It Was A (Miller) Lite Night For Crime
They call them "quality of life offenses," and I'm all for having the police stop people booming their bass right outside of your house so loud it practically shakes it loose from the foundation, but if you're drinking beer out of a paper bag and you're not urinating on my shoe or throwing up on my purse, I really don't see what the problem is.
Here's the story of the Gawker girl who went to jail for brown paper-bagging it in the subway:
Sheila didn't come into work yesterday... as it turns out, she had a good excuse. As I was led through the subway station in handcuffs Tuesday night, a young girl called after me, "Oooh, undercover got you, didn't they? What you did, ma?" Good question! All I did was drink a beer from a paper bag while waiting for the F train. Trashy habit, and technically illegal, but who cares, right? In fact, the NYPD cares very much. What followed was twenty-four hours in two jails, hours in handcuffs, and eventual dismissal in that three-ring circus known as Night Court. Everything I need to know about life, I learned in the female prisoner holding pen in the Tombs.
I agree. If you're not making a spectacle of yourself to the point of disrupting other people in a tangible way, it's not a crime. And if you are disrupting, that's not an automatic arrest. The mere consumption of alcohol does not equal nuisance.
This reminds me of the 12-year-old girl arrested for eating a french fry on the D.C. metro back in 2000. There is a zero tolerance policy for any and all eating and drinking. Not even water is acceptable. It's rather ridiculous.
The debate here seems to center around cleanliness, but a simple comparison of Metro to the Tube in London, as one example, demonstrates the idiocy of this. The Tube gets far more riders and it's at least as clean as Metro. I'd say it's an unwillingness to pass cleaning expenses to customers, but handcuffing a 12-year-old for eating a french fry suggests otherwise.
Tony at March 7, 2008 4:42 AM
Pull up to any intersection in the USA and count the cigarette butts, and see if you can then support any allegation that Americans will voluntarily police themselves re litter. Laws don't appear out of nowhere, Draconian or not: they are the direct result of misbehavior.
Amy's column and blog routinely relates the antics of misbehaving Americans. So does the Bureau of Justice crime statistics site. Blaming the existence of law for the crime or infraction, or of the jail for the behavior of its occupant is just plain nuts.
What's this word, "prisoner"? Don't we use the word, "detainee" now, because we're so much better than to take prisoners?
Yes, laws are in constant need of tuning - but again and again, the American public has shown they will take a mile when given an inch. It's always "someone else" who will misbehave - litter, trespass, cheat, steal.
Radwaste at March 7, 2008 4:55 AM
Personally, I'm not suggesting people won't misbehave if we loosen restrictions on subway eating/drinking. I am saying there is a difference between correlation and causation. Laws against eating and drinking on the subway do not lead to litter-free cleanliness. Something else is at work. Our legislators pretend otherwise, believing that one more law will fix the problem.
I'm also not saying there shouldn't be limits. There should be limits. But they should be drawn sensibly. In too many things today, they are set for reasons other than evidence. See, generally, drug laws, but pretty much anything restricted has some too significant factoring of nonsense. There is no valid reason for 65 mph speed limits on the highway. There is no valid reason for a drinking age of 21 rather than 18, or even lower with adult supervision. (A 16-yr-old with a car is much more dangerous than an 18-yr-old with a beer.) And so on.
The problem is the tyranny of ignorance. Too few people care to think about things. Whatever superficial problem is being addressed, people say "sure". I don't want belligerent drunks on the subway. Let's ban drinking. How is that rational? We blindly accept maximum responses when we should demand only the minimum necessary to correct the narrowest definition of the problem.
Tony at March 7, 2008 6:22 AM
I'm glad the NYPD is on top of its game. I will feel safer in NYC knowing that the anti-Puritans are not imbibing devil juice on the subway. I fear for my life on a regular basis when light drinkers mind their own business. It's why I carry mace - just in case they ask me for the time or which stop we just passed through.
Meanwhile. Who the fuck bombed Times Square?
Straightening one's priorities should be a top priority me thinks...
Gretchen at March 7, 2008 7:16 AM
Rad - can't the police use their discretion?
