Yea, she was walking in a subdivision with no traffic around anywhere. Wide streets. Kids play in the middle of the street all the time in residential areas.
It doesn't matter. Kids wander streets and play in streets; that's expected.
I don't know what your educational background is because you won't tell us. You need to study the law a bit. Or at least a class in logical thinking.
Just read back what you wrote and think about it some.
it is clear to me that you didn't do ALL the research necessary to understand this entire topic as it applies to this particular story line.
You specifically state in the embedded quote that she was "walking in a subdivision with no traffic around anywhere
." That is completely untrue.
First of all, if you had read the full account response by the Chief in resposne to the woman's editorial, you would have realized that the cops were actually in the vicinity and witnessed a truck have to alter its course of travel due to her behavior in the street. Somewhere in there it specifically mentions that the truck driver threw up his hands and motioned to the cops that the pedestrian was a problem; they (cops) then turned around to follow her. And she was not only oblivious to the truck she had hindered, but she was also unaware of the squad car behind her for some portion of time. Hence, your statement that there was no traffic around is completely and utterly wrong. She did, in fact, hinder traffic on two occasions.
And why was it necessary for her to be in the street? There is a sidewalk clearly visible on both sides of the street.
As much as you don't know some people's awareness of the law, I, too, don't know yours. But I have had a full compliment of LEO academy training, as well as 20 years in the field. And I make efforts to stay up on the SCOTUS and State SC decisions in my blessed IN. I cannot speak for all States, but I suspect most of the state laws are similar, and the federal laws and case decisions cover our entire country. To that end, there are common concepts that indicate walking down a street has certain obligations. You generally should walk against traffic (not with your back to it). You should use the sidewalks rather than the street, if they are present (actually in code in many states). Pedestrians only have the "right of way" where specifically designated; the road is for VEHICULAR TRAFFIC first and foremost; pedestians only have right of way in cross-walks, etc.
Additionally, there are multiple SCOTUS decisions that clearly delineate the ability of LEOs to ask for identification once they establish "reasonable suspicion" (not same as probable cause) to have contact with an individual. Those of you whom believe they had no legal ability to ask for her ID are completely ignorant of SCOTUS case law. Cops most certainly have the legal ability to ask for ID, and ask general questions to establish the credibility of someone's identity, state of mind and understand why something was wrong (i.e. - some violation; in this case, you could call it jaywalking, but there is apparently a statue in TX that actually makes this a misdemeanor, or for you whom don't understand, a crime.) Like it or not, in TX, she committed a crime; I state this because of the info in the news story reponse. Certainly and admittedly not the crime of the century; and that is why a warning was the prudent response, and that is EXACTLY what they did.
She caused a hindrance to traffic flow twice, by committing a crime as defined by TX law.
The cops responded to a civilian complaint, as well as utilized their own observations to validate the complaint.
The cops contacted her in a professional manner, and questioned her as allowed by SCOTUS law.
She was polite and curteous to the cops.
The gave her a warning and it was over. Or so they thought ...
She then preceded to tell outright lies, and make inappropriate/inaccurate connections to that event and others such as the Gray and Martin tragedies, in a very public format, giving reasonable cause to question her years of journalistic activity and wonder about her credibility.
It is likely a combination of her ignorance of the law(s), as well as arrogance in her attitude, (with a large dollop of fear regarding recent race issues) that made her grossly exaggerate the conditions of the event, as well as potentially jeopardize the careers of the officers, and had it not been for this video evidence, they would have been in a very difficult position. I personally find it repugnant that a person with her credentials (a dean of journalism and former newspaper editor for goodness sake) would exaggerate, lie and use veiled belittling context to somehow make her violation of state law and general contempt for common pedestrian conduct seem innocuous whereas the legal and professional actions of the cops are somehow akin to racist harassment.
You need to study the law a bit. Or at least a class in logical thinking.
Perhaps turn that caustic mirror unto yourself, because clearly you didn't read the entire factual basis and clearly don't understand the Statutory and Case laws here in the States.
Here is a good start for many of you to understand the role of citizen and cop in regard to RS, PC and ID.