How F'ed up is this?
 

Read this article, can't believe this is what we are allowing to happen HERE in the states. Absolutely amazing.

============================
Woman Arrested, Cuffed for Eating Candy

By CANDACE SMITH, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - 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 (news - web sites) 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.

LINK: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...y_bar_arrest_1

Pity the people living in DC these days. What's next? Get caught chewing gum in an elevator you end up strip searched and get 5-10? Real crime out there, real bad people out there and they worry about people eating a candy bar?

On the subways, there are signs posted all over the place that food and drink are prohibited on the trains, but she technically wasn't on the train. Why would there be trashcans all over the place if people didn't have food. What other litter would there be?

What's the logic behind this eating ban? I hardly see how a candy bar or cup of Pepsi can be harmful to the subway system, or lead to terrorism. What the hell, are they planning to put anthrax inside Milky Way bars now? Or maybe a nuclear Mountain Dew bomb? This has gotten to the point of being insane...

having lived in singapore and ridden the VERY IMMACULATELY clean trains and stations, I'm all for it. The stations were so clean you could eat off the floors. The trains were so clean that you didn't mind sitting on the seats or touching the poles and handles.

But then, don't sell things that "tempt" people to bring them on the train... such as the little newstands that sell the candy, soda, snacks etc.

Stations here in NYC are totally disgusting from the subway stench right down to the disgusting floors and trains.

That's disgusting. Shameful.... just shameful...

I can certainly understand the appeal of riding on a clean train, but to ban food and drink outright is a little much. I had no idea they did that. I guess I'd prefer seeing the city pay some of their homeless population to walk about the stations with mop and broom than pay police officers, who have much more important things to do, to lurk about and pounce on some unsuspecting candybar muncher.

So... as she was entering the station, she put the last piece in her mouth, and because it was still being chewed while she was in the train station she was arrested? What about gum, or coughdrops? That is so rediculous... I'm speechless. Or maybe I'm just understanding it wrong, but I can't think of any other way this could be justified.

It's a comment like that -- that I'm sure contributed....

give lip and get lip right back.

Yeah, don't eat and don't get arrested- but a 12 year old girl? That was a little overboard.

Then again, and keep in mind that I don't live in an area with a subway, but what was a 12 year old girl doing in a substation with no parents?

I think the fact that she stuck the last part in her mouth and threw away the wrapper should have sufficed.

I forgot to mention that in Singapore gum was banned in the early 90's and just recently allowed to be sold again, only after getting it from a pharmacist and giving your name and address each time you purchase it.

Singapore is a clean and safe city.

"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."

This is absolutely absurd. I understand the need for cleanliness and adherence to littering laws, but this is taking it way too far. Why was the woman even handcuffed and detained for three hours? Couldn't they just have given her a fine or something?

Pretty fucking stupid if you ask me.

It sounds like that police officer was on a power trip and when the girl asked him if he had something better to do, he decided to enforce the laws.
Some people really need to figure out some other way to find some type of satisfaction in their lives.

Anyway, I have mixed feelings about this. I think it's absurd that they are arresting and detaining people for eating in the train station...but then again, I grew up in NYC and I've seen dirty subway systems at their worst....so perhaps it's for the better.
Still, the only way something like this is justified is if someone is standing there eating a sandwhich or something...and they just continue when the officer tells them to stop. If a 12 year old eats one french fry or a woman chews the last bite of her candy bar, they really should not be bothered any further. It's rediculous.

