Jump to content

$1000 Fine For Sitting In A Park


Rick618
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

This is what happens when feel good measures are enacted. There is a thread in the hunt,the unusual section concerning parks/playgrounds in some CA cities where similar laws are present. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=106039

I'm curious to see if the press has any follow ups to this and if the people want those laws changed?

I personally have no childern, but I do have a niece and nephew. I occasionally take them to some of our local parks and I go before I take them to check the place out. Just my presence in the park, with or without a geocache present in both NY and CA is breaking the law. I'm guilty of a crime before I ever commit one.

 

New York-AP, Sept. 27, 2005) - It's an only in New York story. A woman was given a ticket for sitting on a park bench because she doesn't have children.

 

The Rivington Playground on Manhattan's East Side has a small sign at the entrance that says adults are prohibited unless they are accompanied by a child. Forty-seven-year-old Sandra Catena says she didn't see the sign when she sat down to wait for an arts festival to start. Two New York City police officers asked her if she was with a child. When she said no, they gave her a ticket that could bring a one thousand dollar fine and 90 days in jail.

The city parks department says the rule is designed to keep pedophiles out of city parks, but a parks spokesman told the Daily News that the department hoped police would use some sense when enforcing the rule.

 

The spokesman told the paper that ticketing a woman in the park in the middle of the day is not the way you want to enforce the rule.

 

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=3480711

Link to comment

I know a police officer who felt the proliferation of rules was getting out of hand. So he enforced ALL of them ALL the time. Actually a good idea - if all NYPD ticket every person every time, you can bet the rules will change. This one may just from the one episode.

On a more Geocaching related note - I HATE playground hides. The issue for me is that the cachers presence may make parents and kids nervous - why take the joy out of their day for your smiley? The playground wasn't built for geocaching, it was built for kids to play on the equipment.

Link to comment
Interesting, a playground in a public park paid for with public tax money that excludes a large portion of the public that paid for the park. It would be interesting to see some lawyer make a case out of this.

This sounds like something the San Francisco board of stupidvisors would try to pass. :laughing:

I don't think you can bring a suit based on your status as a taxpayer. On the theory that in essence effects everyone the same way in very small proportions i.e. that you pay a small proportion of your income to taxes, and a VERY minute propotion of everyones' taxes went towards building that park.

 

Anyways, I think this law is stupid. I still like to visit the playgrounds I went to as a kid. There is no better place to reminisce about childhood, it would be kinda rough to get fined (an amazingly large amount) for sitting somewhere. Plus, this won't help the problem, IMO, shouldn't the resources be placed in better tracking of offenders and getting them, rather then in enforcing the law against a person innocently sitting in a park? Anyways...

 

As far as Caching, proper maintenance and placement of caches would reveal to an owner of these prohibited parks...don't put them there. But I see no problem with parks that don't have these restrictions, most parks are open for all kinds of activities (frisbee, picnics, sports, reading, etc...), Caching shouldn't be a special exception.

 

Plus, there are ALWAYS cool hiding spots in parks! :laughing:

Link to comment
Two New York City police officers asked her if she was with a child. When she said no, they gave her a ticket that could bring a one thousand dollar fine and 90 days in jail.

The city parks department says the rule is designed to keep pedophiles out of city parks, but a parks spokesman told the Daily News that the department hoped police would use some sense when enforcing the rule.

 

The spokesman told the paper that ticketing a woman in the park in the middle of the day is not the way you want to enforce the rule.

 

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=3480711

I think this is a real hoot!!!!

 

The city passed a law and then expects the cops to only enforce it against pedophiles! Boy, how stupid can you be? How is a cop supposed to pick out the pedophiles???

 

I guess they should have written the law to include wearing a trenchcoat and carrying a bag of candy...

 

90 days in jail for not reading a sign.

Edited by tossedsalad
Link to comment
90 days in jail for not reading a sign.

