Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You sure nobody gets arrested? (I'm seriously asking, not being sarcastic) I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement, I pickup after my dog, but it feels like my efforts go to wast since where I live others won't do the same unfortunately. Littering is one of my biggest pet peeves. (oh that pun, )
See article below covering the topic.
Quote:
Public urination and open container are the only two minor offenses for which fines can be paid by mail. But Lancman said many people have reservations about allowing people to simply pay online for criminal court summonses because they’d essentially be pleading guilty to a violation or, in some cases, a misdemeanor without having an attorney present.
(1) You're basically asking me why do people commit crimes. I can't say for sure why people break the law and then complain about being caught, because if you actually read my statement you would understand why. I never committed a crime.
(2) Where am I blaming others? I'm simply stating it serves no purpose to arrest people over something as petty as drinking or peeing in public if they aren't harming anyone or putting someone's life in danger. Should we arrest people who park illegally or forget to pay the meter too?
What's wrong with giving out fines instead of criminal records?
Whether you get a ticket or jail time for so-called "petty" crimes, the point is, the perp knew going in that if they get caught either jail time or a ticket will result. If they use their free will to still do that "petty" crime, why complain and cry unfairness AFTER the fact?
BTW, these "petty" crimes you speak of results in a ticket, not jail time.
The idea behind the Broken Window policy, which I fully support, is to address quality of life issues and give the overall perception of law and order in the city. Removing such policies sends a message of apathy which gives the green light for the underclass to do their thing.
The idea behind the Broken Window policy, which I fully support, is to address quality of life issues and give the overall perception of law and order in the city. Removing such policies sends a message of apathy which gives the green light for the underclass to do their thing.
It restricts our freedom. The USA is supposed to be a free country, yet you can't drink legally on the street but you can in England. What is this?! Surely America can do better at being free!
It restricts our freedom. The USA is supposed to be a free country, yet you can't drink legally on the street but you can in England. What is this?! Surely America can do better at being free!
Restricts freedom? Smh. So screw it then, why have laws in the first place? Abolish all laws so we can all experience freedom. Right?
Restricts freedom? Smh. So screw it then, why have laws in the first place? Abolish all laws so we can all experience freedom. Right?
Laws do change and are abolished if the public does not want the law. If most Nes Yorkers decide it id oksy to drink in the streets, and they vote this way politically it can happen. If they are already dtinking at home and in the bars, what's the big deal?
Laws do change and are abolished if the public does not want the law. If most Nes Yorkers decide it id oksy to drink in the streets, and they vote this way politically it can happen. If they are already dtinking at home and in the bars, what's the big deal?
Cause some people don't know how to act in public when they drink. Especially if you add to the equation a group of people all drink outside, playing dominos, etc. Not to mention, its an eyesore to see a unruly drunk person/people roaming the streets with a liquor bottle(s) in their hands.
In other words, out of sight, out of mind. It's a perception and a prevention thing.
Cause some people don't know how to act in public when they drink. Especially if you add to the equation a group of people all drink outside, playing dominos, etc. Not to mention, its an eyesore to see a unruly drunk person/people roaming the streets with a liquor bottle(s) in their hands.
In other words, out of sight, out of mind. It's a perception and a prevention thing.
But these same people leave the bars drunk and unruly and the cops cannot bother them. Manhattan is fully of drunk unruly people on weekends. It's not illegal to be drunk or even high outside your home. You just cannot be seen drinking and doing drugs in public.
Truthfully they still drink outside. All you have to do is poor the alcoholic beverage out of one container into another one. Others will put their booze in a paper bag and sip.
NYC has a huge homeless population and nearly all of them drink and/or do drugs outside. Yet they clearly are very rarely locked up in jail UNLESS they prove themselves a THREAT to others. Practically speaking cops don't have the authority to lock these people up because the city does not want to spend the resources to actually have to TAKE CARE OF THEM.
Putting people in jail costs a fantastic amount of money and needs to be reserved for serious crimes.
My main issue is with the cops cracking down on poor people drinking outside they do not at all bother people who have more money and can go to bars. Bars can be pretty unruly. However tourism and education are huge parts of the city economy (college students like bars), and bars often hold events for corporate and media organizations. So as they serve large parts of the economy the city cannot eliminate their drunken unruliness that takes over whole neighborhoods of the city. But people like you want to pick on poor people who might sit outside on their door steps, drinking a beer.
It restricts our freedom. The USA is supposed to be a free country, yet you can't drink legally on the street but you can in England. What is this?! Surely America can do better at being free!
You have to learn to put the right of freedom into appropriate context. In a heavily crowded city like NYC, more regulations and restrictions on individual/group behaviors are needed to maintain an orderly community ensure everyone's right to a livable environment. If you lived in a rural area in Misissipi, you can walk around naked in broad day light and no one will bother to question you; but that would not be tolerated in nyc because of the population density. While English could drink more freely, Londoners are under CCTV scrutinization at any moment when they are out in public venues. Do they sacrifice their freedom of privacy to something of common good?
It restricts our freedom. The USA is supposed to be a free country, yet you can't drink legally on the street but you can in England. What is this?! Surely America can do better at being free!
you're only free according to how much money you can pay the lawyer
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