I'm not entirely suprised by the story about the officer though. I've heard lots of horror stories about police officers and their power trips.
IN one of these, my mom was riding a bike on the boardwalk by a beach in New Jersey. There were only certain times when this was allowed...and apparently, she had overstepped the limit by a few minutes. So this officer in a car stops and tells her that the time limit is up. She nods and decides to ride the bike off the boardwalk near the exit (which was very close). So she's riding off the boardwalk and suddenly the officer gets out of his car, comes up to her, and pulls her off the bike. Then he proceeds to basically drag her to the car and gropes her. So (yes, this was a stupid move) she kicks him in the groin. He shoves her into the car and drives her to the police station where him and his friends proceed to beat her up and hold her overnight. When she got out, she tried to file a case against them but she didn't have enough money for a lawyar so she decided to get one of those free lawyars. Apparently, though, the free lawyar was friends with the cops (I guess that happens in small towns). He hardly did a thing to protect or defend her when three cops accused *her* of beating all three of *them* up. Now, keep in mind that my mom is 5'1'' and a skinny little thing. I don't know how they ever fell for that one. SO my mom was put on probation for the next year and had to drive out to New Jersey (she lived in NYC) every once in a while to have her urine tested.

I look at this two ways. Yes, it was a little overboard. She could have received the sitation and have been done with it. There are rules in place for a reason. If you don't like it, then don't fucking do it.

Also, she did give a smartass response to an officer doing his job. When will people realize that these rules are put into place for a reason. You think it is asinine that a bomb would be put into a Milky Way and left in a subway train? What about the heel of someone's shoe? Hmmm...

Now the 12 year old girl.....what was she doing with 1 fry? Doesn't it come with other french fry friends? Perhaps Giant Hamburger would have a better explanation of this.

I use the DC Metro occaisionally (College Park Stop!), and the trains really are pretty clean. Now I know why.

How long until the police start speaking german?

Ok. so we don't live in a police state... least I don't think we do...

At least one question I have, do the transit cops have the same authority as regular cops do. I am probably wrong, but i don't beleive transit cops carry guns.

If a police officer asked you for identification, would you stop and show him?
Yes, the officer went a little overboard, but for a woman who's pretty intelligent, she seems to have made a lot of stupid mistakes.

Why is it that just because a law may seem stupid that people think they should just be able to ignore that it is a law?

The dumbass got what she deserved.

But she nodded and put the rest of the bar in her mouth before she got to the bottom of the escalator!

It's a good rule not to have people eating in the stations near the trains because most food you can eat on the go comes in a wrapper and that leads to litter on the tracks. Litter on the tracks can catch fire and cause delays, yada yada yada... (NYC has launched a big ad campaign about this.) What gets me is that she even threw the wrapper away in a trash can like she was supposed to - what harm could it possibly have done in there?

It sounds like a power trip. I don't even see why he asked for her identification. I hate when cops go on random fishing expeditions just for the chance of nailing someone with a warrant out. Even worse is when they do it just to be assholes and waste a person's time. Cops need to figure out who it is they are working for and not working against.

I just don't understand how anyone can support the cop's actions on this. People sass back to cops alot it happens. And if the officer had cited her then it's cool, but frisking her and handcuffing her and taking her to jail? A bit overboard sounds, like Barney Fife. AND since when in the USA have innocent people HAD to stop and show ID? (Oh yeah I forgot the Sup. Crt. just ruled police can do that...... zeig heil.)

And what about the 2 other incidents (the 12 yr old girl and the cerebral palsy patient)? Were they deserved?

I don't agree with the ban, but I'm assuming its for the same reason most schools don't allow peanut products.

Allergy scares.

I'm with Supple Cow on this.. she agreed to finish it before she entered.. I mean come'on.. she's on a friggin' escalator.. in a matter moments she would be inside regardless. But she agreed and finished the damn thing before entering.. and yes she threw the wrapper away. So when she entered the station, no food was visible nor was there any trash... I don't see how she could be cited for anything.

She made alot of stupid decisions there.

People sass back to cops all the time, somebody said... Well they shouldn't. They should be mature enough to realise that half the time, if they didn't all give those cops lip, maybe the cops would treat the people a little more friendly too.
And besides, it's their job to make sure the rules are followed. The rules which we all are supposed to live by. They aren't supposed to be your best pal. They are supposed to represent authority. If they ask you to stop, you stop.