There's this particular woman's way out of this mess...discrimination. She should tell them she can't read. If McD's has to have a picture menu, then the park should have to have a picture below the sign...now what would that picture look like??? :laughing:

Probably no reason for her to lie. The law smacks of discrimination on many other levels. It no different than segregation, one type person can't use the PUBLIC park but another can. Whether the amount of tax actually paid by an individual is small or not the park is still publicly funded and is legally required to allow all people. This would include anyone even if they don't live and pay taxes in the city, state, country where the park is located.

I sure the law won't last long in it's current form.

Edited by Polar B's
Link to comment
Interesting, a playground in a public park paid for with public tax money that excludes a large portion of the public that paid for the park. It would be interesting to see some lawyer make a case out of this.

This sounds like something the San Francisco board of stupidvisors would try to pass. :laughing:

That law is not exclusionary...stupid, yes. I would think a lawyer would find it difficult to challenge it on those grounds. That women was not excluded from using the park. She just broke the dumb park rules. It would be like claiming your being excluding from using a park because you want to geocache there and they have rules against geocaching in that park.

 

Salvelinus

Link to comment
Interesting, a playground in a public park paid for with public tax money that excludes a large portion of the public that paid for the park. It would be interesting to see some lawyer make a case out of this.

This sounds like something the San Francisco board of stupidvisors would try to pass. :laughing:

That law is not exclusionary...stupid, yes. I would think a lawyer would find it difficult to challenge it on those grounds. That women was not excluded from using the park. She just broke the dumb park rules. It would be like claiming your being excluding from using a park because you want to geocache there and they have rules against geocaching in that park.

 

Salvelinus

Not quite the same, In the geocaching case you would still be able to enter the park just not to geocahche. In this case they are excluding people that do not have children, and not allowing them to enter the park at all.

Link to comment

Rather than the "no adults without children" rule, they could have just made a "no molesting or kidnapping of children" rule. Then if anyone is caught doing that, they deserve a ticket.

 

I have been to parks without a child on many occassions to sit and write. I've even been known to take a short "creativity break" on the swings. At what age are we no longer allowed to swing high and jump off?

Link to comment

Either way its pretty stupid. The cop for writing a ticket. The city for allowing this policy to be put into effect, if the idea was to keep pedophiles out the park it wasn't going to work, they look just like everyone else.

 

I'm not even sure there was a need to create this policy, it could have easily been cevered under exsisting loitering laws.

Edited by magellan315
Link to comment
Interesting, a playground in a public park paid for with public tax money that excludes a large portion of the public that paid for the park. It would be interesting to see some lawyer make a case out of this.

This sounds like something the San Francisco board of stupidvisors would try to pass. :laughing:

That law is not exclusionary...stupid, yes. I would think a lawyer would find it difficult to challenge it on those grounds. That women was not excluded from using the park. She just broke the dumb park rules. It would be like claiming your being excluding from using a park because you want to geocache there and they have rules against geocaching in that park.

 

Salvelinus

Not quite the same, In the geocaching case you would still be able to enter the park just not to geocahche. In this case they are excluding people that do not have children, and not allowing them to enter the park at all.

Agreed....a bad example by me. But that women is still not being excluded from using the park. She would be allowed in there if she brought a kid with her. There is a "reasonable" possibility anyone can comply to the law even if they don't have kids of their own. It may not be a very fair law, but its not descrimination.

 

Maybe this is a better example:

 

In my line of work (see profile), we have portions of streams where you can only fish there if you are using fly-fishing gear and artificial flies. The use of natural bait and other artificial lures is prohibited. Bait and lure fisherman have tried to challenge this in court saying its descrimination against them because they don't own fly-fishing gear. They always lose the case because the law has been judged to have a reasonable possibility that anyone can comply. There is nothing in the law prohibiting anyone from going there, as long as they abide by the laws set for that area.

 

I'm pretty sure the only way it would be exclusionary in legal terms would be if the law stated that single people are not permitted to use the park.

