Subway Stormtroopers?


PDA






Jeff
July 30, 2004, 11:25 PM
This one is so ludicrous you have to chuckle.


Woman arrested, handcuffed for eating candy bar in subway station


Canadian Press


Friday, July 30, 2004


WASHINGTON (AP) - A government scientist finishing a candy bar on her way into a subway station where eating is prohibited was arrested, handcuffed and detained for three hours by transit police.

Stephanie Willett said she was eating a PayDay bar on an escalator descending into a station July 16 when an officer warned her to finish it before entering the station. Both Willett and police agree that she nodded and put the last bit into her mouth before throwing the wrapper into a trash can.

Willett, a 45-year-old Environmental Protection Agency scientist, told radio station WTOP that the officer then followed her into the station, one of several in downtown Washington.

"Don't you have some other crimes you have to take care of?" Willett said she told the officer.

Washington has been under heightened security because of the continuing threat of terrorism. And last week, police declared a citywide crime emergency over rising juvenile crime.

The transit police officer asked for Willett's identification, but Willett kept walking. She said she was then frisked and handcuffed.

"If she had stopped eating, it would have been the end of it and if she had just stopped for the issuance of a citation, she never would have been locked up," Transit Police Chief Polly Hanson said Thursday.

Metrorail has been criticized in the past for heavy-handed enforcement of the eating ban. In 2000, a police officer handcuffed a 12-year-old girl for eating a french fry on a subway platform.

In 2002, one of their officers ticketed a wheelchair-bound cerebral palsy patient for cursing when he was unable to find a working elevator to leave a station. Unflattering publicity eventually led the police to void the ticket.

Willett was the second person arrested this year for eating or drinking, Hanson said. In addition, police have issued 58 tickets and given more than 300 written warnings.

If you enjoyed reading about "Subway Stormtroopers?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Coronach
July 30, 2004, 11:41 PM
Problem:

People eating on public tranist systems is an issue. The only way to make them stop is state sanction, and even that is marginally effective at best. When the state ends up sanctioning an individual, it comes off as draconian and eeeeeeevil because it is being mean to a person for eating. And yet the same people that grouse about ticketing (in this case cuffing and detaining) for eating will be the first to whine about how messy, unclean, sticky and disorderly the public transit system is. This is a Catch-22.

It seems that she was cuffed and detained because she refused to stop to be cited. Try that while driving, you'll get the same result, or worse. Had she stopped, produced ID and been issued her ticket, as is required by law, we would not be reading about this now.

Yes, thats my guess as to what happened...but I bet its not far off.

Mike

Standing Wolf
July 30, 2004, 11:46 PM
This has already been posted.

Jeff
July 30, 2004, 11:59 PM
Mike,

I don't live in Washington so I'm confused about all of the protocols and etiquettes of subway transportation.

All I know is what I read didn't sound right to me. Was she ultimately ticketed and handcuffed for a food transgression, or for failing to show an ID? If it was for the latter, why does she need to show her ID while entering a subway station? Is this SOP? If it is, does it make it moral and just?

If it was for the former reason, then we have a citizen who was ticketed and handcuffed for eating a candy bar. And you somehow condone this action? :confused:

Why is eating on a public transit system an "issue?" If the smell of garlic bread or candy bars is more than what some commuters can handle, then maybe they need to find an alternate means of transportation and quit bitching. That's the problem with public transportation, if you don't like all the crap that comes with it, then ride a bike to work.

A lot of people smell, too. Should we force all commuters to shower before entering the terminal? Feh.

If the problem of commuter food concerns leaving garbage behind, then those who leave garbage behind should be fined.

What is so hard to understand?

Now we have cops harassing commuters for having a quick snack on the go. The same cops that 'busted' a 12 yr old girl and ticketed a cripple.




:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oleg Volk
July 31, 2004, 01:00 AM
I can see ticketing people for littering. Merely eating should not be an offense. I wonder if they'd ticket hypoglycemics, too.

Coronach
July 31, 2004, 01:47 AM
Ok.

I'm not exactly sure what the laws are on the DC Metro. I'm sure someone who is a DC resident will chime in and fill us in. However, I /strongly/ suspect that it is a minor crime to eat on the public transit system. This is fairly common most places. This is done to cut down on litter (intentional leaving of garbage) and spills (unintentional leaving of garbage), and, if you have ever ridden a subway you'll know, is a pretty necessary rule to make it possible to actually sit down without adhering to the seat and make it from A to B without having someone spill something all over your Armani suit.

Yes, I'm losing my libertaran street cred by saying that, frankly, if you eat on the Metro, you should get a ticket. So be it. I'll live.

So, this being a ticketable offense, the offender can be cited. For that you must be identified and sign the ticket (this merely acknowledges receipt of the ticket, not guilt). And I'm wagering that it is treated like any other pedestian offense: if you fail to stop, identify yourself, or fail to sign the ticket, you can be arrested. Anyone in the DC area know?

All I know is what I read didn't sound right to me. Was she ultimately ticketed and handcuffed for a food transgression, or for failing to show an ID?I'm guessing that she opted to keep on walking when she was stopped and detained by the LEO. Same as a jaywalker- you need to stop and get your ticket.If it was for the latter, why does she need to show her ID while entering a subway station?She doesn't...but they need to establish identity to issue the ticket. Now, this raises an interesting point...there is no ID required to walk around, so I'm not sure what DC allows LEOs to do if there is no proof of identity available.Is this SOP?No clue.If it is, does it make it moral and just?Well, whats the option? You can do whatever you want and break the law, and if someone tries to stop you, you can just keep walking?If it was for the former reason, then we have a citizen who was ticketed and handcuffed for eating a candy bar. And you somehow condone this action?I condone the action if she refused to cooperate in the issuance of her citation. She made that choice, just like a speeder who opts to not stop for the cop, or the pedestrian violator who tries to just walk away from the cop. She could stop, accept her ticket, roll her eyes and fight it in court (or pay it out), but she, apparently, chose to try to avoid paying for her actions.

Yes, I agree it is pretty petty and silly. But the option is a Metro system that is filthy and that no one wants to ride.Why is eating on a public transit system an "issue?" If the smell of garlic bread or candy bars is more than what some commuters can handle, then maybe they need to find an alternate means of transportation and quit bitching. That's the problem with public transportation, if you don't like all the crap that comes with it, then ride a bike to work.Alternately, if you want to eat on your way to work, walk, ride your bike, or drive, rather than breaking the rules of the Metro, and then acting shocked when someone calls you on it.

Mike

LiquidTension
July 31, 2004, 02:11 AM
Both Willett and police agree that she nodded and put the last bit into her mouth before throwing the wrapper into a trash can.

If she finished the candy bar as she was asked to do - something that both sides agree on, according to the article - why did the cop follow her at all?

Jeff
July 31, 2004, 02:19 AM
I'm guessing that she opted to keep on walking when she was stopped and detained by the LEO. Same as a jaywalker- you need to stop and get your ticket.

The point is, she never should have been stopped. A cop can stop me because he doesn't like the message on my t-shirt, but does that make it right???

This argument is almost identical in nature to the last one in which I engaged in this forum concerning traffic stops. There comes a point where stopping people-- either on the road or in the streets-- is no longer in the best interest of anyone, but merely constitutes harassment.

This story smells too strongly of harassment. It really stinks.



Alternately, if you want to eat on your way to work, walk, ride your bike, or drive, rather than breaking the rules of the Metro, and then acting shocked when someone calls you on it.

No, no, no. Those rules of the Metro are unnecessary and totalitarian. The woman is being forced to adapt to a set of rules she should not have to adapt to.

It bears repeating that those who litter or mess up the trains should be fined appropriately, instead of the gov't creating needless restrictions on something as mundane and essential as eating.

Littering is already illegal. Make sure the existing laws are enforced before creating more ridiculous ones.

Jeff
July 31, 2004, 02:24 AM
If she finished the candy bar as she was asked to do - something that both sides agree on, according to the article - why did the cop follow her at all?


I couldn't figure that out either.

The boy in blue must have been having a hard day. Needed to lean on someone to feel better, I guess.

O.F.Fascist
July 31, 2004, 03:04 AM
I definately dont see why food should be banned in subways.

Is it really that ????ing difficult to put up some trash cans and hire some people to clean up?

O.F.Fascist
July 31, 2004, 03:06 AM
NM I just remembered something.

There probably arent trashcans because they are afraid terrorists will hid bombs in them and blow up the subway. :rolleyes:

Yea, terrorists win, because of them we cant eat food in subways.

Thats so damn assinine.

zastros
July 31, 2004, 03:15 AM
"Don't you have some other crimes you have to take care of?" Willett said she told the officer.



What kind of idiot says that to a cop? A government scientifical type idiot, apparently.

Maybe if she mentioned that she paid his salary, she'd have gotten out of it.

Or, she could go for the hat trick and just ask if she could play with his gun.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 31, 2004, 04:17 AM
I don't live in Washington so I'm confused about all of the protocols and etiquettes of subway transportation

Avoiding problems while riding the Washington Metro isn't rocket science.

There's just a few simple rules:

No eating, drinking, or smoking anywhere in a station, platform or train.

No playing music.

Stand to the right when you're on the escalator so you don't block people trying to walk up or down.

Let the people get off a train before you try to board.

Don't hog the handicapped/elderly seats.

That's it. Very simple stuff. Yet people like this woman somehow still manage to get themselves arrested.

Why is eating on a public transit system an "issue?" If the smell of garlic bread or candy bars is more than what some commuters can handle, then maybe they need to find an alternate means of transportation and quit bitching

No, these self-centered slobs need to find some other place to nosh. The trains are carpeted and hard enough to keep clean as it is without these slobs spilling food and leaving refuse all over the place.

