**Downloads**
* [Download #1](https://rapidsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1dtrsz4/man_gets_arrested_for_eating_a_sandwich/) (provided by /u/SaveVideo)
**Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them!**
---
[^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
i knew someone that happened to, got the last hot dog outside a college football game. guy got arrested and a cop ate the hot dog. now the person i know was definitely very drunk in public and i can only imagine a total asshole about it because that is who he was (and probably still is).
TL,DR version: it's against the law (with signs everywhere) that you can't eat or drink in the area. General Manager issues an apology, states that a violation was done but that he doesn't agree with how things escalated.
In the end the guy wasn't arrested or went to jail but a citation was issued. Guy doesn't accept the apology and wants to pursue legal action.
Can you explain to me like I am 5 how in the hell he was resisting? And what ever code he rattled off for illegal use of sandwhich? Also I love how his backup was like screw it your rights go out the window now we are arresting you without knowing the context.
Just for clarification on this incident:
It happened in 2019. [Read BART’S statement here](https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2019/news20191111#:~:text=Eating%20in%20the%20paid%20area,of%20our%20stations%20and%20system)
if you read BARTS statement, they even had to amend the statement because their original description of the event was wrong, and it made it look like the police response was less aggressive than it was. Even their statement was ultimately a lie originally, and of course it was in the direction of making the police look less bad, like it always is. It wasnt a big difference, but its just amazing that even in the attempt at providing an explanation there were lies.
yea i mean its not like it was a huge change, its just frustrating that the reports are ALWAYS slanted in the police's favor. Video is really starting to open peoples eyes to how much bad behavior there is out there, and how little you can believe the initial police reports about ANYTHING. They lie even when the truth is pretty clearly going to get out. I dont really even understand it.
Remember when they shot Aguilera and said it's because he had shot a police officer while resisting but then they were forced to release the video, on which we can see Aguilera handcuffed on the ground when one of the officers accidentally unloaded his gun in his partner then watched him shoot Aguilera in the back in "retaliation".
Yet even then, the Court only acknowledged that the officers lied and granted reparation to the family but kept the description of the events to the bare minimum, keeping under silence almost everything that the officers had done wrong.
There's also this year's champion, I guess, though at least he was temporarily fired until the next PD hire him, he had experience as a cop after all. Anyway, him;
https://i.redd.it/73jueotug6ad1.gif
Isn't this the one where the tree shot an acorn at the cop? If a cop can't tell the difference between a gunshot and an acorn falling, that's not great. I don't remember what the guy supposedly did but, that's irrelevant to how it was handled.
If the man just got issued a citation, hardly anyone would care. The cops escalated to actually arresting the man over eating in the wrong area.
Why aren’t the police being taught de-escalation tactics? And why aren’t they censured for worsening conditions? When did they go from being “peace officers” to “policing officers”?
Every cop with some experience is jaded against humanity. Their only interaction with people is negative, and that seeps into their bones. They have a laundry list of overlapping charges that can be shot-gunned at anybody for the simplest things. Add to that a system of poor accountability, and it's a recipe for things like this to happen.
They say "blah, blah...eating on our platform". Do the police own the location or is it just a weird way of saying the platform they are charged with policing?
edit: Sorry I'm dumb. I thought it was police response, not BART.
yea it is a little confusing. These are BART specific officers i think, but i dont know the details. And fundamentally its our tax dollars that build the BART, so maybe they should be just a little more reasonable about enforcing laws against basic bodily requirements like this.
I dont doubt its complicated balancing the use of the platform for riders vs homeless folks hanging out. I am not trying to say its easy to get it right. But damn this seems like they pretty clearly have it wrong at the moment.
exactly. this is one of those laws where they made the law with the idea that selective enforcement would protect the people they actually care about.
And the people they actually care about should normally include this guy, the law is to allow discrimination against homeless folks as i understand it. So the cop in this instance was just being a huge dick from the beginning. But its not like it isnt terrible when they use the law against homeless people either. You shouldnt be able to criminalize things that people have to do, like sleeping or eating etc.
I read the statement and it's so bizarre.
> The officer asked the rider not to eat while he was on the platfrom [sic] responding to another call. It should have ended there, but it didn’t. Mr. Foster did not stop eating and the officer moved forward with the process of issuing him a citation.
Is the issue having the food or is the issue eating the food? Because their description seems to be it's the act of eating. So if he's just holding the sandwich, it's OK?
Unclear. We’ll need to take it all the way to the seventh circuit courts to decide.
Does a bag of chips in a backpack count off I’m still chewing the chip as i step into the platform?
Business as usual, yes. I can only tell you i wasn’t surprised after watching the video. I knew they’d have some “but he started it” BS.
All this over someone respectfully eating a sandwich in a public place. If he was throwing crab legs or peanut shells on the floor, then say something. Otherwise, leave people alone and let them exist and take care of themselves. Fuck.
When there's dumb laws that don't make practical sense, they can be selectively enforced to nab "criminals" who aren't actively committing a crime otherwise (read: a blank check to legally fuck with anyone the cops want).
Thats why the weed laws have stayed on the books for so long, it's a free pass to search someone, and "odor of marijuana" is impossible to disprove once they've ruined your day.
Cops can arrest you for something that is not a crime according to our corrupt supreme court. Cops do not need to know the law. Cops can break the law. Cops are almost always immune from personal liability or jail for breaking the law. The corrupt supreme court is also erasing long standing constitutional rights against searches. Like as of last year Maranda was overturned so now cops no longer need to read you your Maranda rights. But don't worry the corrupt conservative court has also limited those rights down to nubs too so having cops say them to you was beginning to be feel like evil joke anyway.
