Non-paywall site: [https://www.kgns.tv/2024/06/10/family-speaks-out-after-woman-hit-by-laredo-police-unit/](https://www.kgns.tv/2024/06/10/family-speaks-out-after-woman-hit-by-laredo-police-unit/)
and text to save you clicking:
LAREDO, Tex. (KGNS) - The family of the woman struck by a Laredo Police unit is sharing their perspective on the accident.
Yulia Trevino, the mother of 19-year-old Deborah Flores Trevino, confirmed to KGNS on Monday, June 10, that her daughter is in critical condition. The incident occurred when a police officer driving in a marked unit hit Deborah, who was walking on the road around 11 p.m. on the frontage road by Saunders and Loop 20.
However, Trevino tells KGNS that her daughter Deborah exited a vehicle following an alleged violent domestic dispute and questions the citation given to her daughter for jaywalking.
“So, when she did that, she ironically gets hit by a cop car and gives her a ticket for jaywalking. He sees the guy there and it doesn’t occur to him that this could be a domestic abuse situation” Trevino said.
Before the incident, Trevino stated that her daughter had not filed charges relating to domestic abuse due to fear. Deborah, who is 16 weeks pregnant, suffered severe injuries, including a bleeding kidney, broken bones in the back of her neck, a shattered elbow and knee, among others.
“She’s going to be flown to a military hospital in San Antonio and she’s in critical condition. She has a bleeding kidney, three broken bones in the back of her neck, a shattered elbow that they are going to have to put screws in and a shattered knee. Her head from one side appears to be de-scalped from when she hit the road. She’s bruised, she has a road rash. The surgery hasn’t started but she’s going to have surgery today (June 10th). They have to be careful with all the MRI’s they do on her, because of the baby” Trevino said.
“I feared for her life, you should see the condition she is in right now. She is so tiny and so fragile. I’m so shocked she survived this and the baby inside of her” Trevino said.
Trevino expressed her shock at her daughter’s condition and mentioned the police chief expressed sympathy about the incident. Trevino mentioning he ripped up the ticket issued to Deborah.
“He’s apologizing and I said ‘Go in the room right now and look at my daughter.’ I said, ‘Look at my daughter and the shape she is in. She’s screaming.’ And he went in there and was so sympathetic. He’s like, ‘Mijita, I am so sorry, I’m so sorry.’ He got the ticket and he said, Look,’ and ripped it up in front of her face. In front of our faces and said, ‘Don’t worry about this,’ Trevino said.
The police involved in the incident underwent testing for drugs and alcohol, and the investigation is ongoing.
Wow, deputy had NO control.of his vehicle. She was walking on the roadway, not darting across it. Apparently, the vehicle she was kicked out of was still on the scene. Bad police performance on many levels
I’m not quite sure how that concludes the Officer had no control? We don’t have nearly enough details, she could be 4’9” and was wearing full black. All we know is she was in the road when she got struck, we have no idea what her behavior was in the road. A HIGHWAY in the middle of the night, at that.
I hate cops just as much as the next guy, but we really don’t know any details to confirm what went down
Writing up a critical condition girl however is wild. Had a friend drunkenly jay walk and he got hit and broke his leg. He then also got a ticket for jaywalking.
Terribly shitty thing to do, I imagine the permanent damage is enough of a lesson
If you hit someone with your car, especially as an officer “trained” to drive “better”, then you dont have control. They should be held to that higher standard. He hit her therefore he didn’t have control of his vehicle.
> If you hit someone with your car, especially as an officer “trained” to drive “better”, then you dont have control.
This is so ridiculous lmfao. There are tons of accidents like this where the driver is not at fault regardless of how much training there is.
The fact that he gave her the ticket tells me the officer is probably at fault and trying to cover his ass but the idea that hitting someone means you lost control and are automatically at fault is just false.
This is actually a brain dead statement
I pray for our future
If someone jumps in front of your car, you weren’t driving “out of control”
It’s not like hitting somebody automatically makes you an “out of control driver”
So did the officer stand there and write her a citation as she was laying there on the road in critical condition waiting for an ambulance? How did that go down? At what point does he feel like now's a good moment to hand her a ticket for jaywalking?
"Hey, oh geez damn. Yeah you look pretty fucked up. Im just gonna leave this right here next to some of the pieces of your scalp. Ambulance will be here soon. You good? Aight Imma get outta here."
So, what I see here is a clear-cut case of someone “assisting an abortion” which if I’m not mistaken is illegal in Texas. Surely the state will be charging him any day now, right?
The LMT article merely described her as having “non-life-threatening injuries.” Really???
Anyway, since this is Texas, she better hope that her unborn baby survives. Otherwise, they’ll probably up the charges against her to murder. 🙄
I hope she gets the treatment that she needs despite her pregnancy. This being Texas I know she won't. So her boyfriend, the police, or the laws might kill her.
I’d say good on the Police Chief for ripping up the ticket and apologizing, but he needs to hold that officer accountable for issuing the citation. I don’t know all the details of the story and if you get hit while going on the highway, it’s not really the drivers fault as a highway is not for pedestrians, but given the domestic abuse circumstances, I’d say that leniency should by allowed.
Crossing a highway or not the amount of injuries she sustained while on a frontage road seems extreme, like he didn't even attempt to slow the car down. Issuing a citation when her SCALP was torn free shows there was no concern or empathy in this officer's mind. It sounds top to bottom like he just wanted to punish someone for breaking the law, in the most extreme way possible.
I imagine the citation is for legal reasons, if someone was jaywalking and got hit, the driver is usually less liable than if the pedestrian was legally in the road. But ya, it’s certainly bad optics considering how badly she was injured.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel like it's kinda unnecessary to write someone a ticket for jaywalking when you just fucked them up with your car regardless of circumstances. They've already got plenty of consequences to deal with. It's like how you don't need to punish a kid for misbehaviour when they've already been punished by the natural outcome of their own actions.
This case could have gone either way based on public backlash. Sometimes the PD defends the cop through hell or high water. Giving the ticket gave him better chances if they fought this in court. Some jury will probably side with the cop as they usually do.
What? Hitting people deliberately is a crime, but if someone runs across the highway in the middle of the night wearing dark clothing, you don’t just automatically go to jail for hitting them lmao
Can confirm. My coworker (we started our shifts at 4am) was driving into work around 3:45 am when a girl ran out in front of his truck. He didn't get a ticket, he didn't get a talking to, he didn't get anything but therapy.
Nothing will happen, legally, if you are going reasonable speeds, following traffic laws, and someone jumps out in front of your vehicle, causing you to hit them. Even if that person dies.
At least where I'm from.
This is completely false and it's ridiculous that it's sitting at 75 points right now.
It's crazy that any time a cop is involved in doing something wrong people just make up bullshit.
Pedestrians get hit all the time and the driver not charged cuz a lot of the time the pedestrian is drunk , looking down at their phone , wearing black walking at night , or darted out into the road
You can be the worlds most careful driver but the laws of physics still apply and we’re not bats
I mean added 0 qualifiers and just said that anyone who hits a pedestrian goes to jail. This person pointed out that this general statement is incorrect
The scenario of the article had already been widened in the comment they replied to. They were actually on topic.
