Boy faces $300 fine for lollipop on bus
 

Personally I chock this up to "If you can't do the time don't do the crime" files. Food is food, candy or burger, something you eat is FOOD. Period.

Should everyone get a "one free pass" as the father of the boy suggested in "Prendiz said his son got no warning before being cited."?

I stand on the side of it being another sign that this society is getting rediculous. Eating a lollypop on a bus gets you a court appointment and a fine of $300 :rolleyes:

The driver should have told him to throw it away.It would be another matter if he was ripping the seats up or drawing on them , but sitting with a lollypop in his mouth only deserves a telling off in my book.

Ordinace says no eating.. he was eating... did he think the rule did not apply to him? Is he that special?

It's an example of how society is getting ridiculous... that people think that rules do not apply to them, and they should be able to get away with doing whatever they want.

The father is the one who's wasting the courts time... A lollipop is food. The kid was sucking the lollipop. He was guilty. pay the fine and move on.

Yeah, I can see how the boy's parents would have an issue with it, but as has been said, he DID break a clearly understood rule, and it IS his fault. So yeah... I think the kid's dad needs to suck it up, pay the fine, and tell his kid to stop being an idiot and don't break simple rules.

is gum outlawed too?

But where does it end?

Had the kid been eating a Tic Tac, would that be a $300 fine?

A cough drop?

A Listerine breath stip?

No, common sense was lost in the shuffle.

If the kid had been warned or if he had a previous history of trouble, then fine him.

But out of the blue for a sucker is silly.

Well this comes from the other thread regarding "pussification of America". This kid ain't no pussy. He's got stones. He should have told the bus driver to fuck off. He ain't no wimp. He's a 2005 version of James Dean. Rah rah rah.

Seriously though, if the bus had stopped short and the kid choked on his lollipop and suffered brain damage, his old man would be suing saying the driver had a responsibility to enforce the rules.

The father should pay the whole fine then teach his kid respect. Maybe if that caught on we could call it "respectication of America".

I think both parties are to blame for this.. it's a ridiculous law and the father shouldn't be making a big deal out of it..

There's a difference between those three items and a lollipop. The tic tac, cough drop and breath strip all stay in your mouth. The lolly, doesn't always, the person will take it out to talk, and can get sticky messes on the seats...

Do you see that you have made a judgement call about that?

Yet the law as it stands (presumably) calls those "food". No arguments, fine issued.

That is the problem with applying law without common sense.

he was warned....the article says the bus driver told them repeatedly no eating or drinking.....how much more warned can you get?

I don't disagree that the law has been applied without common sense. Where I draw exception... and I know I am not going to articulate this clearly --

The kid did something wrong.
Unless he's illiterate, he could read the sign on the bus (I"m sure there was one, they're all over NJ transit buses) he CHOSE to eat his lollipop anyhow.
He got caught.
Rather than accept responsibility for his actions...
He whined... and got his daddy involved in this.


I'd have more respect for the kid, if he paid the fine, then worked towards getting the law changed. I am sure this boy and his father didn't give two seconds thought about this law until it applied to them. and the only reason why they are fussing now, is because they got caught breaking it.

Accept responsibility. Work towards changing it.

Where?

I'm of the opinion that yes, ALL those things you listed should be. Have you sat down on a bus seat and sat on someone's hard candy? The other day a lady was with a covered cup of coffee, bus stopped short and the coffee spilled just enough to ruin a seat for someone else, and onto someone's sleeve.

I ride the bus every day and very few people pay attention to the No Food, No Radios, No Smoking rules.

And in Singapore, gum is outlawed.

If any kind of food deserves a fineits candy. How often do you see gum stuck to the seats on a bus? or on the floor? or a piece of hard candy slapped to a wall and stuck there? candy is the type of food taht makes the biggest mess and attracts the most insects, which is exatly the type of thing the rule is trying to stop.

