Mojo_PeiPei

How many people here are aware of penal code 640b? I admit the kid is an asshat if he disregarded warnings from the bus driver. But to actually bring in a cop and cite him is borderline recockulous.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

analog

Jesus Christ, it's a lollypop. Did anyone SEE him smearing the damn thing all over the seats? No? Then he's not guilty of shit. I don't see how ANY rational person can say a damn lollypop is in the same consideration as a burger, a candy bar (which can break apart, crumble, etc.), a soda, stuff like that.

It's ridiculous- ESPECIALLY at $300. Who the hell fines $300 for a lollypop and sleeps at night?

Willravel

You don't have to call me that anymore.
The busdriver saw him breaking the law. The busdriver warned him. It's not as much about sticky seats as it is open defiance.
I've gotten a $1000 littering fine. I payed it and didn't complain. I broke the law and I was punished for it. Just like it says "Littering: $1000 fine" on signs all over, it said no food or drink on the bus. This is pretty black and white. It's the law.

Ace_O_Spades

We don't have the full details, just what the article says.

The article simply states the bus driver has constantly had to warn students - DOESN'T state THIS student in particular.

We don't know if the kid was fucking around with the lolli, if he threw the wrapper on the ground, or if he was just sitting with it in his mouth.

Law isn't black and white, that's why we have judges to interpret vague laws like this joke of one.

__________________
Feh.

Mojo_PeiPei

You mean we have judges to interpret penal code 640b. There is the law and then there is penal codes. The anarchy of it all, a kid was consuming a lolli on a public bus, glad to know we are going after the bad guys.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Ace_O_Spades

Sorry, I'm not very well versed in American legal systems, just good ol Canadiana.

Yes, but the reality of the legal system is that the majority of offenses are minor infractions... But they have the right to their day in court nonetheless

__________________
Feh.

Boo

In Singapore they have no gum at all. I forget how much the fine was but it was large. They also have no used gum all over the place. There is no eating on the train. The train was 10 years old when I was there and it looked brand new.

Major transportation projects cost mega tax dollars and if rules keep the investment of the people in good repair, so be it.

If Little Jimmy can't ride nice, he can ride his $*@&$ thumb next time. Pay the fine Little Jimmy and learn to obey simple rules.

__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.

analog

Yeah- article didn't say he was warned, it says "students" are warned in general.

Regardless, it's a lollypop. I would never in my life put a lollypop in the same category of "food" as a burger, fries, candybar.. and a $300 fine to a 14 year old?

It's just asinine.

Fire

I love threads like this- and no this is not sarcasm- really, it makes me think more about what my personal beliefs are, and also helps to articulate them... that said, I felt initialy that the fine and situation was unfair, and have subsequently figured out why- In my opinion it should not be illegal to eat on a bus, especially not a lollypop, but rather it should be illegal to damage or deface/ gum up the bus, and /or to spill something on another passenger- lets punish them when they do something that actually hurts/inconveniences someone in a noticable way, not just because they have the potential to do so- sort of a libertarian view, perhaps- It just comes down to the old " if they arent hurting anyone" rule - sure they could do so, but personal responsibility requires that we allow them the chance to fuck up- and who does'nt want more people in society to be responsible- and to all the people that have by this point said " but the busses would be filthy" they obviously have bus cops on hand- and this there would be less ground for an offending person to stand on...

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens

Lin

(I dont think ive done the link properly sorry , not too technical a person)


I was thinking last night about peoples attitudes here to this boy 'breaking' the rules. He broke the rules right? so he takes his punishment, should take responsibility and a lollypop is still breaking the rules. He should be an adult about it and respect the law.

I havent participated in all that many threads , mainly because im obviously not as intelligent and worldy as the rest of you guys (that isnt sarcasm by the way its the truth)

But I joined in in this one too (hope ive dont the link properly )Speed Cameras

And its strange the different attitude to breaking this law. do you expect 14 yr old boys to have respect for the law until they grow up and then they can do everything they can to evade the fines and consequences.

Im sure someone else could have compared these two different attitudes about law breaking and paying the consequences better than I. but i hope ive gotten the gist of my point across.

aberkok

Pee-wee: "I always thought that was the dumbest law..."
Mickey: "..."
Pee-wee: "heh heh...the law...
Mickey: " hah...the law..."
Pee-wee: "the law.."
Mickey: "THE LAW!!!!"

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Cynthetiq

I see. So because he wasn't DEFACING the property it's okay to openly defy the NO FOOD rules?

Again I take the bus every day, have you accidentally sat one some cretin's spilled coffee? sticky cough drop? gotten hit in the ankle because some one didn't finish all their soda and left the bottle to roll up and down the bus as it goes from stop to stop? How about newspapers strewn about all over the place because someone didn't take their paper with them when they were done reading it? I live at the end of the line and there's no "bus cleaners" stationed here to clean up in between runs. That stuff stays in there until it goes back for the night.

