$1000 Fine For Sitting In A Park

[tossedsalad]

Actually, I take back everything I have said. Mini is right, I am wrong.

 

[Jeremy]

So only the elderly are protected from decisions made based on age. A 32 year old has no protection. Good to know.

Huh. I thought I wrote "generally" in there. I also mentioned, in context, that children are a special class of citizen in the US and have more protections under the law.

 

I've been using Bob as the example person who is apparently in bad need of a swing for whatever reason they have.

 

they say its ok to deny acess to the park because I'm over the age of 18 and did not bring my child.

 

I and many others also say it is ok to deny access to a part of a park because you are over the age of 18 and didn't bring your child.

 

budd-rdc, I was thinking the same thing. Without any rules about park usage it would be difficult to enforce and remove people from the park that are not using it for its intended purpose. I'm pretty convinced there is more to the story of this woman and her playground issues.

[+Ed & Julie]

I'm pretty convinced there is more to the story of this woman and her playground issues.

I agree...there has to be more to the story. Attitude can buy you a ticket like that, or some other circumstance at the scene that we don't know about.

 

And, just because it says may or could result in a fine of $1000, doesn't mean it will. The judge has the authority to reduce it to 5 cents of he wishes.

 

Ed

[+briansnat]

Once again common sense should prevail here. Don't place caches where it might cause concern among the general public. Which means that placing a cache under a bridge, near a school, close to an airport...AND A PLAY GROUND...etc...

 

I don't care how much taxes you pay. If you cause alarm by wandering around a childrens play ground or any other public place, then the cache is ill placed.

 

El Diablo

This is the key. Don't place caches in places that are likely to cause public alarm. Our sport is trying to gain public acceptance and every time the police are called out because of a geocacher it will give legislators another reason to regulate our sport.

 

Politicians love making laws. When election time comes they can say "I protected your children from (fill in the scourge)". Whether or not the laws are effective or fair is irrelevant.

 

Personally I think profiling is nothing more than good police work. A carload of white teens cruising in a ghetto in a BMW? Good chance they're there to buy drugs. A pair of young Hispanics on the NJ Turnpike in a van with Fla plates and blacked out windows should raise the suspicion of a good police officer. I've seen enough of 80 year old Caucasian women, and dads with their families getting strip searched in an airport while 20 something, Arab looking males waltz past security to realize that the anti profiling rules are BS.

 

That being said, the idea of codifying profiling as law really bothers me. In the so called land of the free I should be able to ride a swing in a public park. Now if a cop sees me, a 48 year old male, there and wants to check me out that's great. Its good police work. But if the law allows him to arrest me simply because I'm a 48 year old male, the libertarian in me finds that to be unconscionable.

Edited September 29, 2005 by briansnat

[+Polgara]

Laws, stupid laws, profiling, discrimination, alot of back and forth, rent -a- kid, pseudopepinehrine, historical quotes, courts, cops, pedophiles and zoom lenses....oh my god i have a headache.

[+sept1c_tank]

For a forum about geocaching, this topic is really stretching the guidelines. Although it is a fascinating topic, it seems mostly to be about the constitutionality of a specific law in a specific park; geocaching has been mentioned only a few times.

 

I have my own opinions about many of our unconstitutional laws, but I will refrain from discussing them here, in a forum that is supposed to be about geocaching.

 

Perhaps this topic should be moved to Off Topic, or closed.

 

Now, carry on.

[Frankyguy]

For a forum about geocaching, this topic is really stretching the guidelines.  Although it is a fascinating topic, it seems mostly to be about the constitutionality of a specific law in a specific park; geocaching has been mentioned only a few times.

 

I have my own opinions about many of our unconstitutional laws, but I will refrain from discussing them here, in a forum that is supposed to be about geocaching.

 

Perhaps this topic should be moved to Off Topic, or closed.   

 

Now, carry on.   

Yes I have to agree, it seems more and more we become a nation content on treating the symptom while leaving the disease intact.

[+Ambrosia]

I have no idea what how you can compare race issues to this law or to handicapped parking.  They have nothing in common.  There are many situations where not everyone is given equal access to a publicly paid facility.

That is what they have in common. Laws like this one in the park say that it is ok to deny access to something based on some very broad generalizations that, when closely examined, don't really have any merit. "An adult alone at the park" does not equal "child preditor". So if a lot of people are uncomfortable with the lone adult at the park, its ok to ban them from the park. If a lot of people are uncomfortable with people with long hair at the park, is it ok to ban them? Being "uncomfortable" about it is their problem. Where do we draw the line about what you can and can not be "uncomfortable" about?

 

Sorry I used one rediculous profiling example (race) when I could have just gone with the other just as rediculous profiling example (long hair). But it all the same thing when you look at it terms of "profiling" and "generalizations".

 

And you brought up the handicap parking issue. I suggested we stay clear of it so I won't speak of it further.

What you are ignoring is that no one is being "excluded" from public services. The area is specifically designed and designated for use by children. Adults can use other areas designed and designated for mixed or adult only use. And we are not talking about hair or any other irrelevant issues. We are talking about excluding anyone who has no business in a children's play area in order to keep the children safe.