If someone is obliterated and on the verge of dying it would be nice if a cop got them some medical help. If someone is belligerent and crashes his/her car...or starts puking on people then I'd say that person should be in violation of something.
I brown bagged a 40 once. I laughed hysterically the whole time. Not because I was drunk but because I was dressed to the nines on my way to a fancy party. It was entertaining.
Drinking in moderation doesn't tend to lead to problems. Excessive drinking may. But instead of punishing the drinking punish the offense - killing someone while driving drunk, pissing on someone, punching someone...
The drinking indubitably contributed to those offenses but not everyone acts that way and not everyone drinks to get obliterated. If the law doesn't make this distinction the cops should.
It's a waste of tax dollars to pay cops to arrest a person who is quietly drinking in public. There are more productive and important things to address!!
Gretchen at March 7, 2008 7:22 AM
I remember going into New York on the train to see the Moody Blues at Madison Square Garden one year (1982) with a friend from work. We met up with his uncle, who worked in the Pan Am building, had dinner at a fabulous Japanese restaurant, and then got on the subway to go to the Garden. On the way, we each had a beer and split a doob. No one even said "boo" to us. My how times have changed, eh? (Excellent show, by the way! o_O)
Flynne at March 7, 2008 7:27 AM
That is why I hate cops. Most of them are left over high school bullies.
rusty wilson at March 7, 2008 7:52 AM
Score one for CalTrain. I have a beer every Friday on the way back to SF; it's not even against the rules. There's something very wrong when NYC is more nannyish than the Bay Area.
justin case at March 7, 2008 8:10 AM
A lot of this stuff amounts to fundraising, especially traffic tickets. If you think that, in general at least, crimes should be things that hurt other people, you really have to wonder. My bf recently bought a pick-up truck and hadn't yet switched the registration over to his name, although he was carrying the bill of sale and the title to the vehicle in the glove compartment. Didn't matter to the rookie cop, who nailed him for close to $600 in tickets, just for that paperwork crap.
Or the speed traps they set up at the edge of town for people entering on the freeway. Not quite down to 55 mph yet? Boom, speeding ticket, plus seatbelt, window tint, and whatever else they can think of to stick you with.
Isn't it at least worth considering, that all that money goes right into the hands of the government? When I get ticketed for something like a seatbelt, who is the victim of my crime who needs to be compensated? It ain't like I spraypainted graffiti all over someone's privacy fence. It's obvious that seatbelts save lives, but less obvious whether seatbelt LAWS do.
Can't people at least acknowledge that when we allow the government to turn victimless behavior into crimes and write tickets, we are opening the system up to corruption and fund-raising? I mean shit, it makes lawbreakers out of pretty much everyone. And we just keep paying our fines and taking their word for it that we've actually done something wrong? I'd at least like to scrutinize the system a bit more closely. Where does that money go? Why can't those bastards just sell cookies like the Girl Scouts?
Pirate Jo at March 7, 2008 8:19 AM
Why can't those bastards just sell cookies like the Girl Scouts?
Much better idea.
I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt. But, once, I dropped something on the floor of my car, so while stopped! at a light, I unbuckled my belt, and bent over to the passenger side to pick it up. A moto cop came up and waved me over...gave me a ticket! I told him I'd just bent over to pick something up, and I'd been wearing my seatbelt and always do...he was having none of that.
Amy Alkon at March 7, 2008 8:37 AM
This is timely enough. My family and I were coming home from our weekly counseling session last night, only to be greeted by the sight of an abysmally asshole cop arresting a guy for jaywalking. The guy was dirty and probably crazy. He wasn't even legitimately jaywalking, he merely stepped off the curb, anticipating the light changing.
So suddenly a SWAT suv stops with it's lights flashing and a cop in SWAT uniform gets out and starts shoving the guy around and empties an unopened beer he had in his pocket into the gutter. This rather reasonably pisses the guy off.
What really got me, was when the cop, in response to my scowling at him, looks at me and asked if I have a fucking problem. Mind I was standing there holding my six year old's hand. I was careful not to say anything, because it was obvious that this asshole had a hardon for anyone and anything that might annoy him.