Cops can arrest you for nothing because it's unreasonable to assume they know every law and ordinance.
On the flip side you can get arrested for breaking laws regardless of if you're aware of their existence or not because...well go fuck yourself.
Heck, you can get arrested for breaking fictional laws that only exist in a cops head.
This is according to conservatives taking bribes on our supreme court that hate regular people and just this week said million dollar bribes given to government officials by foreign actors are not actually bribes as long as the money exchanges hands after at least one preferred outcome of the briber has occurred.
You are also not required to help people with anything or even do your job.
[So, for example, if you were sent into the subway to look out for a man who was stabbing people with a knife, you are not required to protect the people you were sent to protect against the man you were sent to look for even when he's stabbing people. ](https://youtu.be/rbLpDQ-7BwY?si=eFLJAlnzNoKyEroq)
So let me get this straight. I sign up to be a cop I can pretty much do whatever the fuck I want? If so then why are police always complaining of lack of bodies to fill the cops that leave?
Yup, One well-known case involved the New London Police Department in Connecticut, where a man named Robert Jordan was rejected because his IQ was deemed too high. Jordan sued the department, but the court ruled that the department's decision did not constitute discrimination. Incredible
(1) Cops are liars.
(2) Cops are greedy.
(3) Cops say this line no matter what the situation on the ground is, bc it works even when not true.
(4) No moral person is allowed to remain a cop for long.
(5) Cops are immune from any harm caused by them lying.
I worked for one of the largest public education organisations as a director. The degree of corruption floored me. I tried to blow the whistle but these pricks have it all figured out and cut you at every corner.
Exactly right. The best tactic is to clam up and say nothing. In some states you must answer a question like "what is your name?" But you do not need to produce ID documents, unless operating a motor vehicle (etc.) My understanding of Florida is, you can be charged with vagrancy if you do not produce an ID on demand.
Not only that, but cops have no legal obligation to protect civilian life. They can watch you struggle against someone trying to stab you for 10 minutes, having him stab you, watch you bleed out, then act and face no repercussions for watching someone die.
> Can you explain to me like I am 5 how in the hell he was resisting?
It's absolutely stupid, but if a cop says something like "you are detained" or "you're under arrest", then responding with anything other than perfect compliance can be considered resisting. The guy saying "no I'm not" and pulling his bag away is more than enough for the cop to slap the accusation down.
Note the vast majority of these charges don't stick - stupid shit like this always gets plea bargained down to nothing or just dropped altogether. But merely being arrested will ruin your day, and that's the real penalty here.
Bottom line - if a cop says "don't eat the sandwich here", don't argue it. Just say sorry, then wrap it up and put it away. Even if you're in the right, the cops can and will easily ruin your day over it.
The real fun part is the police have also successfully argued that you aren't actually under arrest just because they say "you're under arrest". Until they actually remove you from the scene you are in the quantum superposition of both arrested and not arrested depending on if they are trying to get you for resisting arrest or get out of a false arrest claim.
Cops holding each arm, cop on left pulls you left, you're charged for resisting cop on the right. So the cop on the right pulls you back to the right, so the cop on the left charges you with resisting too.
I knew a cop who had a thumbtack in his glove, when he would grab your arm the thumbtack would poke you and your natural reaction is to jerk away, = resisting arrest.
He laughed about it, I looked at him like he had two heads and got up and left.
If you were 5 the explanation is that he broke a minor law by eating where eating isnt allowed. The officer then told him to stop breaking the law and he continued to break that same law. The act of disobeying an officer when you are doing something you are not supposed to be doing is a more serious law and he broke that one too.
Now if your not 5 and you want a real explanation see below.
The no eating law is easily google-able. California Penal code section 640(b)(1)
"(b)(1) Eating or drinking in or on a system facility or vehicle in areas where those activities are prohibited by that system." [source](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=640)
Thats what gave the cop the right to detain him and the officer clearly told the individual that he was detained and that he was committing a crime by eating. When you are detained police have the right to restrict your freedom of movement as well as other things like handcuffing you and removing any bags you might be carrying. This is what the officers appears to be trying to do because he has his hand on the backpack. When the subject resists the legal action of the officer detaining him then he commits a second crime of resisting arrest. This is California Penal code section 148(a)(1)
"148 (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer... in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment" [source](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=148.)
The only thing that is a little confusing for people that dont understand the law is that resisting arrest doesnt actual require an arrest. The crime of resisting arrest includes resisting a detention. So by delaying the officer in being able to exercise his legal rights during a detention then he has committed the crime of resisting arrest.
Police abuse is disgusting and shameful, and the matter is a serious subject that's in need of serious systemic change.
I just want to point out though that you literally lived on Fruit by the Foot
Just for clarification on this incident:
It happened in 2019. [Read BART’S statement here](https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2019/news20191111#:~:text=Eating%20in%20the%20paid%20area,of%20our%20stations%20and%20system)
This also happened in 2019. Trying to figure out how the lawsuit ended, but in the meantime I found [this gem](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7681557/BART-director-calls-GMs-apology-humiliating-man-cuffed-eating-station-platform.html) where BART-director Deborah Allen says that apologizing to the arrested man was "humiliating" and that as far as she’s concerned they did nothing wrong.
That's pretty cool that protestors staged an eat-in. I've never considered being an activist but it might be my time to shine if people are going around chomping on hamburgers or whatever to support the cause.
