PDA

View Full Version : Kokesh's next battle? Eating donuts for LIBERTY!




teacherone
06-10-2011, 06:39 AM
Two Women Ticketed For Eating Doughnuts In A Brooklyn Playground


It was a glorious afternoon in early June when I took a friend of mine, who was visiting from New Haven, to Dough, an amazing doughnut shop in Bed-Stuy. Dough is tiny, but there was a park across the street, where I, as well as other doughnut lovers, had eaten doughnuts before. My friend and I entered the park, sat down on a bench and ate our doughnuts. Having finished, we sat there chatting for a few minutes.

As we were getting ready to move on, two officers approached us. Amongst themselves they debated whether the children’s toy next to us meant that we were there with a child. Then they asked us, “Are you here with a child?” We told them no. One of the cops moved on to the couple on a bench nearby, also ostensibly childless, while the other one asked for our IDs. We handed them over and soon we were being guarded by this cop as his partner took our IDs to their police car. My friend and I were confused. We had seen parks with gates that had a sign clearly stating that adults without children were not allowed in. This park had no such sign.
When the cop that was guarding us asked if we had ever gotten summonses before, I asked him 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. It was a list of about fifteen park regulations. You would have to be no more than three feet away from it in order to read it. It looked something like this. Except there were no bullet points. Would they issue a kid a summons for standing on the swings? Or an adult, in the company of a child, a summons for taking off her shoes? According to the violation we got, 1-03(c2), “not complying with park signs,” they could do that. Based on my experience, I actually think they would.

I got really angry and asked the officer if he honestly believed he was helping this community by giving us these summonses. His response only made me more angry. “I don’t believe in anything,” he said. “You don’t believe in anything? In helping people? Then you probably shouldn’t be a cop,” I said. This did not make him happy and he asked me, “Well, do you think you are being a model citizen right now?” I knew that I had to stop talking, that I was taking this too much to heart, that my poor visitor was getting more and more anxious, but I could not believe what was happening. “Do you think that being a model citizen means saying nothing when you see something you disagree with being done with your tax dollars? Because that is a model citizen in a totalitarian country.” He just shook his head at me. And at that point I did stop talking.

His partner returned. He had written two of the summons. We had been there for over twenty minutes now. He handed over our IDs to the cop that had been guarding us. Of course, they each had their own numbers to maintain so they were splitting the violations.

This cop attempted to be sympathetic. He proceeded to tell us that he was trying to be a gentleman by just giving us summonses instead of taking us in for questioning, because that was what “they” wanted him to do. If he just gave us warnings and told us to leave, he would get in trouble for “doing nothing all day.” He went on to say that all he did when he was growing up was “do Tae Kwon Do and go to school.” “Are you trying to say that we are bad people for sitting on a bench in a park and eating doughnuts?” I asked him, just trying to figure out where he was going with this. “No, no, I’m just saying that I never got in trouble. Sometimes I play basketball,” he said, pointing at the courts behind him. Not in that park, he doesn’t. Not unless he has a kid strapped to his back at the time.

Finally, we were given our summonses and were free to go. Because we hadn’t been drinking alcohol or urinating in public, we do not have the option of pleading guilty by mail. Not that I am planning on pleading guilty. But either way, we have to show up in court or a warrant will be issued for our arrest. My friend does not live in New York and I am out of the country all summer, so this is going to be an ordeal in itself, given that the summons has no information on how to contact the court. Nor do we know how much we owe. Because the cops had no idea about that, either. They were just “doing their jobs,” in the most mindless sense of that phrase.

