Discussion in 'Current Events' started by RP12, Nov 11, 2019.
Go Google pictures of the New York subway trash.
When is the last time you wore shorts and a tank top with you hat on inside a court of law when facing a judge?
You ignored the health and safety aspect. Our Metro system has plenty of money problems, but it is essential that it operates because it connects DC, to the Maryland and Northern VA suburbs for work, business, tourism (a huge business in DC) and recreation, moving millions of people. We'd be in an economic depression, if the subway stopped running and the people don't want more fare hikes because of commuters who don't understand that the subway system isn't their living room.
I don't care. Individual freedom is more important.
Hmm he was not on the train.....
You are free to eat but not where it's prohibited. I hope you wouldn't try telling a judge that you should be able to eat in their courtroom.
Is there a food vendor right outside of the court room?
It don't think it matters as long as you are in the transit system. Perhaps he was going to buy a ticket or on the platform waiting.
The idea that there are places where eating is prohibited in public is absurd.
The food vendors are part of the "transit" system.
If no eating is allowed their why did the vendors get permits and approval from zoning?
We have a disabled guy who sells snacks at a subway entrance. You still can't eat the food on the train.
Is "subway guy" in California? Does he have a permit to sell? Do you see the issue with your scenario?
I don't have to. Company I worked for until 2016 had me in Manhattan four days per month for 10 years.
Not saying I agree with the law but there is a law against eating on the platform. And if the guy eating would have said sorry I didn't realize it was a law and threw it away this wouldn't have made the news.
The law applies once you go through the turnstile into the paid areas.
The person eating is black. Some believe that racism is involved.
Opinion that the "offender can't read" to take a hard 180 in 3..2..
My comment was only a response to post #2. Don't make more of it than that.
yes, its not hard to be discrete about it, once you've been warned its pretty well known that you are going to open up a can of worms if you don't comply and refusing to do so does have ramifications whether you agree or don't, I think its a silly law but there are hundreds of silly laws, it doesn't mean you can just say "fug it"
Same applies for Jaywalking or tossing a ciggy butt out the car window or grilling in the park in the non designated grilling zone, no reflector on your bicycle, etc no need to push it. But that's me, If I get pulled over for speeding 10mph over, personally my defense isn't "everyone does it, leave me alone" I just give over my ID and pay the applicable fine.
I found it interesting because the people on GMA this morning eliminated all the middle stuff and said "Handcuffed for eating a sammich?"
But that's NOT the whole story, its "handcuffed for being a douc-he about eating a sammich"
Is this your first experience with the "no food or drink" sign posted somewhere?
Its extremely common.
As they video stated, there were no signs posted stating they could not eat on the platform. Liberals merely love to entrap people with the ridiculous laws!
For every one government control on our lives proposed by Republicans, there are ten proposed by the Democrats.
Yes, both parties want control. But the ratio is not 1:1.
And my comment is social commentary. I think it's important to note the way people judge situations based on limited data and preconceived notions. Change one completely unrelated variable, skin color, for another completely unrelated variable, political affiliation, and the narrative people invent completely changes. There's no evidence to suggest the man couldn't read, and there's no evidence to suggest that his skin color had anything to do with it. So why is that even part of the story?
Always believe everything you hear during a conversation with police. That's rule #2 under: #1 Everything on the internet is true.
They asked where it was posted. The officer never answered the question. I can only surmise based upon the actual video unless you have details proving they were lying. Which is possible, mind!
I merely think the law is asinine in itself, but it is the law. If it's NOT posted, however, the pedestrians have a legit argument.
A) Which laws need to be posted and which laws don't? Does it have to be posted "no smoking" for that law to be followed?
B) Why would the officer be required to answer the question?
Separate names with a comma.