Will the Bus company pay me for dry cleaning my suit? Will the fuck that spilled the coffee pay for my dry cleaning? No. I pay for it. If I'm lucky it doesn't stain and I don't lose the suit. But if it doesn't, then I'm also out the cost of a suit and it's replacement.

I had posted a similar thread about a woman eating a candy bar in the DC Metro again a place with NO FOOD rules. Candy Bar thread
EDIT: sorry it was posted by pan6467

I lived in Singapore, the Metro there is VERY CLEAN. You can eat on the floors practically. The streets are clean because there is NO GUM for sale and they actively check incoming passengers from flights for said gum like it was any contraband.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Ace_O_Spades

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The posession of a spray can isn't illegal, but if you spray it on a wall and tag it, it becomes an illegal act.

that sucks, but your situation is far removed from a kid with a lolli in his mouth who hadn't dropped it on a seat, nor littered. There is so much about this case we could debate because we just don't know the information.

Well this isn't Singapore, it's North America, and we have a lot more basic freedom than they do. I like gum, I choose not to stick it under seats or on the floor. When I'm done with it I swallow it or throw it in the garbage.

Everyone has had an incident where they've had gum stuck on their pants/shirt and it sucks... But just because it's a minor problem doesn't mean we need to make a law controlling it... Let's try to fix our REAL problems first

__________________
Feh.

Cynthetiq

How is it far removed? It had not YET... the NO FOOD law is there to prevent it BEFORE it happens.

On a crowded bus, ONE seat that has been stickified denies ONE bus rider who's paid their fare and deserves a clean seat. There are some people in NJ who commute 2 hours via bus and will not stand holding the rails when they PAID for a seat.

Rudy Guiliani believed in the broken window theory and improved the quality of life by going after quality of life law breakers, which this falls under. Monitor the small stuff and the big stuff slowly takes care of itself. He also at the same time took care of ridding NYC of major mob interests, all while also taking care of these small quality of life issues.

While YOU may swallow your gum or dispose of it properly, there's plenty of evidence here in NYC showing that OTHER people are not so diligent or caring. While YOU may not need to told how to act by laws, other people do.

When I was in Madrid, I did not see a single black dot on ANY of their sidewalks because they meticulously scrubbed their sidewalks almost every day.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Ace_O_Spades

The broken window theory seems to work, yes... But it works on the premise of reaction as opposed to proaction.

Reactive policing is just as effective as proactive policing... I don't have the study handy, but there have been studies done in New York and Chicago which have lent credit to this theory.

More proactive laws are just a nuisance and impinge on our basic freedoms... Plus, our legal and policing systems are already so clogged with crimes actually worth policing and judging, this just makes an already bogged down system moreso.

Having laws controlling clean sidewalks and busses, then taking actual manpower to police them is probably the lowest priority that our justice system should be focusing on.

__________________
Feh.

Cynthetiq

I'm sorry I cannot make heads or tails of what direction your reactive vs. proactive statements mean but based on what I think they mean, here's my response.

Reactive policing meaning that someone has to be there to react to the situation and then address it, meaning that someone has to be present to stop it, and have authority to stop it. What gives them the authority? Law, so there has to be some written form of what they are enforcing. So I'm completely missing what you're saying about laws impinging on freedoms. That's the points of laws is it not? To define those freedoms?

Also that means then someone has to be there... are you suggesting then more "police"?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

maleficent

The father is the one "bogging down" thelegal system. Pay the fine. he's the one who's fighting it. Kid was wrong, Kid got caught. Dad is causing a fuss.

__________________

snowy

I don't recall seeing a right to eat on the bus in the Bill of Rights.

Secondly, this law takes very little effort to police/enforce. The cost of the fine surely covers any effort required.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Ace_O_Spades

I'm sorry, I'll clarify what I was trying to say for you:

Reactive policing means an incident occurs, then someone witnesses it and reacts. If they have authority, they will react on the spot, if they don't, they have to contact someone with authority.

Proactive policing means initiatives that aim to reduce crime before it happens. IE: more streetlights, cameras, police patrols, etc.

In the case of the bus, the NO FOOD law is there as a proactive measure to deter people from littering etc. on the bus. As we all know, this is not very effective.

Too many proactive laws, such as dog leash laws, no food/drink laws, no smoking laws, laws stating French signs must be twice as big as English signs in Quebec, laws about littering, are a means to control incivilities.

The broken window theory is an aim to control incivility, but it is a reactive approach in that you must have a broken window before you can control it.

