+Mitragorz Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) Drinking booze, skateboarding, roller-blading, selling things, and walking dogs are not people, they're activities. It stands to reason that you can allow and not allow certain activities in a park. We're not talking about activities, we're talking about people, and for the most part people who actually pay for that park (with tax dollars they pay) and are not allowed to use. Not the same thing at all, sorry. No, we're still talking about activities. It is illegal to be in the park without a child. "Be" is a verb. It's an activity. It's an activity that is illegal in that park. You cannot BE in the park without a child. Just like drinking booze, roller-blading, selling things, and walking dogs are illegal in many parks. If you're not satisfied with "be" then "accompany" is also an activity. You cannot be in the park unless you are accompanying a child. Are you also anti-library? Because they only let people with library cards take out books. Maybe we should take them to court for discrimination, since they are public places (that are tax-payer-funded!) that have restrictions on allowing certain people to perform certain activities. Uh, libraries aren't allowed to tell people they can't come in. You missed the point completely. What I'm saying is that a library is a public place that limits the activities that certain people can do. In a library, you cannot take out a book (an ACTIVITY!) unless you are accompanied by a library card. In this park, you cannot enter (an ACTIVITY!) unless you are accompanied by a child. In a library, you can look at the books, but can't take them home. In this park, you can look at the children, but can't take them home. The last two are obviously in jest, but the point is: Both are public places that restrict activities based on what you have with you at the time. The fact that it's a "public" place doesn't automatically mean you have the ability to enjoy all its benefits. Edited June 8, 2011 by Mitragorz Quote Link to comment
+buttaskotch Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 There's some playgrounds that truly have signs that say, "no adults unless accompanied by a minor". I have a feeling they are leaving this part out, for better story purposes. They buried it in the article. After saying "This park had no such sign," the article goes on to say: I asked [the cop] if he could show me the sign that alerted people to the fact that they were about to commit a violation by sitting on a bench. We looked at the sign together. "That? I'm supposed to read that?" I asked. He said yes. Apparently, the sign was not clear enough. The signs are quite clear. We also have signs that state that parks are closed at either a posted time or at dusk. This is a security measure. Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I'd be inclined to sue the city if I were them; a public park is a public park. Absolutely, even when the public equates child molesters and perverts can sit there and leer at tiny children. This is in NYC. While it may not be to your liking this rule is there to protect children and give them an area to play safely. Yet another reason why geocachers should be acutely aware of where they place caches. Ahhh.... OK. They forgo our civil rights for the children. I understand now. Quote Link to comment
+Sioneva Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 No, we're still talking about activities. It is illegal to be in the park without a child. "Be" is a verb. It's an activity. It's an activity that is illegal in that park. You cannot BE in the park without a child. Just like drinking booze, roller-blading, selling things, and walking dogs are illegal in many parks. If you're not satisfied with "be" then "accompany" is also an activity. You cannot be in the park unless you are accompanying a child. Are you also anti-library? Because they only let people with library cards take out books. Maybe we should take them to court for discrimination, since they are public places (that are tax-payer-funded!) that have restrictions on allowing certain people to perform certain activities. Uh, libraries aren't allowed to tell people they can't come in. You missed the point completely. What I'm saying is that a library is a public place that limits the activities that certain people can do. In a library, you cannot take out a book (an ACTIVITY!) unless you are accompanied by a library card. In this park, you cannot enter (an ACTIVITY!) unless you are accompanied by a child. No, I think you did. You can enter a library. Some people can take books out. A library is just as public a place as a park. Why can you enter one and not the other? Your analogy breaks down - the equivalent comparision would be to say, "You can enter the park, but only certain people can play on the equipment, or use the restroom". Quote Link to comment
+buttaskotch Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I have never seen a park with signs like that but if they did I would obey them. Good luck fighting it though, ignorance of a law does not excuse you from it. You don't have to fight it on being ignorant of it; you can fight it because you shouldn't be barred from a public park. Most of our city parks are closed to the public between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. Portions of some parks are closed to the public in an attempt to allow vegetation to grow back. At least one of our city parks is entirely closed to the public 24/7, complete with "No Trespassing" signs. Occasionally, certain trails in our provincial parks are closed to the public when bears are known to be in the area. You might feel that people shouldn't be barred from public parks, but it is a frequent occurrence. vincenzosi I know you are from NYC as am I, and know that areas in NYC parks designated playgrounds are solely for children to play in while their caregivers watch on. And designed to protect children from predators. Sure two young women eating donuts look innocuous enough, until they run and snatch a child. Would you want people loitering around near your children in the kiddie area? Are you always going to be around to protect them? How about thinking about some person looking around under park benches with a strange device walking in circles, does that look normal. This is the age of "If you see something, say something" If you truly feel that you should be able to hang out in the kiddie area because its public despite the reasons I put forth, then go for it. But I urge you to see past your "rage" on this issue and think of the children. Quote Link to comment