I have three little nephews and I appreciate that keeping children safe is the thinking behind this rule. But this is basically trying to deter pedophiles with the equivalent of a speeding ticket. Meanwhile, in parts of the city with minimal amounts of public green spaces, people are taught that they are being “bad” citizens for sitting on a bench for a few minutes. The regulations are as they are and they were posted, but does the issuing of summonses to people who even the police do not actually believe are posing a danger, with no prior warning, accord with the law's protective intent?

http://gothamist.com/2011/06/06/ticketed_for_eating_a_doughnut_in_a.php

acptulsa
06-10-2011, 06:54 AM
Insanity. So, childless people not only subsidize parents by giving up property (and other) taxes to run the schools, but are now banned from the city parks in some places? If you don't provide the state with more children they can later use as cannon fodder (or just haven't done so lately), you're less than a second class citizen? You will be detained at the airport if the TSA thinks your mannerisms and facial expressions indicate a nefarious intent, and you will be banned from public spaces just because the fact that you're not there with a child means you might possibly have nefarious intent.

Kiss a crazy person. Better than kissing an insane person, and these days there seems to be only the two groups to choose from...

CaseyJones
06-10-2011, 07:08 AM
good lord I would have been arrested

pauladin
06-10-2011, 07:14 AM
let's be honest. cops just want all the donuts for themselves.

t0rnado
06-10-2011, 07:45 AM
let's be honest. cops just want all the donuts for themselves.

They probably wanted the little kids for themselves too.

http://i545.photobucket.com/albums/hh390/smurf-jesus-turtle/PedoBearCop.jpg

Mani
06-10-2011, 09:50 AM
The scary part is how many people defend the law and the cops in the comments.

UtahApocalypse
06-10-2011, 09:55 AM
Then they asked us,"Are you here with a child?"; We told them no. One of the cops moved on to the couple on a bench nearby, also ostensibly childless, while the other one asked for our IDs. We handed them over

First mistake.

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-10-2011, 09:58 AM
ID... don't leave home with it...

idirtify
06-10-2011, 10:18 AM
Teacherone,

Let me understand this. Childless people cannot set in the park for over a certain length of time, right? That’s what this is about, right? It’s not about eating doughnuts, right? If so, what is the time limit? (I guess this is one reason why NY was recently listed as one of the worst states for personal freedom.)

idirtify
06-10-2011, 10:24 AM
The scary part is how many people defend the law and the cops in the comments.

Although you’ll almost always see that kind of thing in comments sections, I too am always amazed. I think this reveals a huge problem in basic human psychology. Let’s call them “power groupies”. They will always side with those in power and ridicule those who question it as stupid and asking for what they get. It's really quite depressing.

angelatc
06-10-2011, 10:25 AM
The death of common sense. I'm sure the point of this law was to keep the homeless and the junkies away so the kids wouldn't have to play among the puddles of urine and needles. An admirable goal. But then you throw in some ticket quotas, and bingo! Instant revenue machine.

olehounddog
06-10-2011, 10:33 AM
ID... don't leave home with it...
Only time I leave home with ID is when I drive. Bought a money clip for my FRN's.

Brooklyn Red Leg
06-10-2011, 10:59 AM
The death of common sense. I'm sure the point of this law was to keep the homeless and the junkies away so the kids wouldn't have to play among the puddles of urine and needles. An admirable goal. But then you throw in some ticket quotas, and bingo! Instant revenue machine.

Best way to deal with homeless people? Throw them in jail. No homeless people in sight, no homeless problem. That was sarcasm, btw. It is my considered opinion (having been homeless for a time) that people who make and/or advocate such laws would benefit from living homeless for about 2 months or so and see what it is like.

Anti Federalist
06-10-2011, 11:38 AM
Welkome to Amerika.

That which is not required, is prohibited.

Anti Federalist
06-10-2011, 11:39 AM
The scary part is how many people defend the law and the cops in the comments.

Unique to the NY/NJ/CT Tristate area.

Cops are worshiped almost to the point of Sainthood by the Mundanes of these states.

teacherone
06-10-2011, 11:41 AM
I got really angry and asked the officer if he honestly believed he was helping this community by giving us these summonses. His response only made me more angry. “I don’t believe in anything,” he said.

Do they advertise for nihilists at the Police Academy?