I've ridden the Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Washington subways at rush hour. The Washington Metro's Red line out to Shady Grove is by far the most crowded. I don't need to be squeezed in next to some self-indulgent slob chewing in my ear and spilling coffee on me. There's no reason why these ignorant, rude slobs can't readjust their schedule and eat their breakfast, lunch, or dinner at home.

I wish the Metro Police would enforce the "no gum chewing" rule just as strictly. Nothing like having Ms. Tawana Gumsnapper squeezed in next to you on a hot, crowded, standing room only, evening Red line train for 90 minutes to teach you the true meaning of Hell on Earth.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 31, 2004, 04:54 AM
No, no, no. Those rules of the Metro are unnecessary and totalitarian. The woman is being forced to adapt to a set of rules she should not have to adapt to.

Nonsense, Nonsense, Nonsense. The Metro rules are very reasonable and don't impinge on anybody "rights." They are no more severe than prohibiting talking on a cell phone in a movie theater.

There's no good reason why I should be forced to adapt to some self-indulgent slobs eating habits. I shouldn't have to put up with the smell, the trash, the bugs and rodents that always follow when these slobs are allowed to leave their half eaten and spilled food and food containers all around a subway system.

It bears repeating that those who litter or mess up the trains should be fined appropriately, instead of the gov't creating needless restrictions on something as mundane and essential as eating.

There is no possible way for Metro to hire enough Police to enforce a rule against littering. There'd have to be an Officer on each train car 24/7. The current system where an Officer screens the passing crowd at the Station enterence to catch violators is the only realistic means to prevent problems.

There's nothing essential about eating on a subway platform or train car. Even diabetics should have better control over their eating habits. There's absolutely no reason why I should be forced to put up with the noise and odor of some self-centered slob eating a Payday bar on a Metro car.

There's no reason why this slob couldn't have finished her candy bar outside the Station. Thousands of smokers are required to do the same thing. What is so hard to understand about the concept of simple consideration for others?

Littering is already illegal. Make sure the existing laws are enforced before creating more ridiculous ones

These rules have been in place and very widely publicized since Metro opened decades ago.

Contrary to what you may be thinking, the overwhelming majority of Metro riders such as myself strongly support these simple rules. Nobody here in the D.C. area wants to see the Metro become a filthy, violent, trash-strewn toilet like the NYC subway has been in the past.

The cleanliness of Metro is a point of pride for most people here in the D.C. area, and again, the vast majority of riders strongly support the ban on eating and drinking on the trains and platforms.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 31, 2004, 05:06 AM
I can see ticketing people for littering. Merely eating should not be an offense. I wonder if they'd ticket hypoglycemics, too. Unfortunately, neither the people who thought up that regulation nor the people enforcing it would do us all a favor and hang themselves someplace private

These rules have been in place since Metro opened. Literally for decades. The people on the Metro oversight board who had the foresight to put these rules in place deserve medals for their actions. These rules have largely managed to keep the Metro a clean and attractive transit system for decades.

There is no good reason why these inconsiderate, self-centered slobs can't eat their meals at home, or have a snack outside the station.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 31, 2004, 05:12 AM
What kind of idiot says that to a cop? A government scientifical type idiot, apparently.

No, most likely some congenital idiot from out of town who can't read a sign.

Foe[H]ammer
July 31, 2004, 05:55 AM
There's nothing essential about eating on a subway platform or train car

or

There's nothing essential about owning guns that can fire more than one shot without being manually reloaded

I chimed in in the other thread and this was my response:

I'm typically as LEO friendly as they come, having met them on both sides of the right and wrong of the law.

This is just frelling bullsnipe chickensoup crud. A Metro cop asked someone to not eat in a "no eating zone" (don't get me started on the foolishness of that idea) and then decided to cite her for finishing her food BEFORE she was in the station? I realize it must have been a crippling ego blow that she didn't run right to the nearest trash bin and chuck the offending item away at his\her behest.

My natural assumption is that the ordinance is in place to limit littering, SHE THREW THE DANG WRAPPER IN THE TRASH!!!!!!!!

While admittedly the officer was within the law to cite her, why would you? She was commiting no socially damaging deed. She was eating not robbing the Wells Fargo.

Police officers have within jobs a certain amount of discresion, don't kid me cops, you do, he\she should have used a bit at this particular time.

If a cop wants to cite me for speeding and I was, no problem.(safety of others)
If a cop wants to cite me for public intoxication and I was, no problem.(safety of others and myself and protection of "community standard[don't get me started on this one either])
If a cop want to cite me for littering and I was, no problem.(protection of community standards and environmental issues)
But eating?!?!?! , that's a big problem law or not.

While I agree that who ever thought up the law and those who helped pass it should be hung, the officer should have let it go before the verbal warning and certainly after the disposal of the "contraband foodstuffs in a no eat zone" and it's wrapper in the most efficient and mutually beneficial way.

Cop on a trip, 45 year old scientist perpetrator of the abhorrent crime of "contempt of cop".

Cool Hand:
I lived in DC for a bit, thankfully a short bit, and it had bar none the best best public transport in the nation IMHO. I can't help it if you can't stand to see/hear people eat, might want to spend some time on that issue of yours, but it has nothing to do with someones right to eat wherever they are. Oh and when I lived there I rode the Metro at least once a day in my activities and never got harrassed for eating on the trains, which I prolly did dozens of times.

Reno
July 31, 2004, 05:55 AM
Cool Hand Luke, sounds to me like you have a chip on your shoulder about this. According to your view, anyone who eats while they aren't sitting at home or in a restaurant is a "slob."

Fact is, this woman committed a non-crime. She did absolutely nothing wrong, yet was punished under a law that follows the same logic as gun control laws - no crime has been committed, there is no evidence that one will be committed, but we'd better prohibit something to make sure that no crime can be committed.

spartacus2002
July 31, 2004, 07:46 AM
Stephanie Willett said she was eating a PayDay bar on an escalator descending into a station July 16 when an officer warned her to finish it before entering the station. Both Willett and police agree that she nodded and put the last bit into her mouth before throwing the wrapper into a trash can.

So where's the ****ing crime?? Yet the officer followed her and demanded ID? Is a PayDay bar now probable cause or reasonable suspicion?

So sorry, but I'd tell him to blow off too.

And to quote Standing Wolf from innumberable other threads, "Yeah, but we're not a police state" :D

Shovelhead
July 31, 2004, 09:06 AM
Just to post a clarification (not that it really matters) but the Wash. Post article this morning states it was a female officer.

You MUST respect mah Authoritah!
Eric Cartman

Shovelhead
July 31, 2004, 09:37 AM
:neener:
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=1152029

TechBrute
July 31, 2004, 10:02 AM
Coronach...

Outlawing eating to cut down on litter is the same line of thinking that outlaws guns to cut down on murder or lowers the speed limit to cut down on speeding.

Ticket litter, not eating.

Also, I can only imagine the type of person that works as a transit authority officer and tickets for eating a candy bar.:rolleyes: Probably the same bunch that works at the ATF.

sendec
July 31, 2004, 10:08 AM
Some of y'all may want to research something commonly known as the "Broken Windows" police management model.

joab
July 31, 2004, 10:23 AM
why did the cop follow her at all? Because she could the same reason a dog licks hisself. It's an instinctive reation for some , when they feel that we have not cowered enough in the face of their superiority.
Not all cops are bad, this one is. Even after admitting that the offender complied with her instructions she couldn't let it go she had to prove that she was just a little better and had more authority than her subjects.What kind of idiot says that to a cop? A government scientifical type idiot, apparently. I have and will any time a cop is out of line. They are not above you are me and I will not treat them as such.

Coronach
July 31, 2004, 11:54 AM
We don't know exactly how that interaction occurred. The kneejerkers are of course invoking Cartman, whereas those of us who actually cite people as a part of our job know that it is more likely that he was trying to stop and cite her the whole time (with the first "warning" actually him saying that she was violating the law, and she subsequently just kept right on walking...but I freely admit that I don't know that any more than you 'know' that this was a contempt of cop ticket). If she was, in fact, outside of the station and she did immediately comply with his 'warning' (as the article seems to imply), yeah, ok, the cop should not have issued her the ticket, and she will win handily at trial, and there can be a subsequent lawsuit with a big payday at the end of it (HAW!). If I had to bet, though? It didn't happen quite like that. My memory of the DC metro is that if you are on an escalator, you are already well inside the station.

As to the "cite litteres, not people eating" idea...

1. Completely unrealistic. You must have no idea how many people use the metro on a daily basis. That is a completely unrealistic expectation. And you can easily brush it off as "hey, thats the cop's problem, not mine", except that the rule is in place to make the Metro actually worth using, and the vast majority of the commuters using the Metro...the very people it exists to serve...like the fact that it is pretty clean and orderly.

Ever used the DC Metro? It is not perfect, but it is pretty good. Want to see a public transit system that is not nearly as well maintained, and actually is run in pretty libertarian style (read: a complete absence of government)? Chicago's L. I'll take the DC system any day...I just wish it had more stops, and more lines (this may have changed since I was there last).

2. If we were talking about pedestrians on city sidewalks...or people in their cars...or people walking along the road, or in a park, I would agree with you. But we are not talking about that...we are talking about a system that jams millions of people into an underground tunnel and whisks them around, daily. I understand the general philosophy, and I agree with it, but this is not the same situation as a man walking down a street eating a burger. By purchasing your ticket you are agreeing to follow the rules of the Metro. She did not. She gets a ticket. Normally no big deal, but it looks like she decided to turn it into one.

I'll be the first to back her if it turns out that the cop had no PC to cite her.

Mike

joab
July 31, 2004, 12:34 PM
We don't know exactly how that interaction occurred. yeah we do

when an officer warned her to finish it before entering the station. Both Willett and police agree that she nodded and put the last bit into her mouth before throwing the wrapper into a trash can.