Cops should not be enforcing the law based on how you treat them. That's bias.

yes, because they are all robots designed especially for that?

A little goodwill from both sides can go a long way. You are not supposed to treat them as your life-long friend. You are supposed to treat them with respect, that is all.

I'm fine with it, and if you ride the DC Metro with any kind of regularity, you're for the food/drink ban as well. Last thing we need is wrappers, cups and all that other trash around.

Not to mention, because of Metro's budget problems, they've scaled back service workers at stations and trash bins, so there's nobody to pick up the existing trash of these idiots that decide they can drink and eat on the subway WHEN THERE ARE FUCKING SIGNS SAYING DON'T DO IT.

Every day there are annoucements and it's been engraved in my brain cause I hear it every day, "Customers of Metro are reminded it is unlawful to smoke, eat, drink or play audio or video devices without the use of headphones." Mostly it's the idiot tourists who stand on the left side of escalators while eating a Slim Jim who break this rule all night and day, frankly, I'm glad they took someone to task on it.

What the hell? Uhm, what ever happened to freedom of action, as long as it harms no one!?

We are heading towards a police state and every day more of our freedoms are taken away in the name of terrorism. What is really going on is that those who are in power, the billionaires, the politicians don't think the population can handle ourselves and that we are all stupid and incapable of thinking for ourselves. They are the ones who know what is best for us, but here they come up with the excuse that terrorism or cleanliness is the reason. Right. If we don't start fighting for our rights, slowly, we will end up becoming helpless. But what happens is that we see something small like "no eating in a subway" and think, well, no big deal, but that is how they work. If they said all Burger Kings and McDonalds can no longer sell hamburgers, well that would be too much. It has to be a little at a time so that we don't really care or fight or bitch. Watch out people...

What utopia are you from? The government has been in the action of limiting freedom for centuries.

I think this is more or less an example of a good law enforced badly. I really can't find a justification for the cops actions; once the woman had consumed the candy bar and threw away the wrapper his attention should have gone elsewhere. That he decided to pursue this woman after she had complied with regulations is unacceptable.

Should she have been disrespectful to the officer? No. No matter how abusive they are, you don't disprespect an officer of the law. Not because they're people too, but because they are in a position of power and authority and you must respect that. The alternative, as in her position, is that the power will be used against you.

Cops are humans. Some of them are assholes, but most of them are decent people who just want to make things safer for us. The problem is that the ones most inclined to abuse power are the ones that must not be antagonized. It's not easy, but the alternative is far less appealing and far more expensive.

This is not a good law. We already have laws that do not allow people to litter. Maybe we should enforce that one first. Stopping you and me from eating is a far cry from a good law. It is a sickening encroachment on our personal freedoms. Eating DOES NOT HARM anyone. Littering does. Therefore, how can you say that making eating illegal is GOOD! Enforce the laws we already have. Having laws do not stop bad people from breaking them. And having more laws just allows people in positions of authority to abuse their power like this asshole did because she said something disrespectful.

No, I think being disrespectful is just that, JUST being disrespectful. She said something disdainfully to a fucking cop. Does that mean the cop (or anyone) has a right to arrest her. She followed the law. This is clearly an abuse of his power. People who are in the position of power should be held to an even higher standard of conduct than you or I and this officer clearly fell way below that line. Always question those in power because this asshole clearly should not be in this position if he can clearly use his power to screw with others.

LPM, you are right, that is the way it should be. Pretty soon, we will no longer be able to smoke cigarettes, eat Whoppers, or go skydiving because they are all potentially harmful; lung cancer, obesity and well, splat. But why should some fucknut in the govt. tell me what I can smoke eat or do for enjoyment when it concerns me and ONLY me!!!!!!!!!!!!

God I am riled.

sure, if it concerns you 100% only. but it doesn't as I'll have to pay more taxes because you'll demand more governement and medical services. Now if people didn't do that and were 100% responsible for the consequences of their actions... well then, I'm all for it in the way you mention...