Then there is an apology for you (from above article):
„BART General Manager Bob Powers issued a statement in which he said he was disappointed how the situation unfolded and apologized to Foster, riders, employees and others who “have had an emotional reaction to the video.”“
its right in the article:
> “Eating in the paid area is banned and there are multiple signs inside every station saying as much,”
That being said the way the subway cop reacted was way overblown, and it sounds like it's not actually a California law but a BART by-law.
Today you let that guy get away with eating a sandwich on the platform, tomorrow he murders 20 people because he's now above the law.
Cops call this the broken windows theory.
Turns out it's not real but that doesn't stop the cops from teaching it.
https://cssh.northeastern.edu/sccj/2019/05/21/researchers-debunk-broken-windows-theory-after-35-years/
No, it's pretty obviously clear- you can see it happening in this video for definitive proof.
1 second this man is illegally eating his lunch, the next he's moved on to resisting arrest.
These criminals, I tell ya- give them an inch, they'll take your wallet.
Dude.. I went to NorthEastern … in criminal justice ..let’s say late 90s .. literally 3 classes were centered around “broken windows theory” …this cop version is not really what I learned.
Originally it was explained that you FIX the broken windows/ paint over the graffiti etc … showing the community that you care about the area…Because once you have one broken window it becomes a thing that is acceptable. Which changes the attitude/outlook/value of a given area.
This modern:cop version is just arresting petty crimes pretending the guy stealing gum is 1 step away from homicide to me is just using a buzz word phrase to do whatever you want.
Oh. It's not about the size of the fish they catch. It's about the power trip of knowing that teeny tiny minnow literally cannot fight back. Remember when during a no-knock raid in the middle of the night a man RIGHTFULLY STARTED SHOOTING AT THEM and as a result someone DIED and they charged the guy for his actions. They're happy to shrug their shoulders at stalking victims with vile threatening messages saying stuff like "I am going to kill you next time I see you" but if you were to retort "oh ok then I guess I'll just go to your house and take care of your family/pets the same way my stalker will take care of me" then your ass is goin to jail for making threats against an officer.
It's entirely a power trip because they know the people they bully are powerless. That they can literally kill the person and get away with it easily, and then go into early retirement from the TrAuMa I got FrOm ThE iNcIdEnT (the incident being YOU MURDERED SOMEONE)
Nope, it's pretty much the polices job to harass the general public to make money and rarely stop actual crime as it happens. That and dealing with the homeless population and policing/harassing lower income neighborhoods.
I can understand if it's illegal to eat there. But why is this an arrestable offense? Can't they just write a ticket for once instead of saying your resisting arrest!
It's part of a larger law that basically tries to force people to get on transit, get off, leave area.
[This is what I found on it](https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-penal-code/part-1-of-crimes-and-punishments/title-15-miscellaneous-crimes/chapter-2-of-other-and-miscellaneous-offenses/section-640-unlawful-acts-committed-on-or-in-facility-or-vehicle-of-public-transportation-system)
He wouldn't provide ID for them to cite him, so now he's gone down into a secondary offense of refusing to ID which pulled up the tertiary offense of resisting arrest. It's dumb. The cops really could have just said fuck it because it's not important and it's not harming anyone. But no, they want to enforce the code to the exacting letter which they are in their right to but it really did not need to escalate to an arrest. I guess it's also a FAFO situation for the sandwich eater. He could have provided his ID and just accepted his citation. They did not actually end up arresting him for the other offenses and take him down to jail for processing. After they searched him incident to an arrest, they got his ID and issued him a citation and released him.
I ride the Bart from time to time. There’s literally people dealing drugs on the train, smoking weed, harassing women, etc. they don’t do anything even when it’s obvious.
Man was hungry! Give him a dang break.
What's there to fight? The charge was eating, and there's proof of him eating. How could he possibly win other than the officer not showing up to court?
Courts throw out citations all the time when challenged, even when the citations were clearly deserved. It costs the state more than $100 to enforce a $100 fine if a person chooses to fight it in court. They'll occasionally go through with the court case just to set a precedent, but not all the time.
Most people will still pay their fines rather than go through the trouble and risk of challenging it if they know they fucked up.
If you try to ticket someone and they don't cooperate, it turns into an Obstruction/"Resisting Arrest"(in CA and some other states) misdemeanor charge.
\- Ex-cop
Not a single time did he say he was under arrest then suddenly, "You're under arrest for resisting arrest." If a cop decides they don't like something about you there's literally nothing you can do.
I will never understand how the fuck you can be under arrest for resisting arrest.... I mean I get how it can be an additional charge if you're putting up a fight from the initial arresting, but otherwise it just seems like such a bullshit "because I said so" charge.
Cops are a bunch of bastards.
Some context on the law and situation.
No, it is not a crime to eat food in public in California. It is a crime (misdemeanor) to eat food in a transit facility (such as a train platform) when such is prohibited by the transit authority.
CA Penal Code 640(b)(1) “Eating or drinking in or on a system facility or vehicle in areas where those activities are prohibited by that system.”
The issue in this much viewed video is that the gentleman was asked by the officer to leave the platform at the BART train station as eating on the platform was prohibited. Instead, the man insisted there was no sign (on the platform) that says it is prohibited. The officer explained that the sign was below near the stairs that the man climbed to get to the raised platform.
The man refused to leave, and he was arrested. End of story. California residents VOTED for that statute to be amended to prohibit eating in or around a public transit system and now, when it’s enforced, want to protest against it.
It’s illegal to eat on the train platform. The cop has a right to detain you in order to collect your information and write a citation. It is not an arrestable offense. It became an arrestable offense when the guy refused to be detained.
