Beating a NYC bike traffic ticket on a technicality

01 Dec 2003 03:36:44 GMT,
,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

I've said this before but I'll repeat it one last time. I have *never* been
directed to hassle anyone. Hassling people is *not* an "integral part of the
job" unless arresting people that break the law and harm others physically
(violent crimes) or financially (property crimes) is somehow synonymous with
"hassling" them. If it is then I "hassle" people every day and I refuse to
apologize for it.

Okay, then what is the official police expression for "street sweep"
if it's not "hassle"? You aren't going in to clear an area, you're
selectively stopping only the targeted portion of the persons there.

What then is the new name for that police procedure?
We used to just call it being "hassled by the pigs".

Imagine yourself on 'pee patrol'. How happy would you be about being
called upon to step-up enforcement of that by-law? How is that going
to affect the way you do your job? Who's going to benefit from your
public service if the ticketed persons can't pay the fines?

Or maybe the cops will set up pee traps around town to nail
unsuspecting tourists and frat boys whizzing through our
neighbourhoods. Turn it into a money maker for the courts!
But, I kinda doubt it.
--
zk

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:30:07 -0800, (Tom Keats)
wrote:
Such poverty mustn't be visible. It's so unseemly. So places like
restaurants, etc, don't let non-customers use their washrooms.

Most places have that policy because they're not in the business of
providing free public restrooms, and don't want to have to clean it
so often, as well as not having loads of people tracking in dirt
from outside without buying something. I've seen lots of places
that had their restroom open to everybody, but changed the policy
after it was abused too much.
--
Rick Onanian

On 30 Nov 2003 00:36:45 -0800, (Bob Hunt) wrote:
admitting that he said what he said, what I *really* have to laugh at
is his choice of public urination as an example of those "cheesey
assed by-law violations" he claims the police use to move the
snip
I would have never thought Zoot counts affluent young white
suburbanites among the "disenfranchised" nor that he considers some
working stiff's front lawn to be some drunken yuppie's "neighborhood".

Actually, I think his point was that he wants people to urinate in
his yard.

Regards,
Bob Hunt
--
Rick Onanian

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:52:49 -0800, Zoot Katz
wrote:
How would you feel if they targeted you for not having a bell or horn
on your bike? They're not going to beat you senseless unless you get
feisty but you'll have a fine to pay. And if you're there the next day
without a bell or horn, you'll get another ticket. You can't afford a
bell before payday, so you keep getting tickets. Maybe you'll be able
to talk the judge out of some of them because you've got a new bell
now. But, you're going to miss a day of work and you were after all,
breaking the law.

Indeed. If I'm driving a car with no headlights and bald tires, I
will be hassled every day until I get it taken care of, too. That's
the cop's job. If I feel that those laws are unfair and not
necessary for safety, I should write to my politicians. If I think
I have extenuating circumstances, I should take a day out of work to
see the judge.

Sure, I'd feel ****ed off -- after all, I'm just trying to make a
living the best I can. That doesn't make it any more legal.

Rick, the cops in this case are being used as tools in an urban
renewal scheme that is going to benefit a select handful of fat-cat
developers. Relocating services, property tax increases and zoning law
changes will be other tools they'll use until they get what they want.

If I understand you right, you're saying that it's bad to clean up a
dirty, crime-ridden city, especially because some successful,
well-connected businessmen will profit. No, we can't let that
happen; it's better to keep the filth and crime -- otherwise, those
people who want filth and crime will have no place to go.

Seems to me there are bigger crimes going on in back rooms and behind
closed doors than to worry whether somebody ****ing in an alley.

Right, I see, so let's get rid of the cops whose job it is to
control the drunk that's about to accost your child, and limit
enforcement to political corruption laws only. Street crime is,
apparently, OK.
--
Rick Onanian

In article ,
Rick Onanian writes:

If I understand you right, you're saying that it's bad to clean up a
dirty, crime-ridden city, especially because some successful,
well-connected businessmen will profit.

Not quite.

It's bad to pick on marginalized people and sweep them under
the rug using the shakiest of legal pretexts, lest tourists
and other people who will bring money here at the upcoming
2010 Winter Olympics discover our dirty little secret -- that
Vancouver BC is just another ugly industrial/port city that
only conincidentally happens to be in a lovely natural setting.

For some obscure reason, the BC provincial government is
actively marginalizing even more people, with welfare "reform".
I think there's going to be a lot more desperate homelessness
here, than we already have -- more people begging on the streets,
stealing loaves of bread (and lawn furniture, and anything made
of recyclable copper or aluminum), and peeing in alleys. I
wouldn't be surprised if the prov. gov't soon decided that all
shopping carts on public sidewalks must be registered, insured
and licensed.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:31:07 -0800, Zoot Katz
wrote:
Okay, then what is the official police expression for "street sweep"
if it's not "hassle"? You aren't going in to clear an area, you're
selectively stopping only the targeted portion of the persons there.

What then is the new name for that police procedure?

It might be called "law enforcement" -- they are targeting law
breakers, after all.

We used to just call it being "hassled by the pigs".

I did too, then I grew up and learned how to unobtrusively do
whatever I want. I also gained an appreciation for law enforcement,
instead of the anarchy that I used to want, from having in my life
people I love and things I enjoy, both of which I've worked hard to
achieve.

Imagine yourself on 'pee patrol'. How happy would you be about being
called upon to step-up enforcement of that by-law? How is that going
to affect the way you do your job? Who's going to benefit from your
public service if the ticketed persons can't pay the fines?

In your example of a guy who pees next to the dumpster in which he
sleeps, he may end up in jail, where he'll at least be out of the
weather and have safe food to eat. Otherwise, everybody who doesn't
like the smell of urine in their yard will benefit from that public
service.

Zoot, do you feel that it's okay to urinate anywhere and everywhere
in public? You seem awfully bothered by the thought of somebody
getting in trouble for urinating on a lawn or in an alley.

Or maybe the cops will set up pee traps around town to nail
unsuspecting tourists and frat boys whizzing through our
neighbourhoods. Turn it into a money maker for the courts!
But, I kinda doubt it.

That'd be funny, but they're too busy with speed traps nailing your
fat cat businessmen and so forth.
--
Rick Onanian

Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:52:53 -0500,
,
Rick Onanian wrote:

Indeed. If I'm driving a car with no headlights and bald tires, I
will be hassled every day until I get it taken care of, too. That's
the cop's job. If I feel that those laws are unfair and not
necessary for safety, I should write to my politicians. If I think
I have extenuating circumstances, I should take a day out of work to
see the judge.

The bell issue in the example is a *by-law* infraction, not part of
the Motor Vehicles Act.

I'd wager you'd feel differently if cyclists in other neighbourhoods
or spandex clad roadies weren't being targeted with the same
enthusiastic enforcement of the bell by-law.

Not all municipalities in the province have bell by-laws. The helmet
law is applicable across the whole province. It's part of the MVA,
like headlights on all vehicles.

The VPD is responsible for enforcing the MVA within the confines of
the city. Helmets and bike lights too are among those laws that can be
variably enforced. A bored cop might nail you, might not.

If unlit helmetless cycling fits the profile for part of the targeted
population in that neighbourhood, then the police will be more likely
to shake them down and give 'em tickets for those infractions . . .
and no bell.

It's all about turf.
--
zk

Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:22:13 -0800, ,
(Tom Keats) wrote:


For some obscure reason, the BC provincial government is
actively marginalizing even more people,

What's so obscure about their agenda?

Campbell's imperative has always been to disperse BC to the lowest
bidders.
--
zk