Kids probably have the least respect for a bus, have any of you sat on a clean school bus ever? There's always a layer of candyt residue sludge on all of them, and wrappers of shit pushed into the seats etc.

If the kid didnt know before to not eat on the bus he does now.

The bus company that goes from my area into NYC has gone so far as to prohibit cell phone use... I've gotten on the bus with a bottle of water in my hand that I am putting in my bag, and have been told to make sure that it stays in the bag. This bus company does reserve the right to eject yourself from the bus if you don't follow the rules.

but give a little lee way , thats all Im saying . do you not remember what it was like to be a child ? Its not (in my mind ) a big thing to eat a lollypop on a bus . Why bring the courts into it and criminalise him over something like that. Im sure its not a 'permanent record' sort of thing but it still brings him into contact with the court system over something that could be dealt with on a more personal level.

14 is not exactly a child, he's old enough to know better. To take it to the extreme, if he murdered someone, we wouldn't excuse it as - -oh he's just a child, remember what it was like when you were a child.

At 14, I had a healthy respect for the law. If a sign on the bus said no food or drink, you can be darn sure I would heed the sign.

Lines have to be drawn, stepping over the line opens you up to consequences. In this case the line was clear, no food. The boy stepped over the line, he should not be shielded from the consequences because he only put a toe over the line.

That's because you were taught to have a healthy respect for the law. What is this 14 year olds father teaching him? For me, the message is clear. Do what you want, and if challenged...abuse the court system with it. The fine shold now include all court costs.

Ive never been in trouble with the law either by the way and it should be punished but I dont think it should be a court issue , thats all.

I can understand penalizing the kid. 14 IS old enough to be a little more respectful of other people's property. But a $300 or even a $90 fine is ridiculous over a lollypop or any other minor infraction. That's more than the average parking ticket, fer gods'sakes!
Some other disciplinary action seems to be called for - a month of detention? Community service in which he cleans the public buses? Something like that - something useful. You think he's going to care that much if his dad pays a fine for him?? Uh uh. Clean a few floors and that'll make an actual difference.

I remember being a kid and I remember when I screwed up, my mother made me understand that what I did was wrong and was responsible for it.

She didn't go trying to soften the blow or make excuses for me. I got the full brunt of my actions.

That's what missing today when it comes to issues like this. Why didn't the father pay the fine and then tell the kid he has to pay it back? What an opportunity squandered to show regard and respect for authority. Even the father refusing to plead guilty with his son is showing his son that rules and laws are unimportant depending on how one interprets those laws.

Like I said earlier, if the kid choked on the lollipop, the father all of sudden would want the law on his side and would wonder why the rules weren't enforced. You can't have it both ways.

I agree with JustJess in that what's catching my eye is the magnitude of the fine.

The kid broke the rules and should be punished, but a sheriff's deputy using taxpayer time and money to write a ticket for a sucker on a bus? That's ridiculous, as is the fact that unilaterally the fine is $300. Why don't the bus drivers have the jurisdiction? And didn't that cop have anything better to do than ride around on buses?

I'm under the impression that the fine is in place in an effort to maintain the buses, and to a point the dad is right, everybody makes mistakes. So in a minor instance like this why isn't it an escalating fine, something like first offense with no damage either a warning or like $25 fine, something token to prove that they're serious and then with further offenses the fines would escalate.

If you ask me the cop was just having a bad day, it's happened to me, a cop was pissed off that I'd almost gotten away from him (wasn't actively evading, just saw him start come around the corner so I started down side streets before he could turn his lights on) since he couldn't charge me with anything since I pulled over when he turned his lights on he "modified" the registration ticket that he was writing me, rather than an $80 fine he wrote it for a violation that was supposed to cost me $1000. Things like this are entirely too subjective.

Yes, God yes.

$300 dollars, I haven't gotten a speeding ticket for that much, and speeding poses a much greater risk to the public than a sticky bus seat.