Well cynthetiq, me personally will not demand more services or programs from the govt. I am from the belief that if i.e.: I eat like a pig, get fat and then get diabetes, or smoke and then get lung cancer, it is my fault and I, and ONLY I should pay for it. It is time people across the country take responsibilty for the actions and stop blaming others and asking for handouts from the govt.

So I say that those who go ahead and get lung cancer and then sue the tobacco company DO NOT represent me, but unfortunately this is a big group think and many many people are a part of this erroneous line of thinking, that what we do to ourselves is somehow the fault of others.

I want less programs, services, taxes and stronghold from our govt. and more personal responsibilty for our actions. Stop collecting my money to pay for services like medicare because some jerk off spent his or her money frivolously and can't afford to buyt aspirin. If he spent his money on wide-screen tvs and herion, never saved, how does that mean that I should pay for his shit-ass.

I am not harping on you C, just venting.

One more thing, that is why I love this forum. Vent-age.

I think the initial crack down is probably a good thing in the long run. Obviously it has been a problem in the City and they are taking steps to clean it up. A few high profile cases like this one will start the masses to think about what they are doing, and maybe actually listen when a public servant tells them to do something. Given her field (Environmental Protection Agency Scientist) I would bet this woman would be the first to complain about the cleanliness of the stations before they started cracking down.

Because she disobeyed a peace officer, she was rude with a holier than though attitude while doing it, and she was breaking the law.

This was Washington right? It is our country's capital city. Given the international traffic through there I think it’s important for it to be clean and represent us well. Serves her right.

Honestly, I think it was the police officere who had the holier than thou attitude. He arrested her because he had the power to do so, not because she broke the law. She finished her candy bar and threw away the wrapper in a trash can. No law broken!

Think about it, she made a wisecrack remark, but does that give the officer the right to arrest her, when she did follow the law and the officer's orders.

Yah, its borderline and subject to his interpretation at the moment. Since she was giving him attitude, he gave her no slack and allowed himself the widest interpretation as possible. To be expected I think.

Top Cop Defends Arrest of Woman
Washington (AP) - Metro's top cop is defending the arrest of a Bowie woman for eating a candy bar on her way down a Metro Center escalator.

Stephanie Willett says the officer unfairly handcuffed, searched and held her for three hours. Police Chief Polly Hanson says Willett ignored the officer's warning, and walked away when she was asked to stop. She says Willett probably would have gotten a ticket if she hadn't been "belligerent"

Hanson says this was the second lock up this year for violating Metro's strict no eating or drinking policy in stations. Police have issued 58 tickets and given over 300 written warnings for the violation. Hanson says they created a special task force about a year and a half ago to crack down on fare evaders, litter bugs and people eating and drinking in stations after getting a lot of complaints.

You know what is truly frightening about this is that it is put under the guise of "terrorism".

What right did the officer have to ask for identification for? She did nothing illegal but the officer wanted it to appear that she was by resisting his orders so that he could arrest her for something. This has nothing to do with terrorism or illegal actions. It has everything to with the overfilled ego of this fucking pig abusing his power in the name of terrorism.

Do you think that this woman bears any responsibility at all? If she hadn't mouthed off to the cop, then she would have been given a ticket which she could have fought in court, instead she made a bad choice.

Her decision got her into trouble.

We're all about personal responsibilty, shouldn't she have shown some as well?

I live near DC, don't take the metro, but I know that you do not eat or drink on the metro. I am ok with that. I don't want some people eating or drinking in my car. Especially their little snot-nosed kids. This woman knew the rules. And she sassed the cop. Did he go overboard? Maybe. But it never would have gotten to this point if she had not been eating in the station. BTW, the station itself is metro property. So I think that they were both assholes.

The officer contends she was eating in a restricted eating area hence the attempt to cite her. Just because she swallowed the last bit quickly doesn't vinidate her from the original offense. The officer asked her to stop because he was going to cite her and she ignored and insulted him.