 

No discrimination.

 

What about areas within a public pool that small children are not allowed in? Likewise, there are areas where adults are not allowed unless supervising children.

 

Is that so terrible?

Then I want an adult playground!!! Where are the adult playgrounds?

[4wheelin_fool]

Its NYC. If there was 16 year-olds sitting in the same place drinking beer, the police probably would have dismissed it as normal activity and not have noticed.

[Jeremy]

Then I want an adult playground!!! Where are the adult playgrounds?

We do. I believe it is called "almost everywhere else."

[+Ambrosia]

Then I want an adult playground!!!  Where are the adult playgrounds? 

We do. I believe it is called "almost everywhere else."

But we don't have actual playground equipment "almost everywhere else".

 

Try it sometime, Jeremy, you don't know what you're missing.

 

But I digress.

 

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

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 am curious. Did you ever talk to the sex offender in your neighborhood? I don't really know much about this sort of thing, but I don't think many people really do, including the experts.

 

I am sure that it is a horrible thing to be abused. It must also be horrible to *be* a sex offender and know that you are compelled to do terrible things to children. How can a God allow this sort of thing to happen?

 

Sortof makes geocaching problems pale in comparison...

Im not really the person who should be talking to a sex offender. I talk to the victims of sex offenders. Ive seen the personal hell their lives are now. The cutting, the suicidal tendencies, the guilt, self hatred and all the other garbage they have to live with in their lives with or without therapy. The kids who are victims of child molestors deal with things most of us cant begin to imagine.

 

And I still want to be able to sit and watch kids play. As long as Im not too close to the kids, I do not see why I cant be allowed to be there. As the stats said, most victims are molested by someone they know, not a stranger in the park.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I normally do not speak about religion on a board like this. Since it was brought up as a result of my post though, I will make an exception.

 

How can a God allow this sort of thing to happen?

 

Because mankind is inherently sinful. Man makes the choice to commit the acts. I got a good glimpse of evil when a serial killer kidnapped my sis in law. I get more glimpses of it when I talk to the teens who were assaulted by their fathers, uncles, neighbors etc.

 

And sometimes man does something people consider good. Im not all doom and gloom. I just wont blame God for what man does.

[+Yamahammer]

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. - William O. Douglas, judge (1898-1980)

 

This country is in the twilight

It must have been nighfall in the years past when our nation was filled with a lot more gender and race discrimination. Perhaps some day it'll be noon.

I'm waiting for "Dawn to Break on Marble Head(s)."

 

After talking to my wife about it, she is a middle school teacher, this law really doesn't seem all that bad. It'll scare the BeJeez out of you to hear some of the things they train the teachers in and what to look for and WHY!!! In other words, I have changed my way of thinking on this particular child protection law). It maybe a hassle but the rewards are worth it.

 

The law enfourcement are to do their jobs, enforcing written laws. It's up the judicial system to figure out the innocent from the guilty.

 

[+Moose Mob]

<snip>

Then I want an adult playground!!! Where are the adult playgrounds?

Nevada has a few of those.

[+TotemLake]

The law enfourcement are to do their jobs, enforcing written laws. It's up the judicial system to figure out the innocent from the guilty.

 

While this statement is correct, it allows for the presumtion one should be considered guilty until proven innocent.

 

That is not the basis of our Constitution.

 

I or any other adult should have the same right as adults with children to sit anywhere on public property within vicinity of the children's playground. To presume I'm a predator and ticket me without cause is unconstitutional.

 

The law should be challenged and hopefully tossed out.

[+Yamahammer]

The law enfourcement are to do their jobs, enforcing written laws. It's up the judicial system to figure out the innocent from the guilty.

 

While this statement is correct, it allows for the presumtion one should be considered guilty until proven innocent.

 

That is not the basis of our Constitution.

 

I or any other adult should have the same right as adults with children to sit anywhere on public property within vicinity of the children's playground. To presume I'm a predator and ticket me without cause is unconstitutional.

 

The law should be challenged and hopefully tossed out.

You're guilty of breaking a posted law. Read the article. It says the playground was posted that anyone in the area (paraphrasing) without a child is prohibited. The sign doesn't say, YOU ARE A CHILD MOLESTER if you enter this area without a child. It may be the basis of the posted reg but it isn't posted on the sign.

 

Hang in there.

 

[+Moose Mob]

Personally, I commend the folks that are trying to find ways to bring our parks back.

 

One of the reasons people don't feel safe in parks is because of lurkers that stand around watching the kids play.

 

My question is... what law would you put in place that would...

... allow a mom to feel safer with her kids in the park, and

... give law enforcement something to work with when a lurker clearly has no business there?

[+KoosKoos]

Personally, I commend the folks that are trying to find ways to bring our parks back.

 

One of the reasons people don't feel safe in parks is because of lurkers that stand around watching the kids play.

 

My question is... what law would you put in place that would...

... allow a mom to feel safer with her kids in the park, and

... give law enforcement something to work with when a lurker clearly has no business there?

Common sense?