+Manville Possum Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I would have promptly recieved another ticket for littering when I threw the first one on the dirt. I'll see you in court bud. You would have got tazed by their partner. Quote Link to comment
+Mitragorz Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) No, I think you did. You can enter a library. Some people can take books out. A library is just as public a place as a park. Why can you enter one and not the other? Your analogy breaks down - the equivalent comparision would be to say, "You can enter the park, but only certain people can play on the equipment, or use the restroom". No, you're still not getting the comparison correctly: Library -Public place -Funded by tax-payers -Has restrictions on what activities certain individuals can perform. Park -Public place -Funded by tax-payers -Has restrictions on what activities certain individuals can perform. It doesn't matter what the "activity" is, they are equal in that they both impose restrictions upon people who don't meet certain criteria. How about town beaches that only allow town residents to enter the beach? It's a public place, but you need a sticker to get in. It discriminates against non-residents, but you can't sue them. The governing body (The Town) says that certain people (non-residents) cannot enter. With the park, the governing body (The City, Village, County, whoever) says that certain people (people without a child with them) cannot enter. Not everybody can go get a sticker, just like not everybody can go out and get a child. It's not infringing upon any of your rights. Edited June 8, 2011 by Mitragorz Quote Link to comment
+Harry Dolphin Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Most New York City playgrounds have that warning. "No adults unless accompaned by a child". The standard list has 7 or so items on it. It is not hard to read, and not written in small letters. (These are standard signs placed at the entrance to all playgrounds.) Generally, I do not go into them. I was looking for a benchmark in one, and was yelled at by and adult accompanied by two small children. His language was obscene. He was several hundred feet away when he decided to confrontme. Poor kids! But, the laws are not routinely enforced. I frequent one with a rest room, near a subway stop. Same warning, but there are usually fifteen or so unaccompanied adults. New sign at all NYC playgrounds: Metal surfaces may become hot in the sunlight. Use proper caution. So the thing I wonder about is, what is a child? 5? 8? 12? 16? I suppose by the time the child turns 18 you can't use the kid for cover any more. And what, heaven forbid, a "child" goes into the park by himself? Probably not much of a problem for a 14 year old since he is probably packing heat. I'm sure the intent is pure, but the law is stupid. Many points to be considered here. Many posters are misinterpreting the difference between 'playground' and 'park'. A playground is a set area for children to play on playground equipment. Presumably with their parents keeping watch. No reason for adults not supervising the children to be there. The constitutionality of banning non-accompanying adults is one major question. Banning certain classes of people from an area. Probably a good idea. But is it constitutional? I don't know. Many people here are misconstruing 'people' from 'activity'. Discriminating against a certain set of people. In this case, adults not accompanied by children. A major problen that NYC has is differentiating between 'park' and 'playground'. The one instance I cited is a playground that used to be a park. And this might be the problem with the playground cited by OP. The one I'm thinking about used to be a 'park', with the vital restrooms near the subway stop. It was rebuilt recently. It's probably 80% playground. But it's still 20% 'park'. Though I've seen some rather aged children on the basketball courts. The locals (and I) use the 'park' as remembered, rather than as now defined. I've never seen anyone have a problem. The park service is permitted to disallow activities in areas of a park. "Lawn is being resodded. Stay off." "Permit required to play ball." No. I'm not walking across the ball field during a game. Another question is asked here about 'fascism'. Yes. New York City is noted for what many are calling 'fascism'. I call it neo-NAZI Goody-Two-Shoes. NYC has banned smoking its parks. Stil permits dogs to poop. Still permits people to expel gasses. Still permits foul exhausts from busses. That is Bloomberg facism. Though the laws prohibiting smoking on sidewalks in front of hospitals predates Bloomberg. A NYC CO once called me/us one of the most fearless cachers in the city. (I've cleared Manhattan of caches three times.) I've been to some very strange parts of the city. But that was before we were concerned about the cachemobile. Interesting park in Washington Heights. Obviously that guy is selling drugs from the back of his van. Not a problem. Not a great neighborhood, but we've been in worse. But, when we got back, someone was parked next to the cachemobile, checking her out. When we approached, he moved off. That was an awakening for us. With the new neo-NAZI/fascist laws, I will no longer be visiting New York City Parks. Dolphin doesn't go where dolphin ain't wanted. If I solve the remaining Gates Puzzle caches, I will log a note "Solved it". Are these laws legal/consitutional? Possibly. But I'll find other places that are not discriminatory to find caches. But I'll still use the rest room in the 'playground'! Quote Link to comment