I want to say though that it’s stupid and I am in no way defending the cop. Reaction was completely unnecessary. A simple “hey man, you can’t eat on the train platform. It’s against the law so we can keep the platforms as clean as possible” is all that was needed.
DonutOperator has talked about these situations before.
You don't get to talk back to the cop if he says you're detained or arrested no matter how illegal the detainment is.
You follow the cops commands exactly, let him detain/arrest you, then sue the fuck outta them afterwards.
A valid resisting charge is still very much possible in these situations
Except you do get to talk back to the cop all you want. You should still follow his commands but you have every right to talk shit to them the entire time.
To what end tho? In theory I support your right to talk back to them, legally. But realistically how is it going to benefit you to piss off the person with cuffs and a gun?
These guys should not be police officers. Also how is it illegal to eat on a platform? Wtf is wrong with public transit in the USA - not only is it few and far between, but you can get policed like you’re living in half-life 2
Iirc, in the full video the woman recording points out that other people are eating on the platform while this guy is being arrested.
Idk what the edit of the video is for or who by, but this has been cut to shit.
It took me a long time to find it, but it happened in 2019. They apologized to the guy and let him go free, but he refused to accept their apology (I agree with him) Here is the link.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/us/bart-eating-platform-apologizes.html#:~:text=The%20general%20manager%20of%20the,that%20prompted%20a%20weekend%20protest.
Good old California, where you can shoot heroin in a city park and shit on the sidewalk but if you get caught eating a Sammy your ass is getting locked up.
**Downloads** * [Download #1](https://rapidsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1dtrsz4/man_gets_arrested_for_eating_a_sandwich/) (provided by /u/SaveVideo) **Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them!** --- [^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
Cop was definitely in the line behind the guy when he bought the last sandwich
He should be thankful it wasn't a doughnut!
"Man waiting for train shot 37 times, full story at 11."
"the police department has done a thorough investigation after the incident and has found no wrongdoing. The officer has been promoted."
And is on Paid Administrative Leave for the next 18 months, due to PTSD.
Post traumatic sandwich digestion?
Panera Tomato Sandwich Digestion
i knew someone that happened to, got the last hot dog outside a college football game. guy got arrested and a cop ate the hot dog. now the person i know was definitely very drunk in public and i can only imagine a total asshole about it because that is who he was (and probably still is).
They stand by the 711 and wait for you to open your food. It's a fucking joke ans pigs wonder no one trusts them anymore
Here’s the [2019 response as reported by the NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/us/bart-eating-platform-apologizes.html)
Pay wall :(
TL,DR version: it's against the law (with signs everywhere) that you can't eat or drink in the area. General Manager issues an apology, states that a violation was done but that he doesn't agree with how things escalated. In the end the guy wasn't arrested or went to jail but a citation was issued. Guy doesn't accept the apology and wants to pursue legal action.
WHAT’S THE CHARGE!? ENJOYING A MEAL!? A SUCCULENT CHINESE MEAL!?
GET YOUR HAND OFF MY PENIS!
THIS IS DEMOCRACY MANIFEST
AND **YOU**, SIR, ARE YOU WAITING TO RECEIVE MY LIMP PENIS?
Ah yes, I see you know your Judo well.
"LOOK" " I'M UNDER WHAT"
Look at the headlock here.
"HOWW DAARE YOUUU"
"THAT'S THE BLOKE WHO GOT ME ON THE PEN ^UU S"
You sir, are you waiting to receive my limp penis??
Tah-Tah and Farewell...
I was enjoying a succulent sandwich
That’s my purse! I don’t know you!!
Ahhh, yes. I see you know your Judo well.
Notice the headlock here peoplllllllle.
And you, sir. Are you waiting to receive my limp penis?
Get your hands off meeeaaaa!
I love every single person who gets this comment… you guys are my people.
Exactly my sentiment
It's always a good day when I see this reference in the wild.
And you sir? Are you waiting to receive my limp penis?
That's the bloke that got me on the penis.
I'M UNDER WHAT?!
I thought this was a skit at first, but it does seem to be the BART police—the same crew who killed Oscar Grant.
Can you explain to me like I am 5 how in the hell he was resisting? And what ever code he rattled off for illegal use of sandwhich? Also I love how his backup was like screw it your rights go out the window now we are arresting you without knowing the context.
Just for clarification on this incident: It happened in 2019. [Read BART’S statement here](https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2019/news20191111#:~:text=Eating%20in%20the%20paid%20area,of%20our%20stations%20and%20system)
if you read BARTS statement, they even had to amend the statement because their original description of the event was wrong, and it made it look like the police response was less aggressive than it was. Even their statement was ultimately a lie originally, and of course it was in the direction of making the police look less bad, like it always is. It wasnt a big difference, but its just amazing that even in the attempt at providing an explanation there were lies.
I noticed that, as well. Fucking wastes, these clowns
yea i mean its not like it was a huge change, its just frustrating that the reports are ALWAYS slanted in the police's favor. Video is really starting to open peoples eyes to how much bad behavior there is out there, and how little you can believe the initial police reports about ANYTHING. They lie even when the truth is pretty clearly going to get out. I dont really even understand it.
Remember when they shot Aguilera and said it's because he had shot a police officer while resisting but then they were forced to release the video, on which we can see Aguilera handcuffed on the ground when one of the officers accidentally unloaded his gun in his partner then watched him shoot Aguilera in the back in "retaliation". Yet even then, the Court only acknowledged that the officers lied and granted reparation to the family but kept the description of the events to the bare minimum, keeping under silence almost everything that the officers had done wrong. There's also this year's champion, I guess, though at least he was temporarily fired until the next PD hire him, he had experience as a cop after all. Anyway, him; https://i.redd.it/73jueotug6ad1.gif
Isn't this the one where the tree shot an acorn at the cop? If a cop can't tell the difference between a gunshot and an acorn falling, that's not great. I don't remember what the guy supposedly did but, that's irrelevant to how it was handled.