 

Again, in looking at this park, if you're concerned about lurkers watching children, how does this rule prevent someone from standing at the fence of said park with a video camera taping the children at play?

 

Creepy people exist in our society...if a mom is concerned, call the police. They can the talk with the lurker and either encourage him/her to move along or decide they aren't a threat because they might enjoy nature and the sounds of children at play.

 

And moms (or dads) can hang out together and get to know each other so people help watch out for each other...and make suspicious lurkers feel unwelcome at the park.

 

I thoroughly enjoy taking my lunches in parks/playgrounds during my workweek. I rarely have my children with me at that point...why shouldn't I be allowed to sit there? or any of the other adults I've seen reading, eating, listening to music, etc., etc.??

[+TotemLake]

The law enfourcement are to do their jobs, enforcing written laws. It's up the judicial system to figure out the innocent from the guilty.

 

While this statement is correct, it allows for the presumtion one should be considered guilty until proven innocent.

 

That is not the basis of our Constitution.

 

I or any other adult should have the same right as adults with children to sit anywhere on public property within vicinity of the children's playground. To presume I'm a predator and ticket me without cause is unconstitutional.

 

The law should be challenged and hopefully tossed out.

You're guilty of breaking a posted law. Read the article. It says the playground was posted that anyone in the area (paraphrasing) without a child is prohibited. The sign doesn't say, YOU ARE A CHILD MOLESTER if you enter this area without a child. It may be the basis of the posted reg but it isn't posted on the sign.

 

Hang in there.

 

It is a bad law if it concerns a public park. It is unconstitutional and should be challenged... particularly because it is a public park (which at this time is the assumption). To allow otherwise and say it's ok, allows for a police state mentality.

 

The questions should be asked...

 

Why is it illegal for me to sit in that park when I don't have children with me?

Why would the law allow me to be singled out like that?

What's the purpose behind it?

 

If the purpose is to keep predators out, then you made a presumption of guilty before being proven innocent, and I'm ticketed for it for which I must spend time in the judicial system to prove I'm innocent of any presumtion except civilly disobeying a badly written law that singles out people without children. What is the purpose of that law then? To hassle me or to keep some undesirable out? It is a bad and unconstitutional law if it makes that presumption.

Edited September 29, 2005 by TotemLake

[+TotemLake]

Personally, I commend the folks that are trying to find ways to bring our parks back.

 

One of the reasons people don't feel safe in parks is because of lurkers that stand around watching the kids play.

 

My question is... what law would you put in place that would...

... allow a mom to feel safer with her kids in the park, and

... give law enforcement something to work with when a lurker clearly has no business there?

I don't care what law is put in place. Merely find a way to do it without unconstitutionally singling out people that are not otherwise law breakers.

 

Personally, I enjoy watching children play. It takes me back to my memories of younger years. You would choose to make that illegal to satisfy a general paranoia?

 

These predators have always been around. Instead of being hidden away as a deep dark and loathable secret, it's becoming more and more publicized, making folks more aware of their surroundings with the intent to make you more alert towards your child's safety.

 

A general law to prohibit an adult without children from being in the park is a badly written attempt at doing the right thing. It is a political knee jerk response without thinking ahead of the constitutional ramifications.

 

If a lurker has a criminal record as a child molestor, then they already have regulations in place prohibiting them from being within a specific distance of any child... period.

 

Lurkers without a criminal record, are just innocent people until they do something that breaks a well established law that has met the constitutional challenge. Lurking is not illegal so long as it doesn't infringe on other established laws.

 

Heck, if lurking was illegal, we'd have to round up all the folks lurking on these forums with no apparent good reason. Now how silly is that?

 

I'll not willingly give any law enforcement any power to arrest me just for hanging around.

Edited September 29, 2005 by TotemLake

[+JohnnyVegas]

It is amazing how popular this topic has been.

this issues was brought up on a local San Francisco talk radio station yesterday. One of the local leos called and said he had a feeling that another person in the park pushed the issue and the police officer that wrote the citation was put on the spot. He also said the Police in any large city do not have time to deal with issues like this.

[rynd]

I don't have time to read this entire thread right now so maybe this has already been said.

If a lone person sitting on bench in a park is such a dangerous situation it would make just as much sense to arrest the parents for endagering there child by takeing them to the park and would it not be much safer to ban children fom the park in the first place. Second it is disciminatory if that person is unable to have children of there own for medical reasons.

[+Moose Mob]

Personally, I commend the folks that are trying to find ways to bring our parks back.

 

One of the reasons people don't feel safe in parks is because of lurkers that stand around watching the kids play.

 

My question is... what law would you put in place that would...

... allow a mom to feel safer with her kids in the park, and

... give law enforcement something to work with when a lurker clearly has no business there?

Common sense?

 

Again, in looking at this park, if you're concerned about lurkers watching children, how does this rule prevent someone from standing at the fence of said park with a video camera taping the children at play?

 

Creepy people exist in our society...if a mom is concerned, call the police. They can the talk with the lurker and either encourage him/her to move along or decide they aren't a threat because they might enjoy nature and the sounds of children at play.