Now, the articles states that she was "finishing a candy bar on her way into a subway station where eating is prohibited ". To determine the legitimacy you need to know exactly where the trash can was. Was it already in the no eating area or was it outside the no eating area. Given the tendancy of journalists to hype their reports in hopes of getting more play out of it, I would tend to default to the officers perspective.

Ananova had a slightly different version of the story - where she sassed the cop while she was stuffing the last of the candy in her mouth - in my mind, that puts a different spin on it.

that was totally retarded.....i love how she asked if they had better things to do becuase I would have done the samething. she put the last piece in her mouth on the way down and its not like she still had half the frikin candy bar left. I just think they were being dicks that day.

My god, I do live in a police state, and many of you like the idea.
Not only do you like it, but you have detailed reasons for supporting it. Ayn Rand was right.

I'm in shock.

Ayn Rand, in her philosophy of Objectivism, wrote that individuals should be free to pursue their own happiness under two conditions; first, that they do not impinge on anyone elses right to happiness, and two, that they accept the consequences for their actions. Most Americans are only interested in the first half of the bargain (pursuit of their own happiness).

It seems to me the woman was doing as she was asked to. I don't see what the cop thought was going to happen with the food in her mouth being chewed and wrapper in the trash can. Her statement wasn't that disrespectful. It's just that cops think you have to treat them like royalty while they treat you like dirt. I'd like to know the reasoning behind his asking for identification.

He was citing her for eating in a no eating area, therefore he required her ID.

From what I heard on the news the lady in question followed the rules as any rational person would interperet them. She discarded the wrapper and put the remaining bite in her mouth before entering. If this is a technical violation of the law, she can't really be resposible for knowing the food had to be swallowed. I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but there is no one alive who knows all the laws they could possibly be subject too.

It was only after she made an effort to comply with the law as she understood it that the officer approached her and asked for identification. I still believe that the Supreme Court pulled a major boner in there recent ruling that we all have to produce our papers whenever an officer demands them. It may have not been smart to escalate the tension by pointing out the police should have had other priorities, but her right to do so is protected by the First Amendment and the officer can not arrest her for this.

I have the utmost respect for police officers who do a tough and dangerous job. But it is bozos like this that diminish the authority of all law enforcement.

Officers enforce the laws. Judges interpret them.

Hey waterboy, get a clue. 90% of the laws on our books are assinine and are there for no reason whatsoever.

Some of Illinois' great laws.

1) You must contact the police before entering the city in an automobile.

2) It is illegal to give a dog whiskey.

3) In the Pullman area, it is illegal to drink beer out of a bucket while sitting on the curb.

Oh sure, there are "reasons" for these laws, but don't you just think they are on the FUCKING stupid side!


Edited to add this: more laws under the guise of terrorism. Go ahead, let freedoms be ripped away. This won't stop diddly dick. (*pissed*!)

I'm thinking this was more of a, "I'll make an example of you" situation, rather than a, "Casual disregard for my authority, my authority!? *engage asshole mode*"

First thing first, I am a peace officer, so my statements may be a bit bias, but I hope to give at least a small look at things from my point of view. Also, I cannot say I agree with everything that the law says, but what I am stating is what is true (as aplies where I work and was trained).