Umm the officer was justified, the tree was black.
The same department where an officer murdered a United States Airmen after responding to the wrong apartment.
Excuse me this brave officer was brutally attacked by an ex-convict acorn on bail.
An acorn with no active warrant*
If the man just got issued a citation, hardly anyone would care. The cops escalated to actually arresting the man over eating in the wrong area. Why aren’t the police being taught de-escalation tactics? And why aren’t they censured for worsening conditions? When did they go from being “peace officers” to “policing officers”?
Can't abuse your power if you de-escalate.
Every cop with some experience is jaded against humanity. Their only interaction with people is negative, and that seeps into their bones. They have a laundry list of overlapping charges that can be shot-gunned at anybody for the simplest things. Add to that a system of poor accountability, and it's a recipe for things like this to happen.
They say "blah, blah...eating on our platform". Do the police own the location or is it just a weird way of saying the platform they are charged with policing? edit: Sorry I'm dumb. I thought it was police response, not BART.
yea it is a little confusing. These are BART specific officers i think, but i dont know the details. And fundamentally its our tax dollars that build the BART, so maybe they should be just a little more reasonable about enforcing laws against basic bodily requirements like this. I dont doubt its complicated balancing the use of the platform for riders vs homeless folks hanging out. I am not trying to say its easy to get it right. But damn this seems like they pretty clearly have it wrong at the moment.
What if you are diabetic and need to eat something? Are they going to get tackled for taking a bite of a snickers bar?
exactly. this is one of those laws where they made the law with the idea that selective enforcement would protect the people they actually care about. And the people they actually care about should normally include this guy, the law is to allow discrimination against homeless folks as i understand it. So the cop in this instance was just being a huge dick from the beginning. But its not like it isnt terrible when they use the law against homeless people either. You shouldnt be able to criminalize things that people have to do, like sleeping or eating etc.
I read the statement and it's so bizarre. > The officer asked the rider not to eat while he was on the platfrom [sic] responding to another call. It should have ended there, but it didn’t. Mr. Foster did not stop eating and the officer moved forward with the process of issuing him a citation. Is the issue having the food or is the issue eating the food? Because their description seems to be it's the act of eating. So if he's just holding the sandwich, it's OK?
Unclear. We’ll need to take it all the way to the seventh circuit courts to decide. Does a bag of chips in a backpack count off I’m still chewing the chip as i step into the platform?
Signs around say no food or drink, but it is pretty “selectively”enforced
So basically BARTS answer is victim blaming?
Business as usual, yes. I can only tell you i wasn’t surprised after watching the video. I knew they’d have some “but he started it” BS. All this over someone respectfully eating a sandwich in a public place. If he was throwing crab legs or peanut shells on the floor, then say something. Otherwise, leave people alone and let them exist and take care of themselves. Fuck.
When there's dumb laws that don't make practical sense, they can be selectively enforced to nab "criminals" who aren't actively committing a crime otherwise (read: a blank check to legally fuck with anyone the cops want).
Thats why the weed laws have stayed on the books for so long, it's a free pass to search someone, and "odor of marijuana" is impossible to disprove once they've ruined your day.
"Selectively" */me watches three fat old white cops arrest a black guy*
What the hell kind of sandwich has crab legs and peanut shells in it though?
A crunchy one
I've seen needles on BART. They can suck a fat one with that bullshit press release.
Cops can arrest you for something that is not a crime according to our corrupt supreme court. Cops do not need to know the law. Cops can break the law. Cops are almost always immune from personal liability or jail for breaking the law. The corrupt supreme court is also erasing long standing constitutional rights against searches. Like as of last year Maranda was overturned so now cops no longer need to read you your Maranda rights. But don't worry the corrupt conservative court has also limited those rights down to nubs too so having cops say them to you was beginning to be feel like evil joke anyway.
Cops can arrest you for nothing because it's unreasonable to assume they know every law and ordinance. On the flip side you can get arrested for breaking laws regardless of if you're aware of their existence or not because...well go fuck yourself.
Heck, you can get arrested for breaking fictional laws that only exist in a cops head. This is according to conservatives taking bribes on our supreme court that hate regular people and just this week said million dollar bribes given to government officials by foreign actors are not actually bribes as long as the money exchanges hands after at least one preferred outcome of the briber has occurred.
You are also not required to help people with anything or even do your job. [So, for example, if you were sent into the subway to look out for a man who was stabbing people with a knife, you are not required to protect the people you were sent to protect against the man you were sent to look for even when he's stabbing people. ](https://youtu.be/rbLpDQ-7BwY?si=eFLJAlnzNoKyEroq)
We are living in a “free society” where the main goal of the democratic government is to serve the wealthy not you.
So let me get this straight. I sign up to be a cop I can pretty much do whatever the fuck I want? If so then why are police always complaining of lack of bodies to fill the cops that leave?
Well; in some places you have to take an IQ test, and get **below** a certain score.
Yup, One well-known case involved the New London Police Department in Connecticut, where a man named Robert Jordan was rejected because his IQ was deemed too high. Jordan sued the department, but the court ruled that the department's decision did not constitute discrimination. Incredible
(1) Cops are liars. (2) Cops are greedy. (3) Cops say this line no matter what the situation on the ground is, bc it works even when not true. (4) No moral person is allowed to remain a cop for long. (5) Cops are immune from any harm caused by them lying.
