all 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 33 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Thats like saying its fine to pit maneuver someone for driving with a cellphone in their hand. Its not safe for the citizen or an appropriate response. The state should not put you in a situation where you are likely to break a limb or suffer a brain injury for a minor infraction.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -40 points 5 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Not to mention that he yelled profanities at them 😱 C'mon, four policemen jumping all over him?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -18 points 5 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    However they see fit? Like, sexual assault? Shooting wildly into a crowded area? Taking a bribe to forget the whole thing? Grabbing an innocent bystander as a hostage? Nuclear weapons? Hunting down your kin and erasing all traces of your bloodline?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 15 points 5 months ago (-1 children)
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago*

    It's absolutely not though. Most places have clear rules on how cops can pursue, grounded in concern for public safety. And even if they don't there are standards for what level of force is reasonable for a given suspected crime. In this case it wasn't even a suspected crime, it was a suspected civil violation.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • 7 comments in c/toronto@lemmy.ca view that post
    [–] 6 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Ticket was justified, tackling wasn't.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    I would argue the ticket wasn't justified either. Many places have implemented the "Idaho stop" where cyclists can treat a stop sign like a yield which makes a lot of sense. In illinois, a law just went into effect that did that and let cyclists treat red lights like stop signs, and go the wrong way down a one way. I think the law isn't justified.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Not Ontario, it's the same as any other vehicle on the road.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    I understand that's the law. I just think it doesn't make sense. Like much of traffic infrastructure and rules, they are designed for the smooth flow and convenience of car traffic and don't consider safety or convenience of bike traffic at all. The reason the Idaho stop was first implemented was due to safety issues when a bike did follow stop sign rules.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    It's for pedestrian safety not car safety. A car hitting a bike doesn't destroy the car.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    A pedestrian and a bike don't require rules for flow control. Unlike cars and pedestrians, bikes and pedestrians are pretty compatible in the same spaces. It's trivial to roll through a stop sign and go around a pedestrian crossing the street.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    The most heinous crime of hurting the popo's feelings. Should have shot him. Duh.

  • source