 

And moms (or dads) can hang out together and get to know each other so people help watch out for each other...and make suspicious lurkers feel unwelcome at the park.

 

I thoroughly enjoy taking my lunches in parks/playgrounds during my workweek. I rarely have my children with me at that point...why shouldn't I be allowed to sit there? or any of the other adults I've seen reading, eating, listening to music, etc., etc.??

Actually, I would have thought that knowing that police officer needs specific laws to enforce would be more common sense. I guess that just goes to show that common sense is not that common, and that the term is over used.

 

If you are taking your lunch and sitting at a picnic table minding your own business, I doubt I would will call the police on you. If you are standing outside the fence day after day videotaping my kid, I would get concerned and call the police.

 

Moms and Dads hanging together workls also, and the fact that they worked together to make a law that helps them gain control of thier parks is still commendable. Typically a park is lost to the less desirable elements when we allow the attitude "it's public property, we can do whatever we want whenever we want".

[Jeremy]

The questions should be asked...

 

Why is it illegal for me to sit in that park when I don't have children with me?

Why would the law allow me to be singled out like that?

What's the purpose behind it?

Same answer for all three: It is a park meant for kids to play and for their parents to supervise that play. It is not meant to be a place for you to have a picnic, or a sleeping place for vagrants, or a waiting area for a farmers market, or a place for young adults to congregate in groups.

[+geognerd]

Then I want an adult playground!!! Where are the adult playgrounds?

I just found a cache near what the cache owner described as a "geriatric playground." Very cool. Has shuffleboard and bocce ball courts. But it sounds like teenagers and skateboarders loiter there too. Maybe a law in this case to protect the seniors from hoodlums?

[+mini cacher]

Here is how I see it... and I'll try to make this one without emotion.

 

Issue #1: There should be places designated for children only.

To this I must ask "why?". If we take out all the "protect our children" issues, why does there have to be a place where only children are allowed to play? What is so wrong with a solo adult sitting on a park bench reading or even swinging? Again, safety issues aside, I don't think there needs to be places where adults with out kids are not allowed.

 

Issue #2: Protect our children from child predators.

I don't think this type of law is going to be effective with that. "Child playgrounds" are generally not that big. A parent who is watching over their child while they play should be able to intervene if they see actual trouble. If you are not watching over your child, well, don't blame me if something happens. Perhaps an otherwise law abiding citizen alone at the park might have noticed what happened. The chances of a police officer happening by at the same moment that a child predator is alone in the park (thus deterring them) is no greater with or without this law in place. So anything that might happen to a child is just as likely (or unlikely) to happen. If the officer happens by while the real crime is being committed, then they would have been caught with or without this law. However, the chances of a police officer happening by while a "regular" adult alone at the park is sitting there minding there own business (but now breaking a totally asinine law) increase with this law in place. They were not committing any crime other than this arbitrary one. If a parent feels there is a threatening person (with or without kids with them) they can always feel free to call the police or leave.

 

Issue #3: Keep vagrants out.

This is an issue that needs to be addressed city (perhaps nation) wide. Making a law that keeps them out of a few scattered 30' X 30' bark/sand covered areas is hardly a solution. Most playgrounds are in a larger park. If they feel the need to keep vagrants out of the playground they also should be trying to keep them out of the whole park. But if they are not breaking any other real laws, then why restrict them at all? A lot of cities have rules against sleeping in the parks and on the street and rules against pan-handling. In a lot of places, being in the possession of a shopping cart is also now a crime. If the police really need a reason to approach a vagrant, I'm sure they can find some other more worthy offence they are already doing, besides just sitting on a park bench like "regular" people do. In addition, the chance for actually catching a vagrant breaking this law versus a real law remains unchanged as in Issue #2. If a parent feels there is a threatening vagrant they can always feel free to call the police or leave.

 

Issue #4: Keep groups of young adults from congregating.

If the group of young adults is not breaking any other real laws (under-age smoking, drinking in public, doing drugs, vandalizing, etc) then so what if they hang out. This usually goes on much later that the "children" would be there any way. If the group is there after park hours, the cops already have a rule to make them leave... which is enforced for even adults with children. If it is during the day, as long as they are not causing any trouble, then whats wrong with them being there. Again the chances of catching them breaking this law versus a real law remains unchanged as in Issue #2. If a parent feels there is a threatening gang of thugs they can always feel free to call the police or leave.

 

Bottom line is this... what ever "activities" this rule was meant to reduce, the rule-breakers that participate in those activities are not likely to obey this rule either. If they want to do something wrong in the park, they'll do it. So now you have kept otherwise law abiding people out of a park and just added another rule for the others to break while they break the other rules they already break. Have we really solved anything? Let's not make a police officer have to question anybody that is not actually committing a real crime. Then they don't have to worry about police harrassment.