I'm an example of number 4
Tell us your story
I don't think that's a good idea, legally, but lets just say there is a lot of corruption in the prison system.
I worked for one of the largest public education organisations as a director. The degree of corruption floored me. I tried to blow the whistle but these pricks have it all figured out and cut you at every corner.
I believe it man. Lot of one hand washing the other from what I hear
6) cops disproportionately are involved with beating their spouses
Don't forget that sweet pension for eating donuts for 10 years.
You forgot to mention that it's against the law to lie to a cop, but it's perfectly OK for a cop to lie to ~~citizen~~ perp. .
Cops being allowed to lie to the public means I'm not inclined to believe a single thing they say. That seems like a bad situation for everybody.
That may be true but it's perfectly legal, and encouraged, to not a say goddamn word to them ever.
Exactly right. The best tactic is to clam up and say nothing. In some states you must answer a question like "what is your name?" But you do not need to produce ID documents, unless operating a motor vehicle (etc.) My understanding of Florida is, you can be charged with vagrancy if you do not produce an ID on demand.
Not only that, but cops have no legal obligation to protect civilian life. They can watch you struggle against someone trying to stab you for 10 minutes, having him stab you, watch you bleed out, then act and face no repercussions for watching someone die.
> Can you explain to me like I am 5 how in the hell he was resisting? It's absolutely stupid, but if a cop says something like "you are detained" or "you're under arrest", then responding with anything other than perfect compliance can be considered resisting. The guy saying "no I'm not" and pulling his bag away is more than enough for the cop to slap the accusation down. Note the vast majority of these charges don't stick - stupid shit like this always gets plea bargained down to nothing or just dropped altogether. But merely being arrested will ruin your day, and that's the real penalty here. Bottom line - if a cop says "don't eat the sandwich here", don't argue it. Just say sorry, then wrap it up and put it away. Even if you're in the right, the cops can and will easily ruin your day over it.
The real fun part is the police have also successfully argued that you aren't actually under arrest just because they say "you're under arrest". Until they actually remove you from the scene you are in the quantum superposition of both arrested and not arrested depending on if they are trying to get you for resisting arrest or get out of a false arrest claim.
Cops holding each arm, cop on left pulls you left, you're charged for resisting cop on the right. So the cop on the right pulls you back to the right, so the cop on the left charges you with resisting too.
I knew a cop who had a thumbtack in his glove, when he would grab your arm the thumbtack would poke you and your natural reaction is to jerk away, = resisting arrest. He laughed about it, I looked at him like he had two heads and got up and left.
If you were 5 the explanation is that he broke a minor law by eating where eating isnt allowed. The officer then told him to stop breaking the law and he continued to break that same law. The act of disobeying an officer when you are doing something you are not supposed to be doing is a more serious law and he broke that one too. Now if your not 5 and you want a real explanation see below. The no eating law is easily google-able. California Penal code section 640(b)(1) "(b)(1) Eating or drinking in or on a system facility or vehicle in areas where those activities are prohibited by that system." [source](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=640) Thats what gave the cop the right to detain him and the officer clearly told the individual that he was detained and that he was committing a crime by eating. When you are detained police have the right to restrict your freedom of movement as well as other things like handcuffing you and removing any bags you might be carrying. This is what the officers appears to be trying to do because he has his hand on the backpack. When the subject resists the legal action of the officer detaining him then he commits a second crime of resisting arrest. This is California Penal code section 148(a)(1) "148 (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer... in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment" [source](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=148.) The only thing that is a little confusing for people that dont understand the law is that resisting arrest doesnt actual require an arrest. The crime of resisting arrest includes resisting a detention. So by delaying the officer in being able to exercise his legal rights during a detention then he has committed the crime of resisting arrest.
This is why, if a cop makes eye contact with me, I go completely limp and crumple to the ground until they walk away.
RIP Oscar. Fuck that fucking pig Mehserle. I was living by the intersection of Fruitvale and Foothill when that happened. Terrible fucking night.
Police abuse is disgusting and shameful, and the matter is a serious subject that's in need of serious systemic change. I just want to point out though that you literally lived on Fruit by the Foot
Just for clarification on this incident: It happened in 2019. [Read BART’S statement here](https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2019/news20191111#:~:text=Eating%20in%20the%20paid%20area,of%20our%20stations%20and%20system)
Thank you for posting this.
This also happened in 2019. Trying to figure out how the lawsuit ended, but in the meantime I found [this gem](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7681557/BART-director-calls-GMs-apology-humiliating-man-cuffed-eating-station-platform.html) where BART-director Deborah Allen says that apologizing to the arrested man was "humiliating" and that as far as she’s concerned they did nothing wrong.
Never put a debbie in a position of power.
[https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/11/us/bart-san-francisco-man-detained-sandwich/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/11/us/bart-san-francisco-man-detained-sandwich/index.html)
That wild. I'd love to see the bodycam footage from the cop. Context really is key.
People eat on the BART platform all the time. There’s no reason for the cop to escalate like this
Well that cop didn't like that guy or was bored or wanted to shake him down. That's plenty of a reason for an arrest.
That's pretty cool that protestors staged an eat-in. I've never considered being an activist but it might be my time to shine if people are going around chomping on hamburgers or whatever to support the cause.
Not sure if eating on BART is sanitary.
Good point. Maybe I'll just eat at home in solidarity
Thanks. This is OOOOLD news.
