Subway Stormtroopers?

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

sendec,

Heck, when they flogged that American kid in Singapore...

I hope that was a joke.

 

[Matt G]

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]

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]

Matt G.,

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.

 

[ravinraven]

Actually, it's quite simple

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"This thread has been an eye opener."

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

JBT

 

[ConserVet]

I'd have told the ***** 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!

 

[Jeff]

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.

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!

 

[Coronach]

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 LAW

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!