Anti Federalist
06-10-2011, 12:19 PM
Do they advertise for nihilists at the Police Academy?

Dedicated, committed nihilists.

emazur
06-10-2011, 02:07 PM
If Adamarxist Kommunikesh joined this battle, you know what kind of donuts he'd eat? RED jelly filled, like the red that fills his soul!

Raudsarw
06-10-2011, 02:27 PM
Although you’ll almost always see that kind of thing in comments sections, I too am always amazed. I think this reveals a huge problem in basic human psychology. Let’s call them “power groupies”. They will always side with those in power and ridicule those who question it as stupid and asking for what they get. It's really quite depressing.

I personally know of a case in my town, some teenagers were having a party in an apartment. They were being noisy, and someone decided to call the police. Now they were a nuisance, but what happened next cannot be justified. The host told everyone to shut up and went to answer the door. The host said that they'd keep it down, but the officers demanded to be let in. The host said that they'd need a warrant, after which one of the police officers told him to shut up and marched in without a warrant. They then rounded up all the minors inside and took them to the station, charging them for underage drinking. This was posted on a few forums, and people were applauding the police for "doing something to stop minors drinking". They also defended police officers randomly stopping and searching kids on the street for cigarettes! Apparently being of a certain age is probable cause! The police quite simply violated the law, realizing full well that teenagers did not know their rights and would not go to court to defend themselves. And they're the heroes...

Brian4Liberty
06-10-2011, 02:36 PM
But it's for the children! :rolleyes:

FrankRep
06-10-2011, 02:39 PM
The law is: Adults without children are not allowed in the park.


Not about donuts

A Son of Liberty
06-10-2011, 02:55 PM
If Adamarxist Kommunikesh joined this battle, you know what kind of donuts he'd eat? RED jelly filled, like the red that fills his soul!

This is a very funny and sadly under-appreciated post! :lol:

angelatc
06-10-2011, 03:14 PM
Best way to deal with homeless people? Throw them in jail. No homeless people in sight, no homeless problem. That was sarcasm, btw. It is my considered opinion (having been homeless for a time) that people who make and/or advocate such laws would benefit from living homeless for about 2 months or so and see what it is like.

And as someone who visited Bryant Park in the late '70's, I think that people who have kids should be allowed to take their kids to the park without being constantly harangued by vagrants and worrying about the behavior of crazed junkies.

If the parks were not public, this wouldn't be a problem. Since they aren't, the legislators get to make rules about what goes on in parks. I can see their point in this case.

amy31416
06-10-2011, 03:15 PM
The law is: Adults without children are not allowed in the park.


Not about donuts

I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-10-2011, 03:17 PM
And as someone who visited Bryant Park in the late '70's, I think that people who have kids should be allowed to take their kids to the park without being constantly harangued by vagrants and worrying about the behavior of crazed junkies.

If the parks were not public, this wouldn't be a problem. Since they aren't, the legislators get to make rules about what goes on in parks. I can see their point in this case.

Except everyone pays for the parks, and unless the 'vagrants' literally never spend a penny, then they too pay for the parks. That's the difference between Government and non-Government. One is payed through theft whether you want to pay for it or not, and the other is not. Therefore, it is not the legislators who get a say, it is we the sovereign who do. There should never be exclusion to anyone on any Government property. It's absurd, and wrong. The rightful remedy is to abolish Government property, and have non-Government parks and recreation. Then those people can exclude who they want, since no one will be forced to pay for their upkeep, or usage of the property.

FrankRep
06-10-2011, 03:24 PM
Except everyone pays for the parks, and unless the 'vagrants' literally never spend a penny,

Parks close at 10:00 PM right? Time to protest!!

emazur
06-10-2011, 03:35 PM
And as someone who visited Bryant Park in the late '70's, I think that people who have kids should be allowed to take their kids to the park without being constantly harangued by vagrants and worrying about the behavior of crazed junkies.