I fired off an emailed letter to the editors of the various local papers, entitled stay out of Gresham. Not just because of this incident, but because of the pervasive police presence bent on harassing anyone and everyone who is using public trans. Rather than just asking for people's tickets, they also ask for ID and really don't care if you miss your train waiting for them to confirm your not banned from Trimet.
They also recently arrested a father who went ballistic when the cops came running through the MAX stop and tipped over the stroller containing his (thankfully strapped in) two year old. He went chasing after the cops, trying to demand badge numbers so he could file a complaint. Unfortunately he got the badge number on the arrest report. Apparently the cops felt threatened by a skinny little white boy chasing them down.
That said, I have to disagree a bit with rusty, not all, probably not even a majority of them are bullies. I am extremely grateful for the police presence in my own shitty neighborhood.
DuWayne at March 7, 2008 8:40 AM
DuWayne: Do you live under a fascist dictatorship...or....?
PJo: On the seatbelt thing - I agree it shouldn't be a legal issue. And the fact that it's a fun little fund raiser didn't slip me by, either. People who don't wear seat belts do cost a disproportionately high amount to insurers. (I wouldn't be surprised if the insurance agencies were getting a cut of this ticketing?).
The solution isn't to ticket people for not wearing belts under the guise of increasing safety and therefore costing insurers and their customers less (why would the government care about their bottom line, though?)...the solution is to slap a hefty fee to cover the increased cost of care for a person whose body got totally fucked up when they went through the windshield.
We can file this under the "for your own good" category of laws which are really just about control and making sure you don't have any. We don't have a government or a Big Brother in charge. We have a Self Important Babysitter with daddy issues.
Gretchen at March 7, 2008 9:01 AM
DuWayne,
I hate cops because they selectively enforce the laws that bring them income, i.e. traffic tickets, drinking, pot, sex and etcetera. You can not make them investigate a break in or anything else that actually interests the public. Also, they break all types of laws. Plus, nine times out of ten they are pushy power mad dicks.
Hell if you want to do sex workers or smoke pot you ought to be a cop. So when I say I hate the cops, I mean the rank and file cops, plus the DEA.
If we would actually hire investigators, CSI types, I would be supportive. The reason I say most of them is because they do not have a degree. They just roll in right out of high school. Plus, when they get in trouble, they just go work in another city.
Love your blog by the way.
rusty wilson at March 7, 2008 9:04 AM
This reminds me of the 12-year-old girl arrested for eating a french fry on the D.C. metro back in 2000. There is a zero tolerance policy for any and all eating and drinking. Not even water is acceptable. It's rather ridiculous.
Mostly I'm in favor of enforcing the no food/drink on the subway rules since I've had lasagna, coffee, and soda spilled on me by fellow riders who "weren't hurting anyone." I've sat (unknowingly) in the greasy fingers-wiped-on-the-seat resdiue of someone's fried chicken dinner. I've watched people bring whole meals onto the subway for a 30-minute commute.
When it takes 45 minutes to go home to change your shirt and 45 minutes to get back, you get a little prickly when someone might spill something on it.
The problem with public transportation is that it is waaaay too public.
Arresting a 12-year-old, however, does strike me as too much.
For larger non-light-rail trains (i.e., actual trains with locomotives) like Metra, CalTrain, etc., you're not packed in as tightly and the sudden jolts are mimimized, so having a libation while riding them is fine by me. But a whole meal? No.
Conan the Grammarian at March 7, 2008 9:08 AM
It's disgusting being on the train with people who are eating, but come on -- wouldn't a warning be sufficient to get a 12-year-old to put away her French fries?
Amy Alkon at March 7, 2008 9:17 AM
P.S: Just bought my ticket to visit a friend in L.A this may! I'm an L.A virgin and pretty psyched. Any sight seeing suggestions Amy (and other Los Angolans)?
Gretchen at March 7, 2008 9:53 AM
Rules are rules... if you don't like them do something to change them. Until then, if you break a rule you should face consequences.
