My previous post on this topic tried to state the facts without injecting my own opinion. This post is just the opposite, all opinion. I should point out that last night was the final reading of the bill in city council. The bill passed 4-3. The curfew is now permanent, restricting unaccompanied teens from 10pm to 6am on Friday and Saturday nights.
I do not live in the city of Greenville. I don't directly pay taxes in the city, however, when I eat in downtown, a part of my meal costs (and the taxes on the meal) and my parking fees pay for city protection including police. On two of the nights recently, that protection failed and skirmishes resulted. As a patron of the restaurants, I can choose to eat on Main Street or out in the suburbs. Had city council not enacted this law, I would simply go somewhere else to eat. There are some nice restaurants outside downtown. I also recommend downtown to people visiting our city, if teens had been allowed to roam in packs, I would have stopped this recommendation. I don't do this out of protest, I simply take my money elsewhere and won't suggest a friend go to a dangerous place.
As a parent, I'm not directly affected by the curfew. My youngest is 19, so he can still "go with the flow" on Main Street without fear of arrest. When my kids were under 19, I would not have allowed them to go just to hang out. In fact, they rarely went anywhere just to hang out (except to a friend's house). I asked one of my children and they said that they did, on one occasion, go to one of the coffee houses before she was 18 and stayed after 10pm. This is allowed under the new law as she was visiting a particular downtown business.
In my opinion, teens have no reason to go downtown or anywhere else just to hang out. When they do, problems result. In a perfect world, parents would realize this and be aware where their teens were going. However, we live in a fallen world and a lot of parents either don't know or don't care. The law gives the police a method to get these teens off of Main St. It's likely they will go somewhere else, but hopefully in smaller numbers where they can be better managed.
One of the protests against the curfew was that it restricted freedom of speech and freedom of assembly - two parts of the Bill of Rights. My kids may remember that when they were teenagers, I told them they had no rights. Teens don't have the mental maturity to deal with situations that will come up.
I can easily envision my son, when he was 16, going down to the Falls Park to hang out (if he had been allowed - or under the guise of being at a friend's house). If this had happened and a 31 year old man had been passing out flyers for a sit-in, I can see him joining the protest. Had this happened and he had been arrested, I would have been very angry at someone organizing the protest. I think the case for contributing to the delinquency (arrest) of a minor would be strong.
Showing posts with label lawsuits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawsuits. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Of curfews and protests - Part 1
I live outside the city of Greenville, but visit the downtown area regularly. The city has done an excellent job of renovating the area and has a park that is outstanding (see here for details). It's nice for a romantic stroll with your significant other, a playdate with the kids, or just a place to meet and talk. We occasionally have street performers and even Shakespeare plays in the park (which is more culture than I can stand). Dinners downtown are a little pricey and you have to work at finding a parking place (or just break down and pay for it), but it's worth the price once in a while.
Recently, however, there have been some problems. Back in August, there were "between 500 and 800 young people at the park" and there were reports of them blocking streets and impacting business (source). As a result, the city implemented a temporary curfew affecting children under 18. The curfew starts at 10pm.
More recently, we had our Fall for Greenville festival - A "three-day event highlighting local restaurants and musical entertainment on five music stages" (see here) - it's just a weekend to walk the streets, enjoy some food and some music with the family. Unfortunately, after the event on Saturday this year there were fights, again mostly teenagers involved.
Now, the city council is considering making the curfew permanent and has scheduled a second reading of the new ordinance. Basically, kids under 18 without an adult would not be allowed on downtown business district streets after 10pm without an adult.
However, not everyone likes the idea of a curfew. I've been watching one outspoken individual, Dan Edge, who has been fighting it. Dan has started a blog and even staged a protest against the curfew early last month. During the protest, he passed out flyers encouraging others to join his "sit-in". At least three teens did join and stayed past curfew. When they were asked to leave, two left and a third stopped to talk to Mr. Edge. The third teen was arrested, prompting one of the other two to return and he was arrested. Mr. Edge was then arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Two counts, one for each of the teens that were arrested. (The long sordid details of this battle are on Mr. Edge's blog, I invite you to read it all there).
Dan Edge has some serious squabble about the new law, starting with the fact that there is no freedom of speech allowance. Yesterday was his first court appearance and I managed to go watch. Mr. Edge acted as his own attorney and he was advised several times of his rights to an attorney. As this was just a probable cause hearing, he felt it wasn't necessary. At the end of the hearing, the judge felt there was indeed probably cause to proceed and the matter is now being sent to the city attorney. The city attorney can hand this to a grand jury, who would decide whether or not to indict and then the case would go to trial.
During the hearing, the judge warned Mr. Edge that the hearing was NOT about the constitutionality of the ordinance nor even about the ordinance itself, but was strictly about his actions and was there evidence to pursue a trial on the grounds of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He advised that he did not want to turn this into a political forum. The judge decided that since two teens were arrested (he had heard one of those cases himself) and since Edge had been conversing with the teens and passing out flyers for the protest, the case should proceed.
In addition to the above, Mr. Edge feels like his civil rights were violated when he was arrested. He has announced that he is suing the city of Greenville. He's been interviewed by the local television station and as mentioned, he's started a blog to document the issue.
I've tried to stay objective in what I've written above, I'll come back in part 2 and offer my opinion. As always, I'm interested in your opinion and ask that you be respectful in anything you say here.
Recently, however, there have been some problems. Back in August, there were "between 500 and 800 young people at the park" and there were reports of them blocking streets and impacting business (source). As a result, the city implemented a temporary curfew affecting children under 18. The curfew starts at 10pm.