+Sioneva Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 How about town beaches that only allow town residents to enter the beach? It's a public place, but you need a sticker to get in. It discriminates against town residents, but you can't sue them. The governing body (The Town) says that certain people (non-residents) cannot enter. With the park, the governing body (The City, Village, County, whoever) says that certain people (people without a child with them) cannot enter. Not everybody can go get a sticker, just like not everybody can go out and get a child. It's not infringing upon any of your rights. Those are better examples than the library. Your library anaolgy fails. Those don't. And it's still wrong to to treat everyone like they are a sexual molester when they are just sitting peacefully eating donuts. And I'm done. Quote Link to comment
+GeePa Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Absolutely, even when the public equates child molesters and perverts can sit there and leer at tiny children. This is in NYC. While it may not be to your liking this rule is there to protect children and give them an area to play safely. Yet another reason why geocachers should be acutely aware of where they place caches. Who says child molesters and perverts don't have children? This is a case of serious profiling and it is wrong. What ever happened to a free society where we are innocent until we are actually proven guilty of a crime. Where does it stop, maybe we shouldn't let ugly people in the park because they might look scary to children. Maybe since I am a white male over 30 I should not be allowed in any public space where there are children just on the off chance I am some kind of criminal who harms children. It's a slippery slope. Quote Link to comment
+vincenzosi Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) I know you are from NYC as am I, and know that areas in NYC parks designated playgrounds are solely for children to play in while their caregivers watch on. And designed to protect children from predators. Yes, but in that "design" they assume all adults are predators unless they walk through a gate with a child. That's not protecting kids from predators, that's comforting adults who succumb to paranoia because every minute they're being told how their kids could be snatched at any moment... Sure two young women eating donuts look innocuous enough, until they run and snatch a child. Like that. Of course, that completely ignores that most kidnappings and molestations occur by people the kid knows, not strangers at a park. Would you want people loitering around near your children in the kiddie area? Are you always going to be around to protect them? Not the point. How about thinking about some person looking around under park benches with a strange device walking in circles, does that look normal. This is the age of "If you see something, say something" So let me ask you a question. This park that I hid the cache in that I posted about earlier. I hid the cache under a bench that happened to be on the playground, not on the equipment. Let's pretend that playground had a sign that said "No adults without children" at the gate. My feet hurt, and the only bench in that park (true story) are the ones in the playground, so I go there and sit down. Do I deserve to be arrested or ticketed for it? The sign says I do. It doesn't say "no geocaching in the playground" it says "no adults in the playground." Now let's say me and 8 of my friends go to the park with my kid. I let him play while we sit on the benches and bulls***. How many of us are accompanying the child? Are we all parents? Are we all safe? Or are we all presumed to be pedophiles EXCEPT for me because he's my son? Do you give 7 tickets and a pass? Do you kick us all out? Do we all stay? How many people are considered "accompanying" versus how many are considered extraneous? Do you see how many cans of worms you open up with these silly rules?If you truly feel that you should be able to hang out in the kiddie area because its public despite the reasons I put forth, then go for it. That's not the point, and God knows I don't need to be hassled, but I'm not the one who got the ticket. I could promise if I was, I wouldn't take it just because it's the rule unless I believed the rule to be fair. I don't. That doesn't mean I'm chomping at the bit to break it and prove a point, but these women have inadvertently stumbled into something that's worth fighting over. But I urge you to see past your "rage" on this issue and think of the children. There's an old adage in political science and jurisprudence that says that you can always tell bad laws, rules, or regulations when the justification is "for the children." There are plenty of ways to protect kids. Presuming all adults are predatory pedophiles isn't one of them. Edited June 8, 2011 by vincenzosi Quote Link to comment
+Mitragorz Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) EDIT: Not sure why it posted my post twice, and so far apart... Edited June 8, 2011 by Mitragorz Quote Link to comment
+vincenzosi Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Who says child molesters and perverts don't have children? Don't you know? History clearly shows us that no one in history has ever molested their own kid. You obviously didn't get the memo. I'll PM it to you. Quote Link to comment