 

Salvelinus

 

Edit to clarify thought

Edited by Salvelinus
Link to comment
Interesting, a playground in a public park paid for with public tax money that excludes a large portion of the public that paid for the park. It would be interesting to see some lawyer make a case out of this.

This sounds like something the San Francisco board of stupidvisors would try to pass. :laughing:

That law is not exclusionary...stupid, yes. I would think a lawyer would find it difficult to challenge it on those grounds. That women was not excluded from using the park. She just broke the dumb park rules. It would be like claiming your being excluding from using a park because you want to geocache there and they have rules against geocaching in that park.

 

Salvelinus

Not quite the same, In the geocaching case you would still be able to enter the park just not to geocahche. In this case they are excluding people that do not have children, and not allowing them to enter the park at all.

Agreed....a bad example by me. But that women is still not being excluded from using the park. She would be allowed in there if she brought a kid with her. There is a "reasonable" possibility anyone can comply to the law even if they don't have kids of their own. It may not be a very fair law, but its not descrimination.

 

Maybe this is a better example:

 

In my line of work (see profile), we have portions of streams where you can only fish there if you are using fly-fishing gear and artificial flies. The use of natural bait and other artificial lures is prohibited. Bait and lure fisherman have tried to challenge this in court saying its descrimination against them because they don't own fly-fishing gear. They always lose the case because the law has been judged to have a reasonable possibility that anyone can comply. There is nothing in the law prohibiting anyone from going there, as long as they abide by the laws set for that area.

 

I'm pretty sure the only way it would be exclusionary in legal terms would be if the law stated that single people are not permitted to use the park.

 

Salvelinus

 

Edit to clarify thought

Maybe, but I am still not sure that one could say there is a "reasonable" possibility of finding a kid to borrow. It's not like you can buy or rent a kid for the day. If you did the law might have interest in you for the exact reason for the law. And I don't think you have quite found the right example, unless the law for the fishing thing disallows them access at all. In the example you could still just be at the river not fishing.

 

Is it really reasonable to have to find a kid to sit in a park and read? :laughing:

Link to comment
90 days in jail for not reading a sign.

There's this particular woman's way out of this mess...discrimination. She should tell them she can't read. If McD's has to have a picture menu, then the park should have to have a picture below the sign...now what would that picture look like??? :laughing:

Probably no reason for her to lie. The law smacks of discrimination on many other levels. It no different than segregation, one type person can't use the PUBLIC park but another can. Whether the amount of tax actually paid by an individual is small or not the park is still publicly funded and is legally required to allow all people. This would include anyone even if they don't live and pay taxes in the city, state, country where the park is located.

I sure the law won't last long in it's current form.

TIME OUT!!! Of course you can use the park, feel free to bring kids with you and use it.

 

There are tons of public facilities that are only used by a subset of the public. If you can't walk, do you complain that they offer skating rinks, tennis courts or baseball fields? Do you feel the need to use the women's room if you are a man?

 

Maybe these are not good examples, but the point is that we pay for a lot of stuff that everyone can't use equally.

 

We have a large park in downtown Frederick with multiple blocks and various special fields. The main part of the park has two ball fields which share space with open green areas (the outfield just keeps going, and going, and going...). I don't play ball, but I toss boomerangs. It has been more than once that I was using the green space to throw the rangs and got bumped off by people wanting to play ball. I just accept that since ball was the intended use.

 

EDIT

 

I just thought of a better example, adult swim! How does that make the kids feel??? :laughing:

Edited by tossedsalad
Link to comment
90 days in jail for not reading a sign.

There's this particular woman's way out of this mess...discrimination. She should tell them she can't read. If McD's has to have a picture menu, then the park should have to have a picture below the sign...now what would that picture look like??? :laughing:

Probably no reason for her to lie. The law smacks of discrimination on many other levels. It no different than segregation, one type person can't use the PUBLIC park but another can. Whether the amount of tax actually paid by an individual is small or not the park is still publicly funded and is legally required to allow all people. This would include anyone even if they don't live and pay taxes in the city, state, country where the park is located.