First, as far as doing nothing illegal, where technically does the eating ban start, if she was eating while entering the area, even if she didn't know it, she was in violation of the law. Second, any time a peace officer has a reasonable belief that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be commited he/she can stop the person and ask for them to identify themself (there is your technical reason gondath). Now I admit that reasonable belief is very broad and can be interprited in many ways, it is for a judge to ultimately decide if stoping the person was justified or not, not the person being stopped. Third, a person who has done nothing wrong in the past (ie. no bad record), has nothing to worry about in identifying themselves, except maybe how the will pay for the ticket they are about to recieve, and sometimes all they get is a warning anyway. When someone refuses to identify themselves, the first question popping into my head is "Why?" do they have an outstanding warrent? Are they going to be a danger to my safety because of a previous record that they might want to keep hidden? Are they (at the extreme) an escaped criminal who is a cop hater and is carrying a gun? Being a peace officer can be a dangerous job, and somtimes you have to think of these things, or at least you should if you want to make it home at the end of your shift. Fourth, in refusing to identify yourself, a peace officer then can arrest you and detain you until you can be identified. Keep this in mind next time you are asked for ID by an officer, and life will be easier.
1968, Court case of Terry vs. Ohio, Resulted in the Terry Stop. http://www.wku.edu/Government/TerryStopRules.html
I think where she made an honest effort to comply with the law, she would have probably just recieved a warning for the offence, that is if the officers weren't told by superiors to ticket EVERYONE who is not in compliance with the law (which can happen somtimes too.
Well said Cynthetiq, I couldn't have stated that any better myself!
I have been asked this same question before, and I would say to you, "No" My job is to enforce the laws, and if you are breaking one, it is my job to do somthing about it, no matter how dumb it may seem to you. As mentioned before, laws are there for a reason. In this case, part of the officers job is to enforce the no eating or drinking law. Peace officers don't like being told by someone how to do their job anymore that you would like some random person walking up to you and telling you that you are doing your job wrong or tell you how you should be doing things. I recieved a 5 minute lecture from someone because they knew better than me that my job was, and of course I calmly listened, then proceded to write the citation.
True. The best response I can think of is this: Just think of the Golden Rule. Trust me, it works both ways. Try being nice to an officer and they might, MIGHT, be a little more leaneant. Big emphasis on MIGHT. I am not saying that it will get you out of a ticket, but it could mean the difference of 5 miles officially recorded on the ticked (lowering the fine), or the difference between a ticket and a warning. Now I am not saying that I agree that this is the way it should be, or that an officer should be biased, but that this is just human nature and the way it is. Deal with it.
All that being said, Do I agree? As I understand the situation, Yes for the most part, if she truly refused to identify herself.
Thanks for reading my long winded reply and I hope someone got somthing out of it.

Whoa there buddy, I took criminal law too. A Terry stop does not give you the right to ask for ID, nor does the refusal of ID give you the right to hold the person until they can be identified.

A Terry stop is when you, an agent of the government, infringes on a person's civil rights in order to conduct a brief investigation based on articulable facts and it provides for a pat down weapons search. It does not say, hey, show me your ID.

In our case here, Terry doesn't matter anyway. If the lady commited a crime, according to an asnine law, and the officer saw it, he's well within his rights to detain her for the purposes of enforcing that law. At that point, she may need some ID.

Asking for papers in this country is touch and go right now. More and more people want us to be fascist in the name of safety. I seriously wonder if Americans are so stupid as to turn this in to South Africa, but we all get to carry papers.
For the time being, if I have commited no crime, and you have no reason to believe I did, you will not be getting my ID until you can articulate to me why you feel that's necessary.

I must say to you, if you're an officer, that you may want to change your train of thought a little bit.

You say " When someone refuses to identify themselves, the first question popping into my head is "Why?" do they have an outstanding warrent? Are they going to be a danger to my safety because of a previous record that they might want to keep hidden? Are they (at the extreme) an escaped criminal who is a cop hater and is carrying a gun? "

You need to consider that they may believe in civil rights. Even though your job is to deal with the guilty, our great coutnry tries to keep the belief of innocent unitl proven guilty.
Until you see something that tells you otherwise, I'll thank you to not think of me as guilty, until I prove to you I'm not.
That's not the way this country is supposed to work.

