Police, Occupy DC Protesters Differ on Collision

[RamboLiberal]

Source: AP

District of Columbia police and Occupy DC protesters are offering conflicting accounts about a weekend incident in which a motorist struck three protesters near a downtown demonstration.

-----

Assistant Police Chief Lamar Greene said at a Saturday evening press conference that police concluded from talking to two witnesses that the collision was unavoidable. But the three people involved in the crash gave a different story.

-----

Heidi Sippel of Vandalia, Ohio, said that she, her 13-year-old son and her wife Brandy Sippel were taking part in the demonstration when a silver Lexus sped toward them. The driver slowed down, threw up his hands in apparent frustration and then drove forward, hitting them, she said. Brandy Sippel, who is six months pregnant, was grazed by the car's rearview mirror. Heidi Sippel said she and her son were both hit by the front of the car.

-----

Sippel said all three members of her family were cited by police for obstructing traffic and walking against a do-not-walk sign, both of which carry fines. A police report confirms the citations.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/authorities-car-strikes-occupy-dc-protest-14886990

---

Six people from the Occupy D.C. movement were arrested or ticketed in the chaotic moments after a driver struck protesters in front of the Walter E. Washington Convention Center on Friday night, police said.

By Saturday, police and protesters were still giving divergent accounts of what occurred when more than 500 people gathered to protest a dinner held by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative free-market group affiliated with the tea party movement. Video clips showed tense shouting and shoving at the doors, which left two older women dazed on the ground.

-----

Protesters chanted, beat drums and massed near Seventh and K streets NW, attempting to shut down the intersection and block moving cars, police said. They said that around 10 p.m., one driver tried to navigate a gap in the crowd, but three pedestrians moved in front of the vehicle and were hit.

Steve Hartwell, 23, said he watched as police cleared the way for the driver to depart and became angry. He stood at the bumper of the car and made an obscene finger gesture at the driver. He was then detained by police.

“I felt hands on my back, and they had me on the ground really quickly,” Hartwell said. “They were letting the guy go . . . I was really off, and I went for it and let them know.” Hartwell, a former Henrico County, Va., resident, quit his construction job to move to the District to join the Occupy movement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dueling-versions-between-dc-police-protesters-at-convention-center/2011/11/05/gIQAHDTAqM_story.html

[hedgehog]

1. It sounds to me like the driver was focused entirely on protester group A,

saw a clearing, gunned it and ran into protester group B. From his point of view, it would seem as if the protesters he hit ran in front of his car because they seemed to come out of no where. It's possible this is a typical accident rather than a deliberate attempt to run people over.

[No Elephants]

2. We've probably been living in a quasi- police state for a good while without realizing it because

we are basically such a law abiding people.

[MADem]

3. There are an AWFUL LOT of surveillance cameras in and around Washington DC.

Are we to believe there weren't ANY cameras at that intersection? I'm not talking about hand-held video with incomplete images, I'm talking about "fixed in place," high-tech, UK-style, superb resolution, surveillance cameras that give one a full view of the events. They're all over the damn place. Was there not a single one at that intersection?

The last I heard of this matter they said they protesters were blocking the intersection and the driver had the green, ergo the right of way, which is why they say he wasn't ticketed.

I guess not much has changed (yet), at least per this article.

[AlbertCat]

5. protesters were blocking the intersection and the driver had the green

Oh, well, if the light was green...


I thought pedestrians had the right of way... always.

[MADem]

15. I don't pretend to know the law. All I'm doing is citing what was said.

I know pedestrians have the right of way in crosswalks, but outside of them (in L.A. and other places) they can be ticketed for jaywalking.

Not sure what the rules are in DC--I always waited for the "OK" before I crossed there as the traffic was always pretty daunting when I was on foot in the District.

Also, if the protesters were blocking the intersection (as you note), they weren't pedestrians--they were set in place to impede the traffic, if your account is accurate. A pedestrian is someone who is ambulating from point A to point B.