I sure the law won't last long in it's current form.

TIME OUT!!! Of course you can use the park, feel free to bring kids with you and use it.

 

There are tons of public facilities that are only used by a subset of the public. If you can't walk, do you complain that they offer skating rinks, tennis courts or baseball fields? Do you feel the need to use the women's room if you are a man?

 

Maybe these are not good examples, but the point is that we pay for a lot of stuff that everyone can't use equally.

 

We have a large park in downtown Frederick with multiple blocks and various special fields. The main part of the park has two ball fields which share space with open green areas (the outfield just keeps going, and going, and going...). I don't play ball, but I toss boomerangs. It has been more than once that I was using the green space to throw the rangs and got bumped off by people wanting to play ball. I just accept that since ball was the intended use.

 

EDIT

 

I just thought of a better example, adult swim! How does that make the kids feel??? :laughing:

But the issue is that there is no law against you using the park. When you got bump no one tried to have you arrested or fined did they. You left most likely out of curtesy. As for the park people don't use, they are choosing to not use the park. Big difference between choosing and being banned by law.

Link to comment

TIME OUT!!!  Of course you can use the park, feel free to bring kids with you and use it. 

 

There are tons of public facilities that are only used by a subset of the public.  If you can't walk, do you complain that they offer skating rinks, tennis courts or baseball fields?  Do you feel the need to use the women's room if you are a man? 

 

Maybe these are not good examples, but the point is that we pay for a lot of stuff that everyone can't use equally. 

 

We have a large park in downtown Frederick with multiple blocks and various special fields.  The main part of the park has two ball fields which share space with open green areas (the outfield just keeps going, and going, and going...).  I don't play ball, but I toss boomerangs.  It has been more than once that I was using the green space to throw the rangs and got bumped off by people wanting to play ball.  I just accept that since ball was the intended use.

 

EDIT

 

I just thought of a better example, adult swim!  How does that make the kids feel???  :laughing:

Bad analogies, all...

 

The city does not ban paraplegics from the skateboard park. If they can find a way to use that part of the park (and I don[t doubt that they can), they are free to use it.

 

The city provides two seperate restrooms in the same park, so no one is banned from using a restroom in the park. If there is only one restroom, it will be unisex. Do they provide a seperate section of the park for those with no kids? I didn't think so.

 

You are free to throw your boomerang until your activity interferes with the designated activity. Is the woman's presence in the park interfering with anyone else? I didn't think so.

 

If a kid jumps in the pool dedsignated for adults only, will they fine him $1000? I don't think so.

 

If I was presented with such a situation as this woman, I think I would have a lot of fun making life uncomfortable for the local establishment.

 

Stupid law for stupid people....

Edited by StarshipTrooper
Link to comment
Bad analogies, all...

 

The city does not ban paraplegics from the skateboard park. If they can find a way to use that part of the park (and I don[t doubt that they can), they are free to use it.

 

The city provides two seperate restrooms in the same park, so no one is banned from using a restroom in the park. If there is only one restroom, it will be unisex. Do they provide a seperate section of the park for those with no kids? I didn't think so.

 

You are free to throw your boomerang until your activity interferes with the designated activity. Is the woman's presence in the park interfering with anyone else? I didn't think so.

 

If a kid jumps in the pool dedsignated for adults only, will they fine him $1000? I don't think so.

 

If I was presented with such a situation as this woman, I think I would have a lot of fun making life uncomfortable for the local establishment.

 

Stupid law for stupid people....

This is good stuff!!! But since NYPD or it's commissioners don't read this ...

