Should a 12 year old eating French fries on the Metro be a crime?

[Platypus]

it's breaking a law. Sure, it's silly that the case came before a senior judge, but that's not Robert's fault.

[MODU]

You decide.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070102247.html?nav=rss_print/asection

Yes, she broke the rules.  It is clearly posted that there is no eating, drinking, or smoking on the DC Metro trains.  And, as Roberts said, it's sad that the girl had to be handcuffed over it, but it was still a violation of the posted rules.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It shouldn't be a crime, but it isn't an unconstitutional law.

I hope we don't enter the "Nanny mentality" where we think that the SCOTUS should determine what's "good" for us.

But sending a 12 year old to jail for eating a french fry is not the "nanny mentality"?

[John Dibble]

It shouldn't be a crime, but it isn't an unconstitutional law.

I hope we don't enter the "Nanny mentality" where we think that the SCOTUS should determine what's "good" for us.

But sending a 12 year old to jail for eating a french fry is not the "nanny mentality"?

Could you point out where the article says she was sent to jail?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It shouldn't be a crime, but it isn't an unconstitutional law.

I hope we don't enter the "Nanny mentality" where we think that the SCOTUS should determine what's "good" for us.

But sending a 12 year old to jail for eating a french fry is not the "nanny mentality"?

Could you point out where the article says she was sent to jail?

Well, arrest and detention.  Also somewhere made it seem like it was a single french fry.

[John Dibble]

It shouldn't be a crime, but it isn't an unconstitutional law.

I hope we don't enter the "Nanny mentality" where we think that the SCOTUS should determine what's "good" for us.

But sending a 12 year old to jail for eating a french fry is not the "nanny mentality"?

Could you point out where the article says she was sent to jail?

Well, arrest and detention.  Also somewhere made it seem like it was a single french fry.

Well, "somewhere" isn't a credible source.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It shouldn't be a crime, but it isn't an unconstitutional law.

I hope we don't enter the "Nanny mentality" where we think that the SCOTUS should determine what's "good" for us.

But sending a 12 year old to jail for eating a french fry is not the "nanny mentality"?

Could you point out where the article says she was sent to jail?

Well, arrest and detention.  Also somewhere made it seem like it was a single french fry.

Well, "somewhere" isn't a credible source.

It think it a credible source, it's just not that important, so I probably won't try and find it again.

[??????????]

No Fern you can use Pravda DailyKOS.

[John Dibble]

It shouldn't be a crime, but it isn't an unconstitutional law.

I hope we don't enter the "Nanny mentality" where we think that the SCOTUS should determine what's "good" for us.

But sending a 12 year old to jail for eating a french fry is not the "nanny mentality"?

Could you point out where the article says she was sent to jail?

Well, arrest and detention.  Also somewhere made it seem like it was a single french fry.

Well, "somewhere" isn't a credible source.

It think it a credible source, it's just not that important, so I probably won't try and find it again.

Well, I'm just saying that when you say 'somewhere' is your source, it's not a good argument. Doesn't mean your source isn't really credible, but I could say I heard something 'somewhere' and really be making things up.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It shouldn't be a crime, but it isn't an unconstitutional law.

I hope we don't enter the "Nanny mentality" where we think that the SCOTUS should determine what's "good" for us.

But sending a 12 year old to jail for eating a french fry is not the "nanny mentality"?

Could you point out where the article says she was sent to jail?

Well, arrest and detention.  Also somewhere made it seem like it was a single french fry.

Well, "somewhere" isn't a credible source.

It think it a credible source, it's just not that important, so I probably won't try and find it again.

Well, I'm just saying that when you say 'somewhere' is your source, it's not a good argument. Doesn't mean your source isn't really credible, but I could say I heard something 'somewhere' and really be making things up.

Do I really have to find it, just to prove that  yet again, my arguments are more factual than most people's on this board?

[John Dibble]

It shouldn't be a crime, but it isn't an unconstitutional law.

I hope we don't enter the "Nanny mentality" where we think that the SCOTUS should determine what's "good" for us.

But sending a 12 year old to jail for eating a french fry is not the "nanny mentality"?

Could you point out where the article says she was sent to jail?

Well, arrest and detention.  Also somewhere made it seem like it was a single french fry.

Well, "somewhere" isn't a credible source.

It think it a credible source, it's just not that important, so I probably won't try and find it again.

Well, I'm just saying that when you say 'somewhere' is your source, it's not a good argument. Doesn't mean your source isn't really credible, but I could say I heard something 'somewhere' and really be making things up.

Do I really have to find it, just to prove that  yet again, my arguments are more factual than most people's on this board?

I didn't ask you to find it, I'm merely saying that you shouldn't say 'somewhere' as a source. It's not good debate.

http://www.skeptictank.org/gen1/gen00566.htm

Anyways, seems to be 'french fries' - the titles and word bites like to say 'fry' but it's unlikely she was caught over eating a single fry. It's not really important anyways, I think this is more important:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She knew what she was doing was against the rules, and while the punishment may have been a little overboard it's really her own fault for breaking the rules in the first place considering she knew she was doing something she shouldn't be.

[minionofmidas]

No Fern you can use Pravda DailyKOS.

Pravda means Trutth, you know?
What a fücking stupidity of a rule...you want clean subway trains, you provide places to put garbage in. You want dirty trains, you pass rules you don't expect people to keep to.