+vincenzosi Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 And the last thing I'm going to add to this and then I have to be done because this thread sucked WAY too much of my time today... There's STILL no official rule about putting Geocaches in playgrounds, just moderator prerogative. Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I have never seen a park with signs like that but if they did I would obey them. Good luck fighting it though, ignorance of a law does not excuse you from it. You don't have to fight it on being ignorant of it; you can fight it because you shouldn't be barred from a public park. Most of our city parks are closed to the public between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. Portions of some parks are closed to the public in an attempt to allow vegetation to grow back. At least one of our city parks is entirely closed to the public 24/7, complete with "No Trespassing" signs. Occasionally, certain trails in our provincial parks are closed to the public when bears are known to be in the area. You might feel that people shouldn't be barred from public parks, but it is a frequent occurrence. vincenzosi I know you are from NYC as am I, and know that areas in NYC parks designated playgrounds are solely for children to play in while their caregivers watch on. And designed to protect children from predators. Sure two young women eating donuts look innocuous enough, until they run and snatch a child. Would you want people loitering around near your children in the kiddie area? Are you always going to be around to protect them? How about thinking about some person looking around under park benches with a strange device walking in circles, does that look normal. This is the age of "If you see something, say something" If you truly feel that you should be able to hang out in the kiddie area because its public despite the reasons I put forth, then go for it. But I urge you to see past your "rage" on this issue and think of the children. The crime would be snatching that child, not sitting in that park. What you have described is a "thought crime". Or even less than that. I understand where you are coming from in wanting a safe place for the children, and I am also somewhat glad to see (in a way) that they have extended their profiling to women. But the fact is... the park is a public place that is paid for by childless people as well. Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 No, I think you did. You can enter a library. Some people can take books out. A library is just as public a place as a park. Why can you enter one and not the other? Your analogy breaks down - the equivalent comparision would be to say, "You can enter the park, but only certain people can play on the equipment, or use the restroom". No, you're still not getting the comparison correctly: Library -Public place -Funded by tax-payers -Has restrictions on what activities certain individuals can perform. Park -Public place -Funded by tax-payers -Has restrictions on what activities certain individuals can perform. It doesn't matter what the "activity" is, they are equal in that they both impose restrictions upon people who don't meet certain criteria. How about town beaches that only allow town residents to enter the beach? It's a public place, but you need a sticker to get in. It discriminates against non-residents, but you can't sue them. The governing body (The Town) says that certain people (non-residents) cannot enter. With the park, the governing body (The City, Village, County, whoever) says that certain people (people without a child with them) cannot enter. Not everybody can go get a sticker, just like not everybody can go out and get a child. It's not infringing upon any of your rights. Anybody can get a library card. That is a huge difference. Town beaches... private property for access. Not a good comparison. And if I happen to be mistaken about that, regarding your particular private beach, then perhaps that only serves to provide yet one more breach on our civil liberties. Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Absolutely, even when the public equates child molesters and perverts can sit there and leer at tiny children. This is in NYC. While it may not be to your liking this rule is there to protect children and give them an area to play safely. Yet another reason why geocachers should be acutely aware of where they place caches. Who says child molesters and perverts don't have children? This is a case of serious profiling and it is wrong. What ever happened to a free society where we are innocent until we are actually proven guilty of a crime. Where does it stop, maybe we shouldn't let ugly people in the park because they might look scary to children. Maybe since I am a white male over 30 I should not be allowed in any public space where there are children just on the off chance I am some kind of criminal who harms children. It's a slippery slope. While I am on your side regarding the profiling, I must tell you that your interpretation of innocent until proven guilty is grossly ignorant of the facts. That commonly cited statement only holds true during a trial. It refers to the fact that, in our legal system, the burden of proof of guilt is upon the accuser. The one charged does not have to prove their innocence... the one making the charges must prove their guilt. Quote Link to comment
AZcachemeister Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Who says child molesters and perverts don't have children? Don't you know? History clearly shows us that no one in history has ever molested their own kid. You obviously didn't get the memo. I'll PM it to you. Not true. And here in AZ we even have a case of a Geocacher who was convicted as such. No, I won't provide the sordid details. Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Who says child molesters and perverts don't have children? Don't you know? History clearly shows us that no one in history has ever molested their own kid. You obviously didn't get the memo. I'll PM it to you. Not true. And here in AZ we even have a case of a Geocacher who was convicted as such. No, I won't provide the sordid details. Actually, I wish that you would provide us with some of the less-sordid details, at least. Was this somebody that was simply using geocaching as his/her cover? I guess that I can at least assume from your post that the convection was somehow geocaching related, and not simply somebody that happened to be a geocacher also happened to be convicted as a child molester. Quote Link to comment