Of course the knee jerk LEO defenders don't seem to be able to accept that there are cops like this amongst us

Coronach
July 31, 2004, 12:39 PM
Oh, you were there?

My bad. Which Metro stop was this?

Mike :rolleyes:

Coronach
July 31, 2004, 12:45 PM
More specifically:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't know exactly how that interaction occurred.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yeah we do


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
when an officer warned her to finish it before entering the station. Both Willett and police agree that she nodded and put the last bit into her mouth before throwing the wrapper into a trash can.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course the knee jerk LEO defenders don't seem to be able to accept that there are cops like this amongst usI'm still saying we don't, because this is self-contradictory. He "warned her to finish it before entering the station" and she then ate the last bit and threw the wrapper away and then entered the station, and yet she was cited for eating in the station.

You are perfectly happy assuming that the contradiction resolves itself on the side of the defendant. I, knowing that very few cops are dumb enough to screw up the PC for such a ticket, suspect that something is not being said correctly in the article. But, as I said, I'll be the first to back her if the cop got his PC wrong.


Mike

Carlos
July 31, 2004, 12:56 PM
If she finished the candy bar as she was asked to do - something that both sides agree on, according to the article - why did the cop follow her at all?

Because he’s one of “those” types of cop that just makes me sick. Really pathetic. Sounds to me like she complied, maybe showed some disbelief or attitude, and cop just has to get in the last word.

Now, equally as pathetic are the morons that caused an ordinance such as this to be enacted in the first place. All over our country, and even my beloved Portland, people just don’t care about other people or the facilities and systems.

Cuffing a 12 year old? Now, that’s beyond belief. That cop is surely my hero. I definitely want to kiss his butt when this places turns into the New Nazi Federation.

joab
July 31, 2004, 01:01 PM
Both Willett and police agree
warned her to finish it before entering the station..
she then ate the last bit and threw the wrapper away and then entered the station
You are perfectly happy assuming that the contradiction resolves itself on the side of the defendant. I, knowing that very few cops are dumb enough to screw up the PC for such a ticket, suspect that something is not being said correctly in the article. But, as I said, I'll be the first to back her if the cop got his PC wrong.
And you are perfectly happy assuming that some cops are not that stupid and don't assume that their mere air of superiority will make the lesser citizen kow- tow and submit to their will. I know for a fact that there are cops like this, it's been proven over and over.

Coronach
July 31, 2004, 01:08 PM
Agreed. They exist. They're just far less prevalent than some people on THR like to admit, and every case that makes the newspaper involving supposed abuses of LEO authority is not actually an example of such.

As I've said, what, five times now? If the cop got the PC wrong, I'll be the first to back the defendant-and-soon-to-be-plaintiff. We just have to let this play out and see what comes of it.

Mike

FedDC
July 31, 2004, 01:10 PM
Either way, whether she finished it or not, she still refused to stop and produce ID. When ordered to stop by a LEO whether it is in a car being pulled over or on foot, the persond being ordered to stop must stop. She smarted off to him and kept walking... Bad idea. What would have been a verbal warning turned into an arrest.

I too ride the DC Metro and it is the best subway system I have ever seen. It is clean, smells ok, isn't too noisy, and has no homeless people sleeping in it. All in all, I will trade the privelage of eating in the metro for all of the above.

Hawkmoon
July 31, 2004, 01:17 PM
It seems that she was cuffed and detained because she refused to stop to be cited. Try that while driving, you'll get the same result, or worse. Had she stopped, produced ID and been issued her ticket, as is required by law, we would not be reading about this now.
Does the law define the act of "eating"?

The law is probably in place to alleviate littering. As she approached, the cop told her to "finish" before entering. She put the last bit in her mouth and discarded the wrapper in an approved trash receptacle. I am certain that in her mind she had "finished." If I had been there, I would have considered that I had finished. Granted, she may have still been chewing, but suppose she had popped a stick of gum in her mouth instead of the last bit of a candy bar. Is chewing gum legally construed as "eating"? It would not meet any dictionary definition of eating, because the product is not ingested. The law prohibits "eating" not "chewing." I'd guess if pushed this law might be one that gets struck down on Constitutional grounds as being overly vague.

Looks to me like the LEO overreacted massively.

sendec
July 31, 2004, 01:28 PM
I am assuming your joking, applying that eating versus chewing logic, kinda like "I did not have sex with that woman...." "I chewed the candy bar and held it in temporary storage pending defecation. I had no intention of deriving nutritional value from it, as demonstrated by the fact that it was a Snickers and not a celery stalk, therefore the crime of "eating" did not actually take place."

I think I accidently deleted my post on this, which was to the effect that many larger urban agencies now subscribe to the "broken windows" model of crime prevention, which dictates that rigorous enforcement of order maintenance issues results in an environment which is not conducive to more serious criminal conduct. New York and many major eastern cities have applied this model with unexpected success. Compare New York's subway system today to 20 years ago, or Times Square.

But then I suppose constantly jerking one's knee may contribute to flexibility and joint health, versus thinking, the results of which are difficult to quantify.

Can'thavenuthingood
July 31, 2004, 01:35 PM
Two women having a bad (PMS?) day.

One has the authority to make the others life miserable. The cited has to get an attorney and defend herself in court. Or add to the documents in her "file" that she is a subversive element by avoiding court and paying the fine.

The officer seems to be unable to understand the intent of a law. Too much zero tolerance going on everywhere. Probably learned in the public school system and now second nature.

Courtesy and politeness are becoming obsolete concepts. Unless it's written into a rule of law, it don't matter.

Vick

standingbear
July 31, 2004, 02:28 PM
I chewed the candy bar and held it in temporary storage pending defecation. I had no intention of deriving nutritional value from it, as demonstrated by the fact that it was a Snickers and not a celery stalk, therefore the crime of "eating" did not actually take place." goodness..this is hilarous.

maybe the cop followed her because of anticipated littering offense..why after she ate that candycar..she clearly showed signs of digestive distress.

sorry..this is JUST so petty...things must really be bad.
(bullhorn)"ma'am..step away from the gummiebears..you have 5 seconds to comply!"

Tamara
July 31, 2004, 02:41 PM
I think I accidently deleted my post on this, which was to the effect that many larger urban agencies now subscribe to the "broken windows" model of crime prevention, which dictates that rigorous enforcement of order maintenance issues results in an environment which is not conducive to more serious criminal conduct.

The "Broken Windows" theory of law enforcement (which, as you noted, is predicated on the fact that if some people notice minor lawlessness being tolerated, they'll become more likely to attempt major lawlessness,) should have a corollary "Broken Windows" theory of legislation: To wit, the passage of small or petty laws that people are likely to break can reduce otherwise law-abiding folk's respect for laws in general. "You can't do that! That's against the law!", to which the commonly-heard retort is "So what? So's driving 56 miles per hour." Unfortunately, the "There oughtta be a law!" mentality of Joe and Jane Public tends to heterodyne with the "It's my job to pass new laws" mentality of federal, state, and local lawmakers to leave most folks living under a tottering, byzantine legal code, full of arcane commandments and "Thou Shalt Nots" about which the average citizen neither knows or cares.

When 1/100th of an inch of metal separates the happy duck hunter from the federal felon and one tenth of one mile per hour separates the conscientous and safe driver from the reckless scofflaw, it only stands to reason that some folks start to look askance at the whole underlying premise of the legal code.

Jeff
July 31, 2004, 02:49 PM
sendec,

There is a big difference between jerking one's knee and gagging over something that smells like feces.

This entire article smells like feces. If you elitist types don't gag over stuff like this, sounds like you are conditioned to having certain ideas shoved down your throats.

There are two issues at the heart of this article. Specific: the treatment of the "offender" by the LEO; and General: the legality/constitutionality/practicality of the eating ban on the Metro.

It is true none of us was there, so we really don't know how accurate the account actually is. But if we can take this article at face value (which is all we have), then it appears that the cop acted abusively or overzealously, since we can all ascertain that the "offender" had indeed taken the last morsel of the food into her mouth, complying completely with the order from the officer.

There was NO need to follow the citizen into the station to further harass. NONE!!

Some of you non-gaggers believe the commuter acted inappropriately to the citation of the officer once inside the station. Big deal. The encounter never should have gotten to that point! She was followed and issued a citation after having complied with the officer outside of the station.

How can anyone defend the officer?

The second issue is certainly more complex, and those on the opposing side have raised some very good points here. I admit I have commuted on the Metro a couple of times, and I remember it being fairly clean.

However, I find laws that restrict or ban very essential and natural activities, such as eating, to be very troubling. There are indeed slobs and irresponsible people everywhere. But such is life, and such are the compromises of freedom.

The concept of public transportation automatically suggests we are going to have to put up with slobs and other people we don't like. Live with it or take a bike or taxi.

Again, do we demand that those who stink of BO need to shower before we get on the train with them? What's the difference?

It may be difficult enforcing the littering laws, I realize that. Perhaps the cars could be cleaned twice a day by maintenance in a manner that would be very quick and efficient. Furthermore, once commuters have ridden the trains for so many years in a "food-free" environment, I doubt they would collectively trash the cars to any serious degree. After all, that would be the obverse of the "broken-windows" policies. Conditioning.

It sure beats having to harass every commuter who is trying to eat something on the go, an activity ALL OF US have to do from time to time. We do it in our cars, we do it on the planes, we do it on buses, we do it while walking.....because we HAVE TO DO IT.

There is no reasonable expectation that says we should ban eating on subway trains, simply because we shouldn't have to tolerate "self-indulgent slobs."

Sure, riding on the Metro now might be better than commuting in other cities' subway systems; of course it's easy to become conditioned to cleanliness and perfection when it is mandated through force. That is what totalitarianism is all about, folks.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 31, 2004, 03:44 PM
Foe[H]ammer:

If a cop want to cite me for littering and I was, no problem.(protection of community standards and environmental issues)
But eating?!?!?! , that's a big problem law or not.

