The guy who got hit wrote about it on the dailycaller.com. He says the driver made an illegal left turn and then left the scene after hitting him. Witnesses told him the vehicle was SS. Really bad.

by Bianchi on Feb 5, 2010 11:18 am  

It looks like the part about leaving the scene wasn't true. Later Daily Caller accounts don't include that and some liberal sites like Media Matters have been hammering them for saying it in the first place. They're also criticizing them for saying it was SS.

I would say give them the benefit of the doubt, since they were trying to report with what info they had. Some witnesses may have said SS, assuming that black SUVs with government protective agents are SS. But at this point it seems that it's not accurate to say that the driver left the scene or saying it's the Secret Service.

by David Alpert on Feb 5, 2010 11:26 am  

I love the find of "collide". I am sure the pedestrian was reckless enough to completely run into the vehicle. The guy should be happy the Secret Service did not arrest him to attacking a Secret Service vehicle. That would properly count as an act of terrorism.

Make noise about this Dave. Get WTOP, the Post and the Examiner all over this.

by Jasper on Feb 5, 2010 11:29 am  

Read about this yesterday, but now the part about showing up at the hospital to issue the ticket is way beyond the pale. On what basis was the ticket issued? Did the officer witness the accident? Driver testimony? Eyewitnesses? I hope the full details come out eventually.

by Lou on Feb 5, 2010 11:39 am  

hmmm ... 'collided with' ...

from Merriam-Webster Dictionary (on-line)

Main Entry: col·lide
Pronunciation: \kə-ˈlîd\
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): col·lid·ed; col·lid·ing
Etymology: Latin collidere, from com- + laedere to injure by striking
Date: 1700
1 : to come together with solid or direct impact (the car collided with a tree)
2 : clash (colliding cultures)

Definition #1 seems appropriate ... They did 'come together' ... irrespective of which party may have been at fault.

by Lance on Feb 5, 2010 11:42 am  

Watch what you write, I bet "they" are reading this, ha. I enjoy the part how he was run over at 22nd and M, but was given a ticket for jaywalking at 26th and M at the same time. If the MPD is trying to protect the integrity of the Fed Agent, at least get your cover up right, geez.

by Chris on Feb 5, 2010 12:00 pm  

It's all relative. Clearly the driver was just sitting there in the car while the rest of the world was whizzing by. All of a sudden, this jogger came out of nowhere and slammed into his car at a high rate of speed. Besides, it's not like government vehicles have ever been involved in accidents in the DC area before, right?

Oh. Wait.

by Teo on Feb 5, 2010 12:05 pm  

MPD put a ticket for j-walking on the corpse of a man (who was killed while crossing) as he still lay on Connecticut Ave a few years ago. I guess that was more important then trying CPR.

by Bianchi on Feb 5, 2010 12:07 pm  

@Bianchi, that is just effed up. Did the officer get in trouble? That's just insulting.

by Teo on Feb 5, 2010 12:11 pm  

I'm sorry that the guy got hurt, but jaywalking is just as illegal as speeding. If one breaks the law, one should get a ticket.

As for the government conspiracy stuff, maybe Hollywood can make a Denzel movie about it?

by mch on Feb 5, 2010 12:24 pm  

Just goes to show that SUV drivers and their passengers need to wear helmets at all times. You never know when a pedestrian might collide with you.

Seriously, this is so outrageous. Where to begin?

by Ward 1 Guy on Feb 5, 2010 12:28 pm  

@ Teo, he wasn't quite dead yet. My bad. Just unconscious and struggling to breathe. The ambulance had not yet arrived. So instead of trying to save or comfort a dying man the officer wrote a $5 ticket for jaywalking. Heroic!http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4398948

by Bianchi on Feb 5, 2010 12:38 pm  

Well here's something related that came up when I was looking for the story about the 73 y.o in CP-- a man helped pull 3 people to safety before getting hit and killed and then he was issued a ticket for jaywalking. Denver 1 year ago. Who thinks there isn't bias against pedestrians when they collide with motor vehicles? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29406078/

by Bianchi on Feb 5, 2010 12:43 pm  

Not a fan of the Daily Caller, but the irony of Daily Caller's Johnny-Come-Lately complaints about federal law enforcement muscle-flexing is matched only by Media Matters nitpicking about the reporting of the incident by conservative media outlets. I can't speak to Jim Treacher's body of journalistic work, but Tucker Carlson hasn't been know to speak out against law enforcement excess in the past - particularly when the boss was a GOPer. So to hear him and his band of Huffington Post-wannabees at the Daily Caller whine about the callous disregard of federal law enforcement for the rights of your average citizen is a bit rich. Kind of like hearing Media Matters leap to the defense of federal law enforcement -- didn't see them being so quick to defend the Secret Service when they were working for the last guy.