If the parks were not public, this wouldn't be a problem. Since they aren't, the legislators get to make rules about what goes on in parks. I can see their point in this case.

If cops can find the time to go to parks and harass donut eaters, they instead can find the time to go to parks and sweep out the vagrants and crazed junkies.

A Son of Liberty
06-10-2011, 03:42 PM
Except everyone pays for the parks, and unless the 'vagrants' literally never spend a penny, then they too pay for the parks. That's the difference between Government and non-Government. One is payed through theft whether you want to pay for it or not, and the other is not. Therefore, it is not the legislators who get a say, it is we the sovereign who do. There should never be exclusion to anyone on any Government property. It's absurd, and wrong. The rightful remedy is to abolish Government property, and have non-Government parks and recreation. Then those people can exclude who they want, since no one will be forced to pay for their upkeep, or usage of the property.

Quite right, and I'm not sure what's difficult about this... Why dio some people believe that it's okay to hold up some other people for stuff they want?

Interesting morality, that.

low preference guy
06-10-2011, 03:44 PM
I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.

hehehe

amy31416
06-10-2011, 03:52 PM
Dammit. Now I'm hungry for a doughnut, well, more like doughnut holes. One of the kind with white powdered sugar, and one of those chocolate ones with the slightly crunchy sugar glaze.

pcosmar
06-10-2011, 03:56 PM
Although you’ll almost always see that kind of thing in comments sections, I too am always amazed. I think this reveals a huge problem in basic human psychology. Let’s call them “power groupies”. They will always side with those in power and ridicule those who question it as stupid and asking for what they get. It's really quite depressing.

I usually consider it Stockholm Syndrome.

Yes, it is depressing.
:(

heavenlyboy34
06-10-2011, 04:08 PM
Except everyone pays for the parks, and unless the 'vagrants' literally never spend a penny, then they too pay for the parks. That's the difference between Government and non-Government. One is payed through theft whether you want to pay for it or not, and the other is not. Therefore, it is not the legislators who get a say, it is we the sovereign who do. There should never be exclusion to anyone on any Government property. It's absurd, and wrong. The rightful remedy is to abolish Government property, and have non-Government parks and recreation. Then those people can exclude who they want, since no one will be forced to pay for their upkeep, or usage of the property.
QFT and importance :cool:

Danke
06-10-2011, 04:10 PM
I'm calling you all out! ... except Frank.

Danke
06-10-2011, 04:20 PM
I'm calling you all out! ... except Frank.

Dustancostine
06-10-2011, 04:53 PM
I should got to these parks with my three kids and lease out the kid watchinf rights to two of them to donut eaters.

pcosmar
06-10-2011, 05:00 PM
I should got to these parks with my three kids and lease out the kid watchinf rights to two of them to donut eaters.

Gotta recoup that investment.
;)

noneedtoaggress
06-10-2011, 06:09 PM
The law is: Adults without children are not allowed in the park.


Not about donuts

This statement either obliviously misses the entire point or misrepresents the discussion once again.

This appeal to authoritarianism is an attempt to elevate in social status under the guise of authority: the (man-made, unjust) law. It's the same line of reasoning the police use to enable their own actions which could be construed as criminal to anyone who was not sanctioned by the state to enforce such "laws".

When asked whether the law was just the officer replied - "I don't believe in anything." read: "I have no say in the matter. It's 'the law' and i'm paid to enforce it, don't push it any further than that because I don't want to try to reconcile what I'm doing with my beliefs as an individual." When called out on his response he got irritated because the woman confronted him as an individual rather than a mindless robot who was "just following orders." He wants to separate his authoritarian actions from himself as an individual so he can get a paycheck and pretend he was doing his job well instead of thinking philosophically about what the proposed purpose of his job really is.

What is the proper policy for the park?
What is the proper price of breaking park policies?

So long as the park is "public" these will always be problems, these decisions will simply be the arbitrary demands of bureaucrats with illegitimate control and an army of unquestioning "law enforcers".