 

Oh, and this does pertain to geocaching in the fact that there are parks where there might be a cache hidden and child-less cachers are subject fines for attempting them. The fact that this lady was reading and not caching is just a detail of this story. We've heard of cachers getting questioned for poking around parks where rules like this one are not in place. If rules like this one start getting applied to more parks, it is only a matter of time before the person in the story is a geocacher. Whether this lady made the situation worse by getting attitude is unknown. If she did, I would not blame her much since I would probably be ticked if I was in that situation... a situation that would not have existed in the first place had this stupid rule not been there.

Edited September 29, 2005 by mini cacher

[+TotemLake]

The questions should be asked...

 

Why is it illegal for me to sit in that park when I don't have children with me?

Why would the law allow me to be singled out like that?

What's the purpose behind it?

Same answer for all three: It is a park meant for kids to play and for their parents to supervise that play. It is not meant to be a place for you to have a picnic, or a sleeping place for vagrants, or a waiting area for a farmers market, or a place for young adults to congregate in groups.

Not good enough. If it is a public park, it is discriminatory. I will also add loitering laws are rarely effective, easily challenged and thrown out as unconstitutional. Seattle has experienced just such cases.

Edited September 29, 2005 by TotemLake

[Skovar]

To borrow from Freud: "Sometimes a playground is just a playground."

 

There are many small playgrounds or gardens in each borough of NYC that are fenced in, gated, locked, and controlled by a neighborhood association. Some of these areas are privately owned, but many are city owned with control of the area granted to the neighborhood associations. Follow their rules or you will be asked to leave ... or a police officer will be called to remove you.

 

The playground in question allows much freer access than many. I'm sure it wouldn't be much of a problem to create a neighborhood association, if one doesn't already exist, close the gate and restrict access to keyholders. Would that make you happier?

Edited September 29, 2005 by Skovar

[+TotemLake]

Exclusion by lock and key is a poor method of control. After about the first year, the enthusiasm has waned and the gate is left open. Then it becomes the same argument of whether or not the private agreement between city and neighborhood is legal or not and it is arguable it is discriminatory. The best you can hope for is to maintain public awareness, stop depending on the law to provide a private park out of a public one, and utilize neighborhood watch as a method of keeping check on strangers in the area. I practice that and it works well. People with no legitimate reason of being in an area can hardly stand direct scrutiny by a nosy neighbor.

Edited September 29, 2005 by TotemLake

[magellan315]

Here is the latest from the NY Daily news:Web Link

Sounds like the cop was a little to by the book. Note the comment from one of the local parents who uses the park.

 

I'm not even going to touch if the kids and parents only sign is exclusionary. What bothers me the most is that the police officer should have handled this better.

****************************

No kidding - no adults!

 

Sitting on a park bench - alone - earns dancer ticket

 

BY ADAM LISBERG

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

 

Sandra Catena and the bench where she was busted.

A woman looking for a place to sit down on the lower East Side last weekend says she found herself in trouble with a couple of playground bullies - from the NYPD.

 

"It was a little scary," said Sandra Catena, who was issued a summons for being in the children-only Rivington Playground Saturday afternoon. "It was insane."

 

Dressed in a turtleneck, skirt and flip-flops, the 47-year-old professional belly dancer was waiting for an arts festival to start when she wandered into the playground. She didn't notice a small sign at the entrance that says: "Playground Rules Prohibit: Adults Except in the Company of Children."

 

Within minutes of sitting on a bench, she said, two 5th Precinct cops approached with hands resting on their guns.

 

"They walked toward me and said, 'Excuse me, are you accompanied by a child?' I said, 'No.' They said, 'You're breaking the law,'" Catena said. "Then he called backup. Do I look dangerous?"

 

One cop told her the judge probably will toss the ticket when she goes to court in November, she said, but that's small consolation - especially when she could get 90days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

 

The Parks Department designated some playgrounds offlimits for lone adults in 1996, a department source said.

 

An NYPD spokesman defended issuing the summons, saying the rule is designed to protect children from pedophiles. The Parks Department source said the rule is necessary, but suggested that discretion should have been used in this case.

 

"A woman walking into a playground in the middle of the day and ... and getting a ticket is not the way you'd want to enforce the rule," the source said.

 

It was equally outrageous to Meagan Shapiro, 40, who lives nearby and has taken her 18-month-old son Matan Ziv there several times a week for the past six months.

 

"I see people here all the time without kids," she said. "That's crazy."

 

Originally published on September 27, 2005

[+Moose Mob]

Here is how I see it... and I'll try to make this one without emotion.

 

Issue #1: There should be places designated for children only.

To this I must ask "why?". If we take out all the "protect our children" issues, why does there have to be a place where only children are allowed to play? What is so wrong with a solo adult sitting on a park bench reading or even swinging? Again, safety issues aside, I don't think there needs to be places where adults with out kids are not allowed.

 

Issue #2: Protect our children from child predators.