 

:laughing:

Link to comment
Maybe, but I am still not sure that one could say there is a "reasonable" possibility of finding a kid to borrow. It's not like you can buy or rent a kid for the day. If you did the law might have interest in you for the exact reason for the law. And I don't think you have quite found the right example, unless the law for the fishing thing disallows them access at all. In the example you could still just be at the river not fishing.

 

Is it really reasonable to have to find a kid to sit in a park and read?  :laughing:

Who said anything about requiring you to "borrow" a kid to use the park? Why would you want to do that anyway? Its a park set up for kids so it is reasonable that an adult who goes there would have a kid with them. On the flip side...why would an adult be hanging around a park developed for kids and not have some along?

 

Thus, probably the rational for enacting the law, which is definitely unfair and stupid but absolutly not exclusve or descriminatory.

 

I know there are legit reasons to let people use the park without requiring having a kid with you, but those arguement should be used to argue against the fairness of the law. Not whether or not it descriminates.

Link to comment

Green space is important for all of us. Not just those of us with kids. While the rule is meant to stop pedophiles, who seem ok with breaking the law, it also rules out the people who could actually intercede if a kidnap attempt were made by making sure the area is clear of law abiding citizens.

 

Law or not I have no problem taking in some sunshine and outside air in a park whether or not it has a playground on it. The moms can give me funny looks until they are blue in the face, but when someone like me is there at the right time, they will be bending over backwards to say "thank you". Even more than direct help is the indirect help. No pedaphile is going to attempt to snag a child when a large man is present who could interfere in their plans if the child acts distressed or screams. More likely these close calls happen all the time but are thwarted while the mom is giving the wrong man the stinky eye, and nobody is the wiser.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
The city provides two seperate restrooms in the same park, so no one is banned from using a restroom in the park.  If there is only one restroom, it will be unisex. Do they provide a seperate section of the park for those with no kids?  I didn't think so.

Ahhh, but there are plenty of parks that you can use without kids and I expect often only the playground area of a park is off limits without kids.

 

You are free to throw your boomerang until your activity interferes with the designated activity.  Is the woman's presence in the park interfering with anyone else?  I didn't think so.

Of course it is. The point is that with the problems with child predators, people don't feel safe with strange adults hanging around playgrounds. I have cached in or near playgrounds before and I feel weird and I can see that some of the adults feel weirder about my presence. I have seen some leave although I can't say for sure it was because of us.

 

If a kid jumps in the pool dedsignated for adults only, will they fine him $1000?  I don't think so.

No, but they can and do ban a kid from the pool which is much worse to the kid.

 

If I was presented with such a situation as this woman, I think I would have a lot of fun making life uncomfortable for the local establishment.

And you might end up in jail. I expect by explaining what happened, she is likely to get off. If she makes a stink about it, I expect she will be punished. I agree it is a stupid law, but it is a valid law, which was my point.

Link to comment
The point is that with the problems with child predators, people don't feel safe with strange adults hanging around playgrounds. I have cached in or near playgrounds before and I feel weird and I can see that some of the adults feel weirder about my presence. I have seen some leave although I can't say for sure it was because of us.

Let them feel weird. A lot of people are uncomfortable around people of a different race or who speak a different language. Would it be ok to make a park rule that says you are not allowed unless you speak spanish or are with a spanish speaking person? It would be just as easy to learn spanish or "borrow" a spanish speaking person to abide by that rule, but it is just plain stupid.

Link to comment

I agree that the law itself, while stupid, is not discriminatory.

 

However, when the people that made the law say that they want the police to enforce it for some people and not for others, that would be discriminatory.

 

What "common sense" are the police suposed to use? Is it based on their way of dressing? Whether they are male or Female? Race? What?

 

It sounds to me like they wanted to keep certain "types" out of the park, and knew they could never pass a law with those restrictions, so they passed a blanket ban and hoped the police would do the profiling for them.

 

My guess is that the LEO in this case decided to put the ball back in their laps.

