AngryBassets
Member
Ah Ha! A post-9/11 version of The don't-you-have-murderers-and-rapists-to-catch line!
Subway Stormtroopers?
- Thread starter Jeff
- Start date
- Status
Ah Ha! A post-9/11 version of The don't-you-have-murderers-and-rapists-to-catch line!
PATH
Member
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! 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!
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!
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! 
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!!!!
How did the officer determine whether this woman had swallowed he PayDay Bar? Malevolent Masticator apprehended by police!
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!
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!
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!
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!!!!
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)"
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.
JohnBT
Member
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
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
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.
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
member
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
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
Member
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
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127220,00.html
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
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.
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.
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:
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.
Last edited:
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
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
member
"This thread has been an eye opener."
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.
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
Member
Cool Hand Luke:
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.
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
member
Daniel T:
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?
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?
Enough.
- Status