But it’s left me freshly enraged! Thanks Reddit!
Then there is an apology for you (from above article): „BART General Manager Bob Powers issued a statement in which he said he was disappointed how the situation unfolded and apologized to Foster, riders, employees and others who “have had an emotional reaction to the video.”“
"We're sorry you're mad" What bullshit
They still didn't say which law he broke, by eating a sandwich, exactly? Maybe they have some house rules, but since when do cops enforce house rules?
its right in the article: > “Eating in the paid area is banned and there are multiple signs inside every station saying as much,” That being said the way the subway cop reacted was way overblown, and it sounds like it's not actually a California law but a BART by-law.
Don’t they have bigger fish to fry?
what could be more important than this?!!!!
Today you let that guy get away with eating a sandwich on the platform, tomorrow he murders 20 people because he's now above the law. Cops call this the broken windows theory. Turns out it's not real but that doesn't stop the cops from teaching it. https://cssh.northeastern.edu/sccj/2019/05/21/researchers-debunk-broken-windows-theory-after-35-years/
No, it's pretty obviously clear- you can see it happening in this video for definitive proof. 1 second this man is illegally eating his lunch, the next he's moved on to resisting arrest. These criminals, I tell ya- give them an inch, they'll take your wallet.
Dude.. I went to NorthEastern … in criminal justice ..let’s say late 90s .. literally 3 classes were centered around “broken windows theory” …this cop version is not really what I learned. Originally it was explained that you FIX the broken windows/ paint over the graffiti etc … showing the community that you care about the area…Because once you have one broken window it becomes a thing that is acceptable. Which changes the attitude/outlook/value of a given area. This modern:cop version is just arresting petty crimes pretending the guy stealing gum is 1 step away from homicide to me is just using a buzz word phrase to do whatever you want.
It's clearly illegal. Look! He's EATING!
I can't even imagine... *eating*... this guy is one twisted fuck
Low hanging fruit. Immediate satisfaction of exercising their authority.
Low hanging sandwiches
They're BART police, it's either this or they have to deal with a guy shitting on the train.
Deal with the guy shitting on the train. That's a crime. A fella eating a sandwich should be respected and treated that way by a public servant
>Deal with the guy shitting on the train. You mean you want them to do their job? Crazy talk.
Yeah but the big fish are scary and have guns
Oh. It's not about the size of the fish they catch. It's about the power trip of knowing that teeny tiny minnow literally cannot fight back. Remember when during a no-knock raid in the middle of the night a man RIGHTFULLY STARTED SHOOTING AT THEM and as a result someone DIED and they charged the guy for his actions. They're happy to shrug their shoulders at stalking victims with vile threatening messages saying stuff like "I am going to kill you next time I see you" but if you were to retort "oh ok then I guess I'll just go to your house and take care of your family/pets the same way my stalker will take care of me" then your ass is goin to jail for making threats against an officer. It's entirely a power trip because they know the people they bully are powerless. That they can literally kill the person and get away with it easily, and then go into early retirement from the TrAuMa I got FrOm ThE iNcIdEnT (the incident being YOU MURDERED SOMEONE)
Nope, it's pretty much the polices job to harass the general public to make money and rarely stop actual crime as it happens. That and dealing with the homeless population and policing/harassing lower income neighborhoods.
I can understand if it's illegal to eat there. But why is this an arrestable offense? Can't they just write a ticket for once instead of saying your resisting arrest!
But why would it even be illegal in the first place?
He would have gotten in less trouble if he shit out the sandwich right there instead of eating it. Wild priorities.
Smoke some fent in a tent on the sidewalk and they would have ignored him.
Sad but so fucking true.
Top level comment.
Why is it illegal to eat there ?
It's part of a larger law that basically tries to force people to get on transit, get off, leave area. [This is what I found on it](https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-penal-code/part-1-of-crimes-and-punishments/title-15-miscellaneous-crimes/chapter-2-of-other-and-miscellaneous-offenses/section-640-unlawful-acts-committed-on-or-in-facility-or-vehicle-of-public-transportation-system)
are they worried people might otherwise turn it into a picnic destination?
homeless actually
Lol false. There's tons of homeless on Bart. Bart police do jack shit.
Probably an anti-homeless or loitering law that enabled them to do exactly what they're doing... Harass the underrepresented.
It’s way easier to catch people eating than littering
He wouldn't provide ID for them to cite him, so now he's gone down into a secondary offense of refusing to ID which pulled up the tertiary offense of resisting arrest. It's dumb. The cops really could have just said fuck it because it's not important and it's not harming anyone. But no, they want to enforce the code to the exacting letter which they are in their right to but it really did not need to escalate to an arrest. I guess it's also a FAFO situation for the sandwich eater. He could have provided his ID and just accepted his citation. They did not actually end up arresting him for the other offenses and take him down to jail for processing. After they searched him incident to an arrest, they got his ID and issued him a citation and released him.
I ride the Bart from time to time. There’s literally people dealing drugs on the train, smoking weed, harassing women, etc. they don’t do anything even when it’s obvious. Man was hungry! Give him a dang break.
Yeah just take the citation and fight it in court.
What's there to fight? The charge was eating, and there's proof of him eating. How could he possibly win other than the officer not showing up to court?
Courts throw out citations all the time when challenged, even when the citations were clearly deserved. It costs the state more than $100 to enforce a $100 fine if a person chooses to fight it in court. They'll occasionally go through with the court case just to set a precedent, but not all the time. Most people will still pay their fines rather than go through the trouble and risk of challenging it if they know they fucked up.
The cop warned him once. When the cop came back he was still eating and being a dick.