So the kid broke the rule, ok, that's fine, punish the kid, but $300 is WAY too much, and at that point the punishment goes to the parents, not the kid who actually broke the rule.

Seems simple to me. Even if the law is silly, it's the law. If you break the law, you get punished. The spirit of the law is keeping the bus clean. Let's say the kid finishes the lollipop and tosses the stick on the floor. That's why the law is there.

They'll find the kid guilty, and if the judge is self righteous, the father will be repremanded for being an idiot. Who takes a $90 ticket to court?

Those of you saying the fine is out of place because it's a lollipop. I assume then the fine is okay if it was a hamburger and fries?

The high price of the fine is to be a deterrent. If it was low, then what would the deterrent be, just a "right to eat on bus food tax?"

The fine is an established punishment, the judge presiding over this case can determine the right punishment of either a monitary fine, probation, community service and inject common sense.

Lebell, I don't want the officers interpreting laws with common sense, they should enforce all laws equally without predjudice. It's the judges duty to interpret and inject such common sense.

For everyone who's said, "Well, what's 'food' under the law?" I say this: that's why we have judges--their job is to interpret the law and determine what the lawmakers meant when they drafted the law. So if you want to fight it and go to court, the judge can determine whether or not you really had "food."

As for the $300 fine, I agree that it makes a good deterrent. Any less and people would probably take their chances.

It's funny--in my town, the bus driver will tell you to throw things away that aren't allowed on the bus--coffee, candy, etc. I'm surprised that the driver did not do so in this case.

No it's not out of place just because it was a lollipop, a $300 dollar fine for eating ANY food on a public bus is way too high. Even the revised $90 is pretty hefty. We're not talking about a life endangering activity here, it causes a mess and an inconvinience, but not enough of one for the fine to be over $50 dollars. I personally believe that public service would be a much more effective punishment, many people would be willing to pay the "right to eat on bus food tax" as you put it if it was just a monetary fine, but you take time out of their day, and make them do some physical labor, they'll become a lot less willing to break the rules.

This sentence caught my eye. Potentially eating food on a bus is a life endangering activity. How many times has your bus gone over a bump too hard? Say that happens while you have something in your mouth--choking is a definite possibility. Or like someone pointed out above--what if the kid had hit the end of the stick on something when the bus came to a sudden stop and injured himself? What if a woman has a very hot cup of coffee and spills it on someone, causing burns? What if someone in the bus is allergic to what you're eating and has an anaphylactic reaction? If someone were trying to eat cooked shrimp on that bus, my roommate would be in a world of hurt--and the medical bills the eater would face from the incident would certainly add up to more than a $300 fine.

It's the equivalent to a littering fine. Around my area if you litter you have to pay well above $1000. The problem here is that the kid obviously broke the rules, and is pleading not guilty. They should throw the book at him.

More than likely he didn't come on the bus with the l olly -- but pulled it out mid-trip.

Ok, let me get a little more specific, It's not a life endangering activity to OTHERS. The allergic reactions of other people are just as likely to happen in a restaraunt as well, which is also a public setting. The coffee thing, could happen in a restaraunt or diner as well, but you don't see any fines for having a cup of joe in them.

The rule is about keeping the bus clean, not the general safety of the public. And as I stated before, my personal belief is that public service would be a far better deterent than a monetary fine. The kid is going to understand why he shouldn't have a sucker on the bus a lot better if he spends 20 hours cleaning gum and candy off of bus seats than if his dad pays a $90 fine.

I think that public service, in the way of going around and picking up the litter, would be a far better deterrent to littering than a monetary fine.

:lol: I agree with that. It would serve to teach the boy (and the father) the value of following the rules.

for some people with infinite time on their hands what deterrent is that? yes it sucks to be part of the Saturday morning breakfast club picking up trash for 8 Saturdays, but quite honestly, a $300 fine can make the difference of owning an Xbox or iPod for some kid. I still think that monetary fines have their place and have their own way of deterrence.