The problem isn't just the litter. Spillage of food on the seats and carpeting of the train cars is a bigger issue. And that's going to be a problem even if people bring food onto a train held in their hands without a wrapper. These aren't the "hose 'em out" cattle cars of the NYC or Boston Subways.

While I agree that who ever thought up the law and those who helped pass it should be hung, the officer should have let it go before the verbal warning and certainly after the disposal of the "contraband foodstuffs in a no eat zone" and it's wrapper in the most efficient and mutually beneficial way.

There are numerous trash cans outside every Metro stop (amazingly still there 3 years after 9/11) and numerous signs warning people not to eat or smoke past the station entrance.

Cool Hand:
I lived in DC for a bit, thankfully a short bit, and it had bar none the best best public transport in the nation IMHO. I can't help it if you can't stand to see/hear people eat, might want to spend some time on that issue of yours, but it has nothing to do with someones right to eat wherever they are.

I enjoy eating out at resturants all the time, I have no problem being around people who are eating. I just don't want to have to contend with litter, odor, spilled food, and general rudeness on a crowded subway car.

I'm still waiting for anybody to explain to me why eating on a subway car is essential for any reason, or a right of some sort.

Oh and when I lived there I rode the Metro at least once a day in my activities and never got harrassed for eating on the trains, which I prolly did dozens of times

I'm not impressed. Ride the Red line twice every day at rush hour 5 days a week for 20 years before you start advocating turning the trains into rolling picnic areas.

If I saw you eating past the Station enterence I'd pick up one of the emergency phones and drop a dime on you in a heartbeat. The vast majority of Metro riders agree with me.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 31, 2004, 03:57 PM
Reno:

Cool Hand Luke, sounds to me like you have a chip on your shoulder about this. According to your view, anyone who eats while they aren't sitting at home or in a restaurant is a "slob."

No, only when they presume to violate the rules and force me to contend with their childish selfishness on a crowded subway car. If someone is talking on a cell phone during a movie, cutting into line somewhere, farting on an elevator, or eating on the Metro, they're self-centered slobs by any objective measure.

Fact is, this woman committed a non-crime. She did absolutely nothing wrong, yet was punished under a law that follows the same logic as gun control laws - no crime has been committed, there is no evidence that one will be committed, but we'd better prohibit something to make sure that no crime can be committed

Non-crime? There are very good reasons for these prohbitions on the Metro as mentioned above. There is absolutely nothing essential about eating on a subway car.

There's no reason these people can't eat before they enter the station, or wait an hour to eat once they get off the train. Nobody will hassle them if they eat outside the station entrance.

When these people claim the right to eat on the subway cars it' s nothing other than pure arrogant self-centeredness. They consider their very minor need to eat "right now" to supercede everybody else's right to a clean and attractive subway system.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 31, 2004, 04:06 PM
TechBrute:

Coronach...

Outlawing eating to cut down on litter is the same line of thinking that outlaws guns to cut down on murder or lowers the speed limit to cut down on speeding.

Yo're really going to argue that a speed limit is the same as an unconstitutional gun control law?

You have a Constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms. You don't have any kind of Constitutional "right" to eat, play music, smoke, or engage in any other kind of self-centered rudeness on a subway car.

The Metro is a regulated public conveyance that one has to purchase a ticket to ride, and therefore the Metro board has every "right" to make reasonable rules that benefit all riders.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 31, 2004, 04:18 PM
Hawkmoon:

The law is probably in place to alleviate littering


No, that's only part of the story.

Early on, when Metro was first being built the Metro Board made a decision as to what type of transit system they wanted. They chose carpeted floors and soft, foam cushioned seats for the train cars as opposed to the grim, bare, linoleum of the NYC subway. And early on they realized that they couldn't have this and food on the cars as well. It's simply impossible to keep the carpeted train cars to any reasonable standard of cleanliness if food is allowed on the cars.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 31, 2004, 04:28 PM
Jeff:

However, I find laws that restrict or ban very essential and natural activities, such as eating, to be very troubling. There are indeed slobs and irresponsible people everywhere. But such is life, and such are the compromises of freedom

You're going to have to explain what it is that's so essential about eating on a subway car. Seems like it's just a convenience for most people.

The average subway trip lasts less than 45 minutes for most riders, what is so essential about eating at THAT particular time.

Why can't these inconsiderate slobs wait a few minutes? Or have the minimal brainpower to figure out that they can actually eat BEFORE they leave for the station?

I can see a diabetic having to eat, and they should do so even if they are on a train car. But I also think a Metro cop should question them on it and cite them if they can't prove the need.

Jeff
July 31, 2004, 05:00 PM
You're going to have to explain what it is that's so essential about eating on a subway car.

Luke, it's the 21st century and people lead pretty hectic lives, especially in large, crowded cities. People eat on the go because quite frequently THEY HAVE TO.

I think it is unreasonable to expect people take extra time out of their busy schedules for a bite to eat, when they can be doing it while traveling. It is absurd to try and prevent people from doing this on subway cars, when they have been doing it on every other mode of transportation all of their lives.

Seems like it's just a convenience for most people.

No. Being allowed to eat on a subway car is more necessity than mere "convenience." Your selfish aversion to commuter eating and expecting said commuters to schedule their eating patterns outside of the commute is an utterly irrational convenience on your part.


Why can't these inconsiderate slobs wait a few minutes? Or have the minimal brainpower to figure out that they can actually eat BEFORE they leave for the station?

And...

I can see a diabetic having to eat, and they should do so even if they are on a train car. But I also think a Metro cop should question them on it and cite them if they can't prove the need.


You are beginning to sound like a little tyrant .

Tamara
July 31, 2004, 05:08 PM
Personally, I think:

1) Whoever owns the subway car should be able to pass any goofy rules they want for the people who ask to ride on them.

2) The government has no business owning subway cars, and even if it did, has no business propping up unprofitable mass-transit by scamming money from folks who don't even use the dang things.

3) When a government is reduced to passing inane laws, such as ones about the proper place and time to consume a Payday candy bar, and zealously enforces them with uniformed (and maybe armed?) officers, it should not be surprised when people find it risible. :scrutiny:

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 31, 2004, 06:04 PM
Jeff:

Luke, it's the 21st century and people lead pretty hectic lives, especially in large, crowded cities. People eat on the go because quite frequently THEY HAVE TO.

Boo hoo, cry me a freaking river. The "necessity" is entirely in the minds of these self-important, inconsiderate slobs who think their lives are more important than everyone elses. These are the same type of A-holes who tailgate and try to intimidate other drivers with their "my life is much more important and harried than yours" attitude. They're the same type of self-important A-holes who "have" to take that "important" cell phone call during a movie.

On a bad day it MIGHT take the average person about 5 minutes to grab a bite at home or at McDonalds. Your saying that people are so rushed that they can't spare 15 minutes of their time to eat somewhere other than up in my face on a subway train? I don't buy it.

I think it is unreasonable to expect people take extra time out of their busy schedules for a bite to eat, when they can be doing it while traveling. It is absurd to try and prevent people from doing this on subway cars, when they have been doing it on every other mode of transportation all of their lives.

No. Being allowed to eat on a subway car is more necessity than mere "convenience." Your selfish aversion to commuter eating and expecting said commuters to schedule their eating patterns outside of the commute is an utterly irrational convenience on your part.[/qoute]

You are beginning to sound like a little tyrant .

I worked a full-time job while taking a full load of college courses at night, at the same time I rode the Metro from home to work, from work to school, from school back home, every day for years. Not once did I feel that I HAD to eat while on the train. There is no reason why these selfish slobs can't eat at home and stop inflicting their rudeness on others.


Tyrannical? absolute nonsense. The Metro rules are reasonable and fair. They're no more tyrannical than are the rules prohibiting people from cutting into line, taking up two parking spots, or spitting on the sidewalk.

Ownership of self is a worthy concept. But asserting ownership of others by inconsiderately controlling their involuntary environment to their detriment is entirely a different matter. Forcing me to wade through your garbage on a subway train is the antithesis of Libertarianisim.

Nursing moms and diabetics, yes, by all means they can eat on the subway. Any other adult who does so is just being selfish and inconsiderate.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 31, 2004, 06:12 PM
Tamara:

1) Whoever owns the subway car should be able to pass any goofy rules they want for the people who ask to ride on them.

Agreed

2) The government has no business owning subway cars, and even if it did, has no business propping up unprofitable mass-transit by scamming money from folks who don't even use the dang things.

Agreed. But Government ownership means that the Metro is a much nicer subway system than private sector economics would allow.

Ride the barebones Hong Kong subway for a good contrast.

3) When a government is reduced to passing inane laws, such as ones about the proper place and time to consume a Payday candy bar, and zealously enforces them with uniformed (and maybe armed?) officers, it should not be surprised when people find it risible

There's no way to keep the Metro clean without these very reasonable and popular rules.

I would bet that any privately owned system would also prohibit eating on the trains. In fact, I beleive the HK system does.

Tamara
July 31, 2004, 06:23 PM
But Government ownership means that the Metro is a much nicer subway system than private sector economics would allow.

Considering the costs of operation are borne by those who don't ride it, I'm not surprised. If I could get other people to pay for my car, it'd be a Ferrari. ;)

I would bet that any privately owned system would also prohibit eating on the trains.