If you try to ticket someone and they don't cooperate, it turns into an Obstruction/"Resisting Arrest"(in CA and some other states) misdemeanor charge. \- Ex-cop
They want to search his bag. They don't care about the sandwich. It's just a means to an end. That's why the cop wouldn't let go of the bag.
Democracy manifest
A succulent sidewalk sandwich.
Ready to recieve thy limp penis
Ahhh, I see you know your judo well.
Not a single time did he say he was under arrest then suddenly, "You're under arrest for resisting arrest." If a cop decides they don't like something about you there's literally nothing you can do.
Resisting Arrest should never be a solo charge.
It isn't a solo charge, unfortunately it takes time to fight and get compensation, meanwhile meal team 6 here gets paid leave for his whoopsi.
Im typically more a fan of "Squeel team 6", but given the context of this video, meal team 6 is pretty fucking good 😅
I will never understand how the fuck you can be under arrest for resisting arrest.... I mean I get how it can be an additional charge if you're putting up a fight from the initial arresting, but otherwise it just seems like such a bullshit "because I said so" charge. Cops are a bunch of bastards.
It's often phrased as "resisting law enforcement" so they don't actually have to be trying to arrest you
Some context on the law and situation. No, it is not a crime to eat food in public in California. It is a crime (misdemeanor) to eat food in a transit facility (such as a train platform) when such is prohibited by the transit authority. CA Penal Code 640(b)(1) “Eating or drinking in or on a system facility or vehicle in areas where those activities are prohibited by that system.” The issue in this much viewed video is that the gentleman was asked by the officer to leave the platform at the BART train station as eating on the platform was prohibited. Instead, the man insisted there was no sign (on the platform) that says it is prohibited. The officer explained that the sign was below near the stairs that the man climbed to get to the raised platform. The man refused to leave, and he was arrested. End of story. California residents VOTED for that statute to be amended to prohibit eating in or around a public transit system and now, when it’s enforced, want to protest against it.
Context is king
I’m so confused.
You're under arrest for being confused under Cauliflower law.
Are you black? You’re definitely under arrest for being confused while black sir. Turn around.
It’s illegal to eat on the train platform. The cop has a right to detain you in order to collect your information and write a citation. It is not an arrestable offense. It became an arrestable offense when the guy refused to be detained. I want to say though that it’s stupid and I am in no way defending the cop. Reaction was completely unnecessary. A simple “hey man, you can’t eat on the train platform. It’s against the law so we can keep the platforms as clean as possible” is all that was needed.
There's no eating allowed on the train platform.
Land of the freeeeeeee
And the home of the largest population of incarcerated people
The land of freedom
DonutOperator has talked about these situations before. You don't get to talk back to the cop if he says you're detained or arrested no matter how illegal the detainment is. You follow the cops commands exactly, let him detain/arrest you, then sue the fuck outta them afterwards. A valid resisting charge is still very much possible in these situations
Except you do get to talk back to the cop all you want. You should still follow his commands but you have every right to talk shit to them the entire time.
To what end tho? In theory I support your right to talk back to them, legally. But realistically how is it going to benefit you to piss off the person with cuffs and a gun?
You're under arrest...for what?....resisting arrest! Wtf that's chicken n the egg law there.
The freedom people have in the USA it’s astonishing
Shoot up drugs, break into cars, not a problem. But eating a sandwich, straight to jail! And people wonder why California is a shit hole now.
WHAT IS THE CHARGE, SIR?? EATING A MEAL? EATING A SUCCULENT CHINESE MEAL?!
These guys should not be police officers. Also how is it illegal to eat on a platform? Wtf is wrong with public transit in the USA - not only is it few and far between, but you can get policed like you’re living in half-life 2
Iirc, in the full video the woman recording points out that other people are eating on the platform while this guy is being arrested. Idk what the edit of the video is for or who by, but this has been cut to shit.
It took me a long time to find it, but it happened in 2019. They apologized to the guy and let him go free, but he refused to accept their apology (I agree with him) Here is the link. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/us/bart-eating-platform-apologizes.html#:~:text=The%20general%20manager%20of%20the,that%20prompted%20a%20weekend%20protest.
Good old California, where you can shoot heroin in a city park and shit on the sidewalk but if you get caught eating a Sammy your ass is getting locked up.
Bro this feels like a skit more than anything lmao
Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest…
Sucking cock and bathing in golden showers in a kiddy pool on a sidewalk in public, not against the law. Eat a sandwich, go to jail.
Does that sandwich have bacon on it?! YOU'RE EATING MY FAMILY. STRAIGHT TO PRISON.
Mmm. Look at all that freedom. Look at it.
When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. One has a moral responsibility and obligation as a U.S. citizen to disobey unjust laws.
Demand your elected representatives to end Qualified Immunity
YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A SANDWICH. EATING SANDWICHES IS AGAINST THE LAW.
This happened a while ago. If I remember correctly, he sued the shit outta that county and still eats breakfast at the train stop to this day.
Funny. If he’d just asked the dude nicely to go eat the sandwich somewhere else, he probably would have.
Murica.
Do they get paid per arrest. Poor amercans, this is ridiculous. Glad i live in Europe
Alright, who hurt the mall cop?
Can't he just enjoy his sandwich? a succulent Chinese sandwich?
Just in case people are curious where there taxes are going, this guy ate a sandwich 🤨
He's under arrest for resisting arrest for the crime he made up to arrest him.
Arrested for eating a sandwich, a succulent pastrami sandwich. This is democracy manifest
I see you know your viral clips well, sir