If you don't pay the fine (and don't show up in court to tell them why you can't afford it) that's the criminal infraction and that's when they put a warrant out.
In the UK it doesn't even exist. We look it up after hearing the word on N American 'movies'/TV 'shows'.
> a civil infraction
IANAL, but my understanding is that the key difference between criminal & civil law is that the latter always has a (an alleged) victim, and it is he who is the claimant.
Is that wrong? Or right but there's some supposed victim of 'jaywalking' (the state on behalf of drivers?!) who goes around suing 'jaywalkers'?
edit: This is mistaken.
Like walking your dog in a park that has a no-dogs sign.
Somewhat related: here in the UK, littering is technically a crime, but apparently [0] you'll only get a criminal record if you refuse to pay the fine.
[0] https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/roads-and-pavements/fines-and-o...
If you can't pay the fine, it can turn into a warrant that can get you arrested. Thus jaywalking actually is a crime, but only for poor people.
Technically, inability to pay does not have this effect, only refusal. But you have to actually show up to court (as specified in the ticket, which is a summons to appear with bail that can be forfeited in lieu of appearance) and assert hardship to get a different penalty or payment arrangement set if you are unable to pay; if you just ignore the summons and don’t pay the bail set, then you are committing a crime.
So it's still a crime for poor people only.
All of them were arrested for bullshit "contempt of cop" type offenses. If they could arrest people for jaywalking they would have done that because arresting someone for something they've actually done makes for a much harder charge to beat. Jaywalking is just the pretext.
If I see them murdering someone, I'm not going to say to myself "That person is allegedly a criminal".
I am allowed to think, to have an opinion about reality.
There's also no need to call them a suspect if you just saw a person committing a crime.
When you haven't yet proved that a specific person did it, they're a suspect. The crime is alleged.
But not when you KNOW it. I'm not saying newspapers should say that or a court should say that. I'm saying I have no problem describing what I see.
Maybe you saw wrong? Hmm?
I did notice that your statement is pretty confident about what I think. No "allegedly" required. No "I suspect he believes X and Y". These imaginary rules don't seem to apply to you.
What kind of bizarro place is that?
In the worst of those areas, the gangs themselves take on the role of the police (offering services such as protection, policy enforcement, loans, etc).
Not everyone wants to be under surveillance 24/7, even if it does aid police sometimes in reducing crime, as it also aids police in doing the other things police do that are unrelated to law enforcement (harassment, theft, intimidation, extortion, et c).
And this is in the US.
PS- feel free to replace "crack" with meth, heroine, etc
/s
And the police harassing you because they know you have a Ring equipment but they never got footage from your camera's angle...