Yet movie theaters adopted plush, airline-type seats and even sell you the food to eat in them. So do airlines, come to think of it... :uhoh:


Anyhow, I'm well off-track with this, so I'll go pester folks in some other thread... Y'all play nice; no more name-callin' or nothin', okay? :)

Fly320s
July 31, 2004, 06:32 PM
It's simply impossible to keep the carpeted train cars to any reasonable standard of cleanliness if food is allowed on the cars.
Many of the Metro entrances are direct access from outside. Do those stations have doormats so that customers may wipe their feet before entering? Do the Metro police inspect the soles of shoes to ensure that the stations and train stay clean? Are the Fashion Police checking the clothing of all riders to ensure that no one has soiled clothing which may dirty the seats of the trains? Are sick people prohibited from riding the Metro due to the fact that they may vomit in the train? Since you, Cool hand, don't like smelly people, are Muslims prohibited from riding the train because they don't have the same personal hygiene regimen as you and I?

Having those rules in place may keep the trains clean. And outlawing all firearms may cut down on violence. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with it. The Metro rules prevent a person's action based on what someone may do.

sendec
July 31, 2004, 07:26 PM
Has anyone bothered to do something radical and contact the Metro to see what the rationale for the rule is? Or shall we all continue to second guess every actor in the scenario? They may have a very good reason, they may not, but this is pointless.

If you really truly feel that this is a big deal, responsibility dictates that you gather all the data, but that probably is'nt as much fun as getting all puffy at the keyboard.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 31, 2004, 07:29 PM
Fly320s:

Many of the Metro entrances are direct access from outside. Do those stations have doormats so that customers may wipe their feet before entering? Do the Metro police inspect the soles of shoes to ensure that the stations and train stay clean? Are the Fashion Police checking the clothing of all riders to ensure that no one has soiled clothing which may dirty the seats of the trains? Are sick people prohibited from riding the Metro due to the fact that they may vomit in the train?
Having those rules in place may keep the trains clean. And outlawing all firearms may cut down on violence. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with it. The Metro rules prevent a person's action based on what someone may do.

The areas outside of the entrance to the Metro stations are paved. People aren't walking through plowed fields to get on the trains. During the winter there are mats placed at the entrances for people to knock the slush off.

As for the difference between spilled food and simple dirt, getting the spilled food off the carpet is harder than simple dirt, people arent putting their muddy shoes on the seats, muddy shoes don't leave huge amounts of food cantainers around, and muddy shoes don't smell and attract rats and cockroaches like spilled food and food containers.

Since you,Cool hand, don't like smelly people, are Muslims prohibited from riding the train because they don't have the same personal hygiene regimen as you and I?

Nice bit of racisim there. I don't recall that any of the many Muslim friends that I have had over the past 30 years had an odor any different than anyone else. I was referring to the smell of food and discarded food containers, not the people themselves. Body odor doesn't require any extra cleaning of the subway cars, doesn't stick to the seats or carpet, doesn't attract rats & cockroaches, etc.

As for the 2nd Amendment. There's no unconstitutional law on the books banning open carry in Virginia. I can carry without any problem on the Metro. That's because I have a constitutional right to do so. I don't have any Constitutional right to ignore the reasonable safety and sanitary rules set by a provider of a transportation service.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 31, 2004, 07:36 PM
sendec:

Has anyone bothered to do something radical and contact the Metro to see what the rationale for the rule is? Or shall we all continue to second guess every actor in the scenario? They may have a very good reason, they may not, but this is pointless.

If you really truly feel that this is a big deal, responsibility dictates that you gather all the data, but that probably is'nt as much fun as getting all puffy at the keyboard.

What nonsense.

I have been reading stories about people being arrested for eating on the Metro in the Post and Times, and hearing news anchormen like Gordon Peterson and Jim Vance report them on local t.v., for decades. It's a VERY old story here in D.C.

Every time it happens the Metro Board's spokesman explains the reasons for rules just as I have.

This isn't rocket science.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 31, 2004, 07:43 PM
Tamara:

Yet movie theaters adopted plush, airline-type seats and even sell you the food to eat in them. So do airlines, come to think of it...


Movie theater seats have maybe 4-5 people a day use them, not dozens like the subway seats.

The theater isn't bouncing through space at 45 mph like a Metro train.

Movie theaters make enough money off the concession sales to offset the extra costs associated with the considerable amount of spillage that does occur. $6.50 for a large coke leaves a lot of money left over to pay teenagers to mop up the aisles. Money that Metro does not have.

Movie theaters also prohibit you from bringing your own food and drink in with you. Just like the Metro.

sendec
July 31, 2004, 08:15 PM
CHL,

At ease dude, I'm with you on this one. The point I was trying to make is that frequently there are rules which on the surface seem obtuse, but have very sound logic behind them - I know of some zoos that will not allow drinking straws on the premises - they get tossed away and some animal eats them. One of the staff told me they'd necropsy animals and often times find straws in their GI tracks, even if it did'nt kill'em.

Anyway, I've got no problem with this particular rule. Heck, when they flogged that American kid in Singapore for graffiti or litter or whatever it was I was OK with that too. If I gotta be locked up in a big metal tube putting up with the people is bad enough, I don't want their burritto/coffee/slimeburger/falafel/gyro/garlic/bubblegum stink too.

Flogging....ummmmm.......I wonder if jackboots would effect my swing and followthrough, or is it really all in the wrist?

joab
July 31, 2004, 09:48 PM
American kid in Singapore for graffiti or litter or whatever it was I was OK with that too. Not that it matters for this discussion, but it was for vandalizing cars with graffitti

TechBrute
July 31, 2004, 10:13 PM
Yo're really going to argue that a speed limit is the same as an unconstitutional gun control law? Luke, no one is arguing that. Go re-read what I wrote. It's the same line of thinking and the same logic, not the same subject.

Tamara
July 31, 2004, 10:38 PM
Heck, when they flogged that American kid in Singapore...

I hope that was a joke.

Matt G
July 31, 2004, 11:29 PM
Hm. Interesting how the officer is blamed for her failing to stop when told to by a police officer.

The point of her arrest was not eating on the subway. That's just the law that was being upheld. Silly or not, it's the law that was passed. Fight it if you wish, but that's NOT the issue.

The point was that the officer attempted to detain her to identify her for a municipal violation. Let's see-- what are some comparable muni violations? Um: "No Trucks." (If you live on a lightly-constructed residential street, you don't want big trucks driving through your neighborhood, tearing up the streets.)
"No Fireworks." (Good ordinance, if you live in a densely-populated area where a bottle rocket can burn down a city block before the hose can string to the roof on a ladder truck.)

So, Officer Friendly, a good egg, attempts to stop your neighbor, who happens to be driving an 80,000 lb semi-tractor-trailer load of fireworks to put on "the show of a lifetime" on the balcony of his duplex. "SqrooYooo!" yelleth your neighbor, as he begins to wire up a sequential detonator to the truck's contents. (It's just as well-- he could never drive that weight back out through the furrows he's crushed in your street.)

And Officer Friendly is supposed to stop and say,"Hunh. That law is a pretty minor infraction-- a ticket only. Having evaluated this law and found it lacking, I shall depart forthwith from Ned Neighbor's presense, as my enforcement of it constitutes harassment, evidenced by his refusal to comply with my lawful order for him to stand and deliver his identification!" Standing not upon the order of his going, he should thus take this snub as his marching orders, and make his departure in haste??

Righhhhht.

You know who have failed to stop when I've issued the "Stop Command"? (Usually red and blue flashing lights overhead my car, accompanyed after a few seconds by siren.) Felons with warrants, drunks, and more felons with warrants who happen to be drunk --that's who.

And honestly, you WANT Officer Friendly to insist that they stop when he says "Stop." First of all, if there were no consequences to refusing to stop when called upon to stop, NOBODY would stop, and the laws you want enforced would completley be unheeded. (Stop and think about that one, now-- ALL of the laws would go unheeded.) Second of all, look at that list above of who has failed to stop for me. I've arrested a guy with multiple warrants for Aggravated Sexual Assault Of A Child after stopping him for an inoperative tail lamp on his flatbed trailer during the day. (He would've gotten a warning, too.) Another one I stopped for the same lame offense had a suspended license and felony probation for Injury To A Child-- my charge of Driving While License Suspended got his probation revoked. He's doing prison time, now-- all because I made a stop for a tail light he didn't even know was out, and probably didn't figure mattered during the daytime, even though some stupid Traffic Code required it. Suppose either had run? Well shoot! It's just a tail light! Let him go!

I've had robbers with felony warrants run from minor traffic stops. I've caught a guy who had an aggravated robbery fall hanging over his head, carrying bags of packed-up drugs (Meth, GHB, pot, Valium) for sale (had his price list and scale), who ran from a minor speeding charge. (I guess he thought no one would chase a motorcycle.)

Stopping that person for the minor offense to give them a quick warning following identification is good police work. It's the reason that I lead my department by about 5X in written warnings, and is the reason some very good arrests come my way on occasions. And the guys I'm taking to jail are generally the ones you want me to take there, whatever the original reason for the lawful stop.

When she failed to stop and identify herself she stepped into some very bad company. SHE put herself in jail. Not the cop.

Coronach
July 31, 2004, 11:50 PM
Simple, really.

1. Don't like the rules, don't buy your ticket and ride the Metro.

Trying to drape the flag over this and couch arguments in terms of freedom and personal liberty really falls flat when one realizes that the defendant in this whole shebang was purchasing a service and agreeing to comply with rules and regs (silly or otherwise), and then failing to do so. I thought that we were big on personal responsibility here? Oh, wait, there's a cop involved. Silly me.

2. Cops have the right to stop you.

Yup. Thats right. They can stop you and cite you for allegedly failing to comply with the law (silly or otherwise). When requested to stop by an officer who has observed what he thinks to be a violation for which he intends to cite you, you will fall into one of four conditions:

A. You are guilty, and you stop. You will be issued a ticket, which you will then either pay out, or go to court and be found guilty on it.

B. You are innocent and stop. You will be issued a ticket, which you will likely contest, and win.

C. You are guilty and fail to stop. You will then be arrested (or at least detained), and then get your ticket. You will then be issued a ticket, which you will then either pay out, or go to court and be found guilty on it.