So if reactive approaches such as the broken window theory and proactive laws like the no food/drink laws work at essentially the same level of effectiveness, why not just have fewer redundant laws which could be controlled instead by the temperance and mediation of a police officer or other authority figure with all factors taken into account.

If that were the case, the police officer could have simply made the boy throw out the lollipop instead of being obligated by the law that states a $300 ticket must be issued. This just adds more paperwork to our horribly bureaucratized judicial system.

Due process vs. crime control... the struggle continues.

[edit]

mal,

He has the right to go to court to appeal the ticket. Enough said.

__________________
Feh.

Cynthetiq

I'll use the area around the bus stop as an example of how it's not effective in a city of 8 million people.

There bus stop is the end of the line, it's located in a T intersection with the bus facing eastward towards a highway, service road, and exit from highway, so the light is a 3 way light. The middle divider is painted with 2 double yellow lines with white stripes in the middle simulating a concrete island. The bus stop is labeled CLEARLY No Parking/No Standing (standing means car idling with someone waiting inside the car.) There's signage for No U-turns on the exit and service road is one way so the only way to gain westward access it to turn right from either the service road or highway exit. This area is about as big as 2 maybe 3 football fields. We have double length articulated buses at this stop, they are 60 feet long.


People make U-turns from the eastbound side all the time, causing potential accidents and causing delays. Pedestrians are at risk all the time because of they are looking for traffic coming from the highway not from people making u-turns legal or not. Everyone living on the other side of the street about 2,800 families have to cross the street.

People stand in the bus stop area all the time. This is the end of the line, bus drivers frequently park their buses for their breaks, when they cannot put the bus into the extra long bus stop that can accommodate 2 articulated and 1 regular bus, it forces the buses to double park. This in turn forces eastbound traffic to now pass on the median and potential even onto the other side of the street. One night a car service picked up a woman and got locked in by the double parked bus, the woman was furious because the driver would not move the bus (it's not easy maneuvering a 60 foot bus on small streets) and did not return from his break for about 15 minutes. The lady ranted all about how there must be some law that is being broken, and someone kindly pointed out to her that the driver of her car service was the one at fault since he was standing in the bus zone. More effects of the bus double parked are that when it leaves I have to leave the curbside, while I'm able bodied, what about the elderly and handicapped? There's plenty of them in this neighborhood and buses are an essential mode of transport for them because the subways have stairs and are not all ADA compliant yet.

So what has to happen? The 7th precinct once in a while sends a man in blue to stand on the corner... does he ticket anyone? not usually but I'm sure that once in a while he does. Now according to your theory he should be doing something else... but some of these issues impact my quality of life as equally as laws impinge on your sense of quality of life.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Ace_O_Spades

So that is a case that warrants a ticket... The observed violation of:

A- public safety due to the double park and people needing to leave curbside to board the bus

B- posted law

The two situations aren't the same though, one is a case of public safety and traffic flow, which unfortunately went unpunished. The other is a case of a kid sucking on a lollipop which got him a $300 fine. Yes he broke the law, but temperance is essential.

Law isn't black and white... There are all sorts of shades of gray that police officers use to judge whether or not a ticket/citation, arrest, or charges should be given. If the police ticketed or arrested everyone for every time they violate a law we would spend astronomically more on policing, which in Canada is already a 6.8 billion dollar piece of our comparitively small pie.

__________________
Feh.

Cynthetiq

And this is where you and I differ.

I don't want an officer to make that judgement call. Note how you your own wording "officers use to judge." I am not interested in that beat officer just standing on the corner. If someone is breaking the law in front of him he should be citing as many as he can, not issuing warnings. When you see an officer on a stretch of highway you slow down, once you pass him you speed up again, but funny after you get pulled over and ticketed, you tend to not speed for a little while one tends to come to full stops at stop signs.

For an officer the law is black and white, for judges there are shades of grey.

From another thread I posted:

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

pattycakes

dosent mater food is food regardless anythingt hat goes in your mouth you chew and swallow ( even if it was poop ) it would be food for that person

__________________

thalakos315

for all those who say that the police offers should be citing 100% of the time when they are able.

how many of you have ever been pulled over for speeding (regardless of how much over you were going) and then let off with a warning? did you fight the warning? did you insist that you be fined the full and complete amount? of course not you took the warning, and were thankful for it.

if you've ever taken the warning, then you really shouldn't be talking about weither or not a policeman should use his own best judgement

just imho

Ace_O_Spades

Yeah Cynthetiq, I have a very different idea about how a successful justice system would work, and it is an almost completely opposite approach to how we do things today.

Canada's criminal justice system is nothing but a massive black hole for money which could be better facilitated in other ways, and many laws are essentially useless because they patch (ineffectively) rather than fix social problems.