+vincenzosi Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Who says child molesters and perverts don't have children? Don't you know? History clearly shows us that no one in history has ever molested their own kid. You obviously didn't get the memo. I'll PM it to you. Not true. And here in AZ we even have a case of a Geocacher who was convicted as such. No, I won't provide the sordid details. We need a sarcasm tag lol Quote Link to comment
+Mitragorz Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) Anybody can get a library card. That is a huge difference. Actually, not as big as you think. Only NYS residents are eligible for library cards from the New York Public Library. They're putting restrictions on which people can use their services... Just like the park. You can only gain full access to the library's services when you have a library card. You can only gain full access to the park's services when you have a child with you. I went to a public library in Minnesota a few years back to use the internet. They wouldn't let me, bc I didn't meet their criteria. No library card, no internet. I didn't get all up in arms about it. Sure you can go INTO the library [city], but you can't access all of its perks, like the internet [parks]. That one's a good analogy! Edited June 8, 2011 by Mitragorz Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Anybody can get a library card. That is a huge difference. Actually, not as big as you think. Only NYS residents are eligible for library cards from the New York Public Library. They're putting restrictions on which people can use their services... Just like the park. You can only gain full access to the library's services when you have a library card. You can only gain full access to the park's services when you have a child with you. I went to a public library in Minnesota a few years back to use the internet. They wouldn't let me, bc I didn't meet their criteria. No criteria, no internet. I didn't get all up in arms about it. Sure you can go INTO the library [city], but you can't access all of its perks, like the internet [parks]. Perhaps you should have. But since I don't know the full circumstances, that is mere speculation. I am in Minnesota, and all they required of me to get a library card was a name and address. Quote Link to comment
+Sioneva Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) entering Library = entering Park using library card = using playground equipment. Why is this equivalency so hard ... no, never mind. Yeah. It's like picking a scab, it's so hard to leave it alone. Someone please stop me. Please. Edit: Besides, this really doesn't have anything to do with geocaching. Donuts, yes. Edited June 8, 2011 by Sioneva Quote Link to comment
+GeePa Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 While I am on your side regarding the profiling, I must tell you that your interpretation of innocent until proven guilty is grossly ignorant of the facts. That commonly cited statement only holds true during a trial. It refers to the fact that, in our legal system, the burden of proof of guilt is upon the accuser. The one charged does not have to prove their innocence... the one making the charges must prove their guilt. I agree fully. I guess I really used the wrong terms. Basically, I feel the law itself is denying someone the ability to do something simply because they are assumed to be up to no good for doing it. Sounds like we need the pre-crime unit from Minority Report. Quote Link to comment
+GeePa Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 entering Library = entering Park using library card = using playground equipment. Why is this equivalency so hard ... no, never mind. Yeah. It's like picking a scab, it's so hard to leave it alone. Someone please stop me. Please. Edit: Besides, this really doesn't have anything to do with geocaching. Donuts, yes. I don't see that as equal at all. Are you saying that people should go out and get a child simply so they can use the park that they pay for with their tax dollars. I think this is asking a bit much. A library card is just a piece of paper and a little easier to obtain than a child and involves a smidge less responsibility and commitment. That said, I have no problem from them saying I cannot use the equipment because I am an adult just like I cannot check out a book without a card (I don't know of a library that won't let you in at all without a card). But to deny legal entry altogether is going too far. Quote Link to comment
+Sioneva Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) entering Library = entering Park using library card = using playground equipment. Why is this equivalency so hard ... no, never mind. Yeah. It's like picking a scab, it's so hard to leave it alone. Someone please stop me. Please. Edit: Besides, this really doesn't have anything to do with geocaching. Donuts, yes. I don't see that as equal at all. Are you saying that people should go out and get a child simply so they can use the park that they pay for with their tax dollars. I think this is asking a bit much. A library card is just a piece of paper and a little easier to obtain than a child and involves a smidge less responsibility and commitment. That said, I have no problem from them saying I cannot use the equipment because I am an adult just like I cannot check out a book without a card (I don't know of a library that won't let you in at all without a card). But to deny legal entry altogether is going too far. No, I'm trying to say that people have just as much legal right to go into a park as they do into a library. And that what they do in a library or a park is the activity, entering the park or library is not. For the record, I still enjoying playing on playground equipment sometimes. If it's big enough. I like slides. I like climbing stuff. I have no children and none around to borrow for camo... I wouldn't like to be told I couldn't do it because I might be a molester. Edited June 8, 2011 by Sioneva Quote Link to comment