That said, Treacher is a pedestrian who was mowed down by a driver in a huge SUV. He's lucky he's not more badly injured, and we all ought to be mightily pissed that it happened, no matter who was driving, and no matter who was hit. And, oh yeah, the SUV was government owned and driven by a federal employee, ostensibly responsible for keeping the public safe. That makes the incident that much more appalling, and the Daily Caller staff are right to be appalled. The issuing of a *f-ing jaywalking ticket* to the victim in the hospital is so preposterous, but it's the kind of icing on the cake that makes this incident a journalistic goldmine. One can hardly blame the Daily Caller for making a big deal of it.

Yes, there are inaccuracies in the original story. The SUV appears to have been DSS, not USSS. I - and your average DC journalist - would be hard-pressed to identify the difference on the fly. Perhaps the Daily Caller folks were too quick to pin this on "Obama's" Secret Service (although I'm not sure why "Hillary's" Dip Security Service wouldn't make as juicy a target for rightwing ire, if partisan politics are what's driving it). More importantly, it turns out the driver didn't flee the scene, but actually assisted Treacher when he was down. That doesn't excuse the driver's behavior, but it's better than initial reports indicated.

The sad thing is, this shouldn't devolve into some sort of partisan political fight. It's nice to see the wingers at Daily Caller finally concerned about the liberties taken by DC-area law enforcement folks (and I see how DSS drives every day - I'm surprised incidents like this don't happen more often). At the same time, it's nice to see Media Matters come to the defense of the Secret Service. Both USSS and DSS have difficult jobs to do (as does MPD), and yet they all need to have respect for the people who live here, and they need to obey the law. Hopefully this story will

by Pilgrim on Feb 5, 2010 12:46 pm  

@ mch guy hit on M St yesterday was in a crosswalk. Yes,"so he says". But why is his version of events given less weight then the drivers? There were witnesses too so surely we will know soon enough.

by Bianchi on Feb 5, 2010 12:47 pm  

Agreed - we will know soon enough.

by @bianchi on Feb 5, 2010 12:50 pm  

Sorry the the above post...

@bianchi: Agreed - we will know soon enough.

by mch on Feb 5, 2010 12:51 pm  

I think if I hit a pedestrian who was jaywalking I'd want a ticket issued, too. It seems callous, but when the insurance claim is filed if there's no ticket then the driver is going to be held liable.

I try to follow the rules whether Im on my feet, on my bike, or in my car. If I don't, I accept that I may get hurt and/or get a ticket.

by jcm on Feb 5, 2010 12:52 pm  

Honestly, I think that the safety of State Department VIPs and their guests is more important than the kneecaps of journalists and freak urbanists. You have to keep the big picture in mind.

by MPC on Feb 5, 2010 1:01 pm  

@ jcm: "if there's no ticket then the driver is going to be held liable"

The driver should be held liable. The fact that one participant in traffic breaks the law does not give anybody else the right to "collide" with them. Any participant in traffic should be careful enough to avoid "collisions" at any time. In other words, it is preposterous to assume that everybody behaves perfectly according to the law.

by Jasper on Feb 5, 2010 3:40 pm  

Jasper -- assuming he was jaywalking (and I'm not generally) and the car/SUV had the right of way, then giving a ticket for jaywalking doesn't mean the SUV had a "right" to hit him. It means that the pedestrian and not the driver is to blame for the collision, and nothing more.

by ah on Feb 5, 2010 4:09 pm  

@Jasper

If you're driving through a green light and some guy blasts through a red light but you're the one to hit him (as in, the front of your car hits the side of his), how is that your fault?

by Teo on Feb 5, 2010 4:39 pm  

I'm grateful to pilgrim for pointing out the nontrivial distinction between USSS and DSS. I have no reason to defame or defend either organization, but most FSOs (including those with no axe to grind) will tell you that the DSS is a hateful group of incompetent thugs. If it had been a random G-car, agency unknown, I'd probably be more skeptical of the injured blogger's version of events. But this sounds about right.

by dcm in 22203 on Feb 5, 2010 4:50 pm  

" So instead of trying to save or comfort a dying man the officer wrote a $5 ticket for jaywalking. Heroic!"

Jaywalking fines are only $5? They really should be raised. I'm watching Channel 4 whith a reporter reporting live from a car ... and he's pointing out all the people incredibly enough walking out in the middle of the street right in front of the car 'thinking that the car can just easily stop' as the reporter is putting it.