In fact I believe in this instance the monetary fine is MORE of a deterrence because they don't want to pay it.

I think the kid should be punished, not the parents. A fourteen year old probably doesn't have $300 handy so the parents might have to pay it. Even if they make him pay it back over the next year or so (which they certainly should) it's really the parents who get the real immediate brunt of the punishment. $300 paid off over a few years of summer jobs isn't much of a punishment at all. He's still a kid, at fourteen, but old enough to know better, to read the signs and to be kept in line. There is no blame on the parents here I think, and I don't think anyone's mentioned that, so that's good. The $90 fine should be good enough, I think, and even better would be that and a small amount of community service.

Who cares how much the fine is? It could be a million dollars for all I care. Obey the rules of the bus (which you agree to and accept the consequences by buying a ticket and boarding) and you don't have to give a god damn about the severity of the punishment. The fine is there to prevent people from doing it, as a deterrent, not as a slight frustration if you just so happen to get caught.

I'm glad this is going to court, where ridiculous laws that overzealous police officers waste time out of their actual fight of REAL crime to enforce are shown to be ridiculous and offerend the temperance of a fair interpretation of the event.

I hope he's unconditionally discharged.

I like the idea of public service or community service. Why not both then? $500 fine AND the kid has to serve 10 Saturdays 8AM-5PM cleaning up litter, graffiti, gum etc.

Excellent idea! That way, both justice, public service are served and the kid learns a valuable lesson and character building.

He's lucky to be alive!!

The parents weren't at fault until the father got involved.
This is when the father made his parentla mistake. It is his responsibility to teach his son to follow the laws, and that there are consequences for breaking the law. The father and Michael pleaded 'not guilty', despite the fact that the kid was clearly breaking the law. The kid should do community service, and the father should pay the fine.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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


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.

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!!!!"

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.

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

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.
http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/facts/...ulated_bus.jpg

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.

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.

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:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

lol thats one expensive lollypop!

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.

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.

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.

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! :p

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.

Good point, there.

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

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

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.

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.

That's pretty insane. But there is a safety issue, and if the bus goes over a bump, he could get implaled or something crazy like that.

Hey, darwinism at its best. :D

I know a few people who say If they hadn't made it against the rules to stick your head out the bus window, we'd have a lot less idiots today. :lol:

They're probably thinking that they'll nail 1 out of ## offenders and they'll balance the costs by making a fine appropriate to that. I can't see anyone implementing something like that unless it got passed to the tune of, "This is god damn stupid but so are you, $300 a go, you ignorant pissants." It probably built up to something like this due to even more absurd circumstances on the buses. Aside from that, it was foolish to make such a big deal out of this and refuse a $210 reduced fine of $90, the kid did after all have food on bus and did know there was a standing policy of no food on bus.

rules are there for a reason.......the kid was prolly a pain in the ass

It seems to me that the whole problem is few people teach their kids respect. Regardless of how little time you have before rushing off to work, school, etc, it's not very respectful to eat or drink while on a bus. It will likely end up on the person next to you, or all over the bus. Those who get up late and don't have time for a smoke in the morning don't get to smoke on the bus, and neither should eaters and drinkers. Perhaps people should just take the extra five minutes and drink their coffee or eat their sandwich at home or wherever.

C'mon guys, do I always have to be the one posting follow-up articles here? Ah well, goes with the obsessive librarian thing, I guess...
Sucker bet? Boy loses gamble in bus-candy case
<a href="http://www.the-signal.com/News/ViewStory.asp?storyID=6898">Teen’s Bus Treat a $90 Law-lipop</a>

and justice is served. thank you for following up.

I believe he would have had to pay court fees/costs as well, so it would have been a tad more than $90.

d have more respect for the kid, if he paid the fine, then worked towards getting the law changed. I am sure this boy and his father didn't give two seconds thought about this law until it applied to them. and the only reason why they are fussing now, is because they got caught breaking it.