+Mitragorz Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) Ok, I promise this will be the last time I try to explain what I'm saying... I'll switch the analogy up a bit. I'll even use my own example of being denied internet in a public library and I won't even mention taking out books! Think of it this way: Library = City Internet = Park Library Card = Child Websites = Playground Equipment I walked into a library. I wanted to use the library's internet. I found out that a library card is needed to access the internet. I couldn't get into the internet because I didn't have a library card. I am unable to get a library card. The websites don't really matter since I can't get on the internet anyway. Now just switch out each item with its equivalent! It fits perfectly! The statement you come up with is no worse than the one above, and I don't see anyone suing over the denial of a library's internet access. Not everyone can get a library card just like not everyone can get a child! EDIT: Consider hacking into the library's internet the equivalent of walking through the park entrance without a child... You're gaining unauthorized access. The librarian = the police, and she'll punish you if you're caught breaking the rules! Edited June 8, 2011 by Mitragorz Quote Link to comment
+Sioneva Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) Ok, I promise this will be the last time I try to explain what I'm saying... I'll switch the analogy up a bit. I'll even use my own example of being denied internet in a public library and I won't even mention taking out books! Think of it this way: Library = City Internet = Park Library Card = Child Websites = Playground Equipment I walked into a library. I wanted to use the library's internet. I found out that a library card is needed to access the internet. I couldn't get into the internet because I didn't have a library card. I am unable to get a library card. The websites don't really matter since I can't get on the internet anyway. Now just switch out each item with its equivalent! It fits perfectly! The statement you come up with is no worse than the one above, and I don't see anyone suing over the denial of a library's internet access. Not everyone can get a library card just like not everyone can get a child! Uh, great, I guess, but I still don't see why a child is required, if someone wants to eat a donut or go down a slide. The rules are there in the library for a reason, to protect library resources, whether taking out a book or accessing the internet. Do people hurt a bench by sitting on it? A slide by going down it? A child, if they happen to make eye contact? Pople have a right to use a park they help pay taxes to maintain. No one asks if they have children when the time comes to collect the taxes, why make them 'borrow' a child to peacefully enjoy what they've helped pay for? In any case, I'm glad I don't live where I have to take into account these stupid practices. Edited June 8, 2011 by Sioneva Quote Link to comment
+G & C Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I stopped reading at "San Francisco." I'm still waiting for that big earthquake... Quote Link to comment
+sshipway Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Coming from New Zealand, if I had seen a sign saying 'no adults unless accompanied by children' I would have though it was a joke... Also, to be honest now, practically noone reads the noticeboards at the entrance to the park. There could be something saying 'only people over 185cm allowed' and noone would know. The sensible thing to have done in this situation would have been to just ignore them as they were causing no trouble. The next most sensible thing would have been to simply ask them to leave, giving the reason. Of course, maybe they became mouthy and decided to make trouble, and so the policeman decided to stick to the letter of the (rather stupid, IMHO) bylaw. And before you ask, yes, I have small children. However I live in a country where the percentage of the population who are perverts is not so high that it has become necessary to assume all adults are kiddyfiddlers. Quote Link to comment
mresoteric Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I wonder if an article would have been written and we'd be discussing this if it were a couple of creepy old guys eating the donuts? Quote Link to comment
+CanadianRockies Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I have never seen a park with signs like that but if they did I would obey them. Good luck fighting it though, ignorance of a law does not excuse you from it. You don't have to fight it on being ignorant of it; you can fight it because you shouldn't be barred from a public park. Most of our city parks are closed to the public between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. Portions of some parks are closed to the public in an attempt to allow vegetation to grow back. At least one of our city parks is entirely closed to the public 24/7, complete with "No Trespassing" signs. Occasionally, certain trails in our provincial parks are closed to the public when bears are known to be in the area. You might feel that people shouldn't be barred from public parks, but it is a frequent occurrence. But those are exclusions that are applied equally across all, correct? It isn't excluding just a single sector of the tax-paying population based on profiling. I think that is the point that people are having a problem with. That wasn't the point vincenzosi appeared to be making. His argument seems to be that people who pay taxes should be allowed to use the parks. I don't recall his ever mentioning profiling. I could be wrong, though. Read his comment and see for yourself: We're not talking about activities, we're talking about people, and for the most part people who actually pay for that park (with tax dollars they pay) and are not allowed to use. Quote Link to comment
+Ambient_Skater Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 How young does the kid have to be? I'm thinking an enterprising young person could make a few bucks hiring out as a playground escort. "For $5 I'll tell the cops you are with me."That's a good idea! I bet I still look young enough. We don't have any parks around here prohibiting adults though. Quote Link to comment
+Sioneva Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 And before you ask, yes, I have small children. However I live in a country where the percentage of the population who are perverts is not so high that it has become necessary to assume all adults are kiddyfiddlers. The percentage isn't that high here, either. And it's not necessary, but the level of hyperventilating paranoia is going off the scale here, and I have no idea why. I don't know the root causes... does anyone? Quote Link to comment
+CanadianRockies Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 How young does the kid have to be? I'm thinking an enterprising young person could make a few bucks hiring out as a playground escort. "For $5 I'll tell the cops you are with me."That's a good idea! I bet I still look young enough. We don't have any parks around here prohibiting adults though. Just to set the record straight, it wasn't my idea: How young does the kid have to be? I'm thinking an enterprising young person could make a few bucks hiring out as a playground escort. "For $5 I'll tell the cops you are with me." Quote Link to comment
+Ambient_Skater Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Just to set the record straight, it wasn't my idea: How young does the kid have to be? I'm thinking an enterprising young person could make a few bucks hiring out as a playground escort. "For $5 I'll tell the cops you are with me." What difference does it make? I can never get all the quote names right. The BBcode looks like a huge mess to me. Quote Link to comment
+Chrysalides Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I stopped reading at "San Francisco." I'm still waiting for that big earthquake... Reading fail. The incident is in New York City. Quote Link to comment
+WRASTRO Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I know it is Wikipedia, but this is some interesting reading. In my opinion it reinforces the point that these playground laws are simply knee jerk reactions with little or no basis in fact or reality. Really, since most abductions are done by an estranged parent perhaps the "law" should be that parents are barred from the playgrounds and only non-related adults are allowed entry. Quote Link to comment
+Chrysalides Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 http://gothamist.com...ughnut_in_a.php "this weekend the police gave two young women in Bed-Stuy summonses for eating doughnuts in a playground while unaccompanied by a minor." Yet another reason to avoid muggles. That kind of crap is why I live in the country outside of city limits. I've lived in the suburbs my whole life, and visit the city very frequently. I hate the suburbs, nothing happens, it's boring and very few people are ever out. No block parties, nothing to do, no stores. Uggh. All of my aunts, uncles, sisters, ect ect... (I have like 5 aunts and one uncle) live in Philadelphia. I've been to block parties, on my relatives blocks, they have them often, they would hire a band, open up a fire hydrant, it was pure fun. Both of my parents moved to the suburbs of philadelphia before I was born (Most of the rest of my family stayed). I plan to move to the city when I get old enough to buy my own house/condo/rent. I can't imagine living in rural area's. So your post is really insulting to me, and everyone else who can't stand places other the cities. I don't understand how that can be insulting to you. I don't think he's really insulted. Probably just SERISOULY AGIGTATED! Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Drinking booze, skateboarding, roller-blading, selling things, and walking dogs are not people, they're activities. It stands to reason that you can allow and not allow certain activities in a park. We're not talking about activities, we're talking about people, and for the most part people who actually pay for that park (with tax dollars they pay) and are not allowed to use. Not the same thing at all, sorry. No, we're still talking about activities. It is illegal to be in the park without a child. "Be" is a verb. It's an activity. It's an activity that is illegal in that park. You cannot BE in the park without a child. Just like drinking booze, roller-blading, selling things, and walking dogs are illegal in many parks. If you're not satisfied with "be" then "accompany" is also an activity. You cannot be in the park unless you are accompanying a child. Are you also anti-library? Because they only let people with library cards take out books. Maybe we should take them to court for discrimination, since they are public places (that are tax-payer-funded!) that have restrictions on allowing certain people to perform certain activities. Uh, libraries aren't allowed to tell people they can't come in. I work in a library. There are certainly areas of a library that have restrictions as to who can be there. There are staff only areas and at least in my library study rooms that can only be used by graduate students. We also have restrictions about cell phone use and eating donuts (or any other food) in the library. I've been in lots of different libraries from the National Agriculture Libraries in both the U.S. and Tanzania, to the libraries at the World Bank and Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations to a tiny one room library in a trade college in Costa Rica. Libraries probably have as many or more restrictions than public parks but I *have* found geocaches in a couple of them. Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I stopped reading at "San Francisco." I'm still waiting for that big earthquake... I lived 10 miles from the epicenter of the 7.0 Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989. That was plenty big enough for me. Quote Link to comment