[J. J.]

No Fern you can use Pravda DailyKOS.

Pravda means Trutth, you know?
What a f***ing stupidity of a rule...you want clean subway trains, you provide places to put garbage in. You want dirty trains, you pass rules you don't expect people to keep to.

No, you enforce those rules and people should expect them to be enforced.  There are any number of laws I'd like to see removed and that I consider stupid.  The purpose of the judiciary is not to remove them.

Somebody, of any ideology, we shouldn't  be appointing to any judicial post is someone who say, "The law is stupid or I just don't like it, so I'll make it go away."

[minionofmidas]

No Fern you can use Pravda DailyKOS.

Pravda means Trutth, you know?
What a f***ing stupidity of a rule...you want clean subway trains, you provide places to put garbage in. You want dirty trains, you pass rules you don't expect people to keep to.

No, you enforce those rules and people should expect them to be enforced.  There are any number of laws I'd like to see removed and that I consider stupid.  The purpose of the judiciary is not to remove them.

Somebody, of any ideology, we shouldn't  be appointing to any judicial post is someone who say, "The law is stupid or I just don't like it, so I'll make it go away."

I wasn't referring to the judge at hand, just to the DC Metro.

[??????????]

No Fern you can't use Pravda DailyKOS.

Pravda means Trutth, you know?
What a fücking stupidity of a rule...you want clean subway trains, you provide places to put garbage in. You want dirty trains, you pass rules you don't expect people to keep to.

Garbage cans probably wouldn't be enough. Their a LOT of ignorant people who think it's easier to just throw trash on the ground or make a mess and not clean it up.

[MODU]

You also have to consider medical issues.  If the train were to suddenly come to a halt right when a guy took a bit of a hot dog, you can expect that bit to get stuck in his throat and begin choking.  Unless a passenger next to him knows how to Heimlich maneuver, that person could easily die . . . a liability which the Metro can easily avoid by banning food aboard the trains.

[minionofmidas]

You also have to consider medical issues.  If the train were to suddenly come to a halt right when a guy took a bit of a hot dog, you can expect that bit to get stuck in his throat and begin choking.  Unless a passenger next to him knows how to Heimlich maneuver, that person could easily die . . . a liability which the Metro can easily avoid by banning food aboard the trains.

I hope you forgot a smilie here...

[minionofmidas]

No Fern you can't use Pravda DailyKOS.

Pravda means Trutth, you know?
What a fücking stupidity of a rule...you want clean subway trains, you provide places to put garbage in. You want dirty trains, you pass rules you don't expect people to keep to.

Garbage cans probably wouldn't be enough. Their a LOT of ignorant people who think it's easier to just throw trash on the ground or make a mess and not clean it up.

Sure there are.
But let's just say that I've ridden on numerous German cities' subways and by far the filthiest are those in Cologne, where there are no garbage cans. (I'm not sure if eating on the train is actually illegal anywhere, or where exactly...such a rule is sure as hell not enforced anywhere in Germany though; and the rule on no alcohol consumption on the train is sometimes enforced but usually not.)

[??????????]

You also have to consider medical issues.  If the train were to suddenly come to a halt right when a guy took a bit of a hot dog, you can expect that bit to get stuck in his throat and begin choking.  Unless a passenger next to him knows how to Heimlich maneuver, that person could easily die . . . a liability which the Metro can easily avoid by banning food aboard the trains.

I hope you forgot a smilie here...

No, that's how sorry of a state our justice system is in. One woman tripped over her own child, broke her leg, sued the store and won!

[MODU]

You also have to consider medical issues.  If the train were to suddenly come to a halt right when a guy took a bit of a hot dog, you can expect that bit to get stuck in his throat and begin choking.  Unless a passenger next to him knows how to Heimlich maneuver, that person could easily die . . . a liability which the Metro can easily avoid by banning food aboard the trains.

I hope you forgot a smilie here...

No, that's how sorry of a state our justice system is in. One woman tripped over her own child, broke her leg, sued the store and won!

"The store should not have put my child in the middle of the aisle creating a tripping hazzard."

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Yes, I hate it when people eat on the Metro, and am glad to see they are enforcing the rules.  I just wish they would start arresting people who stand on the left side of the escalators.

There are really a lot better reasons to object to Roberts.

[Sam Spade]

I see no rationale why Roberts judged this case incorrectly.

The kid broke the law, the cops enforced it.  There is nothing directly unconstitutional with the law, so what right does he have to overturn it.

If you want to change the law, throw out those elected officials who are standing by this type of law and elect ones who will get rid of it.

Not a hard concept really, fern.

[Everett]

So, jfern, how do you propose we deal with law-breakers?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So, jfern, how do you propose we deal with law-breakers?

Obviously the death penalty for possession of a french fry.

[Jake]

But let's just say that I've ridden on numerous German cities' subways and by far the filthiest are those in Cologne, where there are no garbage cans. (I'm not sure if eating on the train is actually illegal anywhere, or where exactly...such a rule is sure as hell not enforced anywhere in Germany though; and the rule on no alcohol consumption on the train is sometimes enforced but usually not.)

Garbage cans are unlikely to be installed on the Metro for the simple reason that they provide an excellent place to dump bombs. The simple "inconvenience" of not being able to munch on your Twix bar is worth not having another 3/11 or 7/7.