" What followed was twenty-four hours in two jails, hours in handcuffs, and eventual dismissal in that three-ring circus known as Night Court. "
These consequences, however, were an enormous waste of time and money. I can visualize the list of people she must have passed through (the arresting officer, the intake officer, the commissioner, guards), the enormous stack of papers that generated, the two meals she consumed, electricity, and the work that generated for other people, (the jail cook, cleaning crew).
Why wouldn't they have just issued a citation?
dena at March 7, 2008 10:45 AM
But a whole meal? No.
I'm with you on that, to a point. I agree that it's a little ridiculous to eat a whole meal on public transit, but is it sane to go to the other extreme and deny the convenience to the majority of people who have some common sense and will limit themselves to a bag of chips or crackers? It's too much to legislate in an attempt to eliminate every risk, no matter how remote.
Rules are rules... if you don't like them do something to change them. Until then, if you break a rule you should face consequences.
The problem with this is it excuses the unjust burden placed on society. It excuses naked majoritarianism. The right to petition is included in our Constitution, and we must exercise it, but the bulk of the document is designed to limit government as much as possible so that we don't all have to waste our time fighting for liberty that shouldn't have been taken in the first place.
To consider it from a different approach, how many stupid laws are still valid but never enforced? Why should government get to selectively choose which stupid laws it enforces?
Why wouldn't they have just issued a citation?
Because power corrupts. Maybe it's corrupted only the politician and not the cop, but it only takes one link in the chain to mess with everyone. Maybe a judge isn't corrupt but she's stuck with mandatory minimums for minor, victim-less offenses.
Tony at March 7, 2008 11:06 AM
Rules are rules... if you don't like them do something to change them. Until then, if you break a rule you should face consequences.
The problem with that is that too many times the rules conflict with other rules.
Ask any restaurant owner. Too often complying with county health rules means violating city or state rules. And vice versa.
The major problem is we've created a class of professional lawmakers and busybodies, who must promulgate laws and regulations to justify their own existence (both in a budgetary sense and an existential sense).
We've created them with our professional victims/activists, suit-happy lawyers, and our own rudeness to each other. Instead of courtesy and conduct, we've now got rules. If it's not banned explicitly, it must be allowed, right?
It shouldn't take a set of rules and a twelve-year-old hauled off in handcuffs to remind us that eating on the subway is rude, intrusive, and downright disgusting (Why not just eat in the bathroom?).
Conan the Grammarian at March 7, 2008 12:27 PM
"Rad - can't the police use their discretion?"
Obviously not. Look at the posts here, and at the number of laws passed by people who can't get their way and who don't understand that they are the problem.
You might know I work at Savannah River Site. These highly-paid people cannot seem to figure out how to keep the printers installed as part of primary control systems stocked with paper, and the vacuum cleaner is somehow beneath them. So imagine just how much madder a policeman might be after the tenth seatbelt or speeding stop. What is wrong with you people that you cannot understand what the law says? It's even on TV!
Radwaste at March 7, 2008 1:00 PM
"...that three-ring circus known as Night Court."
Did she get to see Bull and Harry and the gang?
Conan the Grammarian at March 7, 2008 1:09 PM
"There is no valid reason for 65 mph speed limits on the highway."
Actually, there is. Traffic safety is one of the most heavily-documented human behaviors. Highway engineers know quite well what the fatality and injury rates will be on any stretch of highway, and there is a constant battle between funding and the statistics to provide as safe a highway as can be afforded. You'll please note that not only are vehicles wildly different in the amount of occupant protection, even the best cars are hard-pressed to preserve their passengers if they are made to leave the highway at higher speeds. Yes, the pine tree will strip you naked and bust you in half, even if you arrived in a Lexus. And the evidence is in the news right now.
Perform this simple test: next time you're on the way to work or play, traveling the road you ride the most, look for obstacles along your path and imagine deliberately aiming your car at them. Think of that fine, unobstructed Interstate - in fog. With the semi, who can see, gaining on the old Corolla, who can't, and who is now doing 40. Think of what happens in each case. Of course, when an obstacle is struck, it does not matter whether the impact is intentional.