D. You are innocent and fail to stop. You will then be arrested (or at least detained), and then will be issued a ticket, which you will likely contest, and win.

Note that the only times you are arrested is if you attempt to avoid being served your cite. Even if you are innocent, the place to contest this is in court, not on the street. We're law abiding people. We obey the rule of law. Take it to court. Don't just keep on walking.

Matt summed it up best- she made the choice to be arrested. The cop was just trying to give her a ticket for a petty offense. She tried to call his bluff and, oops. He wasn't bluffing.

Mike

PS Once again, for those who think I'm fully siding with the LEO- if he didn't have PC for the offense, I'll be the first to say this was a crappy stop.

Tamara
July 31, 2004, 11:57 PM
So, Officer Friendly, a good egg, attempts to stop your neighbor, who happens to be driving an 80,000 lb semi-tractor-trailer load of fireworks to put on "the show of a lifetime" on the balcony of his duplex. "SqrooYooo!" yelleth your neighbor, as he begins to wire up a sequential detonator to the truck's contents. (It's just as well-- he could never drive that weight back out through the furrows he's crushed in your street.)

Reductio ad absurdum is a powerful rhetorical tool that must be handled carefully lest one stumble over the line into Logical Fallacy territory. Lord knows that I wish I was better at handling it. ;)

And honestly, you WANT Officer Friendly to insist that they stop when he says "Stop." First of all, if there were no consequences to refusing to stop when called upon to stop, NOBODY would stop, and the laws you want enforced would completley be unheeded. (Stop and think about that one, now-- ALL of the laws would go unheeded.)

...and this is precisely what the "There oughtta be a law!" contingent never stops to think about when they opine that their pet peeve should be sanctioned against, backed by the maximum force of The State. "He wouldn't stop murderin' that guy!" is easy to explain in front of a grand jury, while "He wouldn't stop munchin' that Payday!" or "She wouldn't stop settin' off firecrackers!" might be harder to defend, were all the legalistic veneer stripped away. This particular kernel of truth, however, is apparently rarely pondered by the folks who hand down the edicts that you and your brethren and sistren are expected to enforce... ;)

"In order to ensure respect for the law, it is first necessary to pass respectable laws," or somethin' like that. :uhoh:

ravinraven
August 1, 2004, 01:13 AM
Simple.

To find out what someone really is, give them some power and observe how they use it.

In this case we have learned that the metro police managed to hire a simple minded f'''ing a''hole. So what's the problem?

rr

Coronach
August 1, 2004, 03:02 AM
Tamara-

I think that Matt was using that example to humorous effect, rather than relying on the absurd part of reducto ad absurdum to actually make his point. ;)

The fact remains- and stands nicely on its own merits- that if one is free to evade prosecution from the (admittedly) petty crime of munching a Payday in a no-munching zone, one is equally free to amble off to avoid prosecution for more heinous offenses. Including the *gasp* common law ones that even libertarians profess to abhor, at least when they are not the ones perpetrating them. ;)

As to the 'respectable laws' argument, I would agree with you if we were discussing almost any other situation. A ban against eating a candybar on a public sidewalk? Infinitely silly. A law against eating a candybar in a subway system, which the defendant is not forced to use, and in which purchase of a ticket is a voluntary entrance into a contract under which services are expected to be rendered and rules are expected to be obeyed? Much less silly. Still petty, to be sure...but if she does not like petty rules, she is free to walk and eat cake. ;) The trouble is that she wants to ride the car and eat her cake, too. She's a statist when it comes to getting to and fro, but man, quite the libertarian when detained. Tsk, tsk. I know it is the hobgoblin of small minds, but consistency does have its merits. ;)

RR-

Interesting point of view. Allow me a question: are you assuming that the cop had no PC to cite the defendant, and was thus abusing his authority...or do you think that even if the cop was right, she had the freedom to just ignore him and keep on walking? One is a question of fact, the other of law/philosophy.

Mike

AngryBassets
August 1, 2004, 03:24 AM
I thought that we were big on personal responsibility here? Oh, wait, there's a cop involved. Silly me.


This, and a hundred threads like this one, are what's it's really all about.

Foe[H]ammer
August 1, 2004, 07:34 AM
OK you reminded me of my roots. You've disabused me the notion I should answer any cop with anything more than "yes, sir" or "no, sir" or "sorry. sir" because I'm sure someone bad will give themselves up after hours "under the light".

I've read through 2 pages of this nonsense at 50 ppp and it really boils down to this IMHO.

who pays for the metro? I do
Should Metro be clean? yes
Is it a service you MUST use? no
So by extention I can make the rules I please? yes
Will you adide by them? no

Then not only can you not use my service if you abuse those rules but you must pay the state.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
August 1, 2004, 09:03 PM
Tamara:

"In order to ensure respect for the law, it is first necessary to pass respectable laws," or somethin' like that

Metro's rules are reasonable and are supported by most riders. They have been in place for decades.

Only a small minority of Metro riders who resent any kind of reasonable rule that limits their self-indulgence seem to have a problem with these rules.

Move to D.C. and ride the Metro for a few decades before you jump to conclusions as to the reasonableness of these rules.

Metro now has video tape recorders hooked up to all the Station security cameras. This case should be easy to prove one way or another. If this woman was eating in the station, and refused to stop for a Metro Officer, she deserves to be cited.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
August 1, 2004, 09:31 PM
Foe[H]ammer:

I've read through 2 pages of this nonsense at 50 ppp and it really boils down to this IMHO.

who pays for the metro? I do
Should Metro be clean? yes
Is it a service you MUST use? no
So by extention I can make the rules I please? yes
Will you adide by them? no

Then not only can you not use my service if you abuse those rules but you must pay the state.

Yes, it's a real tragedy that we here inthe D.C. area live in such a fascist dictatorship where the stormtrooper JBT's can abuse innocent commuters like this poor woman. Commuters who have absolutely no means whatsoever at their disposal to have the rules changed, such as by voting for their local representatives who sit on the Metro control board.

This nonsense from the Libertarians; where apparently no rule that even slightly impacts their sense of entitlement to do whatever they please regardless of what the vast majority consider very reasonable restrictions, is truely damning.

This thread has been an eye opener.

JohnBT
August 1, 2004, 10:52 PM
"This thread has been an eye opener."

That's the truth. For a variety of obvious, or maybe oblivious, reasons.

JBT

ConserVet
August 1, 2004, 11:11 PM
I'd have told the dildo Transit Cop to bugger off, too, but then I'd have been guilty of the same thing as the EPA pencilneck. Back home in Texas we call that a POP violation, better known as Pissin' Off the Po-lice!:D

Jeff
August 2, 2004, 01:18 AM
If this woman was eating in the station, and refused to stop for a Metro Officer, she deserves to be cited.


Why can't you READ the article? !

Not only does the article state she finished her food before she entered the station, but that even the LEO-Stormtrooper admitted she had finished prior to entering the station.

Ok, everyone, listen. Many of you have raised good points about the 'ownership' of the subway, and what rights common commuters have or should have in regards to whatever that ownership is.

However, I think it is ludicrous to support the LEO, which concerns the SPECIFIC story in this article. The cop obviously abused her power in this particular instance. ADMIT IT.

In the GENERAL story of the article, we have commuters who are unable to eat while they commute, because it is a city ordinance. It just seems odd that people should not be allowed to eat while they commute.

It's not like they are smoking, defecating, having sex, shooting guns, lighting off fireworks, yelling profanities, exposing themselves, soliciting, breastfeeding, taking pregnancy tests, masturbating, self-mutilating, etc.

A woman was arrested because she was eating a frigging candy bar, a convenient snack in between stops in what was probably a busy day for her.

All in the name of keeping the trains clean.

Meanwhile, petty, unreasonable laws that forbid essential activity create greater paperwork for the judicial branch, create unnecessary hurdles for people doing very normal things that need to be done in the course of the day, and give even more opportunities for petty, power-hungry cops to abuse their power-- as evidenced in this article. That includes not only the candy bar eating scientist who was abused, but a 12 yr old girl and a cripple.

Ah, the little tyrants love it. :rolleyes:


This nonsense from the Libertarians; where apparently no rule that even slightly impacts their sense of entitlement to do whatever they please regardless of what the vast majority consider very reasonable restrictions, is truely damning.

Ok. More of the "if the majority says it's okay then it's okay" mentality.
Right now the majority of people think military-style weapons should be outlawed. I guess that makes it right.

If people want to eat, let them friggin eat! :fire:

Coronach
August 2, 2004, 01:52 AM
Why can't you READ the article? !

Not only does the article state she finished her food before she entered the station, but that even the LEO-Stomtrooper admitted she had finished prior to entering the station.Not quite. Other articles seem to state that she actually finished eating it after entering the station. I'll try to find it.

What you're arguing here is a question of fact...was she eating in the station, or not? As I've said, oh, far too many times to count now...if she was not eating in the station, she should not have been cited.

NOW, TO AVOID CONFUSING THE ISSUE, WE ARE NO LONGER DISCUSSING QUESTIONS OF FACT, WE ARE MOVING ON TO QUESTIONS OF LAWA woman was arrested because she was eating a frigging candy bar, a convenient snack in between stops in what was probably a busy day for her.No, she was not.

She was arrested because she refused to stop to be cited- the same way that you will be arrested if you fail to stop for violating the speed limit, or a similar petty offense. Will you then howl that you were hauled off to the clink for being 7 over the limit, or will you correctly attribute your incarcerated status to your refusal to stop as required by law? Jaywalk in front of a cop, or litter, or do some other penny-ante crime, and then keep on trucking when he tries to stop you. Watch what happens. Its not contempt of cop, its a simple matter of him being unable to issue you a cite because you won't accept it...so you have to be arrested. Your choice, not his.