Yes, a jaywalker can indeed be just as much a cause for a a collision between a driver and a pedestrian as can the driver. And while it's usually true that it's the pedestrian that will suffer the consequences worst in such a scenario, it doesn't change the fact that when a jaywalker causes the crash, it is he (or she) that is responsible for the collision.

by Lance on Feb 5, 2010 5:25 pm  

" Any participant in traffic should be careful enough to avoid "collisions" at any time."

Jasper, you're ignoring the laws of physics. When a many ton vehicle is traveling at the allowed speed (or less), it takes far longer to stop that vehicle than it takes for a less-than-law-abiding jaywalker to irresponsible walk in front of that many ton vehicle. I.e., the driver can't possible make up for the irresponsibility of the jaywalker in such an instance. That's just the law of physics.

by Lance on Feb 5, 2010 5:30 pm  

"MPD officer John Muniz showed up and wrote Medlock a jaywalking ticket, with a dark-suited "special agent" standing behind him."

This has to be a joke.

by J on Feb 5, 2010 7:57 pm  

Lance, he may be ignoring physics but you're just plain ignoring reality. You're basically playing make believe here, making up whatever excuse you can think up to justify this piece of insanity. You have no clue if anything you're saying is true or not, and to be frank, you don't seem to care.

Stop being a partisan and be a citizen.

by soullite on Feb 5, 2010 10:13 pm  

mch,

Jaywalking and speeding are not equivalent. First off, the fines are different. More importantly a jaywalker puts himself at risk. A driver's irresponsible actions put him, his passengers, and any other unfortunate individuals involved at risk.

Driving is not a right; it is a privilege that requires one to act responsibly to keep.

Separately, what is a pedestrian did collide with a car because he didn't see it? If a driver ran over a pedestrian and offered up to excuse "I'm really sorry, but I didn't see him," that driver would most likely be counseled for his grief and sent home without even a ticket. A pedestrian who collided into a car that he didn't see and caused no damage due to the laws of physics and his much smaller mass, would roundly be condemned by all for not paying attention to where he was walking.

by Huck Finne on Feb 6, 2010 6:37 am  

@ ah: It means that the pedestrian and not the driver is to blame for the collision

I disagree. The driver still should have turned the corner at a safe enough speed to have seen the pedestrian.

@ Teo: If you're driving through a green light and some guy blasts through a red light but you're the one to hit him (as in, the front of your car hits the side of his), how is that your fault?

You should always be driving safely. That means that you do not endanger others, whatever they're doing. In a surrounding with a lot of pedestrians, you should be aware that there are idiots out there and drive accordingly.

Neither does a green light give you a blanket right to cross the intersection. You should still check the side streets. You would probably see the moron blasting through the red coming.

I did, two weeks ago, when some moron ignored me on a 50mph highway and turn left while I clearly had the right of way going straight the other way. A good hit on the brakes (and my honk) prevented a full frontal collision.

@ soullite: While ignoring Lance, I will second you. I will add that posted speed limits do not give you the inherent right to drive at that speed regardless of the conditions. A speed limit gives you the right to drive up to that speed, provided you can do so safely. For instance, nobody would suggest that at currently it is safe to drive at the speed limit at any road in the DC area. Then the question follows: If snow gives you a good reason to slow down, why wouldn't other participants in traffic?

by Jasper on Feb 6, 2010 2:00 pm  

Sean,I have spoken with Keith Olbermann and suggested he list your unfortunate occurence in his usual 25 second cutesy on 'quirky' happenings. However, he first needs to ascertain if the vehicle you walked into was damaged. He does suggest that some agency should bill you for your gratuitous trip to the ER.

by Byron on Feb 6, 2010 4:00 pm  

actually, i work at the medstar ER and it is common to see mpd dropping off jaywalking tickets to injured peds. just because you come in there busted up dont exactly mean you werent in the wrong.

by actually on Feb 15, 2010 12:02 am  

I usually think of it this way: at NO TIME is it acceptable to hit a pedestrian, regardless of what they are doing. There are crosswalks at corners, and there are the mid-block crosswalks that say "DC Law: Illegal to Hit Pedestrians" (or whatever), but you can't hit a pedestrian elsewhere outside those signed places, either. If you hit a pedestrian, you are responsible. You need to look where you're driving or turning. A car can speed through a red light fast enough to enter your vision after you have checked - a pedestrian cannot.

by Meredith on Feb 15, 2010 9:11 pm