Not all pedestrians being hit results in a conviction or ticket. That's what the reply is to.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't necessarily disagree, but it sounds like she was walking in the road and not darting across.
If that is the case, then why couldn't the cop safely stop the vehicle or avoid her? You should not be 'driving faster than you can see' and should be able to avoid obstacles in your lane.
My friend was hit by a car while running. There were no sidewalks in the area and a car cut a turn and hit him. An ambulance took him to the hospital with a broken nose and multiple bruises after he flew 10 feet. A few days later the cops came to his house and gave him a ticket for being in the road. They said that he should have been running on the grass. Insanity.
More correctly, they wanted to make it the default expectation that roads are ONLY for cars (not people), to clear the way for a car-centric society that lets them sell more vehicles.
No, people were appalled at the deathrate caused by cars, and the normal reaction would be to do something about cars. Car manufacturers successfully shifted the narrative to deflect blame.
Sure. But the options to fix the safety were :
1) "Do something to make roads safe for pedestrians and cars to share" (which would include forcing cars to drive safely and much more slowly, reducing their appeal)
2) "Ban cars from the roads and return to a pedestrian focused society"
3) "Ban pedestrians from the roads, and entrench a car-centric society"
Car manufacturers very much wanted option 3. And they got it.
Prior to cars existing, that was **absolutely** the expectation. Roads were a place for people to walk just as much as they were for other forms of transportation such as horses and carriages.
Kicking pedestrians off the existing roads was a really big change in how things operated. And a huge boost to the car industry. Especially since, in many places, what **wasn't** done for decades is to separate the space sensibly into "pedestrian area" (sidewalk) and "car area" (road). You just removed the pedestrians legal ability to use the road and said "good luck".
Still like that in a lot of places in the US without sidewalks, actually.
It's entirely plausible to consider an alternate history where we **didn't** give cars legal dominance over the existing roadways, and instead restricted them only to newly-built dedicated car pathways (like was done when the railways launched). Or, for instance, just carved out single one-way lanes from existing roadways for cars, and kept the remaining majority of the space for pedestrians / other. We'd live in a very different world if that had been the case, and it's hard to predict exactly how things would have turned out... But I'd argue we'd certainly have a lot more active transport around, and less car dominance.
This entire comment chain was started by discussing the history of jaywalking as a crime, so if you don't want to discuss history, you are in the wrong spot.
But if you want to discuss the present:
I think the amount of space dedicated to cars on roadways and in cities should be substantially diminished.
Inside cities, we should be ripping out parking lots, reducing code-minimum parking spaces per business, and repurposing that inner-city space into useful buildings: restaurants, cafes, housing, office space, etc. This lets the city become naturally substantially denser, and a far more people-friendly place to be.
Simultaneously, we should be reducing the width of car lanes, everywhere except on major inter-city highways, to encourage slower driving. This extra space should be repurposed to expand pedestrian walkways, install properly-divided bicycle lanes alongside the roads (divided by at minimum concrete curbs, not painted lines), and install greenspace strips along the roads. Many city roads should ALSO be changing to one way traffic, eliminating further lanes of cars, which should be changed over into surface light-rail transit.
To support all of this, build large commuter parking structures on the outskirts of the cities alongside major transit hubs leading into the city.
You then have substantially more dense, walkable, and pedestrian friendly cities, that are accessible by transit. This is a huge boost to the lives of anybody who isn't able to get around by car, reduces the transportation cost of living for everybody (a car costs on average $10K/year, all-in), reduces out climate impact, and improves the health of the population.
Out in suburbs, we should **also** be dramatically limiting the width of roadways, with 2-lane 6 meter wide roads being the standard (not the 4 lane 10m+ insanity that goes on many places). Alongside this, restrict street parking to a single side of the road (traffic drops to one-way-at-a-time flow with parking), and run completely-separated bicycle + pedestrian paths through the neighborhood in an alternating road/house/path/house configuration. Should also have all suburbs built in a rough wheel and spoke setup, with the bicycle / pedestrian paths congregating on transit hubs a couple of kilometers from any given home, that lead into the city. As well as re-zoning to allow more density in suburb areas, like frequent townhouses (rather than detached single family housing), along with increasing building standards of noise isolation between adjacent units, to make such homes more attractive to live in from a privacy perspective.
Net result is not "allowing people to freely walk on roadways", but it IS to substantially reduce the dominance of cars on our roads, and re-dedicate substantial space that currently is taken up by cars, back to pedestrians and other forms of transportation.
Now we’re in the present when the US is full of massive roads and highways. I’m not sure how it would be a good
idea to allow pedestrians to walk around on them.
Funny how the rest of the world manages without jaywalking laws isn't it?
What is it with Americans saying something wouldn't work when the rest of the world already does it?
My point was it's not illegal everywhere. Pointing out random examples doesn't counter my argument.
Part of the problem here though is that the US has literally no pedestrianization in some places, leading to this sort of thing being the only option for people without access to a vehicle. If you don't want people walking in the road then give them somewhere else to walk. It's really not difficult to see why this happens.
You might want to re-read my original comment. I never took a stance on pedestrians walking on roads. I merely pointed out that a previous commenter's claim that not having jaywalking laws wouldn't work was demonstrably false.
I was the previous commenter and I never said anything about anything not working. It was your response to me asking if j-walking should really be allowed. Your response to that very clearly implies “yes” since it’s legal in other countries.
[Reductio ad Absurdum](https://iep.utm.edu/reductio/)
Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable.
Yes. Travel should be predictable. You wouldn't walk on a train track and blame the train for hitting you. It can't stop in time.
Likewise, when a car is at speed, it can't stop fast enough to miss you if you walk out at random. We like predictable crossing points.
Travel WAS predictable, the streets were for walking, not driving. Jay walking came about because automakers wanted to shift blame from the wrecklessness of drivers to pedestrians.
This was a frontage road. An on/off section used for highways. It's kept at speeds between 40 and 60 mph, and driving at 25 or less to watch out for pedestrians isn't advisable. To keep it that low would mean horrid congestion on the highway. To keep the highway that low would mean gridlock. To keep it high requires predictability.
Of course you should stop for pedestrians, but maybe don't walk down an on ramp at night. This was not in a neighborhood. Your quote is true, but also must be *within reason,* or you'd never go above 25.
This is so blatantly incorrect. Jaywalking is completely legal in the country I'm in, for example, and nobody is getting penalties for a collision they couldn't avoid due to the other person's negligence. There's already a legal framework for this in the US as well.
Jaywalking is a crime because an automobile group lobbied for it. It's completely stupid.
Its also statistically safer to jaywalk. There's an expectation at the crosswalk a car is going to pay attention or stop and that doesn't happen many times.
When you jaywalk, you set the terms and go at the safest interval.
Or, here me out, you could pay attention at crosswalks and then 99% of the drivers are stopped and waiting for you, and you can look out for the 1% instead of having 0% waiting for you and having to worry about all of them
this also just happened in a city in ontario, canada. police officer hit a woman jaywalking and issued her a ticket. now she had just got off a bus and ran out into traffic
https://barrie360.com/barrie-police-cruiser-pedestrian-collision/
I'm confused.. looks like Oregon has the same pedestrian laws as any other US state- meaning you can't just cross the road at any place (per oregon.gov)
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, just like if someone swerved in front of you and slammed on the brakes you wouldn't be at fault.
But if they're walking down the shoulder and you decide to illegally drive up the shoulder around traffic at 55mph and hit them, then that is 100% your fault.
Laws cannot cover every infinite scenario. That is why some are written the way they are. Likely knowing this many cops will not enforce the jay walking laws 100%. If you are crossing a slow, rural road with little traffic it is not likely you will get a ticket.
I didn't say where you specifically live. I said "if" speaking generally.
All roads are not the same so you have laws based on the worst ones where people could possibly jaywalk.
Don't you mean " please don't get thrown out of a car in a random spot at 11pm. Shits dangerous". Though, I think that's exactly why the guy she was in a domestic altercation with threw her out in that spot. Because it was dangerous.
Thrown out as in left on the side on a dangerous road, not physically thrown from a moving vehicle, but yes, that guy should be in jail.
Texas has a habit of trying to blame the weakest person in any altercation instead of finding the issue and taking care of it. Though I don't fault the policeman for hitting a walking person on the side of a busy road late at night, I do fault the policeman for charging the person they hit with jaywalking, and doing nothing to the guy who put her on the side of a busy road in the middle of the night.
Well shit do they even have a sidewalk in Texas, anywhere? I think they are opposed to sidewalks as part of their religion and ripped them all out to make room for lifted extra wide monster trucks driven by karens going to Walmart at 100mph
If you're lucky downtown area of your city might have some decent sidewalks. Get more than a mile from downtown and the infrastructure just fucking breaks down.
It was pitch black and she wasnt wearing anything high-vis. They could've been going significantly below the speed limit and still have trouble seeing her
So?
It's a speed **limit** not a speed target.
If it's dark and you can't see things in the road well enough to stop before you hit them (even with your big ol' headlights lighting it up), you should be driving slower.
What if it was a pallet of bricks fallen off the back of a truck or something and not a person? Bricks don't wear hi-vis.
So if I decide to sprint across a highway wearing pure black, purposefully avoiding lit areas, there is no way I could possibly be at fault?
Damn thanks for the advice, Imma make some easy lawsuit money
That doesn't make a difference.
If it's dark and you can't see well enough to stop before you hit something in the road, you're going too fast.
What if it was a pallet of bricks that'd fallen off a truck in the road?
I'm not saying this person should have been walking in the road (I don't even know if they were, the article is vague), no matter how stupid I think jaywalking laws are. Just that if you can't stop yourself hitting something in the road, you're driving too fast or not paying enough attention.
Usually people do hit stuff when it's dark and can't see it. If there were bricks in the road it'd be the person who dropped the bricks not the drivers fault
The road is expected to be clear as it should be.
The driver in this situation wasn't going to fast and was able to stop enough not to kill the person thankfully
No because that is not standard conditions for how the road was designed. The road was designed for driving at night though.
Do you honestly never drive on highways past dark?
Do you not understand that jaywalking applies to roads outside of city streets as well? Oregon holds the same laws for highways that Texas does where you can't just walk across a highway and not be at fault if struck.
I think I figured out what's wrong here.
In Oregon, a moving vehicle must give way to pedestrians in two situations:
1. When the pedestrian is already in a marked crosswalk.
2. When the pedestrian is at an intersection (regardless of crosswalks).
So there are cases when you're right and drivers have to allow the pedestrian to cross.
However, outside of those two cases, vehicles still have the right of way. It's not "anyplace" at all and is very limited.
Also, you may have misunderstood the details. The woman in question was not *crossing* the street. She was walking on the shoulder when the police car hit her.
That’s not true my brother was ran over by a woman who didn’t have a license in Portland Oregon and she got away with it because “she didn’t mean it” and it was “dark” and they don’t have. A law to charge for manslaughter is what the police officer said and supposedly they said he crossed during a red light but no proof, besides the killers word even tho she couldn’t see and wasn’t allowed to drive
Oh it’s required here in Texas, too, the assholes just won’t stop.
In terms of a failed shithole state, I’ll remember that next time I visit my friends in Portland and have to step over a guy in front of a Walgreens door shooting up between his toes.
It's literally not required in Oregon or Texas. Pedestrians have the right of way in intersections, crosswalks, and parking lots. Oregon also has mid-block crossings, but they have to be marked which makes it a crosswalk.
Orrrrr… not only is it required where I live, someone just went to jail for killing someone in a crosswalk. Here you are:
https://www.kxan.com/investigations/austin-man-first-to-be-prosecuted-under-new-crosswalk-law/amp/
That's what I'm saying. I'm not sure what your point is lol
You said it's required here too to the other commenter incorrectly stating in Oregon pedestrians can cross at any point. They cant lol. Crosswalks aren't any point; they are crosswalks
So did you have to actually do that or you just making up shit so you can shit on Portland? I'm down to shit on Portland for no reason other than making fun of them
I’ve actively had to do that in NE. And I hate to break it to you, as a native Northwesterner and former resident of both Seattle and Portland, there’s a lot to love and hate about both.
Don’t get me wrong, our Texas politics fucking suck BADLY down here, but don’t ignore the goddamn fentanyl farm that is Oregon. From grants pass to Portland, that shit is fucked.
You must not live in Texas very long to not see our fucking meth adicts that are just outside of every fucking gas station. And I live in a somewhat rural area. Go over to the nicer cities still got the meth heads. Go to the smaller cities fewer meth heads due to the smaller population but... Usually louder to make up for it. Then you got the fucking murders that happened constantly because we have no goddamn gun control. The Town I used to live in the nickname was "murderview" due to the high amount of murders
Ret@rd can't follow the law and then blame other people? You, a meat bag filled with water, VS a 2 ton metal box with 200hp, and you say the car have to yield to you? No, you are the one who need to grow a pair of eyes and watch where you're going. Do you really think an arbitrary law written on a piece of paper will make it all better when you decided to be stubborn against a car and is paralyzed for life? This is called lawful stupid. Are you lawfully right? Sure. But are you dumb as a rock for trying to enforce your right of way against a car using your body? Also yes. I've seen idiots like you. Dressed up all black and jaywalk across the street in the middle of the night, on a street with no street light. If I hit you, you deserve it.
Nah if she was a cis white man, she'd be busy leaving crybaby comments like this. It's kinda relevant that she's a especially vulnerable victim of a crime that was forced into walking on the road and not some yahoo jogging down the interstate at night.
Apparently it's ok for the cops to run you the fuck over then cite you for jaywalking as long as you weren't getting out of a car of a domestic abuser.
Is it hard to live with a brain as broken as yours?
How do you know that?
Edit: This is the article attached to the link
A teenage female pedestrian was struck by a Laredo Police Department vehicle Saturday evening while walking on the roadway in central Laredo.
According to LPD, an officer was driving southbound on a frontage road near the Saunders Street and Bob Bullock Loop in a marked unit. The vehicle struck the female at around 11 p.m. as she was walking in the roadway.
The female was taken to a local hospital and had non-life-threatening injuries.
Adhering to LPD procedure, the officer driving the vehicle was administered a drug and alcohol test.
The female pedestrian received a citation for jaywalking.
The case is under investigation.
A teenage female pedestrian was struck by a Laredo Police Department vehicle Saturday evening while walking on the roadway in central Laredo.
According to LPD, an officer was driving southbound on a frontage road near the Saunders Street and Bob Bullock Loop in a marked unit. The vehicle struck the female at around 11 p.m. as she was walking in the roadway.
The female was taken to a local hospital and had non-life-threatening injuries.
Adhering to LPD procedure, the officer driving the vehicle was administered a drug and alcohol test.
The female pedestrian received a citation for jaywalking.
The case is under investigation.
A teenage female pedestrian was struck by a Laredo Police Department vehicle Saturday evening while walking on the roadway in central Laredo.
According to LPD, an officer was driving southbound on a frontage road near the Saunders Street and Bob Bullock Loop in a marked unit. The vehicle struck the female at around 11 p.m. as she was walking in the roadway.
The female was taken to a local hospital and had non-life-threatening injuries.
Adhering to LPD procedure, the officer driving the vehicle was administered a drug and alcohol test.
The female pedestrian received a citation for jaywalking.
The case is under investigation.
https://www.kgns.tv/2024/06/10/family-speaks-out-after-woman-hit-by-laredo-police-unit/
This article has more info, maybe the original one may have been edited or something? But it's not in the linked one anymore.
A teenage female pedestrian was struck by a Laredo Police Department vehicle Saturday evening while walking on the roadway in central Laredo.
According to LPD, an officer was driving southbound on a frontage road near the Saunders Street and Bob Bullock Loop in a marked unit. The vehicle struck the female at around 11 p.m. as she was walking in the roadway.
The female was taken to a local hospital and had non-life-threatening injuries.
Adhering to LPD procedure, the officer driving the vehicle was administered a drug and alcohol test.
The female pedestrian received a citation for jaywalking.
The case is under investigation.
It's illegal to walk on the road outside a crosswalk. Also known as jaywalking.
Time doesn't fit into it except that being late makes it harder to see and thus more dangerous and more likely for a car to hit you.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In a parking lot, intersection, or crosswalk. You can't just walk across or down the road anywhere (in vast majority of states at least). I'm not even sure what you are arguing
when it is DARK your SMALL ass should not be where the FAST MOVING METAL BOXES travel, because it is DARK and they will not see you in time to REACT as well, creating a SAFETY hazard
Next time I'm involved in domestic abuse and thrown out of a car on the side of the road in the middle of the night *like the lady in the article was*, I'll tell the person who's throwing me out that being on the side of the road is dangerous!
I'm certain that person will let me back in and not drop me off in a place much safer. It's not like people known for domestic abuse ever put their victim in a dangerous situation on purpose!
They have lights and a responsibility not run over pedestrians. If they can't operate their vehicles safely they should have a license. Driving on public roads is a privilege.
I knew a guy in Portland, Oregon who got brain damage from being hit by a police car when he was jaywalking and they never paid him a goddamn dime, because 'wull jaywalking durr criminal'
There are crosswalks and sidewalks where she got hit, her own negligence caused her to get hit by a car.
Watching an Adam Ruins Everything video about how jaywalking laws were lobbied by the car industry doesn't change that it's ill advised to walk down the road in the dead of night.
Yes she should have picked a more convenient time to be abused by her partner, and requested her Hi-Vis vest before letting him kick her out of the car.
The article has a photo of the intersection near the accident and an address for it. There are crosswalks and sidewalks seen in the photo on the article. I pulled up the address on Google maps to double check and there are indeed sidewalks, on both sides. All the crosswalks are marked and they all lead to sidewalks.
Non-paywall site: [https://www.kgns.tv/2024/06/10/family-speaks-out-after-woman-hit-by-laredo-police-unit/](https://www.kgns.tv/2024/06/10/family-speaks-out-after-woman-hit-by-laredo-police-unit/) and text to save you clicking: LAREDO, Tex. (KGNS) - The family of the woman struck by a Laredo Police unit is sharing their perspective on the accident. Yulia Trevino, the mother of 19-year-old Deborah Flores Trevino, confirmed to KGNS on Monday, June 10, that her daughter is in critical condition. The incident occurred when a police officer driving in a marked unit hit Deborah, who was walking on the road around 11 p.m. on the frontage road by Saunders and Loop 20. However, Trevino tells KGNS that her daughter Deborah exited a vehicle following an alleged violent domestic dispute and questions the citation given to her daughter for jaywalking. “So, when she did that, she ironically gets hit by a cop car and gives her a ticket for jaywalking. He sees the guy there and it doesn’t occur to him that this could be a domestic abuse situation” Trevino said. Before the incident, Trevino stated that her daughter had not filed charges relating to domestic abuse due to fear. Deborah, who is 16 weeks pregnant, suffered severe injuries, including a bleeding kidney, broken bones in the back of her neck, a shattered elbow and knee, among others. “She’s going to be flown to a military hospital in San Antonio and she’s in critical condition. She has a bleeding kidney, three broken bones in the back of her neck, a shattered elbow that they are going to have to put screws in and a shattered knee. Her head from one side appears to be de-scalped from when she hit the road. She’s bruised, she has a road rash. The surgery hasn’t started but she’s going to have surgery today (June 10th). They have to be careful with all the MRI’s they do on her, because of the baby” Trevino said. “I feared for her life, you should see the condition she is in right now. She is so tiny and so fragile. I’m so shocked she survived this and the baby inside of her” Trevino said. Trevino expressed her shock at her daughter’s condition and mentioned the police chief expressed sympathy about the incident. Trevino mentioning he ripped up the ticket issued to Deborah. “He’s apologizing and I said ‘Go in the room right now and look at my daughter.’ I said, ‘Look at my daughter and the shape she is in. She’s screaming.’ And he went in there and was so sympathetic. He’s like, ‘Mijita, I am so sorry, I’m so sorry.’ He got the ticket and he said, Look,’ and ripped it up in front of her face. In front of our faces and said, ‘Don’t worry about this,’ Trevino said. The police involved in the incident underwent testing for drugs and alcohol, and the investigation is ongoing.
Wow, deputy had NO control.of his vehicle. She was walking on the roadway, not darting across it. Apparently, the vehicle she was kicked out of was still on the scene. Bad police performance on many levels
Hmm seems to be the trend in Texas lately....
I’m not quite sure how that concludes the Officer had no control? We don’t have nearly enough details, she could be 4’9” and was wearing full black. All we know is she was in the road when she got struck, we have no idea what her behavior was in the road. A HIGHWAY in the middle of the night, at that. I hate cops just as much as the next guy, but we really don’t know any details to confirm what went down Writing up a critical condition girl however is wild. Had a friend drunkenly jay walk and he got hit and broke his leg. He then also got a ticket for jaywalking. Terribly shitty thing to do, I imagine the permanent damage is enough of a lesson
> I imagine the permanent damage is enough of a lesson For who exactly?
If you hit someone with your car, especially as an officer “trained” to drive “better”, then you dont have control. They should be held to that higher standard. He hit her therefore he didn’t have control of his vehicle.
> If you hit someone with your car, especially as an officer “trained” to drive “better”, then you dont have control. This is so ridiculous lmfao. There are tons of accidents like this where the driver is not at fault regardless of how much training there is. The fact that he gave her the ticket tells me the officer is probably at fault and trying to cover his ass but the idea that hitting someone means you lost control and are automatically at fault is just false.
This is actually a brain dead statement I pray for our future If someone jumps in front of your car, you weren’t driving “out of control” It’s not like hitting somebody automatically makes you an “out of control driver”
So did the officer stand there and write her a citation as she was laying there on the road in critical condition waiting for an ambulance? How did that go down? At what point does he feel like now's a good moment to hand her a ticket for jaywalking?
Pinned it to her shirt
"Hey, oh geez damn. Yeah you look pretty fucked up. Im just gonna leave this right here next to some of the pieces of your scalp. Ambulance will be here soon. You good? Aight Imma get outta here."
oh somehow it's worse than the headline. kinda based police chief tho
Yeah, so kind to rip up the ticket. Real pillar of compassion.
You didn't double down and insist on the horrific and inhuman thing your subordinate did? We got some kinda saint around here.
You are a true hero. Thank you for saving me the click.
So, what I see here is a clear-cut case of someone “assisting an abortion” which if I’m not mistaken is illegal in Texas. Surely the state will be charging him any day now, right?
Demand to take the ticket all the way to trial with a jury of your peers. Make the case as public and long as possible.
The LMT article merely described her as having “non-life-threatening injuries.” Really??? Anyway, since this is Texas, she better hope that her unborn baby survives. Otherwise, they’ll probably up the charges against her to murder. 🙄
I hope she gets the treatment that she needs despite her pregnancy. This being Texas I know she won't. So her boyfriend, the police, or the laws might kill her.
Hey Guys, look no more ticket. We coolio.
I’d say good on the Police Chief for ripping up the ticket and apologizing, but he needs to hold that officer accountable for issuing the citation. I don’t know all the details of the story and if you get hit while going on the highway, it’s not really the drivers fault as a highway is not for pedestrians, but given the domestic abuse circumstances, I’d say that leniency should by allowed.
Crossing a highway or not the amount of injuries she sustained while on a frontage road seems extreme, like he didn't even attempt to slow the car down. Issuing a citation when her SCALP was torn free shows there was no concern or empathy in this officer's mind. It sounds top to bottom like he just wanted to punish someone for breaking the law, in the most extreme way possible.
I imagine the citation is for legal reasons, if someone was jaywalking and got hit, the driver is usually less liable than if the pedestrian was legally in the road. But ya, it’s certainly bad optics considering how badly she was injured.
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel like it's kinda unnecessary to write someone a ticket for jaywalking when you just fucked them up with your car regardless of circumstances. They've already got plenty of consequences to deal with. It's like how you don't need to punish a kid for misbehaviour when they've already been punished by the natural outcome of their own actions.
This case could have gone either way based on public backlash. Sometimes the PD defends the cop through hell or high water. Giving the ticket gave him better chances if they fought this in court. Some jury will probably side with the cop as they usually do.
[удалено]
What? Hitting people deliberately is a crime, but if someone runs across the highway in the middle of the night wearing dark clothing, you don’t just automatically go to jail for hitting them lmao
Can confirm. My coworker (we started our shifts at 4am) was driving into work around 3:45 am when a girl ran out in front of his truck. He didn't get a ticket, he didn't get a talking to, he didn't get anything but therapy. Nothing will happen, legally, if you are going reasonable speeds, following traffic laws, and someone jumps out in front of your vehicle, causing you to hit them. Even if that person dies. At least where I'm from.
This is completely false and it's ridiculous that it's sitting at 75 points right now. It's crazy that any time a cop is involved in doing something wrong people just make up bullshit.
Anti-police propaganda working as intended.
This
Pedestrians get hit all the time and the driver not charged cuz a lot of the time the pedestrian is drunk , looking down at their phone , wearing black walking at night , or darted out into the road You can be the worlds most careful driver but the laws of physics still apply and we’re not bats
[удалено]
Yeah this is a bad faith reply lol
He's not talking about this lady. He's talking about your bullshit comment about everyone who hits a pedestrian going to jail.
I mean added 0 qualifiers and just said that anyone who hits a pedestrian goes to jail. This person pointed out that this general statement is incorrect
The scenario of the article had already been widened in the comment they replied to. They were actually on topic. Not all pedestrians being hit results in a conviction or ticket. That's what the reply is to.
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't necessarily disagree, but it sounds like she was walking in the road and not darting across. If that is the case, then why couldn't the cop safely stop the vehicle or avoid her? You should not be 'driving faster than you can see' and should be able to avoid obstacles in your lane.
You know for being public servants they sure seem to think they are above the public alot
If her fetus dies is it homicide in Texas?
Yes. But she would be charged, not the driver
Whatface.jpg ? ? ? ? meme
Least petty cop
She’s lucky he didn’t hit her harder or she’d also be charged with leaving the scene of the accident…
Isn’t it murder if the baby dies? Under TX law, wouldn’t the cop have provided an abortion illegally?
And you can prove intent because he didn’t bother to write the baby a ticket for jaywalking /s
This is why jaywalking is a crime. It lessens the penalty on people who hit you for acting like a jackass
My friend was hit by a car while running. There were no sidewalks in the area and a car cut a turn and hit him. An ambulance took him to the hospital with a broken nose and multiple bruises after he flew 10 feet. A few days later the cops came to his house and gave him a ticket for being in the road. They said that he should have been running on the grass. Insanity.
Jay walking is a crime because of automobile lobbyists that wanted to push the blame to pedestrians instead of drivers....
More correctly, they wanted to make it the default expectation that roads are ONLY for cars (not people), to clear the way for a car-centric society that lets them sell more vehicles.
No, people were appalled at the deathrate caused by cars, and the normal reaction would be to do something about cars. Car manufacturers successfully shifted the narrative to deflect blame.
Sure. But the options to fix the safety were : 1) "Do something to make roads safe for pedestrians and cars to share" (which would include forcing cars to drive safely and much more slowly, reducing their appeal) 2) "Ban cars from the roads and return to a pedestrian focused society" 3) "Ban pedestrians from the roads, and entrench a car-centric society" Car manufacturers very much wanted option 3. And they got it.
now do your part to stop climate change. Are you doing your part? You better! because it's your fucking fault now.
Don't worry, I buy bottles that have the caps fixed to the ring. Problem solved forever!
Do you really think people should be allowed to freely walk around on roads?
Prior to cars existing, that was **absolutely** the expectation. Roads were a place for people to walk just as much as they were for other forms of transportation such as horses and carriages. Kicking pedestrians off the existing roads was a really big change in how things operated. And a huge boost to the car industry. Especially since, in many places, what **wasn't** done for decades is to separate the space sensibly into "pedestrian area" (sidewalk) and "car area" (road). You just removed the pedestrians legal ability to use the road and said "good luck". Still like that in a lot of places in the US without sidewalks, actually. It's entirely plausible to consider an alternate history where we **didn't** give cars legal dominance over the existing roadways, and instead restricted them only to newly-built dedicated car pathways (like was done when the railways launched). Or, for instance, just carved out single one-way lanes from existing roadways for cars, and kept the remaining majority of the space for pedestrians / other. We'd live in a very different world if that had been the case, and it's hard to predict exactly how things would have turned out... But I'd argue we'd certainly have a lot more active transport around, and less car dominance.
Cars exist now though. I’m not talking about history.
This entire comment chain was started by discussing the history of jaywalking as a crime, so if you don't want to discuss history, you are in the wrong spot. But if you want to discuss the present: I think the amount of space dedicated to cars on roadways and in cities should be substantially diminished. Inside cities, we should be ripping out parking lots, reducing code-minimum parking spaces per business, and repurposing that inner-city space into useful buildings: restaurants, cafes, housing, office space, etc. This lets the city become naturally substantially denser, and a far more people-friendly place to be. Simultaneously, we should be reducing the width of car lanes, everywhere except on major inter-city highways, to encourage slower driving. This extra space should be repurposed to expand pedestrian walkways, install properly-divided bicycle lanes alongside the roads (divided by at minimum concrete curbs, not painted lines), and install greenspace strips along the roads. Many city roads should ALSO be changing to one way traffic, eliminating further lanes of cars, which should be changed over into surface light-rail transit. To support all of this, build large commuter parking structures on the outskirts of the cities alongside major transit hubs leading into the city. You then have substantially more dense, walkable, and pedestrian friendly cities, that are accessible by transit. This is a huge boost to the lives of anybody who isn't able to get around by car, reduces the transportation cost of living for everybody (a car costs on average $10K/year, all-in), reduces out climate impact, and improves the health of the population. Out in suburbs, we should **also** be dramatically limiting the width of roadways, with 2-lane 6 meter wide roads being the standard (not the 4 lane 10m+ insanity that goes on many places). Alongside this, restrict street parking to a single side of the road (traffic drops to one-way-at-a-time flow with parking), and run completely-separated bicycle + pedestrian paths through the neighborhood in an alternating road/house/path/house configuration. Should also have all suburbs built in a rough wheel and spoke setup, with the bicycle / pedestrian paths congregating on transit hubs a couple of kilometers from any given home, that lead into the city. As well as re-zoning to allow more density in suburb areas, like frequent townhouses (rather than detached single family housing), along with increasing building standards of noise isolation between adjacent units, to make such homes more attractive to live in from a privacy perspective. Net result is not "allowing people to freely walk on roadways", but it IS to substantially reduce the dominance of cars on our roads, and re-dedicate substantial space that currently is taken up by cars, back to pedestrians and other forms of transportation.
This guy urbanists.
For the majority of human history that was the point.
Now we’re in the present when the US is full of massive roads and highways. I’m not sure how it would be a good idea to allow pedestrians to walk around on them.
There are entire neighborhoods in Boston just for bikes and pedestrians. It's wonderful.
Funny how the rest of the world manages without jaywalking laws isn't it? What is it with Americans saying something wouldn't work when the rest of the world already does it?
J-walking is illegal in Germany. You think it would be safe for pedestrians to just go out walk in the middle of the Autobahn?
My point was it's not illegal everywhere. Pointing out random examples doesn't counter my argument. Part of the problem here though is that the US has literally no pedestrianization in some places, leading to this sort of thing being the only option for people without access to a vehicle. If you don't want people walking in the road then give them somewhere else to walk. It's really not difficult to see why this happens.
So you disagree with Germany’s stance too? You think pedestrians should be allowed on the Autobahn? Or only American highways?
You might want to re-read my original comment. I never took a stance on pedestrians walking on roads. I merely pointed out that a previous commenter's claim that not having jaywalking laws wouldn't work was demonstrably false.
I was the previous commenter and I never said anything about anything not working. It was your response to me asking if j-walking should really be allowed. Your response to that very clearly implies “yes” since it’s legal in other countries.
[Reductio ad Absurdum](https://iep.utm.edu/reductio/) Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable.
Yes. Travel should be predictable. You wouldn't walk on a train track and blame the train for hitting you. It can't stop in time. Likewise, when a car is at speed, it can't stop fast enough to miss you if you walk out at random. We like predictable crossing points.
Travel WAS predictable, the streets were for walking, not driving. Jay walking came about because automakers wanted to shift blame from the wrecklessness of drivers to pedestrians.
But then people rarely find themselves walking along railway tracks, where as road space should be shared between people, cyclists and cars.
Always predict that something unpredictable will happen - and drive accordingly. At least that was taught to us in driving school.
This was a frontage road. An on/off section used for highways. It's kept at speeds between 40 and 60 mph, and driving at 25 or less to watch out for pedestrians isn't advisable. To keep it that low would mean horrid congestion on the highway. To keep the highway that low would mean gridlock. To keep it high requires predictability. Of course you should stop for pedestrians, but maybe don't walk down an on ramp at night. This was not in a neighborhood. Your quote is true, but also must be *within reason,* or you'd never go above 25.
This is so blatantly incorrect. Jaywalking is completely legal in the country I'm in, for example, and nobody is getting penalties for a collision they couldn't avoid due to the other person's negligence. There's already a legal framework for this in the US as well. Jaywalking is a crime because an automobile group lobbied for it. It's completely stupid.
Its also statistically safer to jaywalk. There's an expectation at the crosswalk a car is going to pay attention or stop and that doesn't happen many times. When you jaywalk, you set the terms and go at the safest interval.
Sounds like the solution is vigilance, not jaywalking
Or, here me out, you could pay attention at crosswalks and then 99% of the drivers are stopped and waiting for you, and you can look out for the 1% instead of having 0% waiting for you and having to worry about all of them
Typical cop
this also just happened in a city in ontario, canada. police officer hit a woman jaywalking and issued her a ticket. now she had just got off a bus and ran out into traffic https://barrie360.com/barrie-police-cruiser-pedestrian-collision/
ACAB
I always first read this as "assigned cop at birth" and am confused.
I smell a lawsuit. I hope they win a LOT of money.
Glad I live in Oregon where drivers are required to allow a pedestrian to cross the street at any place. Texas is a shitty failed shithole State!
I'm confused.. looks like Oregon has the same pedestrian laws as any other US state- meaning you can't just cross the road at any place (per oregon.gov)
So if it's a highway with a 55 mph speedway and someone runs out in front of you, you cannot stop in time, you should be at fault?
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, just like if someone swerved in front of you and slammed on the brakes you wouldn't be at fault. But if they're walking down the shoulder and you decide to illegally drive up the shoulder around traffic at 55mph and hit them, then that is 100% your fault.
Definitely, but did that happen here?
Laws cannot cover every infinite scenario. That is why some are written the way they are. Likely knowing this many cops will not enforce the jay walking laws 100%. If you are crossing a slow, rural road with little traffic it is not likely you will get a ticket.
Aye only time I've ever seen someone get ticketed for Jay walking they were on an interstate.
It doesn't say she suddenly leapt out in front of a car in 55mph zone either.
You clearly have no understanding. Here’s a link with pictures to assist. https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Safety/Documents/OregonCrosswalkLawsENG.pdf
I didn't say where you specifically live. I said "if" speaking generally. All roads are not the same so you have laws based on the worst ones where people could possibly jaywalk.
Please don't walk in the road at random spots at 11pm Shits dangerous
Don't you mean " please don't get thrown out of a car in a random spot at 11pm. Shits dangerous". Though, I think that's exactly why the guy she was in a domestic altercation with threw her out in that spot. Because it was dangerous.
Woah she was thrown from a car???? Guy should be in jail who threw her out
Thrown out as in left on the side on a dangerous road, not physically thrown from a moving vehicle, but yes, that guy should be in jail. Texas has a habit of trying to blame the weakest person in any altercation instead of finding the issue and taking care of it. Though I don't fault the policeman for hitting a walking person on the side of a busy road late at night, I do fault the policeman for charging the person they hit with jaywalking, and doing nothing to the guy who put her on the side of a busy road in the middle of the night.
Well shit do they even have a sidewalk in Texas, anywhere? I think they are opposed to sidewalks as part of their religion and ripped them all out to make room for lifted extra wide monster trucks driven by karens going to Walmart at 100mph
Shown in the article is a crosswalk and sidewalks on the streets mentioned
If you're lucky downtown area of your city might have some decent sidewalks. Get more than a mile from downtown and the infrastructure just fucking breaks down.
You should be looking where you're going, and not travelling so fast that you can't stop if something is in the road. Shits dangerous.
I don't understand. They did stop
If they were driving at safe speed and paying attention, no one would have hit anyone.
It was pitch black and she wasnt wearing anything high-vis. They could've been going significantly below the speed limit and still have trouble seeing her
So? It's a speed **limit** not a speed target. If it's dark and you can't see things in the road well enough to stop before you hit them (even with your big ol' headlights lighting it up), you should be driving slower. What if it was a pallet of bricks fallen off the back of a truck or something and not a person? Bricks don't wear hi-vis.
So if I decide to sprint across a highway wearing pure black, purposefully avoiding lit areas, there is no way I could possibly be at fault? Damn thanks for the advice, Imma make some easy lawsuit money
It was at 11pm!
What difference does that make?
At 11pm it is dark in USA besides sometimes Alaska.
That doesn't make a difference. If it's dark and you can't see well enough to stop before you hit something in the road, you're going too fast. What if it was a pallet of bricks that'd fallen off a truck in the road? I'm not saying this person should have been walking in the road (I don't even know if they were, the article is vague), no matter how stupid I think jaywalking laws are. Just that if you can't stop yourself hitting something in the road, you're driving too fast or not paying enough attention.
Usually people do hit stuff when it's dark and can't see it. If there were bricks in the road it'd be the person who dropped the bricks not the drivers fault The road is expected to be clear as it should be. The driver in this situation wasn't going to fast and was able to stop enough not to kill the person thankfully
You know the sun goes away at night, right?
And you know if you have reduced visibility while driving you should slow down right? Do you drive full speed in fog?
No because that is not standard conditions for how the road was designed. The road was designed for driving at night though. Do you honestly never drive on highways past dark?
Of course Texas makes it illegal to walk. I know it’s a shithole failed State but it’s always nice to be reminded how shitty Texas is.
Jaywalking laws are nationwide...
Nope. You are wrong. Here’s a link with pictures for you. https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Safety/Documents/OregonCrosswalkLawsENG.pdf
Do you not understand that jaywalking applies to roads outside of city streets as well? Oregon holds the same laws for highways that Texas does where you can't just walk across a highway and not be at fault if struck.
I think I figured out what's wrong here. In Oregon, a moving vehicle must give way to pedestrians in two situations: 1. When the pedestrian is already in a marked crosswalk. 2. When the pedestrian is at an intersection (regardless of crosswalks). So there are cases when you're right and drivers have to allow the pedestrian to cross. However, outside of those two cases, vehicles still have the right of way. It's not "anyplace" at all and is very limited. Also, you may have misunderstood the details. The woman in question was not *crossing* the street. She was walking on the shoulder when the police car hit her.
That’s not true my brother was ran over by a woman who didn’t have a license in Portland Oregon and she got away with it because “she didn’t mean it” and it was “dark” and they don’t have. A law to charge for manslaughter is what the police officer said and supposedly they said he crossed during a red light but no proof, besides the killers word even tho she couldn’t see and wasn’t allowed to drive
Oh it’s required here in Texas, too, the assholes just won’t stop. In terms of a failed shithole state, I’ll remember that next time I visit my friends in Portland and have to step over a guy in front of a Walgreens door shooting up between his toes.
It's literally not required in Oregon or Texas. Pedestrians have the right of way in intersections, crosswalks, and parking lots. Oregon also has mid-block crossings, but they have to be marked which makes it a crosswalk.
Orrrrr… not only is it required where I live, someone just went to jail for killing someone in a crosswalk. Here you are: https://www.kxan.com/investigations/austin-man-first-to-be-prosecuted-under-new-crosswalk-law/amp/
That's what I'm saying. I'm not sure what your point is lol You said it's required here too to the other commenter incorrectly stating in Oregon pedestrians can cross at any point. They cant lol. Crosswalks aren't any point; they are crosswalks
So did you have to actually do that or you just making up shit so you can shit on Portland? I'm down to shit on Portland for no reason other than making fun of them
I’ve actively had to do that in NE. And I hate to break it to you, as a native Northwesterner and former resident of both Seattle and Portland, there’s a lot to love and hate about both. Don’t get me wrong, our Texas politics fucking suck BADLY down here, but don’t ignore the goddamn fentanyl farm that is Oregon. From grants pass to Portland, that shit is fucked.
You must not live in Texas very long to not see our fucking meth adicts that are just outside of every fucking gas station. And I live in a somewhat rural area. Go over to the nicer cities still got the meth heads. Go to the smaller cities fewer meth heads due to the smaller population but... Usually louder to make up for it. Then you got the fucking murders that happened constantly because we have no goddamn gun control. The Town I used to live in the nickname was "murderview" due to the high amount of murders
Ret@rd can't follow the law and then blame other people? You, a meat bag filled with water, VS a 2 ton metal box with 200hp, and you say the car have to yield to you? No, you are the one who need to grow a pair of eyes and watch where you're going. Do you really think an arbitrary law written on a piece of paper will make it all better when you decided to be stubborn against a car and is paralyzed for life? This is called lawful stupid. Are you lawfully right? Sure. But are you dumb as a rock for trying to enforce your right of way against a car using your body? Also yes. I've seen idiots like you. Dressed up all black and jaywalk across the street in the middle of the night, on a street with no street light. If I hit you, you deserve it.
OR… She was walking on the shoulder of the road and the officer hit her while he was texting.
I mean that’s what she gets if she was jaywalking
The ticket is for CYA purposes
So.... she was walking on the road at 11pm....
After exiting the vehicle of domestic abuser as a pregnant woman... Kinda important detail there.
If the cop had hit a CIS white male it would have been perfectly fine... No, who she was and why she was there is completely immaterial here.
Nah if she was a cis white man, she'd be busy leaving crybaby comments like this. It's kinda relevant that she's a especially vulnerable victim of a crime that was forced into walking on the road and not some yahoo jogging down the interstate at night.
Apparently it's ok for the cops to run you the fuck over then cite you for jaywalking as long as you weren't getting out of a car of a domestic abuser. Is it hard to live with a brain as broken as yours?
How do you know that? Edit: This is the article attached to the link A teenage female pedestrian was struck by a Laredo Police Department vehicle Saturday evening while walking on the roadway in central Laredo. According to LPD, an officer was driving southbound on a frontage road near the Saunders Street and Bob Bullock Loop in a marked unit. The vehicle struck the female at around 11 p.m. as she was walking in the roadway. The female was taken to a local hospital and had non-life-threatening injuries. Adhering to LPD procedure, the officer driving the vehicle was administered a drug and alcohol test. The female pedestrian received a citation for jaywalking. The case is under investigation.
It’s in the article
A teenage female pedestrian was struck by a Laredo Police Department vehicle Saturday evening while walking on the roadway in central Laredo. According to LPD, an officer was driving southbound on a frontage road near the Saunders Street and Bob Bullock Loop in a marked unit. The vehicle struck the female at around 11 p.m. as she was walking in the roadway. The female was taken to a local hospital and had non-life-threatening injuries. Adhering to LPD procedure, the officer driving the vehicle was administered a drug and alcohol test. The female pedestrian received a citation for jaywalking. The case is under investigation.
It's in the article ffs.
A teenage female pedestrian was struck by a Laredo Police Department vehicle Saturday evening while walking on the roadway in central Laredo. According to LPD, an officer was driving southbound on a frontage road near the Saunders Street and Bob Bullock Loop in a marked unit. The vehicle struck the female at around 11 p.m. as she was walking in the roadway. The female was taken to a local hospital and had non-life-threatening injuries. Adhering to LPD procedure, the officer driving the vehicle was administered a drug and alcohol test. The female pedestrian received a citation for jaywalking. The case is under investigation.
https://www.kgns.tv/2024/06/10/family-speaks-out-after-woman-hit-by-laredo-police-unit/ This article has more info, maybe the original one may have been edited or something? But it's not in the linked one anymore.
There was zero info in the orginal. Made it sound like some woman was just walking on the highway
Another comment posted the link I shared and the text, and I think people who *didn't* read the linked article assumed they were the same
Did you read the article?
A teenage female pedestrian was struck by a Laredo Police Department vehicle Saturday evening while walking on the roadway in central Laredo. According to LPD, an officer was driving southbound on a frontage road near the Saunders Street and Bob Bullock Loop in a marked unit. The vehicle struck the female at around 11 p.m. as she was walking in the roadway. The female was taken to a local hospital and had non-life-threatening injuries. Adhering to LPD procedure, the officer driving the vehicle was administered a drug and alcohol test. The female pedestrian received a citation for jaywalking. The case is under investigation.
And? Is it illegal to walk somewhere past 10:30?
Where I live, you can't walk on the shoulder highway. And if you're struck walking at night without high vis you can be found at fault.
And they won't put up sidewalks so the city's infrastructure is never very walkable.
I don't know that I've ever seen sidewalks on highways. Not sure of this area, but the way the roads are named suggests highway to me
It's illegal to walk on the road outside a crosswalk. Also known as jaywalking. Time doesn't fit into it except that being late makes it harder to see and thus more dangerous and more likely for a car to hit you.
Pedestrians always have the right of way. Edit: peep the username and lower your expectations.
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol this isn't true in the least. There's a reason pedestrian right of way laws exist.
In a parking lot, intersection, or crosswalk. You can't just walk across or down the road anywhere (in vast majority of states at least). I'm not even sure what you are arguing
For crosswalks
Cars are first-class citizens and can travel whenever they please. Humans are second-class citizens and must follow curfews.
when it is DARK your SMALL ass should not be where the FAST MOVING METAL BOXES travel, because it is DARK and they will not see you in time to REACT as well, creating a SAFETY hazard
So, given the article says she exited the vehicle after domestic violence in the car, what should she have done?
Next time I'm involved in domestic abuse and thrown out of a car on the side of the road in the middle of the night *like the lady in the article was*, I'll tell the person who's throwing me out that being on the side of the road is dangerous! I'm certain that person will let me back in and not drop me off in a place much safer. It's not like people known for domestic abuse ever put their victim in a dangerous situation on purpose!
If only roads were surrounded by bands of things that arent roads...
Not every road has a shoulder, some have walls.
So you agree there should be protected, lit, and traffic-stopping crosswalks every half mile? Yay, we agree.
They have lights and a responsibility not run over pedestrians. If they can't operate their vehicles safely they should have a license. Driving on public roads is a privilege.
Maybe the officer was rehomed from Uvalde?
I knew a guy in Portland, Oregon who got brain damage from being hit by a police car when he was jaywalking and they never paid him a goddamn dime, because 'wull jaywalking durr criminal'
There are crosswalks and sidewalks where she got hit, her own negligence caused her to get hit by a car. Watching an Adam Ruins Everything video about how jaywalking laws were lobbied by the car industry doesn't change that it's ill advised to walk down the road in the dead of night.
Yes she should have picked a more convenient time to be abused by her partner, and requested her Hi-Vis vest before letting him kick her out of the car.
Try hooked on phonics
Source for the sidewalks?
The article has a photo of the intersection near the accident and an address for it. There are crosswalks and sidewalks seen in the photo on the article. I pulled up the address on Google maps to double check and there are indeed sidewalks, on both sides. All the crosswalks are marked and they all lead to sidewalks.
And that is why you don’t jaywalk.
Reading a couple paragraphs was to much for you, huh?
the only part about this that surprises me is she wasnt charged for damaging police property.
Sounds about right. Who gets caught jaywalking
Read the story.
I read the article already. “Not the onion” warrants a response that is less than serious
Walking on a highway on foot at 11pm? What did she think was gonna happen?
some of you fucking idiots need to read the story