Radwaste at March 7, 2008 1:23 PM
Radwaste,
Poorly worded on my part. I meant specifically 65mph versus what everyone drives, which is generally higher. We can point to statistics on either side, but what emerges on almost every rode is a natural order. On some highways traffic will hover at 75 as the cruising speed while others will converge closer to 80 and some closer to 70. Police tend to pick off only the outliers.
Then there are the jurisdictions that will enforce the speed limit strictly on all roads. But those tend to be revenue tactics rather than safety tactics.
That's my point. Speed limits aren't separate from safety needs, but the connection is hardly 1:1. In the '70s, the national speed limit stuff came about to conserve fuel, not to save lives. Federal mandate. That's ridiculous. If the price of gas is high enough, which politicians try to prevent while they complain about oil dependency, people will start driving closer to an optimal fuel saving speed. Or they'll indicate with their actions and wallets that they value time over money by driving faster.
Tony at March 7, 2008 2:00 PM
Gretchen -
I don't live in Gresham, but I live close to it and my son's counselor is there. And yes, I would say that is exactly what Gresham is becoming. If it weren't for the fact that my family is with me (I don't like the notion of being arrested in front of the kids), I would have started filming the incident and tried to get it online before the fucker could stop me. I have enough helps for the family and can afford to miss a few days of work here and there. I also have a lawyer, who while not the most appropriate for civil/criminal issues, could get the ball rolling and get me a decent lawyer.
I do not like this kind of bullshit and it is pure wrong. I will and have gotten involved in rooting it out. My own neighborhood has community policing. I go to meetings once a month and try not to miss response meetings (i.e. responding to specific incidents). One of the greatest things about this, is that we are actively encouraged to look out for the bullies and assholes, among the local cops. They can't fire them that easy, but they do transfer them out of our neighborhood. As such, we actually have a great group of cops in the neighborhood, I know most of them and they are extremely quick to respond to problems.
I can't say that it is even all of Gresham. I live three blocks from their, inside the ten block buffer zone that's patrolled by both Portland and Gresham. Every other month, are meetings are joint with the Gresham cops and we are welcome at their neighborhood meetings too. The closest MAX stop straddles the border, with the eastbound rail in Gresham and the westbound in Portland. It's telling that the Gresham cops that patrol on the trains aren't allowed to come as far as our stop. There have been a lot of problems with them on the MAX and our neighborhood precinct commander flat blank told them to stay out of it. They are the one's who wouldn't probably have arrested the twelve year old, they just would have given her a huge fine and banned her from riding.
rusty -
Glad you like my blog.
The thing is, there are good cops and bad cops. I made a serious error when I moved out here, of assuming that they would be more reasonable here in Portland. They can be, but it depends on the precinct. Not all of them are community policing, some of them being particularly horrid. I have made an effort over the years, of living in neighborhoods with community policing. I haven't ever gotten as involved as I have here, but I have always liked knowing the cops in my neighborhood. Not so much so they wouldn't fuck with me, more because I like to know the folks likely to arrest me.
I had more than a reasonable share of run ins with the cops when I was younger. I certainly ran into a whole hell of a lot of them that really sucked ass, especially when I was protesting. The thing is to recognize that while there are plenty of assholes out there, for the most part, even the assholes are there to help when it's needed.
I am reminded of the day that I was heading home and discovered cops crowding the intersection at my street. I looped around the block only to be waved over by a cop, who explained that there were a number of guns pointed down the street, in our direction. He calmed by fears for my family by explaining they had gone through back yards to the homes in range and gotten people out of harms way. The police were very professional and did a lot to make a bad situation less frightening than it could have been. This was in a precinct that probably has the vast majority of the very worse Portland cops.
DuWayne at March 8, 2008 8:35 AM
http://erzsipongo.blogspot.com/2005/05/being-handcuffed-over-night-is.html
a friend of mine was detained for the night by the transit police for draping her feet over the handrail.
she was handcuffed to a fence for the night while her ID was verified in Albany, NY because there was no cell for her.
iceman at March 10, 2008 8:07 PM
Leave a comment