I don't think this type of law is going to be effective with that. "Child playgrounds" are generally not that big. A parent who is watching over their child while they play should be able to intervene if they see actual trouble. If you are not watching over your child, well, don't blame me if something happens. Perhaps an otherwise law abiding citizen alone at the park might have noticed what happened. The chances of a police officer happening by at the same moment that a child predator is alone in the park (thus deterring them) is no greater with or without this law in place. So anything that might happen to a child is just as likely (or unlikely) to happen. If the officer happens by while the real crime is being committed, then they would have been caught with or without this law. However, the chances of a police officer happening by while a "regular" adult alone at the park is sitting there minding there own business (but now breaking a totally asinine law) increase with this law in place. They were not committing any crime other than this arbitrary one. If a parent feels there is a threatening person (with or without kids with them) they can always feel free to call the police or leave.

 

Issue #3: Keep vagrants out.

This is an issue that needs to be addressed city (perhaps nation) wide. Making a law that keeps them out of a few scattered 30' X 30' bark/sand covered areas is hardly a solution. Most playgrounds are in a larger park. If they feel the need to keep vagrants out of the playground they also should be trying to keep them out of the whole park. But if they are not breaking any other real laws, then why restrict them at all? A lot of cities have rules against sleeping in the parks and on the street and rules against pan-handling. In a lot of places, being in the possession of a shopping cart is also now a crime. If the police really need a reason to approach a vagrant, I'm sure they can find some other more worthy offence they are already doing, besides just sitting on a park bench like "regular" people do. In addition, the chance for actually catching a vagrant breaking this law versus a real law remains unchanged as in Issue #2. If a parent feels there is a threatening vagrant they can always feel free to call the police or leave.

 

Issue #4: Keep groups of young adults from congregating.

If the group of young adults is not breaking any other real laws (under-age smoking, drinking in public, doing drugs, vandalizing, etc) then so what if they hang out. This usually goes on much later that the "children" would be there any way. If the group is there after park hours, the cops already have a rule to make them leave... which is enforced for even adults with children. If it is during the day, as long as they are not causing any trouble, then whats wrong with them being there. Again the chances of catching them breaking this law versus a real law remains unchanged as in Issue #2. If a parent feels there is a threatening gang of thugs they can always feel free to call the police or leave.

 

Bottom line is this... what ever "activities" this rule was meant to reduce, the rule-breakers that participate in those activities are not likely to obey this rule either. If they want to do something wrong in the park, they'll do it. So now you have kept otherwise law abiding people out of a park and just added another rule for the others to break while they break the other rules they already break. Have we really solved anything? Let's not make a police officer have to question anybody that is not actually committing a real crime. Then they don't have to worry about police harrassment.

 

Oh, and this does pertain to geocaching in the fact that there are parks where there might be a cache hidden and child-less cachers are subject fines for attempting them. The fact that this lady was reading and not caching is just a detail of this story. We've heard of cachers getting questioned for poking around parks where rules like this one are not in place. If rules like this one start getting applied to more parks, it is only a matter of time before the person in the story is a geocacher. Whether this lady made the situation worse by getting attitude is unknown. If she did, I would not blame her much since I would probably be ticked if I was in that situation... a situation that would not have existed in the first place had this stupid rule not been there.

It would appear the point was missed completely.

 

Sorry, if I am not as wordy... I will just refer back to the points already stated.

[+mini cacher]

It would appear the point was missed completely.

 

Sorry, if I am not as wordy... I will just refer back to the points already stated.

huh? There have been different people argueing different points and I thought I was addressing them with comments of how I see it. is there a specific point that I completely missed? you don't even have to be wordy, just link back to that specific point.

[+Moose Mob]

It would appear the point was missed completely.

 

Sorry, if I am not as wordy... I will just refer back to the points already stated.

huh? There have been different people argueing different points and I thought I was addressing them with comments of how I see it. is there a specific point that I completely missed? you don't even have to be wordy, just link back to that specific point.

When a worried mom calls because some guy is sitting on a bench staring at her kids playing, this type of law gives police officers something to work with, something to enforce. It is a step in giving the park back to the public.

 

Lets look at what is right with this type of law. If we look for what's wrong with laws (any laws) we can always find something that sounds wrong.

[Team KPD DJ]

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

First of all, Haus, please, do us all a favor and cut the cops some slack. While I do agree that there are morons with badges (just as there are morons in ANY profession), most cops are just doing their job. They are paid to ENFORCE the law, not determine the validity of the law, or only enforce the laws that they think are worth enforcing. I fully agree that this particular law is completely asinine, and that the particulars of the law should be revisited. All I am saying is don’t blame the police for the ignorance of our law makers.

 

I would also like to point out that, as one of your previous posts mentioned, the police are hosed any way you look at it: (1) Enforce a stupid law to the LETTER of that law. (and I promise you that the Police think that a lot of these type of laws are just a stupid as we think they are.) OR (2) Enforce a stupid law to the SPIRIT of the law (meaning, no you’re not going to, for example, ticket a woman very obviously taking pictures of her kid). But if they do that they get tagged for “selective enforcement”

 

That is the real issue here: Letter of the Law vs. Spirit of the Law. And the fact is that Laws DO NOT stop crime, they only keep honest people honest. However, in the case of Geocaching in public parks…well, the word PUBLIC should be sufficient.

[+mini cacher]

When a worried mom calls because some guy is sitting on a bench staring at her kids playing, this type of law gives police officers something to work with, something to enforce.  It is a step in giving the park back to the public.