IMO I would say that knowing who I am dealing with is a reasonable inquary. I am not saying, I saw it, you are guilty, but I would think it would be a reasonable precaustion to know who I am dealing with. As far as arresting someone who doesn't show ID, I was not sure of that at first either, until a job interview for a law enforcement job included a scinerio where a man refused to ID himself and I was informed by the people conducting the interview that I could have arrested the person. Everything I have said is from my training, be it in the classroom, or on the job. It could all be different from where I was trained and work, and where you live. Also, I am still fairly new to law enforcement, and I admit there are still some things that I have not learned 100%, but an officer is always training and looking for ways to better him/herself. Or at least they should. I just hope that either the officer or the people on charge learned somthing from this incident.

Let me just start off by apologizing for the "fucking pig" comment. When I read some of the previous comment(s), I became a little upset and, well, shit flew from my "mouth". I know as within any profession, there are people who abuse their power and those who do a great service in whatever they are doing. But under todays circumstances with all these new laws, anti-terrorist agendas, and safety precautions being made under the ruse that we HAVE to do and LOSE FREEDOMS because of terrorism makes me angry, rightly so.

I will say that in previous times, the cop asking for identification would have been such a trivial thing and gone unnoticed. But even with that said, she did do what the cop asked her to do but made a smart-ass comment. (Not a crime if I am right?) And hardly a "crime" worthy of the actions taken against her or to ask for ID. The lady was EATING for crying out loud.

Yes, I realize that cops only ENFORCE the laws, but ask cops how many times they have enforced the jay-walking laws. You just don't do it. They realize that if an adult wants to cross (in the middle of) the street after looking both ways when there is no traffic coming, we hardly have the Uni-bomber on our hands now, do we?

As an officer, would you ticket someone for wearing green shoes if the law was there on the books because for the life of me, if this were truly a law, I would not be able to find a logical reason for it to be so. How many officers would say, yes, this is crime against humanity! We must stop all green shoe wearers NOW! Cops are humans as well and they can think rationally. In this example, I think a cop would decide the he/she has better uses of his/her time to enforce other laws and/or protect citizens in a more productive manner.

How far does it have to go before we say enough is enough. Again, officers enforce, and should leave the judicial aspect to the courts, but officers can see the stupidity in some of these laws I would hope.

Besides, I would bet my left nut that any officer will not know every single law on the books for his/her state, county and local township and therefore cannot enforce such said laws. That said, how would the officer know whether or not he/she is enforcing all the laws. Many laws contradict other laws. What then? He/she could very easily be breaking a law this very minute and not even know it. Hmmm? Just go to dumblaws.com, etc. and see for yourself.

This is a judgment call and I think the officer made a terrible one.

Edited for spelling.

By god, we can't have those green shoed people running around!! Somthing must be done! No, I understand that perfectly and in this case the only real reason I would support this officers actions fully would be if he was under command of a superior officer to enforce the no eating ban so strictly. Where the person tried her best to comply I would have left things alone.
I have spent many hours wasting my time reading the dumb laws that are wasting space in the law books at dumblaws.com. One of my favorites is in Virginia, MN, You're not allowed to park your elephant on Main Street.

...there are no trash cans in metro stations. they were removed i think about 1-2 yrs ago because there were seen as potential 'bomb hiding places'. if you have trash you have to get rid of it before you enter. if it's a newspaper, it goes in the paper bin.
..i only know of two main reasons as to eating/drinking is prohibited in stations. for one thing, it makes the job of the car cleaning crew much harder when they have to clean up food/drink trash on the trains. in the past the had to stay for hours past their regularly scheduled(sp?) work times just to clean that stuff out of the carpets, seats, windows, doors, etc.
the other reason is that sometimes the trash can be blown on to the track, which is a potential fire hazard.
i do agree that metro police went overboard on this one. she got rid of her trash before she enterd the station, and she was going to swallow the bar, so really i didn't see what the big deal was.

"Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question: is it politic? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience asks the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular--but one must take it because it is right. One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws--and unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law." - MLK

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

I think they both apply here. Yes, I know it was just a candy bar and not the biggest deal in the world but the quotes really sum up how I feel about the situation.

It's pathetic sometimes what this Country is coming too...