Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
Look past the initial ignorance of it. What it does, if used *ahem* properly...is provides a "tool", which the police may use to extricate the scuzzy looking guy in the trench coat from the park. Without this ordinance, said scuzzy guy has every right to sit there and ogle at little Suzy's pretty frilly panties all day long. It's an excuse to force someone to "Move it along.".
Unfortunately, in this case, it was "misused". At least I assume so.
|
Which is the problem. Laws should be written so they cannot be "misused" in the way you state. This law was not misused. The law says no one w/o kids can be in the park. The cops enforced the law, which was their job. Nothing wrong with that. The moronic aspect of this situation lies in the lawmakers' camp. Not only is this law written in such a way as to virtually guarantee "misuse," but the law is also highly discriminatory and will most likely get shot down if challenged.
Why not pass a "no ogling" law instead - - so that the woman sitting on the park bench looking at the birds is still free to do so while the "scuzzy looking guy in the trench coat" is busy staring at Suzy's frilly panties gets busted.
Now, all that said, what this really comes down to is the government trying to take on the responsibilities of the parent. The kid shouldn't be in the park unsupervised, and if someone's ogling my little girl I'm damn sure gonna know about it. I don't need a cop to chase innocent women away from the park in order to assure the safety of my child.
Frankly were I that woman I'd sue. It's not only discriminatory, but her taxes paid for the park and the bench she sat on, and for them to deny her the right to use them simply because she committed the heinous crime of not having children is patently wrong.