[MurrayDelph]

17. In both California and Oregon

ANY intersection without lights is considered a pedestrian right-of-way, whether there are painted areas or not.

Jay-walking refers to either crossing in the middle of the block, or starting to cross the street after the light has turned red. If the light is green when you enter the intersection but changes while you are crossing, you are expected to complete crossing without delaying, but have right-of-way until you finish crossing the street.

[MADem]

18. I have a cousin who crossed the street in Los Angeles.

He was about twenty or so feet away from the light/crosswalk, if that, and crossing at the same time as the rest of the gaggle.

He was ticketed for jaywalking, and he was bullshit about it.

Just sayin'.

Like I averred, I am no expert on the law, I just know what I saw, and I saw the ticket!

[MurrayDelph]

19. But that's Los Angeles

where my wife was given a ticket for wearing her seatbelt "too low" (she has large breasts, so her choices are "too low" or across her neck) as part of a police gantlet where they were stopping every car on the street to see what they could ticket people for (if they didn't take the hint/threat of "If I write you up it's going to cost you a lot of money").


And now Los Angeles has added a surcharge for the privilege of being ticketed.

(this is why we know what Oregon traffic law is now, too).

[MADem]

20. Has LA seceded from CA? Or are they a rule unto themselves?

That ticket your wife got? Sounds like sexual harassment to me--I would have nailed that cop and contested the charge, and sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, or what-have-you.

Like I say, I am not an expert in traffic law, but I do know that happened to my cousin, who was rather pissed off, to put it nicely.

I still think they've got to have footage from traffic cams of the event articulated in the OP.

You're on candid camera pretty much everywhere in "fancy schmancy" DC.

[MurrayDelph]

21. I'd vote for "rule unto themselves"

In Los Angeles, you initially fight a ticket by paying the fine, and then you have trial by essay test, where you write your side of the story, and the traffic commissioner ignores it and finds you guilty.

If you disagree, you can take it to court, but if you are still found guilty, there is an additional court cost of (back then) $500.

And I don't think it was sexual harassment as much as either soliciting a bribe or enticing her to offer a bribe so he could nail her on less-bogus charges.

Also, there are very few traffic cams in the Los Angeles. They were forced to remove them, because they had tightened the time between yellow and red, and cars trying to stop were being rear-ended.






(edited to correct the amount of the penalty for taking it to court; I had remembered it much lower)

[MADem]

22. Wow. Justice denied, I'd say. Horrible!

Trial by essay test! That's unreal!

[DallasNE]

13. Right

The report indicates a number of people ticketed for walking against a don't walk light suggesting this was a main intersection and one that certainly had a camera the police to link into on the spot. Could a freedom of information request secure a copy of this footage?

[MADem]

14. I don't know, but I'd think it's worth a shot. Any lawyers hereabouts? nt

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lbrtbell]

6. In other breaking news....

Citizens, Romans differ on crucifixion. :mad:

[blackspade]

7. Good to know that in DC and Oakland I can be hit by a car

deliberately and get a citation for my trouble.

This shit is ridiculous.

[hack89]

8. Only if you deliberately put yourself in a dangerous situation

your judgment and actions have to be taken into account as well as the driver.

[sulphurdunn]

10. That's complete bullshit.

Last I recall it was illegal to plow through pedestrians who were in front of your car regardless of their judgement. That's why J-walking isn't routinely considered justification for attempted vehicular homicide.

[hack89]

11. I thought you were talking about the general case.

in this specific instance I don't exactly what happened so I really can't say who was to blame.

[Glimmer of Hope]

9. Woman, her pregnant wife son and give their side of the story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=204ItdAbyRc

[blackspade]

12. Thanks for the link, That clears up any ambiguity about this incident.

The driver should have been questioned at the scene at a bare minimum.

[sulphurdunn]

16. This is what happens

when pregnant women and children recklessly try and commit suicide by throwing themselves into the path of an oncoming car. :evilgrin: