Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
31 user(s) are online (13 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 31

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (alastor)




Re: Crash on Jersey Ave, Friday Night Aug 5
#1
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


The simple answer is that the police need to start enforcing the traffic laws; they could send a strong and forceful message during rush hour that we do not tolerate reckless and unsafe driving in JC. However, the JCPD evidently thinks that pedestrian and vehicular safety is beneath them. On more than one occasion, I have been in a crosswalk with a vehicle failing to yield and a patrol car directly behind it. No interest, no stop, no ticket-- no enforcement. On multiple occasions, it has been the patrol car that fails to yield (without emergency lights or siren). I've repeatedly reported this to the city council and the precinct captain, but no action results. Pedestrian safety is not a priority for the Fulop administration, and it will be the reason why I don't vote for him or his council again. Signs are not enough. The city must start aggressively issuing tickets for this conduct that endangers anyone who walks across the street, including our children. Over the years, I have witnessed at least thirty accidents along Jersey Ave. How hard would it be to periodically station a patrol car where we know there's an active and dangerous problem? The police seem to have no trouble supplying off-duty officers for construction sites where they stand around and text.

Posted on: 2016/9/17 5:18
Top


Re: JC's official game - Crosswalk Stare Down!
#2
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


I just posted a separate thread about this issue, but I notice that pedestrian safety has repeatedly been a topic of concern on jclist.com. The law is very clear on this point: Vehicles must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. This law is routinely violated; I have even seen motorists ignore the commands of crossing guards. In fact, there is a high probability that the police could observe one crosswalk on Jersey Avenue and witness one violation after the other. These are driving behaviors that significantly endanger public safety and it needs to stop. You stop such behavior by ENFORCING THE LAW.

Our local politicians such as Fulop and Osborne should understand that they will be held accountable if this continues unchecked.

Posted on: 2016/6/18 16:02
Top


Dangerous Driving, No Police Enforcement, Threat to Pedestrians
#3
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Once again, another accident on Jersey Avenue yesterday where drivers routinely speed, fail to yield, and endanger our community. The pedestrian signs help, but there are still many hostile and aggressive drivers who play chicken with people in crosswalks. Many of these drivers are not residents of Jersey City. WHEN WILL THE POLICE BEGIN TO MAKE A VISIBLE DEMONSTRATION OF FORCE TO DISCOURAGE THIS BEHAVIOR? I rarely see anyone ticketed in the downtown core for traffic violations, but I see plenty of police standing around road construction sites (OR NOT in the case of the recent 100-count indictment). Mayor Fulop needs to direct the Police to protect pedestrian lives by enforcing the law, which includes city and police vehicles stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks. The police themselves routinely break the law on patrol without emergency lights, so there is obviously little hope of them ticketing others for it.

Posted on: 2016/6/18 15:48
Top


Tis the Season for Package Thieves and the Inept Postal Service
#4
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Once again, I've had a USPS package stolen from my apartment building because the mail carrier refuses to ring the doorbell when it's delivered. Instead, they throw the package into the vestibule of my building and drive away, even if I'm home to receive it. When I've confronted these carriers, I'm told that it's on the orders of the Post Master, and that they're authorized to leave packages unless a signature is required. I'm no civil servant, but I don't believe that it's permissible to leave a package in a place where mail is likely to be stolen and has been stolen.

What can be done about the abysmal conditions of mail delivery in 07302? For years I've tried to address this problem with the Post Office. Obviously, they don't give a damn, and no entity holds them accountable. My next steps are the Congressman and the Office of the Inspector General.

This is all to say-- watch out for the package thieves (they might be wearing a USPS uniform)

Posted on: 2015/12/5 18:11
Top


Re: Proposed Recommendations to Downtown Parking
#5
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

alastor wrote:
Furthermore, public policy in New Jersey has not incentivized mass transit.


Charging market rate for parking would be the first step in incentivizing mass transit as it would make parking a privately owned vehicle more representative of the cost of owning that vehicle rather than artificially decreasing the cost of ownership.


Totally incorrect. That's not an incentive, it's a penalty--one that many people cannot afford. Again, you're not thinking about public policy or the public interest. You're not thinking about the social or economic implications of your penalty. And you're not thinking about how the principle behind your penalty has deleterious consequences for the way in which we structure our society. For you, only the wealthy are entitled to mobility.

Posted on: 2015/10/2 16:42
Top


Re: Proposed Recommendations to Downtown Parking
#6
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


This thread once again demonstrates how many people simply cannot grasp the difference between good public policy and private interests. I'm referring to the people who think that residents' cars parked on public streets are somehow taking advantage of "free parking." First, all vehicles have paid both for state registration and a parking permit. Second, all residents are paying taxes for public services. Third, we have agreed as a civil society that we do not directly pay for all of the public services we enjoy. For example, when someone is victimized by a criminal, we do not expect them to pay for the investigation. When your child is educated in a public school, that cost is shouldered by all of us. Vehicles allow people of all different incomes to commute to distant jobs, take care of distant family members, etc. Furthermore, public policy in New Jersey has not incentivized mass transit. As we all know, it is cheaper to drive on the Turnpike than to take a train to work in Edison. People need to stop thinking about themselves and start looking at the bigger picture. And something tells me that all the people grumbling about gas guzzlers would balk at the tax increase necessary to run an affordable--not the same as efficient-- mass transit system in New Jersey that would be good for the single mother earning less than 25k who cannot afford a private parking space.

Posted on: 2015/10/2 16:29
Top


Re: Indian females lack of assimilation
#7
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


We should also remember how despicable this racism is in the context of Jersey City's history, especially hate crimes targeted at people of South Asian descent by the "Dotbusters" in the late 1980s. The OP and those who agree with his sentiments should know that these attitudes are uncivil and unacceptable. Moreover, they should understand that we recognize their perverted views immediately for what they are, we know what they imply, and we see what they provoke. This intolerance leads to violence. And while I support free speech--no matter how despicable--I condemn this reckless language. I find it disgusting, and I don't care whether or not this is merely a grab for attention. The more people who come out and condemn this crap, the better.

Posted on: 2015/9/27 1:52
Top


Re: Indian females lack of assimilation
#8
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


I am perplexed why the OP values "elements of Western style" --whatever those are--over and above "traditional Indian garb." Of course, I am concerned about the unabashed racism, misogyny, anti-semitism, xenophobia, and general intolerance of the original post and a few of the replies. But I am also genuinely confused by the logic. I'll take a stab at it: the OP is dismayed that he cannot spectate more women in yoga pants? Is that it? You're losing McEyeCandy to those bewildering and confusing sarees that just don't tickle you in the right places? You're a LuluLemon gawker unwilling to give up on the taut contours of spandex? You want a parade of flesh finished with the proper fabrics and dimensions of fitness chic? Those traditional garbs are just too upsetting in a late capitalist world when you're reminded that other cultures exist and perhaps unconvinced by the oh-so-hot Cosmo body you crave?

Might I make a suggestion to help you cope with the diverse attire of Jersey City? First, find a mirror. Second, take a moment to scan your body from white sneaker to pastel polo. And next, strip--strip it all--right down to the last thread covering that pasty bod. Finally, I want you to scream. Loudly. Hard. Make it hurt. You see now, right? Your flesh? Its irreparable hue: that skin that reflects the shame, anger, and judgment you keep seeing in other people?

Posted on: 2015/9/26 22:11
Top


Re: PSE&G Jackhammer Nightmare
#9
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

MikeyTBC wrote:
Quote:

alastor wrote:
get our panties out of a wad
--misogynistic no less--


OMG MICROAGGRESSION!!!!


You misunderstood. We're concerned about the jackhammers on this thread, not the jackasses.


Posted on: 2015/9/24 14:58
Top


Re: PSE&G Jackhammer Nightmare
#10
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


"PSE&G needs to do work. They are upgrades. The noise is loud and the detours are a pain, but we all need to get our panties out of a wad - for safety and improved service these things happen and if it means you can't go down the street you always go down for a day or a week, well - first world problems"

Why is this brand of condescension--misogynistic no less-- necessary? Obviously, we all agree that our utilities are vital, and I think any rational member of the neighborhood understands the need for repairs to maintain that system. However, I do not give any entity--public or private-- carte blanche authority to conduct business without being accountable to the community they serve. If you've been paying attention, then you know that PSE&G has been reprimanded by the city for not conducting this project in a responsible way. Furthermore, the long duration and poor planning for this project has become extremely disruptive. And there has been no accommodation made to lessen that disruption. Finally, Councilwoman Osborne is doing something about this, and I received an e-mail with information about street closings the other day. However, it remains unclear when this project will end.

The Parking Authority's total disregard for the nightmare this has created is totally unacceptable. There are very well-compensated planners/administrators on the payroll to brainstorm solutions for these problems. But the parking authority has demonstrated repeatedly that they could care less about their impact on residents. It's ludicrous that they are not held accountable by the Mayor and the Council. The solution here is very clear--SUSPEND STREET CLEANING IN THE ZONE WHERE PSE&G HAS SHUT DOWN THE STREETS.

If you agree, contact Councilwoman Osborne and let her know that you're fed up.

Candice Osborne, candice@candiceosborne.com

Posted on: 2015/9/24 13:30
Top


PSE&G Jackhammer Nightmare
#11
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


When will it end? They have dug up the same street outside my residence at least three different times over the last few months. Parking has been a nightmare. There has been no effective communication with residents. We awake to no parking signs that shut down streets for days at a time. Some of us work from home and cannot tolerate the constant jackhammering. Why have they not suspended street sweeping during this mess? Where are our elected leaders? Where is a schedule? Where-- as always-- is the accountability?



Posted on: 2015/9/18 12:13
Top


Re: Mail Trucks Hogging Parking
#12
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

alastor wrote:
@jc_dweller

Nobody driving a registered vehicle is benefiting from "free parking." Moreover, no vehicle owner with a JCPA permit is benefiting from "free parking." In addition to the permit fee, the resident pays either property tax or rent that goes to property tax in addition to the other state and local taxes--all of which pay for the PUBLIC roads. By suggesting that permits should be several hundred dollars, you're arguing that a resident's ability to park a vehicle on a public street should be a privilege reserved for the rich at the expense of everyone who pays taxes relative to their income. In other words, you're suggesting low-income residents should pay taxes so that high-income people can park on the public streets everyone funds. Furthermore, you're ignoring the importance of vehicles to low-income families who cannot afford private parking and need transportation to commute to work. Frankly, I don't understand why someone would be annoyed with concerns about how residents access transportation and the livability of their city. How about we behave like citizens in a democracy and advocate for a solution that has equality in mind such as 24-hour permit restrictions that will benefit all Jersey City residents regardless of their class?


I see... so you are not OK with being asked to pay (what you consider to be) more taxes in the form of a more expensive parking permit (because, at $15 / year, you feel you already pay enough for parking on public roads) but you are totally fine with other people paying more taxes to subsidize your CHOICE. You (irrationally) claim that you paying more in parking permits favors the rich (still not sure how you made that connection) but you fail to realize or acknowledge that most of the taxes already paid are helping to maintain roads for traffic and transit purposes, nor parking. Simply put, parking on city streets is a privilege, and at $15 per year, it is undervalued and undercharged. It doesn't make ANY SENSE to charge that little.


Your reasoning is circular: parking is a privilege because you say it's a privilege. What exactly does that even mean? By this definition nearly every public service--including the very idea of liberty itself--is a privilege that answers to the social contract. Of course, there is a social contract, but the question regards how we should best balance the needs of the individual with the needs of others. I'm assuming you want to emphasize the word privilege to underline your claim that parking a car on a public street is a "CHOICE." Yes, indeed. So is walking on the sidewalk, camping at the national park, riding on NJ transit, and voting. I imagine you'd argue that parking on the street is different from walking down the sidewalk and more akin to riding on the train? Let's accept that premise--that parking, like the train, is a service we should pay for. The next question is why and then, how much? Of course, the ability to pay varies considerably based on personal wealth (I'm sure this principle doesn't require further elaboration). By creating a serious financial burden for low-income residents to park their cars, you are privileging people who have the means to pay over those who do not. This is bad public policy, and it creates a privilege that is a function of wealth, which you obfuscate by making this a matter of "choice." Public services--such as parking on a public street-- need to be accessible to the public and not the privileged few. What you seem to want is a type of exclusion that effectively privatizes a public street. If we extend your logic further, we can imagine that for the right amount of money a resident should be able to purchase the privilege to have a permanent parking spot on the public street. I suggest you check your privilege and direct your thinking to how we can make the city more equitable, more accessible, and more livable--rather than more divided, more isolated, and more inaccessible. Obviously, residents have a reasonable need for parking over the needs of non-residents; let's focus our energies on how to make parking accessible for ALL residents.

Posted on: 2015/6/9 15:40
Top


Re: Mail Trucks Hogging Parking
#13
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


@jc_dweller

Nobody driving a registered vehicle is benefiting from "free parking." Moreover, no vehicle owner with a JCPA permit is benefiting from "free parking." In addition to the permit fee, the resident pays either property tax or rent that goes to property tax in addition to the other state and local taxes--all of which pay for the PUBLIC roads. By suggesting that permits should be several hundred dollars, you're arguing that a resident's ability to park a vehicle on a public street should be a privilege reserved for the rich at the expense of everyone who pays taxes relative to their income. In other words, you're suggesting low-income residents should pay taxes so that high-income people can park on the public streets everyone funds. Furthermore, you're ignoring the importance of vehicles to low-income families who cannot afford private parking and need transportation to commute to work. Frankly, I don't understand why someone would be annoyed with concerns about how residents access transportation and the livability of their city. How about we behave like citizens in a democracy and advocate for a solution that has equality in mind such as 24-hour permit restrictions that will benefit all Jersey City residents regardless of their class?

Posted on: 2015/6/9 14:03
Top


Re: Notice of violation & Order to correct - JCFD
#14
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk



I understand why landlords don't like the idea of violations, inspections, fines, and what they perceive as government intrusions. But I am glad to see the JCFD stepping up and aggressively enforcing the Fire Code. Properly installed fire detection and suppression equipment saves lives and it will also save your livelihood in the event of a lawsuit. Think of these standards and devices in the way that you think of aircraft equipment; you want it in top condition, checked and certified for reliability. Furthermore, once you choose to rent your property to others, you're entering into a social contract with the public that expects your due diligence to protect the safety of others on your property. Instead of thinking of this as a burden, see the UFC as an important responsibility. Now, if the JCFD is acting in an arbitrary or unprofessional manner, that's another problem. However, the basic expectation that you abide by the law and ensure the reliability of your safety equipment with professional checks hardly seems like a reason for outrage. I'm sure those who have lost loved ones in Jersey City apartment fires would agree.

Posted on: 2015/5/11 13:10
Top


Re: Package thief on Varick St
#15
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Yes, I am entitled: I'm entitled to receive the packages.

To be blunt, your tipping creates an expectation of reward for carriers to merely DO THEIR JOB. And it is the duty of the postal service to ensure that packages are delivered to their recipient--in fact, it's a matter of federal law.

So, if you want talk about "entitlement" in the pejorative way that you intend, let's talk about your expectation that you should receive exceptional service for tipping a federal employee. But then we're back at the cronyism and the state of exception that you clearly feel entitled to for paying extra. Clearly, you could give a damn about how this deranges a government agency and creates the conditions for corruption and waste that you favor. But that's for another thread.



Posted on: 2014/12/9 17:24
Top


Re: Package thief on Varick St
#16
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Absurd. We should tip a federal employee so he will perform his job according to the regulations he is supposed to follow?

I know the Jersey cronyism mentality runs deep; it's nice to see that some of my fellow citizens think I should be slipping a cash envelope to get reliable and secure delivery service. Isn't that why I pay for postage?

Thanks for setting a horrible precedent.

Posted on: 2014/12/9 16:49
Top


Re: Package thief on Varick St
#17
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


We have been having a similar problem at a multifamily building on Jersey Ave. Numerous residents have had parcels stolen over the last few months, including myself.

This is due to how the packages are (mis)delivered by the Post Office. Parcel carriers frequently leave items without even ringing the unit, so packages sit in an unsecured vestibule even though a tenet might be home. All a thief has to do is follow the delivery truck and it's Christmas every day.

The postal service has responded with total indifference. I have contact them repeatedly and they do nothing to address the problem. The other day I went down to the 07302 Post Office and asked to speak with a delivery supervisor. After waiting at a barred window for over ten minutes, I was told by a sorter that the supervisors aren't very responsive and I was wasting my time. In other words, the Jersey City Post Office is a caricature of waste, inefficiency, and ineptitude.

My next move is to contact the Office of the Inspector General for the Post Office, but I doubt that is going to have any tangible effect on how the local USPS operation is mishandling our mail.

Posted on: 2014/12/9 16:06
Top


Re: Drivers and Crosswalks
#18
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


It's the difference between individual action and community action. If I file a summons, I might put this motorist on notice to drive safely; he'll probably just be irate that someone called him out for his conduct. If the city takes action, they might begin to address this problem in earnest. Councilwoman Osborne takes pedestrian safety seriously. And it should be taken seriously by the entire city government, especially the police department. There has been some improvement along Jersey Ave. with the installation of signage advising driver's of the state law. But the reckless driving continues to persist and the outrage by motorists who think they should be allowed to muscle over anyone in their way. It puzzles me why you think physically endangering someone is somehow a minor problem.


[/quote]

Instead of getting on a soapbox, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and file your summons?

That was your original question, right?[/quote]

Posted on: 2014/8/1 15:51
Top


Re: Drivers and Crosswalks
#19
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


This is exactly the kind of attitude that is so pervasive and dangerous. You dishonor the people who have been killed crossing the street. And you demonstrate why this behavior continues unchecked. Furthermore, when a pedestrian is in a crosswalk, you MUST yield. If the crosswalk is at an intersection, the pedestrian has the right of way if prompted by the walk signal. Granted, people do jaywalk and that's a problem. But that gives you no legal right to endanger their lives. It is astounding how flagrantly the students of Ferris High School obstruct traffic by jaywalking in front of crossing guards and police, endangering themselves and motorists. This is also a problem that needs to be seriously addressed by law enforcement. Instead, we have your attitude that these laws are somehow irrelevant or take a back seat to "real" crime. It's a fallacy that you can only address one kind of crime or the other; the police need to address both. And the lollygagging I frequently see by JCPD (the cop that stands around aimlessly on Grand St. and Barrow being one of many examples) suggests that they have men and women that could be assigned to this important task.



Posted on: 2014/8/1 15:25
Top


Re: Drivers and Crosswalks
#20
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


It's tempting to file the complaint in court, especially given this motorist's threats and incivility when called out for breaking the law. However, the real problem with pedestrian safety in Jersey City is the indifference to the problem. The police need to act.

I rarely, if ever, see vehicles ticketed in the downtown area for traffic violations, and I have never seen a police observing traffic to deter violations and issue citations. I have seen the motorcycle squad making a show of rumbling down Jersey Ave. in a group of six, but I don't see how this parade targets bad driving. It suggests to me that traffic violations are probably relegated to the squad and that most PO don't want to deal with infractions and are not being ordered to do it. I would be interested to know how many citations have been issued for failure to yield to a pedestrian. There was a targeted campaign a while back to address this problem, but it ended. And the dangerous driving continues.

The police need to make pedestrian safety an on-going priority. When they see violations of the law, they need to enforce the law. Otherwise, the permissive attitude will give motorists the impression that they can drive recklessly and endanger lives. If there were a concerted effort to ticket vehicles in Jersey City, motorists would quickly realize they cannot behave in this way. A car can be a deadly weapon, and if some of these vehicles came as close as they often do to hitting a person, an armed police officer would probably feel entitled to use deadly force against the driver.

These are reckless, impudent drivers who refuse to take responsibility for the safety of others; they seem to be motivated by a total disregard for the lives of others, annoyed and angry that they must respect the will of a pedestrian to transit a crosswalk: how dare someone have the gall to impede their vehicle's movement for thirty seconds.

Please demand action for city officials to address this problem before someone you love gets hurt.

Call the mayor, (201) 547-4900

Posted on: 2014/8/1 14:11
Top


Re: Drivers and Crosswalks
#21
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Judging by the responses, reckless driving is a major threat to pedestrian safety throughout Jersey City, including downtown where there is frequent pedestrian traffic.

Just tonight a vehicle nearly hit me in a crosswalk on Jersey Ave. and when I yelled at the driver that he must "Yield to Pedestrians in a Crosswalk," he abruptly stopped his car and began to threaten my person with physical violence.

The police seem altogether indifferent. In fact, I have witnessed police texting in their patrol vehicles while this very infraction (failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk) occurs directly in front of them. When I spoke with an officer about the apparent indifference, he said they had better things to do such as homicides and robberies. There was no reply when I remarked that reckless a driver poses an imminent threat to human life.

My question to fellow citizens: I have the license plate information of the vehicle that nearly struck me, presumably owned by the man who threatened me. Should I go to the municipal court and file a summons against him? Or is the degree of hostility and self-entitlement so rampant in this community that he would seek reprisal? Obviously, in court, it would be my word against his.

What we need is targeted enforcement by the police to curb this behavior.

Posted on: 2014/7/31 23:47
Top


Drivers and Crosswalks
#22
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


I’ve lived in Jersey City for several years, but I need some help understanding native misbehavior: failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. In other parts of the country, motorists stop, but here you take your life into your own hands when you cross a street. In fact, on any number of occasions I’ve been screamed at for daring to cross—sometimes carrying boxes or laundry---when the driver could see me in the street from two blocks away. I’ve witnessed others treated similarly, including a mother with a stroller and handicapped persons. The behavior is so frequent that it seems part of the Jersey mentality. I know the state prides itself on tough-guy-in-a-hurry BS, but how is this anything other than a hostile disregard for human life? I don’t need to remind readers of this list that others have died in crosswalks across this city and that state law very clearly commands a driver to yield to a pedestrian. I realized the other day when I was nearly hit in a crosswalk by a patrol car without its emergency lights active that I might have to accept I’m living in New Jerky.

Posted on: 2013/6/25 15:19
Top


Re: ox restaurant
#23
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


It entirely sucks that one of our best places has gone under, but we have to accept it. And question the absurd price to sell liquor in this state and city. Sadly, Ox is exactly the sort of establishment we need, but strangely one we cannot afford.

Posted on: 2009/7/15 21:21
Top


Re: ox restaurant
#24
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Generally, you don't fire your staff if you're just going on vacation, especially for five days.

Posted on: 2009/7/15 18:05
Top


Re: ox restaurant
#25
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Sadly, I fear it's over.

Posted on: 2009/7/15 6:24
Top


Re: Pushed Around? JCPD and Manners
#26
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Truly, life is stranger than fiction. The internet falls somewhere between the two.

To The Pusher:

Indeed, I was in a hurry to get home, it was cold, and I had spent the last nine hours laboring over Byron's Don Juan. I was in a mood--the kind of mood you have after work.

There's no need to contest what happened. We have different versions and I stand by mine. I didn't elbow past you. I did not touch you.

For me, that's the issue here---that you forcibly shoved me. That's not ok. That's a physical act. You should not touch strangers.

Now, I apologize for badgering you about manners. It's an obnoxious thing to do. When you refused to move, even though I perceived you were impolite, I should have let it go.

As for the police, more than anything I was disturbed by two things: 1) The way you invoked some kind of insider connection to influence their response and 2) The pitch of your cackle when you walked away after they had unduly berated me. I was very polite towards the cop until he tried to subvert your shove by telling me that in this part of the country people don't let others past on escalator. In other words, he had no interest in your physical aggression, and quibbled over some arbitrary point to negate anything I had to say. (ie the reason why many people consider cops assholes)

What you did was an act of assault, which is a criminal act. Granted, I'm mindful of the violence that surrounds us, but it is a fallacy to suggest that this act is not of legitimate concern to me, the police, or other citizens. The public has a reasonable expectation to be protected from any physically aggressive act perpetrated against them by a private citizen.

I wish you would express some degree of contrition for shoving me, but thank you for not kicking my ass.

Morals:

1) I should watch my mouth
2) You should keep your hands to yourself

Posted on: 2009/2/22 2:34
Top


Re: Pushed Around? JCPD and Manners
#27
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


This post generated far more interest than I expected. Thanks for taking the time to read and consider it. It's very true; you have only my side of the story. I'm not proposing that you buy it. I just wanted to voice it. The reason why I didn't file a report or ask to see the officers' supervisor was because I thought it had gone far enough and it was clear to me something underhanded and questionable was going on. I told the officers what I thought of their conduct, but I don't think the situation warranted involving anyone else, which would have probably only exacerbated my upset and their annoyance. That said, when I got home I called the precinct to speak with the Lieutenant at his convenience because I was disturbed by what seemed nefarious. He never called back. End of story. For some, the actions I've described seem like those of a hyperbolic sissy-pants dandy. Forgive me for trying to return our majestic city to its Victorian prosperity of genteel manners and watchful billy clubs.

Posted on: 2009/2/20 22:29
Top


Re: Pushed Around? JCPD and Manners
#28
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


"If it was the never ending exchange place escalator i'd maybe understand, but it's a 10 second escalator ride at Grove. Why would you antagonize someone who is twice your size in the first place? Seriously who says "You are lacking etiquette." ? It's more of a shock you're jaw isn't wired shut after saying some dumb shit like that. Grow a set of balls or know when to keep your mouth shut. Better yet enjoy the escalator ride.

If you didn't want him arrested or feel threatened by him why would you follow him and call police? It's one or both usually when making that call. They aren't counselors, and it was a waste of their time. CRIME IS UP.. blame bozos like this guy for wasting police time."


This response seems characteristic of the general sentiment, although I'm kind of curious where the contempt is coming from here. I should have mentioned I'm from California to see what kind of well-mannered response that would provoke (I bet you don't stop for people in crosswalks, do you?). There is a difference between words and actions. Yes, I could have walked away after the shove, but would you? Perhaps you would have shoved back? And, then, he would have shoved again. Next, a punch. Or, you might have walked away, but I was indignant yet non-violent. Yes, looking back, it was silly, but it's also symbolic. As Malcolm Gladwell suggests, there are perhaps no greater indicators of crime than tipping points, even the most minute.

Posted on: 2009/2/20 15:44
Top


Pushed Around? JCPD and Manners
#29
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


At about 11:45pm on February 19, 2009, I was ascending the escalator from the Grove Street PATH Station. It was gusty and cold, so I walked quickly up the escalator. There was a heavy-set, muscular man in front of me. I politely said, "Excuse me," in order to move past him on the left. He acknowledged me and said he would not move. I consider it common courtesy to keep to the right so people can pass. When I asked again, he refused to move. I remarked that "You are lacking etiquette." I did not curse at him nor was I verbally abusive. I did not in any way touch his person. I only admonished him for his discourtesy. This man's response was to become verbally threatening. Immediately upon exiting the escalator, he gave me a powerful shove.

I considered his shove physically threatening, and the man intimated that he would escalate his violence if I talked back to him. This man was more than twice my size, and I had not physically provoked him in any way, nor had I used any foul language towards him. In some cases, the law considers such a shove an act of minor assault. I told him I was calling the police. While on the phone with the dispatcher, I followed the man for less than a block. He was moving away from me, and I didn't feel in danger. During this time, he used his cell phone to make several phone calls. I partially overheard these calls, and it sounded like he was on the phone with the police precinct and in conversation with the lieutenant on duty. His tone was familiar and friendly implying some kind ofpre-existing connection with whomever he was speaking to. He identified himself as "Nathan."

When the police arrived, one of the offices was ending a cellular call with the words, "Ok boss." I explained to one of the officers what had occurred. The officer's demeanor was gruff and agitated, bordering on unprofessional. He was more concerned with debating about what constituted appropriate escalator courtesy than the action which prompted my call--the shove. Of course, there is no way to objectively prove what happened between the man and I. My intention was not to have this man arrested. When he pushed me, I felt threatened, but even more so, I felt pushed around. It is unacceptable in our culture for strangers to touch one another in such an aggressive way. Rather than push back, I made recourse to the police who are supposed to protect the citizenry from the unwarranted physical force of others. In short, this was a matter of principle.

It was clear, however, that the two responding officers had no patience or understanding for the situation. Instead of trying to listen to my concern, I was treated with suspicion and disrespect. And it became increasingly clear to me that whatever connection this man had to the police, it was influencing my interaction with them. They seemed entirely unconcerned with even the possibility of this man's aggression towards me. Instead, they equivocated the incident by telling me the man claimed I had pushed him, although the officer who reported this hadn't even spoken with him yet. Moreover, when I suggested that this man had called their lieutenant, NeilDonnelly, they denied any knowledge of it, even though the Lt. drove directly past us and they pointed this out to me.

I asked for the officers' bade numbers, but only one of them would reveal it to me. They both became increasingly truculent, got in their patrol car, and sped away. The man who pushed me walked away cackling. Now, I realize that a rejoinder to this story may be that I was wasting police time, and, more casually, that I shouldn't have remarked on a stranger's bad manners--that I was asking for it. At the same time, I think it's pretty important that people not think that can strong-arm members of the public who verbally reproach them. Evidently, this man felt implicated to the point of having to call someone in blue.

Posted on: 2009/2/20 8:05
Top



TopTop






Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017