that if they stop the eating the "bodacious Obama's" will stop too...?
“Stories like this make it tough to support police....”
You might be aiming this in the wrong direction. The cops are not to blame for the enforcement of a law they were a small piece of in it’s creation. Blame the California voters for putting people in place that do things like this.
But to compound the problem, is the pandering of laws and a point of inconsistent enforcement:
According to BART’s general manger, “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.”
In other words, we looked bad when it was enforced, a law we knew was on the books, so we want to “just get along” and only enforce it when we don’t want to harm are bottom line. If it’s a law, follow it or get it off the books. You can’t go half way and expect it to work at either half.
rwood
Because they are not following one set of laws now it seem like some Freepers want them to disregard more laws.
This cop was doing his job. Instead of pissing on him, we should be encouraging other cops and their boses to do their jobs for public good.
Could be hangover from 911 fearing toxin WMD in sandwich spread via dropped
residue and tracked everywhere by other passengers’ feet. Lucky he wasn’t
shot the way cops are antsy. He’s lucky they didn’t plant anything illegal in his
bag. Being a minority is in his favor as some favored entity will come to his
defense. If he was white, he would be expendable. He probably voted for the
Communists who enabled this stupid law to exist. Elections have consequences
and his votes came back to haunt him.
[People are pigs. Their eating generates lots of garbage and that leads to RATS - the four legged kind - and that leads to infestation and disease. ]
That’s a stretch from eating a sandwhich....
The rule is no eating in the stations and on the trains.
The REASON this rule exists is because people treat the stations and trains like a garbage can.
There are people who bring bags of Burger King, Subway, and single slice pizza boxes, eat the food on the train, and when they get to their stop, they drop the trash on the seats and floor and walk of the train.
The people supporting this guy are the same people, who if they rode these trains, would be screaming how the stations and trains are full of trash (and rats).
This guy isn't a 'hero fighting an unjust law'. He's a class-A pr*ck who was flouting the rules and goading the police; likely for a big payoff after the lawsuit.
I've read comments, 'he's just a guy eating on his way to work'. Try this, 'he a good boy. He ain't never done nothin' wrong.'
This creep was flouting the rules and goading the police and people here are taking his side because 'he was just some guy eating on his way to work.'
The rule, 'no eating in the station and on the trains', is there for a reason. Creeps like this use the stations and trains as trash cans, dropping their bags, boxes, and used napkins in the stations and on the trains, walking away, and expecting someone else to clean-up their mess.
The people supporting this guy have no idea of the low-lifes that abuse the system because they believe they can without consequences.
The same people supporting this creep are the same people who won't ride mass transit because of the trash, the rats, and the bums.
He was doing his job. So was Ivan the Terrible at Treblinka. The good news is that applications for official waivers are not available for chewing gum on BART.
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.