 

Lets look at what is right with this type of law.  If we look for what's wrong with laws (any laws) we can always find something that sounds wrong.

Oh that point. Well that is easy (and some what already addressed in my wordy post). If the guy is actually committing a crime and not just being "creepy" or whatever else made the mom worry then the cops already have something to work with, something to enforce. If he is not committing a crime then the cops don't need something to work with or enforce. Why manufacture a crime that gives cops a reason to remove "creepy" people when it ends up punishing a lot more "regular" people? While I've looked for what is right about this law, I just don't see it. The closest thing to "right" is that the law makers/pushers probably had good intentions... but good intentions don't make good laws. So that only leaves the wrong to point out.

 

Ok, I'm off to the park.... don't worry, I'm taking my child with me. But I will no doubt plant my 32 year old butt into a swing.

 

One last addition... thankfully it is not against the law to be creepy... or else I never would have made it through my "goth" phase without a criminal record.

Edited September 29, 2005 by mini cacher

[+budd-rdc]

It would appear the point was missed completely.

 

Sorry, if I am not as wordy... I will just refer back to the points already stated.

huh? There have been different people argueing different points and I thought I was addressing them with comments of how I see it. is there a specific point that I completely missed? you don't even have to be wordy, just link back to that specific point.

When a worried mom calls because some guy is sitting on a bench staring at her kids playing, this type of law gives police officers something to work with, something to enforce. It is a step in giving the park back to the public.

 

Lets look at what is right with this type of law. If we look for what's wrong with laws (any laws) we can always find something that sounds wrong.

I actually don't mind the intent of the law, and in my experience, police officers have been more helpful than hurtful to me, so no complaints about them either.

 

The problem I have is the trend of how the laws are getting more petty, and this one seems that way, regardless of intent. I think mini cacher's examples of other laws (anti-vagrant, anti-loitering, etc.) should have been enough to keep suspicious people out of playground areas.

 

If a society is expect to respect the laws, shouldn't they have at least an ounce of respectability? I'm not sure if this thread reflects the majority opinion, but if it does, then there's a trend of "dissing" laws due to their pettiness, and THAT is where I see the problem.

Edited September 29, 2005 by budd-rdc

[Clan Riffster]

A cop's perspective...

 

A lot of folks are claiming this law is not discriminatory. To these arguments I say "Hogwash".

 

From dictionary.com;

dis·crim·i·na·tion n.

The act of discriminating.

Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.

Unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice.

 

How then, is not allowing me to enter a park, which my tax dollars have helped pay for, simply because I choose not to reproduce, not discriminatory? Sorry, telling me that I can use the park so long as I bring somebody else's kids does not address the fact that I, alone, have been barred. Their treatment, (banishment), of me based upon my class, (childless adult), equals discrimination. I have no doubt that the courts would see it that way as well. Kinda makes me wish I was a childless New Yorker. This could be lots of fun!

 

The best thing to do as a voter, when an asinine, knee jerk law like this is proposed, is to shoot it down in political flames. Obviously this didn't happen, so the next best option is to fight it tooth & nail. Civil disobedience has had a formative effect on our entire nation, and would probably be effective in moving this ridiculous law into obscurity where it belongs.

 

I was going to say that only New York could come up with such nonsense, but then I remembered California.

[+joefrog]

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...

Even sadder, there are more than a few cases where the pedophile is the one wearing the uniform...

[Skovar]

Exclusion by lock and key is a poor method of control. After about the first year, the enthusiasm has waned and the gate is left open.

 

No. Some of these gardens/playgrounds are between 50 and 100 years old. The wrought iron fences, gates, and locks, continue to restrict access as intended.

 

The best you can hope for is to maintain public awareness, stop depending on the law to provide a private park out of a public one, and utilize neighborhood watch as a method of keeping check on strangers in the area. I practice that and it works well. People with no legitimate reason of being in an area can hardly stand direct scrutiny by a nosy neighbor.

 

Public awareness? In this day and age where so many people don't even know the names of their next door "neighbors?" You think most of those people actually care one iota about what happens to your kids down at the playground? No doubt that's precisely why many of these seemingly frivolous laws needed to be enacted.

[+Salvelinus]

A cop's perspective...

 

A lot of folks are claiming this law is not discriminatory. To these arguments I say "Hogwash".

 

From dictionary.com;

dis·crim·i·na·tion n.

The act of discriminating.

Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.

Unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice.

 

How then, is not allowing me to enter a park, which my tax dollars have helped pay for, simply because I choose not to reproduce, not discriminatory? Sorry, telling me that I can use the park so long as I bring somebody else's kids does not address the fact that I, alone, have been barred. Their treatment, (banishment), of me based upon my class, (childless adult), equals discrimination. I have no doubt that the courts would see it that way as well. Kinda makes me wish I was a childless New Yorker. This could be lots of fun!

 

The best thing to do as a voter, when an asinine, knee jerk law like this is proposed, is to shoot it down in political flames. Obviously this didn't happen, so the next best option is to fight it tooth & nail. Civil disobedience has had a formative effect on our entire nation, and would probably be effective in moving this ridiculous law into obscurity where it belongs.

