Old neighbor takes ball that lands in yard, arrested by cops

[Havok]

It also doesn't say anything about the kids tresspassing. Not in the video and not in the posted articles. So that's just an assumption on several people's parts.

Trespassing isn't limited to human beings alone. Cattle have been considered to trespass in other legal situations, and even sending an inanimate object onto someone else's property is a trespass. I vaguely recall once hearing of an incident where some hooligans would toss garbage through someone's open window for kicks, with that considered against the law even if they didn't personally step on that private property.

That is called vandalism, not trespassing.

What would you have the police do?

Tell the kids that if they throw anything trespassing onto someone else's private property, that person is not legally obligated to spend their unpaid labor time returning it. Such would be nice of the old lady, if she had the patience to do so however often such occurred, but it should not be her legal obligation.

She still does not have the right to keep or damage the property and when the police request the property back, she certainly doesn't have the right to refuse.

[Knife]

Bullshit.
Perpetrator steals something which does not belong to them. Owners of property call the police. Police arrive on scene. Police ask perp to give item back with no consequences. Perp refuses. Police take perp to jail.
Cut and fucking dry.

You're a retard. She didn't steal shit, she refused to return property when it was illegally deposited on her land. If you want to be all detailed oriented and shit. Not cut and dry you asshole. You defer to children and by default the parents and yet not to the old lady for no discernible reason.

Fine lets push it. The Police are getting paid the same no matter what they do, responding to a burglar alarm, shoplifter, stopping a jay walker etc. The tax dollars are spent.

I'd perfer, dipshit, that they spend their limited resources on fucking crimes that threated society.

Also keep in mind that if a more pressing matter came up, the police would leave and go to that, so you aren't talking them of more important matters.

Cause paper work is less than field work for officers. They just kick it with what ever...till the juice comes down the pike. Not like they could go on a lunch break or something other than deal with this bullshit.

Having two families hire attorneys over this situation and the money that each of them would have to come out of pocket for is the, and your, ridiculous option.

What are you, Canadian? Small claims court asshole. And yes, it's where it belongs.

Speaking of shoplifting... do you also advocate that police should just have them give what they stole back and not take them to jail?

Go ahead asshole, make an argument as to why these two situations are remotely simular. I'm fucking waiting asshat.

[Sikon]

Trespassing isn't limited to human beings alone. Cattle have been considered to trespass in other legal situations, and even sending an inanimate object onto someone else's property is a trespass. I vaguely recall once hearing of an incident where some hooligans would toss garbage through someone's open window for kicks, with that considered against the law even if they didn't personally step on that private property.

That is called vandalism, not trespassing.

While that case is both vandalism and trespass, throwing objects onto someone else's property is trespassing as implied by the example of this direct quote from a lawyer site:

The ways in which trespassing may occur:
1. Entering upon land: Walking onto one's land without permission, or refusing to leave when permission has been withdrawn, or throwing objects onto land are all example of trespass to land.

From here.

Another example:

Q: Is throwing apples at a house illegal?
A: Trespass is not limited to human beings. By causing an object to enter a property one can commit an act of trespass, whether it be earthworks, flood water, or objects thrown onto the property or allowed to travel onto the property. Therefore, throwing apples at a house is a tort, for which one can be held responsible civilly and/or criminally.

From here.

She still does not have the right to keep or damage the property and when the police request the property back, she certainly doesn't have the right to refuse.

As said in my first post, it is not a smart pragmatic idea for her to refuse the police whatever they ask, justified or not. The police shouldn't so support the kids, however.

Bullshit.
Perpetrator steals something which does not belong to them. Owners of property call the police. Police arrive on scene. Police ask perp to give item back with no consequences. Perp refuses. Police take perp to jail.
Cut and fucking dry.

If your legal standard was uniformly followed, I could throw stuff onto your yard all day long until sooner or later you got tired of spending your unpaid labor time returning it...

[Kamakazie Sith]

And the end result must be jail? You're still sidestepping my point. Why is the logical outcome of this encounter either party A or B goes to jail over such a trivial matter?

No, I did not sidestep your point. I clearly told you that this is POLICY and not officer discretion. You don't get to decide when to follow your department policy and when not to. The department obviously has a policy in place for transport to jail if someone refuses to sign the ticket.

So, again. The officers did everything they could under policy and law.

The nexus of my point. By this logic, multitudes of people should be sent to jail every day for J walking. Littering or other trivial matters, let alone an obvious civil ordeal that needs to be hashed out by the courts, not a cop. I have all sorts of sympathy when some ass hat in a simular situation starts fucking with the police and thus gets sent to jail, but some little old lady who kept an assholes ball? Sorry, no dice.

If they refuse to sign the citation, and the department with jurisdiction has a go to jail policy for refusals then yeah those people DO go to jail. Did you think this is something special?

From personal experience the kid could be taken down to the cop shop to be picked up by the parents too for being an ass. Didn't happen that way. Was the old lady looking for special treatment or equal?

What the fuck are you talking about? Highlight the part of the article in question where it was deemed that the kids are guilty of being assholes.

Again, I have sympathy for the cops when asshat takes a swing at the cop for citation X. This is purely a case of both being wrong and right and the cop being a dick to the old lady instead of taking time out to solve the problem and/or leaving it to the court.

No, it's a case of the police having to follow policy. Read - NO CHOICE

So is tresspassing and a public nuicensce. Yeah yeah, documentation. Where is that particular notation in the article? If the cop is bothered to find the documentaiton and evidence to the 'theft' why shouldn't we expect equal time on the tresspassing and nucience?

You assume they didn't. You've been assuming from the very start of this thread that the cops weren't diplomatic, and had a choice to take her to jail or not. You're also assuming that they didn't investigate what the children were doing. Why do you think this article is a play by play?

[Kamakazie Sith]

It is not generally a smart idea to refuse a cop, right or wrong.

However, most of the responses in this thread are surprising. If she was legally obligated to always return whatever other people threw that trespassed onto her own property, that could lead to all sorts of abuses.

Beyond this incident alone, consider the legal standard being followed. Not all kids aren't brats, and some would throw a ball, rocks, or garbage onto someone else's property countless times if there were no negative consequences. If they were bored enough to do such hundreds of times, would somebody be legally obligated to do cumulatively hours of unpaid labor throwing whatever they tossed back to them every time?

What the fuck are you talking about? Nobody here said she is legally obligated to return it herself. However, she is not allowed to prevent someone from reclaiming their property, nor is she allowed to take it inside her home.

Although I doubt a judge will agree with the policeman responsible for the charge, if she was actually sentenced for this, it would set up a terribly unworkable legal precedent if uniformly applied whenever someone doesn't do unpaid work returning minor objects dumped onto their own property. Yes, it would have been nicer of her to return the ball if this was an isolated incident --uncertain--, and she may or may not be a mean old lady depending upon how much of the full story is told in this article, yet the preceding would be a crazy legal standard.

Nobody is asking her to do any work. You've fabricated this nonsense.

Fortunately most people in the general populace still have some common sense, for the very absurdity of this story is precisely why it is reaching national news sites.

No, it's reaching national news because people are emotional fucktards. Replace 90 year old lady with 30 year old man, and this wouldn't be on the news.

[General Zod]

Since nobody here is actually arguing what the laws actually say and seems to be rather going by "gut instinct", why don't we take a look at the law instead? This happened in Ohio, yes?

2913.02 Theft.

(A) No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services in any of the following ways:

(1) Without the consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent;

(2) Beyond the scope of the express or implied consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent;

(3) By deception;

(4) By threat;

(5) By intimidation.

(B)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of theft.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this division or division (B)(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), or (8) of this section, a violation of this section is petty theft, a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the value of the property or services stolen is five hundred dollars or more and is less than five thousand dollars or if the property stolen is any of the property listed in section 2913.71 of the Revised Code, a violation of this section is theft, a felony of the fifth degree. If the value of the property or services stolen is five thousand dollars or more and is less than one hundred thousand dollars, a violation of this section is grand theft, a felony of the fourth degree. If the value of the property or services stolen is one hundred thousand dollars or more and is less than five hundred thousand dollars, a violation of this section is aggravated theft, a felony of the third degree. If the value of the property or services is five hundred thousand dollars or more and is less than one million dollars, a violation of this section is aggravated theft, a felony of the second degree. If the value of the property or services stolen is one million dollars or more, a violation of this section is aggravated theft of one million dollars or more, a felony of the first degree.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(4), (5), (6), (7), or (8) of this section, if the victim of the offense is an elderly person or disabled adult, a violation of this section is theft from an elderly person or disabled adult, and division (B)(3) of this section applies. Except as otherwise provided in this division, theft from an elderly person or disabled adult is a felony of the fifth degree. If the value of the property or services stolen is five hundred dollars or more and is less than five thousand dollars, theft from an elderly person or disabled adult is a felony of the fourth degree. If the value of the property or services stolen is five thousand dollars or more and is less than twenty-five thousand dollars, theft from an elderly person or disabled adult is a felony of the third degree. If the value of the property or services stolen is twenty-five thousand dollars or more and is less than one hundred thousand dollars, theft from an elderly person or disabled adult is a felony of the second degree. If the value of the property or services stolen is one hundred thousand dollars or more, theft from an elderly person or disabled adult is a felony of the first degree.

(4) If the property stolen is a firearm or dangerous ordnance, a violation of this section is grand theft. Except as otherwise provided in this division, grand theft when the property stolen is a firearm or dangerous ordnance is a felony of the third degree, and there is a presumption in favor of the court imposing a prison term for the offense. If the firearm or dangerous ordnance was stolen from a federally licensed firearms dealer, grand theft when the property stolen is a firearm or dangerous ordnance is a felony of the first degree. The offender shall serve a prison term imposed for grand theft when the property stolen is a firearm or dangerous ordnance consecutively to any other prison term or mandatory prison term previously or subsequently imposed upon the offender.

(5) If the property stolen is a motor vehicle, a violation of this section is grand theft of a motor vehicle, a felony of the fourth degree.

(6) If the property stolen is any dangerous drug, a violation of this section is theft of drugs, a felony of the fourth degree, or, if the offender previously has been convicted of a felony drug abuse offense, a felony of the third degree.

(7) If the property stolen is a police dog or horse or an assistance dog and the offender knows or should know that the property stolen is a police dog or horse or an assistance dog, a violation of this section is theft of a police dog or horse or an assistance dog, a felony of the third degree.

(8) If the property stolen is anhydrous ammonia, a violation of this section is theft of anhydrous ammonia, a felony of the third degree.

(9) In addition to the penalties described in division (B)(2) of this section, if the offender committed the violation by causing a motor vehicle to leave the premises of an establishment at which gasoline is offered for retail sale without the offender making full payment for gasoline that was dispensed into the fuel tank of the motor vehicle or into another container, the court may do one of the following:

(a) Unless division (B)(9)(b) of this section applies, suspend for not more than six months the offender’s driver’s license, probationary driver’s license, commercial driver’s license, temporary instruction permit, or nonresident operating privilege;

(b) If the offender’s driver’s license, probationary driver’s license, commercial driver’s license, temporary instruction permit, or nonresident operating privilege has previously been suspended pursuant to division (B)(9)(a) of this section, impose a class seven suspension of the offender’s license, permit, or privilege from the range specified in division (A)(7) of section 4510.02 of the Revised Code, provided that the suspension shall be for at least six months.

(C) The sentencing court that suspends an offender’s license, permit, or nonresident operating privilege under division (B)(9) of this section may grant the offender limited driving privileges during the period of the suspension in accordance with Chapter 4510. of the Revised Code.

Effective Date: 04-08-2004; 11-26-2004; 06-30-2006; 03-14-2007

It's a lengthy read, but the bolded parts are what's relevant. Regardless of whether or not the old woman took the ball on her own, she witheld it from the owner. As far as Ohio state law is concerned, that makes it theft and the old woman had more than ample opportunity to return it with no punishments. Unless Knife actually has something beyond gut instinct to show why it's somehow magically not theft, and a reason why it shouldn't be treated the same way as any petty theft, it's really black and white.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If your legal standard was uniformly followed, I could throw stuff onto your yard all day long until sooner or later you got tired of spending your unpaid labor time returning it...

Look. Drop the unpaid labor bullshit. You aren't obligated to return it. Furthermore, if the police did their job then it should be documented that these children have been officially barred from her property.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The ways in which trespassing may occur:
1. Entering upon land: Walking onto one's land without permission, or refusing to leave when permission has been withdrawn, or throwing objects onto land are all example of trespass to land.

From here.

Florida law is completely meaningless when it comes to Ohio Law

§ 2911.21. Criminal trespass.
(A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following:
(1) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another;
(2) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, the use of which is lawfully restricted to certain persons, purposes, modes, or hours, when the offender knows the offender is in violation of any such restriction or is reckless in that regard;
(3) Recklessly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, as to which notice against unauthorized access or presence is given by actual communication to the offender, or in a manner prescribed by law, or by posting in a manner reasonably calculated to come to the attention of potential intruders, or by fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access;
(4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either.
(B) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the land or premises involved was owned, controlled, or in custody of a public agency.
(C) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the offender was authorized to enter or remain on the land or premises involved, when such authorization was secured by deception.
(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of criminal trespass, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
(E) As used in this section, "land or premises" includes any land, building, structure, or place belonging to, controlled by, or in custody of another, and any separate enclosure or room, or portion thereof.

This is why documentation or a sign is important. Furthermore, even then it does not prevent you from retrieving your property after giving proper notice. Your property does not become theirs just because you've been barred.

[Havok]

Bullshit.
Perpetrator steals something which does not belong to them. Owners of property call the police. Police arrive on scene. Police ask perp to give item back with no consequences. Perp refuses. Police take perp to jail.
Cut and fucking dry.

You're a retard. She didn't steal shit, she refused to return property when it was illegally deposited on her land. If you want to be all detailed oriented and shit. Not cut and dry you asshole. You defer to children and by default the parents and yet not to the old lady for no discernible reason.

steal
1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice

Fine lets push it. The Police are getting paid the same no matter what they do, responding to a burglar alarm, shoplifter, stopping a jay walker etc. The tax dollars are spent.

I'd perfer, dipshit, that they spend their limited resources on fucking crimes that threated society.

It doesn't matter what you prefer, police are paid to respond to all situations in which they are called to.

Also keep in mind that if a more pressing matter came up, the police would leave and go to that, so you aren't talking them of more important matters.

Cause paper work is less than field work for officers. They just kick it with what ever...till the juice comes down the pike. Not like they could go on a lunch break or something other than deal with this bullshit.

I'm not even sure what this jibberish is supposed to mean.

Having two families hire attorneys over this situation and the money that each of them would have to come out of pocket for is the, and your, ridiculous option.

What are you, Canadian? Small claims court asshole. And yes, it's where it belongs.

The people in this town have already paid for the services of the police. Asking them to pay more for something that can be resolved in about 5 minutes is fucking stupid. It is NOT the police officers fault that the lady decided to be a douche. This should have taken no more than 10-15 minutes out of the officers day to resolve.

Speaking of shoplifting... do you also advocate that police should just have them give what they stole back and not take them to jail?

Go ahead asshole, make an argument as to why these two situations are remotely simular. I'm fucking waiting asshat.

I'm not saying they are similar, but how is shoplifting a "crime that threatens society"? According to your logic, the police shouldn't bother responding to a shoplifting call at all, and if they do, they should just negotiate with the perp and not take them to jail if they refuse to return what they took.

[Sikon]

If your legal standard was uniformly followed, I could throw stuff onto your yard all day long until sooner or later you got tired of spending your unpaid labor time returning it...

Look. Drop the unpaid labor bullshit. You aren't obligated to return it. Furthermore, if the police did their job then it should be documented that these children have been officially barred from her property.

Good. She shouldn't be legally obligated to do such. So, you would combine that with having the kids barred from her property, forbidden to trespass on her property to get it back themselves.

I suppose if the only legal way the kids could get the ball back was by if the police got it back, that could keep the matter under control, preventing too much abuse of the system. After all, the police no doubt would reach their limits if the same kids called them too many times.

[Singular Intellect]

If your legal standard was uniformly followed, I could throw stuff onto your yard all day long until sooner or later you got tired of spending your unpaid labor time returning it...

Look. Drop the unpaid labor bullshit. You aren't obligated to return it. Furthermore, if the police did their job then it should be documented that these children have been officially barred from her property.

Good. She shouldn't be legally obligated to do such. So, you would combine that with having the kids barred from her property, forbidden to trespass on her property to get it back themselves.

I suppose if the only legal way the kids could get the ball back was by if the police got it back, that could keep the matter under control, preventing too much abuse of the system. After all, the police no doubt would reach their limits if the same kids called them too many times.

Perhaps the woman, once having officially barred the kids from trespassing on her property, could start charging them for removing their possessions when they toss them on her property without her consent.

Makes sense to me.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Good. She shouldn't be legally obligated to do such. So, you would combine that with having the kids barred from her property, forbidden to trespass on her property to get it back themselves.

Honestly, I don't know where you got the "legally obligated to retrieve their property" thing from.

This is honestly not that complicated. You can NOT keep someones property just because it ended up on your property even if you have no trespassing in effect. It does not become yours. The owners of the property can ask you for your permission to go get it, and then you have one of two options;

1 - Let them get it, but remind them that they will be held liable for any damages that they cause.

2 - Go get it yourself.

Now since option 2 isn't good for an old lady her only choice is option 1.

I suppose if the only legal way the kids could get the ball back was by if the police got it back, that could keep the matter under control, preventing too much abuse of the system. After all, the police no doubt would reach their limits if the same kids called them too many times.

It's not the only legal way.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Perhaps the woman, once having officially barred the kids from trespassing on her property, could start charging them for removing their possessions when they toss them on her property without her consent.

Makes sense to me.

That's theft by extortion which is also a crime. Basically, unless the children are doing damage to her yard when they retrieve their property then there is no grounds of compensation.

[Darth Wong]

She didn't steal shit, she refused to return property when it was illegally deposited on her land.

So if someone's property is illegally deposited on your land, it is no longer his property? Hence, it is not "stealing" to take it and refuse to give it back? Do you have some source for this claim?

EDIT: Fixed quote attribution.

[Havok]

That wasn't me Mike, that was Knife.

[Darth Wong]

That wasn't me Mike, that was Knife.

Righto. I went back and fixed it.

[Graeme Dice]

This is honestly not that complicated. You can NOT keep someones property just because it ended up on your property even if you have no trespassing in effect. It does not become yours. The owners of the property can ask you for your permission to go get it, and then you have one of two options;

I imagine that it's this complicated because Knife has done exactly what this lady did at some point in the past and wants to try and convince himself that he's not a thief.

[Kamakazie Sith]

This is honestly not that complicated. You can NOT keep someones property just because it ended up on your property even if you have no trespassing in effect. It does not become yours. The owners of the property can ask you for your permission to go get it, and then you have one of two options;

I imagine that it's this complicated because Knife has done exactly what this lady did at some point in the past and wants to try and convince himself that he's not a thief.

Maybe. I think it's more likely that he has a special place in his heart for old ladies. I've see people get angry with the police because they took an old lady to jail for assaulting them. Not saying Knife is one of those people, but that when you add old ladies into the equation people get strange.

[Mr Bean]

Come on, lets review this story again

Old lady is outside gardening, kids are next-door throwing football around, someone misses a catch, ball ends up on old lady's lawn(Presumably in her garden, so she's annoyed). They ask for ball back, she refuses and tells them to call the cops if they like.

Which they do

The cops show up, talk to both sides and ask the old lady to give the ball back. She refuses, she is now chargeable for petty theft. The cops say fine, but if you don't give it back you will be charged with petty theft, we are serving you a citation saying we told you, your going to be charged because you won't return the football. She then refuses to sign, this is her second offense and the reason they haul her in. Signing the citation does not admit guilt, much like with a traffic violation, all signing does, says that you, John Q Public do acknowledge the cops did speak to you on this date at this time and inform you that your going to be charged with a crime.

Not signing is a big damn deal Knife, you should know that, if you won't sign it indicates you don't intend to follow the law. And likely won't show up for your court date. So you put the cops in the position that they must toss you in jail until your court date to insure you show up.

Same thing with a speeding ticket or any minor non-violent infraction, if you don't sign, they always arrest you. Why? Because that's demonstrating you don't take the American legal system seriously. The American legal system says your innocent until proven guilty. But if your charged by a lawful authority, you have to admit you understand the fact that you where charged. You can't just blow it off, you don't have the right to respect the law when convenient.

Again, where is your leg to stand on sir? The arrest was for the refusal to sign, not the damn football. She was already in trouble for refusing to return the property when compelled to by a lawful authority. She compounded her error by refusing the obey the lawful request of a officer of the law and she was tossed in jail because of that.

[Covenant]

This is all really absurd. Do people honestly believe that these kids were lobbing balls into her yard or storing them there overnight? Nothing in this story mentions the ball being left there for any extended period of time. No garden--no rowdy kids--no days of the ball sitting there unattended. It sounds like we have a damn little tyrant yelling about tresspassing on her 4 foot strip of dirt while some kids are getting some ever-rarer outdoor recreation with a damn football. Have you seen that lady's yard? There's not a flower in it. Nothing out in front that could possibly be at risk in case of a bad pass, and the kids and the parents involved don't seem at all to be spoiled, evil, malicious kids. What we have here is a terrible old woman making an issue out of someone stepping on her weedy piece of dirt just to get their ball back and go back on the other side. I stand by my opinion that if you choose to be an immature sack of shit about something that's a non-issue then you really have no standing when someone asks you to let the police return it for you. Nobody says she needs to give it back--they can just, you know, walk over and get it themselves like they wanted. It's not hard.

Here's a better account with a video of the mean old lady:

http://www.wlwt.com/family/17762641/detail.html

BLUE ASH, Ohio -- An 89-year-old Ohio woman faces a charge of petty theft because neighborhood children said she refused to give back their football.

Edna Jester was placed under arrest last week and taken to the police station in Blue Ash.

Police say there had been an ongoing dispute over the errant football and a child's parent called to report that Jester kept the ball after it landed in her yard again.

“I'm 89 years old and I want a little piece of mind,” Jester said. “This is my life here in this chair, looking out that door, and all I see is playing the ball down and all over and all over. If it doesn't come in my yard, OK, but if it comes in my yard, I'm going to get it. No trespassing.”

Blue Ash Police Capt. James Schaffer said Monday that police warned Jester twice and finally arrested her after she refused to accept a citation.

"She chose to take a stand," Schaffer said, saying she told police to handcuff her, but they wouldn't do that.

He said Jester wasn't a troublemaker, but that police had been to the neighborhood several times to try to mediate similar disputes.

“The actual rule is if you take the property of another and convert it to your own use, it's theft,” Schaffer said. “She was told by the police two times, give the ball back or you face criminal charges, and she refused to do so.”

Jester must appear in mayor's court next month.

“I'm not giving the ball up, no,” Jester said. “That's the only protection I have. They know if it comes in my yard I'll get it, and that keeps them off of me a little.”

The football, valued at $15, is being held for evidence, Schaffer said.

The potential maximum penalty for a petty theft conviction in Ohio is six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

Schaffer said he suspects the mayor or presiding magistrate will take into account her age and lack of criminal record when the case comes up.

“We don't like arresting 89-year-old women,” Schaffer said. “We don't like going into neighborhood disputes like this, and taking them to the extreme, but some times you're backed into a corner.”

So she sits in her chair and waits for that ball to come down so she can snatch it without letting them get it themselves? Yeah, real neighborly.

[Havok]

Yeah, that is pretty much how I imagined this lady just after reading the first article. It's all about pride and getting her way. Fuck this old bag.

[Xon]

It's a rather inevitable result of the glorification of land 'ownership' and human nature.

[Big Phil]

It's a rather inevitable result of the glorification of land 'ownership' and human nature.

Oh PLEASE elaborate on this one; I'd love to hear what you just half-learned in some class and thought to apply to this situation.

[Knife]

I reread the articles and the thread and I concede my points.

I do feel, however, that if it is police policy to haul people off to jail for not signing the ticket, that little caveat needs to be addressed and changed, IMO.

[General Zod]

I do feel, however, that if it is police policy to haul people off to jail for not signing the ticket, that little caveat needs to be addressed and changed, IMO.

Why? All signing ticket means is that you'll agree to show up to court, and if people feel they haven't done anything wrong they can fight it there instead of being douchebags and refusing to sign.