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

[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.

^^^^

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.