Link to comment

I was visiting a playground in NYC with my 3 year-old son, and took a picture of him coming down the slide when a park employee walked up and told me that there was no photography allowed within 50 feet of this park.

 

I was flabbergasted, and challenged them about it (my son, my camera, public park, etc.) and was directed to a small sign by the gate leading into the playground...sure enough, it is against city law XXXXXXX-XXXXXXXX to record video or photographic images within 50 feet of this playground.

 

I put away my full-sized digital camera, and then took abotu 20 more pictures of Ben using my geocaching digi-cam (tiny and looks like a cell-phone) just to spite the stupid law...probably not smart in the circumstance, but it felt good. :laughing:

 

I'm all in favor of protecting children (who isn't?) but question the efficacy of laws like this.

 

nfa-jamie

Link to comment
The city provides two seperate restrooms in the same park, so no one is banned from using a restroom in the park.  If there is only one restroom, it will be unisex. Do they provide a seperate section of the park for those with no kids?  I didn't think so.

Ahhh, but there are plenty of parks that you can use without kids and I expect often only the playground area of a park is off limits without kids.

 

You are free to throw your boomerang until your activity interferes with the designated activity.  Is the woman's presence in the park interfering with anyone else?  I didn't think so.

Of course it is. The point is that with the problems with child predators, people don't feel safe with strange adults hanging around playgrounds. I have cached in or near playgrounds before and I feel weird and I can see that some of the adults feel weirder about my presence. I have seen some leave although I can't say for sure it was because of us.

 

If a kid jumps in the pool dedsignated for adults only, will they fine him $1000?  I don't think so.

No, but they can and do ban a kid from the pool which is much worse to the kid.

 

If I was presented with such a situation as this woman, I think I would have a lot of fun making life uncomfortable for the local establishment.

And you might end up in jail. I expect by explaining what happened, she is likely to get off. If she makes a stink about it, I expect she will be punished. I agree it is a stupid law, but it is a valid law, which was my point.

Tossedsalad - your argument is getting silly.

 

#1:The article said nothing of a "playground area" being the question. And yes, there may be another park in the city, but how far away? My lawyer would make mincemeat of this argument!

 

#2: The argument that an individuals simple presence is interfering with another's activity at a park is simply silly and pathetic. That argument wouldn't stand much opposition - it only stands because it has been accepted thus far.

 

#3: Then tell the woman she shouldn't be there, but don't fine her $1000. A ban without consequnces is not a ban. The kids stay out of the pool only because grown-ups tell them to.

 

#4: I might end up in jail for having my day in court and making a public mockery of the idiots who passed such an ordinance? What kind of world do you live in? If that is what they get away with in NYC, it says a lot...

Edited by StarshipTrooper
Link to comment

It's a fenced in playground. With playground equipment. The intent was to provide a safe place for children to play. The benches are there for the convenience of guardians who might not wish to accompany their children onto the playground equipment. A great idea.

 

But should a ticket have been issued? No, the cops should have used discretion and made certain the woman was aware of the rule the first time they noticed her. And if she was still there the next time they went past, she had earned her fine. But ignorance of the law is no excuse ... especially when it's posted right in front of one's eyes.

Link to comment
I was visiting a playground in NYC with my 3 year-old son, and took a picture of him coming down the slide when a park employee walked up and told me that there was no photography allowed within 50 feet of this park.

 

I was flabbergasted, and challenged them about it (my son, my camera, public park, etc.) and was directed to a small sign by the gate leading into the playground...sure enough, it is against city law XXXXXXX-XXXXXXXX to record video or photographic images within 50 feet of this playground.

 

I put away my full-sized digital camera, and then took abotu 20 more pictures of Ben using my geocaching digi-cam (tiny and looks like a cell-phone) just to spite the stupid law...probably not smart in the circumstance, but it felt good. :laughing:

 

I'm all in favor of protecting children (who isn't?) but question the efficacy of laws like this.