 

I was going to say that only New York could come up with such nonsense, but then I remembered California.

You would be correct if the rules said "Adults who don't have any children cannot use the park"... but it doesn't say that.

 

It says "Adults who use this park must accompany a child". That means, it is legally open to anyone, and you can bet they worded it that way on purpose.

 

In practice, the rule may make someone without kids "feel" discriminated against, but legally, they are not.

 

Salvelinus

[+mini cacher]

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...

Even sadder, there are more than a few cases where the pedophile is the one wearing the uniform...

... or is at the park with their kids ...

 

edit: my other comment was too OT for the humor to make up for.

Edited September 29, 2005 by mini cacher

[+Renegade Knight]

....When a worried mom calls because some guy is sitting on a bench staring at her kids playing, this type of law gives police officers something to work with, something to enforce.  It is a step in giving the park back to the public....

Some worried moms are stressing over nothing and some guys staring at kids are lost in thought. The police have a tool to work with but it's a broad tool.

 

Worried people are why whoopie cushions get called in as bombs(I have the press clipping for this example). Are we finding more bombs because there are more things getting reported, or are we reporting on more things in general and actually spending more time on false alarms for every real deal now? In other words, is the anti adult in the park law actually an effective tool for it's purpose?

Edited September 29, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[+Moose Mob]

We can allways find examples of the extreme. I will not argue there. Innocent people go to jail frequently. That does not mean we should arbitrarily let everyone out of prison because they "might" be innocent.

 

"This land is paid for by my tax dollars so I have every right to be here."

Use that as logic to run the gates at a military base, enter the judges chambers in your local court, or drive the wrong way on the interstate. Some logic just doesn't hold water when put under scrutiny.

 

As far as it being illegal to be in kiddie section of the park without a kid, I still feel it's valid, morally correct, and should be enforced in a reasonable manner. I will not try to tell you you are wrong in your beliefs. I think the people you need to convince are your lawmakers and the Mom's that created the law. Personaly, I still support the concept.

 

Hmm... Perhaps a permit system is in order?

[+mini cacher]

That does not mean we should arbitrarily let everyone out of prison because they "might" be innocent.

Nor should we arbitrarily punish people because they "might" be criminal.

 

Too bad it is usually a lot harder to get a dumb law removed than it is to get one passed.

 

Breaching a military or government boundry has legitimate national security concerns. Do they go over board at times? Probably do at times.

Entering a judges chambers has some serious privacy issues as you don't know what legal business is being conducted behind those doors.

Driving the other direction on the interstate has measureable safety issues there so it makes a bit more sense to tell people which way to drive

 

Now, if they said you may not breach the Army base boundry, enter the judges chamber or drive the other direction on the interstate... unless you have a penguin with you, then we have something to talk about.

[+Moose Mob]

A non-military person can enter the base when escorted by a military member. Is that good enough?

 

Conceptually, it's the same. A non-qualified person may enter if they are with a qualified person. The only difference is national security versus personal security.

[Clan Riffster]

You would be correct if the rules said "Adults who don't have any children cannot use the park"... but it doesn't say that.

 

It says "Adults who use this park must accompany a child".

And they are fundamentally different, how?

 

They both exclude me, a law abiding tax payer, from stepping foot onto public property, which I helped pay for, simply because I choose not to propagate. There statement specifically prohibits adults without children from entering, therefore it cannot be argued that the park is open for everyone.

 

It's laws like this that only serve to punish the average law abiding citizen, while not affecting the actions of the law violating citizen in any measurable way. Kinda like most gun laws. Only those folks who obey the law are punished.

[+mini cacher]

Conceptually, it's the same. A non-qualified person may enter if they are with a qualified person. The only difference is national security versus personal security.

That is a pretty far stretch from national security to personal security (or insecurity) but if you need to over simplify it to try to make your point go ahead. We can agree to disagree. One thing we can agree on is that "some logic just doesn't hold water when put under scrutiny." But then some does.

[+TotemLake]

The best you can hope for is to maintain public awareness, stop depending on the law to provide a private park out of a public one, and utilize neighborhood watch as a method of keeping check on strangers in the area. I practice that and it works well. People with no legitimate reason of being in an area can hardly stand direct scrutiny by a nosy neighbor.

 

Public awareness? In this day and age where so many people don't even know the names of their next door "neighbors?" You think most of those people actually care one iota about what happens to your kids down at the playground? No doubt that's precisely why many of these seemingly frivolous laws needed to be enacted.

I can't speak for other neighborhoods, but in mine, the answer is yes, they do care. What happens in our neighborhood affects us all. We may not know each other's names, but we know when something odd is afoot. Just ask Anonymous. Nosy neighbors keeping aware of what's happening around them is the best deterrent to illicit behavior.

 

I can say more, but it would just be rehashing my opinion.

[+Cryptid]

I like to go the the Playground and watch the children run, climb, scream and hide, it's funny, they don't know I'm using blanks. Emo Phillips.