And you know? If she felt she was truly innocent...stop, take the cite like a law-abiding taxpaying citizen, go to court and win. Don't just walk away and try to bluff the cop out of citing you...you'll get arrested if you do that.

Meanwhile, petty, unreasonable laws that forbid essential activity create greater paperwork for the judicial branch, create unnecessary hurdles for people doing very normal things that need to be done in the course of the day,Explain to me how it is now necessary to eat on the Metro? We have reached the height of silliness now. This is a simple, petty little rule. Don't eat on the Metro. What this means, in practice, is that the Mtro cannot have rules, because if they are enforced at all the cops are wrong. Oh...the Metro can have rules, but the cops just shouldn't be so big and scary and JBT-like in enforcement? Uhm...ok. That means, I guess, that if you don't want to stop and be cited, you can just keep walking...ok...uhm...lets think about this for a second. Who here is gonna stop under this scenario? ;) Stop and get fined...or keep walking and get away? Stop and be fined, or keep walking and get away...Hmmm...decisions, decisions...and give even more opportunities for petty, power-hungry cops to abuse their power-- as evidenced in this article. That includes not only the candy bar eating scientist, but a 12 yr old girl and a cripple.Yeah, I'm sure the officers that wrote those cites just absolutely loved doing it. Right. More like their supervisor got on them for the level of cleanlisness and amount of complaints in a given station, and they did what they had to do.Ah, the little tyrants love it.:rolleyes: Ok. More of the "if the majority says it's okay then it's okay" mentality.
Right now the majority of people think military-style weapons whould be allowed. I guess that makes it right.

If people want to eat, let them friggin eat!Again, if we were talking about the Freedom to Eat in Public, you would have a point. We're talking about the freedom to break the rules of the service they have voluntarily requested to use. If they don't like the no-eating rule, they have other transit and dietary options. The gun argument falls flat because gun-owners don't have other options...we didn't volunteer to join the nanny state. We didn't buy a ticket.

Stripping away the Dietary Freedom Rhetoric, you simply think that the eating ban on the metro is a silly rule. Thats fine. I disagree, but thats okay. Its just easier to have a reasonable discussion about the merits of it when someone isn't being all Patrick Henry about it. ;)

Mike

Jeff
August 2, 2004, 01:59 AM
The following account merely illustrates the absurdity of these restrictions, and the measures the gov't is willing to take in order to enforce them.

Meanwhile, certain individuals on this board spin what is commonly referred to as common sense into something totally strange in order to accommodate the 'legitimacy' of the offending officers.


Mouthful Gets Metro Passenger Handcuffs and Jail

By Lyndsey Layton

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, July 29, 2004; Page A01

Stephanie Willett is a 45-year-old scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from Bowie whose skirmishes with the law had largely been limited to a couple of speeding tickets.
Until she was caught chewing inside a Metro station.
About 6:30 p.m. July 16, Willett was eating a PayDay candy bar while riding the escalator from 11th Street NW into the Metro Center Station. Metro Transit Police Officer Cherrail Curry-Hagler was riding up.
The police officer warned Willett to finish the candy before entering the station because eating or drinking in the Metro system is illegal.
Willett nodded, kept chewing the peanut-and-caramel bar and stuffed the last bit into her mouth before throwing the wrapper into the trash can near the station manager's kiosk, according to both Willett and Curry-Hagler.
Curry-Hagler turned around and followed Willett into the station. Moments after making a remark to the officer, Willett said, she was searched, handcuffed and arrested for chewing the last bite of her candy bar after she passed through the fare gates. She was released several hours later after paying a $10 fine, pending a hearing.
"We've been doing our best to crack down on people who are consuming food and beverages in our stations because we get so many complaints about it," said Lisa Farbstein, a Metro spokeswoman. "In this instance, the woman was given a warning, which she ignored, and she jammed the rest of the candy bar into her mouth and continued to chew."
Willett said she was being unfairly punished because she made fun of the police officer after Curry-Hagler issued a second warning before the arrest.
"Why don't you go and take care of some real crime?" Willett said she told the officer while still swallowing the PayDay bar as she rode a second escalator to catch her Orange Line train home.
The police officer ordered Willett to stop and produce identification. "I said, 'For what?' and kept walking," Willett said.
In a report, Curry-Hagler said she wanted to issue a citation for eating on the Metro but the PayDay lover refused to stop.
"Next thing I knew, she pushed me into the cement wall, calls for backup and puts handcuffs on me," Willett said.
She said Curry-Hagler patted her down, running her hands around Willett's bust, under her bra and around her waist. Two other officers appeared, and the three took Willett to a waiting police cruiser.
At the D.C. police 1st District headquarters, Willett said, she was locked in a cell with another person. At 9:30 p.m., after she paid a $10 fine, Willett was released to her husband.
"It was humiliating," said Willett, who is to appear in court in October. "It was a complete waste of taxpayers' money and the officers' time as well as mine. It was just about her trying to retaliate against me because I made a comment about how insignificant I thought the matter was."
"I understand the intent of them not wanting people to eat in the Metro," Willett said. "If anything, I was chewing in the Metro."
Farbstein said Willett violated the rules. "Chewing is eating," she said.
Sen. Leo E. Green (D-Prince George's) complained in writing to Metro Chief Executive Richard A. White. "They have better things to do than arrest someone for that," said Green, who has not received a response. "It just seemed way out of bounds."
Metro occasionally has come under fire for what some considered extreme enforcement of its no-eating rules. The best-known example was in 2000, when a transit police officer handcuffed a 12-year-old girl for eating a single french fry on a subway platform.
The incident catapulted Metro into the national spotlight, and talk radio hosts debated whether the agency had gone too far in its devotion to order. A federal judge later said the police were "foolish" to arrest the girl but ruled that Metro did not violate her constitutional rights.
The candy bar arrest follows several recent decisions by Metro that have angered passengers. Metro tried to run two-car trains late at night to save money, but the cars became very crowded. And the transit agency started requiring passengers to pay for parking with SmarTrip electronic fare cards but soon found it was running out of cards.

Jeff
August 2, 2004, 02:05 AM
The gun argument falls flat because gun-owners don't have other options...we didn't volunteer to join the nanny state. We didn't buy a ticket.


The gun argument does NOT fall flat because the logic of the argument identifies a single statement. The original author made a claim that derived itself from "majority opinion." I merely stated that majority opinion is not enough of a reason to consider something right.

Everything else is irrelevant.

JPL
August 2, 2004, 02:07 AM
As much as I despise police in general, I don't see much of a problem here.

DC's metro is clean, relatively safe, and marginally efficient, if you overlook their institutional stupidity, such as their recent mandate that all parking having to be paid for with smart cards (cash no longer accepted) and then GROSSLY underestimating how many smart cars would be needed.

Morons.

As for the fireworks posts...

A few years ago a neighbor was playing with some truly heavy fireworks -- 3" tubes and the like.

As he lit one tube and ran to get out of the way he tipped it over.

The shell shot straight into his open shed/garage, exploded under his work bench among a bunch of flammables, and burned the shed to the ground.

My only comment to this moron?

Nice finale, Paul.

Jeff
August 2, 2004, 02:12 AM
More like their supervisor got on them for the level of cleanlisness and amount of complaints in a given station, and they did what they had to do.

"...did what they had to do." How revealing.

I'm sure at some point the chief got on the metro officers for having numerous complaints and had to "lean" on someone.

Therefore, the metro officers have to "lean" on everyday commuters whose only crime was eating a FRIGGING CANDY BAR AND NOT SWALLOWING THE LAST BITE BEFORE SHE ENTERED THE STATION!

NICE!

Jeff
August 2, 2004, 02:21 AM
Stripping away the Dietary Freedom Rhetoric, you simply think that the eating ban on the metro is a silly rule. Thats fine. I disagree, but thats okay. Its just easier to have a reasonable discussion about the merits of it when someone isn't being all Patrick Henry about it.


Ha ha. While the metro PO-lice harass and arrest people for eating candy bars, arrest 12 yr old girls for eating french fries, and ticket cripples for profaning about lack of wheelchair access, Terrorists plot how easy it will be to attack what is already a NUMBER ONE target in the country- Washington DC- in part because the subway cops are SO busy doing other important things!

We should all feel GRATEFUL!

AngryBassets
August 2, 2004, 02:35 AM
Ha ha. While the metro PO-lice harass and arrest people for eating candy bars, arrest 12 yr old girls for eating french fries, and ticket cripples for profaning about lack of wheelchair access, Terrorists plot how easy it will be to attack what is already a NUMBER ONE target in the country- Washington DC- in part because the subway cops are SO busy doing other important things!


Ah Ha! A post-9/11 version of The don't-you-have-murderers-and-rapists-to-catch line! :rolleyes:

Jeff
August 2, 2004, 02:59 AM
Ah Ha! A post-9/11 version of The don't-you-have-murderers-and-rapists-to-catch line!


Ah ha! You know what? That line was actually used by the one who was harassed. And you know why? Because it is universally true!

Some cliches actually work. Sort of like "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

liliysdad
August 2, 2004, 03:03 AM
A law is a law, none are "more deserving" of attention than the other. Some may have priority, but we dont "ignore" the small ones we see just because it seems stupid.

PATH
August 2, 2004, 03:13 AM
Okay! I now understand this thread fairly well. "Chewing is eating"! I understand that the rules state that you may not eat on the Metro but would she have been arrested if she had swallowed before the officer reached her?

How did the officer determine whether this woman had swallowed he PayDay Bar? Malevolent Masticator apprehended by police!:D ROFLMAO!

10 Dollar ticket issued to villainous food consumer who chewed inside Metro
limits? Ho Ho Hee Hee! You just can't make this stuff up! Geez it is getting as funny as NYC. Here a man was cited for sitting on a milk carton outside his store. A doctor was cited for throwing away some of his junk mail in a public trash receptacle!(Two envelopes). I wish I could meet the Dick Tracy who waded through the trash!:D

You can bet your bippy the citation was issued because the comment was made not because of someones finishig a candy bar! The officer in question agreed that the woman finished the bar before entering the Metro! "Chewing is eating!" I love this stuff. You just can't make it up!:D

I really love the part about arresting the 12 year old with a French Fry! The French Fry Bandit Arrest really puts LE in a really good light!:D :evil:
How about just warning the kid? NAH! We need to arrest these contemptuous 12 year old French Fry consumers. They are a threat to our society!LOL!

I'm sorry, but talk about a tempest in a teapot! All this coverage makes the Metro Police look like nitwits!

I truly understand the need to keep the Metro clean by prohibiting food consumption on premises but the aforementioned incidents are truly silly!
Common sense is not so common these days! I guess the Metrro police will soon need overtime to keep criminal chewers at bay!

"I am issuing you a summons because you continued to chew after entering the Metro!" "Where are your papers?" Now I remember why I don't use public transport and I specifically stay out of large urban centers!

You just cannot make this stuff up! Thank you all for providing me with the best laughs I have had in months!!!! ;) :D

DMF
August 2, 2004, 03:15 AM
Ah ha! You know what? That line was actually used by the one who was harassed. And you know why? Because it is universally true! So we neglect the speeders, because there are people stealing, but neglect them, because there are people committing armed robberies, but we should leave them alone to go after the rapists, because obviously they're even worse. No let's ignore the rapists too because there are lots of unsolved murders that are much more important. Where does it stop?

No the cliche doesn't work, it's just stupid, and an attempt to justify doing something wrong by saying, "at least I'm not as bad as (fill in the blank)"

Jeff
August 2, 2004, 03:27 AM
So we neglect the speeders, because there are people stealing, but neglect them, because there are people committing armed robberies, but we should leave them alone to go after the rapists, because obviously they're even worse. No let's ignore the rapists too because there are lots of unsolved murders that are much more important. Where does it stop?

You are missing a very important element to your analysis: THE LEGITIMACY OF THE LAW IN QUESTION.


Where does it stop, you say? Sometimes it needs to stop before it actually BEGINS.

It's actaully very simple: people don't like to be harassed and arrested for eating food in the city where they pay taxes.

Jeff
August 2, 2004, 03:31 AM
A law is a law, none are "more deserving" of attention than the other. Some may have priority, but we dont "ignore" the small ones we see just because it seems stupid.


So wrong. Laws that protect people from victim crimes are far more important than the mostly bogus ones that make regular people doing regular things criminals. :rolleyes:

JohnBT
August 2, 2004, 09:30 AM
Eating on the Metro(car, train, station, whatever) is not a regular thing - it is most unusual.

And from what I've read over the years in the Post (and I used to live 15 miles from the D.C. line) most of the people using it live in VA and MD and don't pay D.C. income tax.

Oh those mean, mean, mean people in uniform. Shame on them for doing their job.

John

hammer4nc
August 2, 2004, 09:38 AM
From the Bin Laden handbook: Advise terrorists to employ candy-bar chewers with smart attitudes, in advance of real subway bombers on the DC Metro. This will effectively occupy law enforcements' full attention, thus allowing unfettered access for said terrorists.

Law enforcement resources are finite (all LEO's agree?)...so targeting serious crime is not a question of neglecting petty offenses, so much as prioritizing your resources where they'll do the most good.

The arguments presented by self proclaimed leo's in this thread i.e.,

1. The law is the law, none are more deserving...

2. ...No let's ignore the rapists too because there are lots of unsolved murders that are much more important. Where does it stop?

Really substitutes ego for practical reasoning. No one can be allowed to "dis" a cop, regardless of the triviality of the offense, or total anarchy would result? This logic is flawed, and really quite lame.

When this attitude becomes institutionalized, whole organizations spend major resources pursuing paperwork violations, and ignore true threats to society. Hey, isn't that what the 9/11 commission, is effect, has said?

And so it continues...major blind spot with regard to self evaluation, by law enfocement.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
August 2, 2004, 09:57 AM
Local t.v. News Channel 8 Opinion Poll: 8/2/04

Should eating and drinking be allowed in the Metrorail system?

Yes 20 %
No 75 %
Not sure/no opinion 4 %

Total: 9148 votes



http://www.newschannel8.net/news/stories/0804/163225.html

ojibweindian
August 2, 2004, 10:08 AM
The more we see of boorish behavior from both sides, the more we'll probably see this happening.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127220,00.html

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
August 2, 2004, 06:48 PM
Why can't you READ the article? !

Not only does the article state she finished her food before she entered the station, but that even the LEO-Stormtrooper admitted she had finished prior to entering the station.

How about you follow your own advice??

The article does not state that she finished her food outside the station. It says she:

1. Was informed by the Metro cop that EATING IN THE STATION IS PROHIBITED

2. Took her candybar out of the wrapper, put the wrapper in the trash can, then proceeded INTO the station WHILE EATING THE CANDY BAR

3. Then basically told the Officer; "Why don't you make like an Eqyptian and FAROUK OFF!"

Again, for the fourth time, Eating in the stations, on the platforms, and in the trains, is prohibited. It has been for almost 30 years now. This is NOT rocket science.

If these slobs wan't to ride a subway that's a rolling trashcan/toilet, let them move to New York or Boston where that kind of low behavior is the norm.


In the GENERAL story of the article, we have commuters who are unable to eat while they commute, because it is a city ordinance. It just seems odd that people should not be allowed to eat while they commute.

It's not like they are smoking, defecating, having sex, shooting guns, lighting off fireworks, yelling profanities, exposing themselves, soliciting, breastfeeding, taking pregnancy tests, masturbating, self-mutilating, etc.

A woman was arrested because she was eating a frigging candy bar, a convenient snack in between stops in what was probably a busy day for her.

What crap. There's no reason why anybody short of a diabetic or a nursing baby HAS to eat on the Metro. I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to give ONE reason why it's such a godawful necessity.

All in the name of keeping the trains clean.

It has been pointed out repeatedly that the Washington Metro trains are carpeted, and the seats upolsthered, and that, in fact, the only way to keep the cars clean at any reasonable cost IS to prohibit eating on the train cars.

From the article:

About 6:30 p.m. July 16, Willett was eating a PayDay candy bar while riding the escalator from 11th Street NW into the Metro Center Station. Metro Transit Police Officer Cherrail Curry-Hagler was riding up.
The police officer warned Willett to finish the candy before entering the station because eating or drinking in the Metro system is illegal.
Willett nodded, kept chewing the peanut-and-caramel bar and stuffed the last bit into her mouth before throwing the wrapper into the trash can near the station manager's kiosk, according to both Willett and Curry-Hagler.

The escalators are all INSIDE THE STATIONS in the Metro stops, the Station Manager's Kiosks are on the first floor concourse, or on the train platforms, i.e., INSIDE THE STATIONS, at every Metro stop.

Again, how about YOU actually read the article.

BTW-When is the last time you rode the D.C Metro? I've been riding it since 1976.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
August 2, 2004, 06:53 PM
In this case we have learned that the metro police managed to hire a simple minded f'''ing a''hole. So what's the problem?


In this case, a self-indulgent, self-centered, smart-mouthed moron who can't follow a simple rule that's been in place for 30 years or read any of the abundent signs outside the Metro Stations. Not the Metro Police.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
August 2, 2004, 07:03 PM
"This thread has been an eye opener."

That's the truth. For a variety of obvious, or maybe oblivious, reasons.

JBT

For sure. I'm beginning to wonder about the many unpleasant neighbors I've had over the years; the ones who refuse to turn thier stereos down in the next apartment: "Feck youse, it aint ten yet," the ones who let their dogs crap on your lawn: "Feck youse, that strip's the County's property not yours," The Morons with a sport-bike death wish blowing by doing a wheelie at twice the speed limit on a crowded highway: "Feck youse, I'm a good rider and speed limits are unconstitutional anyway,"

I'm beginning to wonder if they weren't just Libertarian Party members.

Daniel T
August 2, 2004, 07:09 PM
Cool Hand Luke:

This nonsense from the Libertarians; where apparently no rule that even slightly impacts their sense of entitlement to do whatever they please regardless of what the vast majority consider very reasonable restrictions, is truely damning.

I understand that you've appointed yourself the Defender of the Metro, but you might still think about avoiding asinine generalizations about libertarians. A contract is a contract, and a libertarian would recognize that as part of a contract with the Metro, they cannot eat while on the train or in the station, and that would be that.

...

Whether or not the eater was techincally in violation of the contract she agreed to upon entering the station, it still wasn't a good idea to try to walk away from the cop.

Mike, thanks for posting your take on the events. One thought on something you posted: I'm not so sure that the eater could fight the ticket and win. It would come down to the eater's word against the cop's word, and I'm pretty sure I know which one would carry the most weight with the judge.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
August 2, 2004, 07:19 PM
Daniel T:

I understand that you've appointed yourself the Defender of the Metro, but you might still think about avoiding asinine generalizations about libertarians

Generalization? How about you actually look at the ones who have posted in this thread. The number of self-identified Libertarains who have expressed an opinion just short of "time to feed the hogs" over this tragic trampelling of individual liberty far outnumbers those with a more reasonable take.

Self Appointed Defender of the Metro? An asinine comment by you indeed. See the poll I posted above. Metro riders wan't to see this rule enforced by a 3 to 1 ratio.

BTW-When is the last time you rode the D.C. Metro?

TechBrute
August 2, 2004, 10:57 PM
Metro riders wan't to see this rule enforced by a 3 to 1 ratio. And the ratio of your posts to others in this thread is just about the same 3:1 (21:90). :D

Mal H
August 2, 2004, 11:03 PM
Enough.

If you enjoyed reading about "Subway Stormtroopers?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!