 

nfa-jamie

If I were a news reporter - and I could be - I would make a point of flouting that law. I would go out of my way to do a story on these playgrounds WITH PHOTOS. If I were arrested/fined, I would fight it all the way to the supreme court. If not - THAT would be my story. Selective enforcement.

Link to comment
...On the flip side...why would an adult be hanging around a park developed for kids and not have some along?...

To rest on a bench when they are tired. Becaue it's the only place they can see the sun in their neighborhood. To read a book under a tree. To have a picnic with their girlfriend. To stretch after being cooped up all day doing chores. To watch the kids play which I must admit from watching my own kids play is a joy just to see the wonder and zest they have for living without actually thinking about what 'living' is supposed to be like adults agonize over. Lastly, because they don't happen to have kids.

 

In another post someone pointed out that enforcing the law is a valid and effective strategy to get stupid laws removed. It creates controversy and bring up all the harm the law does in the press. It's one of the uses of the press. Politicans actually pay attention to it, and the resulting mass public reaction.

Link to comment
It's a fenced in playground. With playground equipment. The intent was to provide a safe place for children to play. The benches are there for the convenience of guardians who might not wish to accompany their children onto the playground equipment. A great idea.

 

But should a ticket have been issued? No, the cops should have used discretion and made certain the woman was aware of the rule the first time they noticed her. And if she was still there the next time they went past, she had earned her fine. But ignorance of the law is no excuse ... especially when it's posted right in front of one's eyes.

What happens if a child is injured on the playground and a passerby who is trained EMT (or not) steps into the park - without a child - to attend to the injured?

Link to comment

And so the officers, obviiusly well-trained at sensing a dangerous situation when they encounter one, did the only thing sensible. While they were writing this dance instructor a summons, they called for back-up.

 

Already guarded by two officers, one of whom had his hand on his gun, according to Catena, two more police officers soon arrived and stood nearby with their hands on their guns in case there was trouble - from the dance instructor.

 

Sandra Catena, Dance Instructor: "The other two officers that just puled up their car got out, spoke with the other cop and then they walked toward me - they both had their hands on their guns too."

 

Forget that idea of enforcement to motivate changing the law. This is just stupid cops enforcing a stupid law. :laughing:

Link to comment
This is gonna twist the ACLU crowd.  <_<

 

This could be cleared up if we were to brand "pedophile" on their forehead. Convicted = time (or worse) + branding (tatoo).

 

B)

Yeah, but the authorities will have to catch the person first. ;)

 

This is a sad trend. It seems only things lawyers and legislators can do is to pass petty laws like this to try to solve a major problem. When I was growing up, I went by the "don't trust strangers" rule along with my friends, and none of us got in trouble. Have the society become so much more creepy these days that common sense is no longer effective?

 

[Edit] It's possible the mass media "blows up" stories like this for "deterrent publicity" to make up for lack of resources by the law enforcement. ;) In either case, a sad trend. :(

Edited by budd-rdc
Link to comment
StarshipTripper,

 

Boy, you need to cut back on the caffeine. If you get this worked up about not being able to use a childs playground, what did you do when you learned that the government can take away your house and you can't even sue to get it back???

 

Or did you miss that Supreme Court ruling?

Nope - didn't miss that one either.

 

I do get worked up ANY time I'm reminded just how much we have all let this country slip into a police state. Sorry if that bothers you.

 

Good point though, in pointing out my misplaced faith in the Supremes... <_<

 

Now I'm outta here for another Starbucks!

Link to comment

tossedsalad, I didn't say anything about "discriminating based on race". Being able to speak spanish or not has nothing to do with race. Some non-hispanic people speak spanish and some hispanic people don't. But telling a person they can't be in the playground becasue they don't have a child is about as stupid and wrong as telling a person they can't be there because they don't speak spanish or because they have long hair. Unlike race, these things are things one can control (have a kid, learn spanish, cut your hair) if you want to use the park. But they are still stupid and make a stereotypical judgement about people. This rule says that if you are in the playground without a child, then you are likely to be a child preditor. That is a pretty broad statement to make and then fine a person for $1000. Also, if you wish to coment on my public statement, do so publicly, please.