GOF and Bacall Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Leaving the issue of whether or not it is discriminatory aside it is still a ridiculous situation. Cops writing tickets for people sitting in the park when they could simply chase 'em out. What the heck. Are they required to write enough tickets to cover their salary? It's stupid. Quote Link to comment
+Sioneva Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Drinking booze, skateboarding, roller-blading, selling things, and walking dogs are not people, they're activities. It stands to reason that you can allow and not allow certain activities in a park. We're not talking about activities, we're talking about people, and for the most part people who actually pay for that park (with tax dollars they pay) and are not allowed to use. Not the same thing at all, sorry. No, we're still talking about activities. It is illegal to be in the park without a child. "Be" is a verb. It's an activity. It's an activity that is illegal in that park. You cannot BE in the park without a child. Just like drinking booze, roller-blading, selling things, and walking dogs are illegal in many parks. If you're not satisfied with "be" then "accompany" is also an activity. You cannot be in the park unless you are accompanying a child. Are you also anti-library? Because they only let people with library cards take out books. Maybe we should take them to court for discrimination, since they are public places (that are tax-payer-funded!) that have restrictions on allowing certain people to perform certain activities. Uh, libraries aren't allowed to tell people they can't come in. I work in a library. There are certainly areas of a library that have restrictions as to who can be there. There are staff only areas and at least in my library study rooms that can only be used by graduate students. We also have restrictions about cell phone use and eating donuts (or any other food) in the library. I've been in lots of different libraries from the National Agriculture Libraries in both the U.S. and Tanzania, to the libraries at the World Bank and Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations to a tiny one room library in a trade college in Costa Rica. Libraries probably have as many or more restrictions than public parks but I *have* found geocaches in a couple of them. I was actually thinking of the Richard Kreimer case in Morristown, NJ, but I just researched it a bit more and I didn't know that the verdict was reversed on appeal. So, mea culpa on that part. Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I was actually thinking of the Richard Kreimer case in Morristown, NJ, but I just researched it a bit more and I didn't know that the verdict was reversed on appeal. So, mea culpa on that part. (Link to Richard Kreimer and another point of view) Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Maybe if they had offered to share their donuts they wouldn't have received a citation. Quote Link to comment
+TomToad Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 And before you ask, yes, I have small children. However I live in a country where the percentage of the population who are perverts is not so high that it has become necessary to assume all adults are kiddyfiddlers. The percentage isn't that high here, either. And it's not necessary, but the level of hyperventilating paranoia is going off the scale here, and I have no idea why. I don't know the root causes... does anyone? Media. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I know you are from NYC as am I, and know that areas in NYC parks designated playgrounds are solely for children to play in while their caregivers watch on. And designed to protect children from predators. Sure two young women eating donuts look innocuous enough, until they run and snatch a child. Would you want people loitering around near your children in the kiddie area? Are you always going to be around to protect them? It seems to me that this law has it backwards. Rather than to only allow adults if they are accompanied by children, they should only allow children if accompanied by adults. After all, those donut eating women cannot snatch my kid if I am with my kid. Of course, this entire situation would be avoided if one (or both) of the women had merely stated that she was pregnant. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 But they can and do segregate persons inside the library as there are separate Child, Teen and General areas and these restrictions are enforced. Hennepin County Library, Minnesota. Every library that I've ever been in has had the books segregated, not the people. Quote Link to comment
+FloridaFour Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I tend to avoid any playgrounds if I am not with my kids. I did go to one once (no one was there), but I felt really, really conspicuous looking under the jungle gym. Apparantly the magnetic was somewhere inside that thing. Never did find it. But sitting eating a donut on a bench doesn't look all that suspicious, compared to what I did. I think the cop should've just asked them to leave, used some judgement in that case. Perhaps they gave him some attitude and it ticked him off, who knows. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.