The views I hold with respect to police, crime control, and the judiciary tend to lead me into direct confrontation with... well... pretty much everyone. It's kinda fun, because I definitely need the practice explaining my side of things.

__________________
Feh.

Cynthetiq

sorry. I disagree. I do not fight it, but am still aggravated by it.

An officer shouldn't bend the facts at all. "I wrote you up for 60 in a 55 instead of 75" because he's "doing me a favor" by not giving the person any points, higher insurance etc.

Nope, each and every citation I get, I go to court. If the judge or DA wishes to do such plea bargaining, that's fine. That's their role, not the officer's.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Borgs

It's funny how these things work out- if the kid were merely given a slap on the wrist and had his lollipop taken away, no one would have noticed. The kids that rode the bus would probably not think twice about eating on the bus, since all they would get is a slap on the wrist. But because this kid got a 300 dollar fine, everyone notices, and whether they like it or not, no one will ever eat on that bus again. Even though a 300 dollar fine for eating a lollipop is rediculous, he is guilty, and should face up to the charges. Someone has to be the scapegoat, and this kid just picked a bad day to eat that lollipop.

Ace_O_Spades

I disagree... virtually all evidence into recidivism shows that if the retributive punishment is applied infrequently, with little to no switfness in paying the fine, recidivism (the rate of repeat criminal activity) actually increases.

__________________
Feh.

Borgs

Ah, but we are talking about 14-year old kids riding a school bus here. If I ever saw a police officer giving a kid a 300 dollar ticket for eating a lollipop, I certainly wouldn't be more inclined to eat food on the bus.

Ace_O_Spades

Public knowledge of criminal behavior often acts in such ways... What you might more or less inclined to do doesn't necessarily represent what a large population would be more or less inclined to do.

__________________
Feh.

KinkyKiwi

lol thats one expensive lollypop!

__________________
Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
Play with each other. Play with yourselves. Just don't play with the squirrels, they bite.

SVT01Cobra

The fact of the matter is, that he was charged $300 for something that would have taken 2 minutes and $5 for a janitor to clean up, and it's fucking retarded.

The kid should have gotten reprimanded, and possibly not allowed to ride that bus anymore, but $300?!! That's just silly! Even if it was a hamburger and french fries, it would still take about 2-3 minutes to clean up.

Eating a lolly pop on a bus, is NOT WORTH A $300 FINE. The punishment does not fit the crime.

Willravel

The punishment does not fit the crime, but that is the punishment. If you wanted to lobby to change the punishment, I'd support yoiu in that, but as of the day when the boy was on the bus, that was a crime that bared with it the penalty of a $300 fine. It is unfortunate that the kid is guilty, but the fact of the matter is, despite the severity of the punishment, the boy is 100% guilty. My dissapointment is in the father and the boy for pleading not guilty. Their blatent lie is much worse in my eyes than the hefty punishment dealt.

maleficent

2 - 3 minutes per incident per how many times a day it's done. The idea behind the large fine is to prevent people from doing it -- for a 5 dollar fine, do you honestly think anyone would care? And do you know what the busses would look like?

It's really simple -- put away the food and you don't get the fine.

__________________

SVT01Cobra

Personally, I think a better solution would be if the kid's caught eating food, suspend him from riding the bus, or suspend him from school. But there's just no need for money to be involved. Certainly not $300.


Well shit! If my kid was going to cost me $300 for eating on the bus, I'd fight it too!

Willravel

They plead not guilty. That's lying. It's not fighting. Thay have their reduced fine (of $90, down from $300), and they are still going with not guilty. That is a seperate issue from the fine amount. I'm not sure why the $300 is an issue anymore.

SVT01Cobra

Good point, there.

Maybe the kid told the dad he was innocent, and the dad believed him?

Ace_O_Spades

In this case, they aren't pleading innocence of the crime, they are challenging the rule of the law, or the validity of the law as pertaining to their particular case

__________________
Feh.

F-18_Driver

I agree. The fact that the fine is $300 clearly indicates that the city has had quite a few problems with food on public transportation.

I have the feeling that if this kid's daddy were rich, he'd pay the $300, buy the kid an iPod for his hurt feelings, and the kid would turn out to be one of those obnoxious brats who think the world is here to serve them.

F-18_Driver

I'm glad someone remembered that the offer of a reduced fine was declined.

Threadjack:

This reminds me of many areas where drinking alcohol on public beaches isn't allowed, because of the behavior of a few (or a great many) asshats.

Personally, I'd prefer a LARGE fine for drunk and disorderly, so my law-abiding self could sip a beer while watching a sunset.

/threadjack

Maybe eating allowed, but a $300 fine for messing up the bus with remnants? Either one is kind of hard to enforce.