Link to comment
...On the flip side...why would an adult be hanging around a park developed for kids and not have some along?...

 

To watch the kids play which....is a joy just to see the wonder and zest they have for living without actually thinking about what 'living' is supposed to be like adults agonize over. Lastly, because they don't happen to have kids.

There are many days when I go over to the local park and watch kids play. I love to sit and watch them play in the play fountains. My husband and I do not have kids. Sometimes I just want to watch them play. I get joy out of that. According to that law, I cant do that.

 

I appreciate the horrors of todays society and the fear of predators. We had one in our neighborhood. All of us watched the kids here, and watched out for him before he moved away. I know the horrors of having a family member kidnapped. Almost daily I talk to teens who were molested as kids. I understand how bad it is for them, the trauma they still face each day long after the events.

 

I still want to be able to sit in the park and watch kids play. It brightens my day.

Link to comment

You know, they could have simply said "No children allowed without parent/guardian."

If there is an adult looking after the kids (and there should be anyway), then the pedos don't get an opportunity. That, and the community can still use the park without fear of being fined/arrested.

 

This law is a perfect example of "it's OK to be a lousy parent, WE'LL watch your kids for you..."

 

Dumb law, dumb cops, and I hope that the woman gets a smart lawyer.

Edited by Old Bill
Link to comment

Really dumb rule. What's to say that someone sitting at a parkbench with a child next to him/her isn't already a pedofile and the child has already been "taken?"

 

Scenario...

 

Pedofile has been scoping out the park for days from outside of the park. Noticed that there's a child who usually shows up unattended by an adult. On this particular day the pedofile goes into the park, grabs the kid, shows it a knike and says "If you say a thing, I will Kill you." The Pedofile has the child sit on the bench next to him/her as the cops walk by saying "Good Afternoon" and smiling at them as they pass. Horrible yes, but totally possible.

 

So what good is a rule like that anyway?

 

Talk amoungst yourselves. <_<

Link to comment

Well I hope she fights the ticket. What they should have is a rule that the children need to be educated about pedophile and strangers to enter the park. I don’t have any kids but I do like to go to parks and relax. I have just as much right to be in the park as anybody else. Like someone had posted a pedophile can have kids. Parents need to talk to there kids about stuff like this.

Link to comment

My husband and I love to play on playground equipment. Sad to say that would be illegal in some areas. :(

 

Our area doesn't seem to have those rules, nor do they have fences around playgrounds. Thank goodness.

 

If parents let their children go off to playgrounds unnattended, then they need to understand that they are exposing their children to risks that the parents have no control over. And that could happen on the way to or from the playground. Pedophiles are not just sitting inside those little fences, just waiting. <_<

Link to comment
I don’t have any kids but I do like to go to parks and relax. I have just as much right to be in the park as anybody else.

That particular playground is reserved exclusively for children and the adults accompanying them. If you don't fit that description, stay out of that playground ... just like you don't park in those parking spaces reserved exclusively for people with handicapped placards.

Link to comment
And that could happen on the way to or from the playground. Pedophiles are not just sitting inside those little fences, just waiting. <_<

so true... some are teaching in our schools, coaching in our sports leagues and preaching in our churches.

 

So, what is the age at which a person is suppose to lose the joy of swinging and sliding?

Link to comment
... just like you don't park in those parking spaces reserved exclusively for people with handicapped placards.

lets not branch off into other totally discriminatory laws... I thought equal rights were meant to be equal. Plus I do believe at one time, at least here in the states, a lot of folks thought it was just fine to have some drinking fountians and bathrooms "reserved exclusively" for certain folks. A lot of people died to get that turned around.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...