More recently, we had our Fall for Greenville festival - A "three-day event highlighting local restaurants and musical entertainment on five music stages" (see here) - it's just a weekend to walk the streets, enjoy some food and some music with the family. Unfortunately, after the event on Saturday this year there were fights, again mostly teenagers involved.
Now, the city council is considering making the curfew permanent and has scheduled a second reading of the new ordinance. Basically, kids under 18 without an adult would not be allowed on downtown business district streets after 10pm without an adult.
However, not everyone likes the idea of a curfew. I've been watching one outspoken individual, Dan Edge, who has been fighting it. Dan has started a blog and even staged a protest against the curfew early last month. During the protest, he passed out flyers encouraging others to join his "sit-in". At least three teens did join and stayed past curfew. When they were asked to leave, two left and a third stopped to talk to Mr. Edge. The third teen was arrested, prompting one of the other two to return and he was arrested. Mr. Edge was then arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Two counts, one for each of the teens that were arrested. (The long sordid details of this battle are on Mr. Edge's blog, I invite you to read it all there).
Dan Edge has some serious squabble about the new law, starting with the fact that there is no freedom of speech allowance. Yesterday was his first court appearance and I managed to go watch. Mr. Edge acted as his own attorney and he was advised several times of his rights to an attorney. As this was just a probable cause hearing, he felt it wasn't necessary. At the end of the hearing, the judge felt there was indeed probably cause to proceed and the matter is now being sent to the city attorney. The city attorney can hand this to a grand jury, who would decide whether or not to indict and then the case would go to trial.
During the hearing, the judge warned Mr. Edge that the hearing was NOT about the constitutionality of the ordinance nor even about the ordinance itself, but was strictly about his actions and was there evidence to pursue a trial on the grounds of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He advised that he did not want to turn this into a political forum. The judge decided that since two teens were arrested (he had heard one of those cases himself) and since Edge had been conversing with the teens and passing out flyers for the protest, the case should proceed.
In addition to the above, Mr. Edge feels like his civil rights were violated when he was arrested. He has announced that he is suing the city of Greenville. He's been interviewed by the local television station and as mentioned, he's started a blog to document the issue.
I've tried to stay objective in what I've written above, I'll come back in part 2 and offer my opinion. As always, I'm interested in your opinion and ask that you be respectful in anything you say here.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Aha Moment
We've all had one of those moments, times where something clicks and we suddenly understand something we've struggled with for a long time. Teacher's live for these moments and can see it in their student's eyes. Comic strips show it as a light bulb going off above your heard and from this article at WebMD, it may not be too far off (the article says these moments are "marked by a surge of electrical activity in the brain." - What will Al Gore say when he hears this, try to legislate aha's out of existence?)
But it seems that TV Queen Oprah may have had one too many "Aha" moments. She found out that Mutual of Omaha Bank (is MOB the correct acronym?) is the "official sponsor of the aha moment" according to their website here. Seems the MOB thinks an aha moment is that "moment of clarity... a defining moment when you gain real wisdom - wisdom you can use to change your life." A little wordy, but a good definition.
Oprah's lawyers sent the MOB a letter telling them to cease and desist using the phrase, for fear it might look like she supports the MOB. She claims the legal rights to those words. Of course the MOB claims that even if she trademarked the phrase, "she 'abandoned' those rights by failing to 'police their alleged mark' when other businesses used it in the past. (source here). Seems the MOB thinks the words are free game (but then how could they be the sponsor?)
Looks like all of this is headed to court. I hope the judge has an "aha moment" and throws it out AFTER splitting court costs between the two parties. And I hope they don't see my post and start coming after me. But if they do, I'll just claim that with the greenhouse effect, I'm afraid to use any additional electrical charges in my brain for fear of the environment. Hey, I wonder if that excuse will work for my boss?
Friday, May 02, 2008
Civil Union
This isn't a subject I typically discuss. It's never affected me or anyone close to me directly (at least to my knowledge). But I heard about a case today that brings this to a new light.
Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller lived in Virginia which does not allow unions of same-sex couples. So they took a trip to Vermont to have their relationship legalized. Of course, since they lived in Virginia (which has a strong law against these unions) their relationship would still go unrecognized.
Lisa wanted a baby. Together (by one report, other reports say no) they went to the doctor's office to conceive along with the help of Donor 2309. Four months after Lisa delivered a little girl, Isabella, they decided to move to Vermont, where their relationship was legal.
But as happens in many relationships, things turned sour. Lisa moved back to Virginia and took little Isabella with her. This is when things got confusing. Seems that Janet wanted custody. The Washington Post has a LONG history of the case here, and it gets confusing. I hope you'll go read it, but you might need to take notes as you go along.
At the heart of the case is which state's laws apply? Of course, if it becomes messy enough to go to the Supreme Court, the question will be can Virginia establish a law to not recognize Vermont marriages. If a homosexual couple marries in Vermont, does Virginia have to recognize it? In the past, I felt like this was a matter best left to the states, but the supremes may decide others.
Reading the details of the story, I'd bet that the case will be decided on some technicality. There are questions about jurisdiction, improper representation and what the mother signed vs what she understood. I'm afraid the supremes will choose not to get involved with the meat of this case and dodge it instead. But be watching the case of Miller v Jenkins.
* updated spelling
Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller lived in Virginia which does not allow unions of same-sex couples. So they took a trip to Vermont to have their relationship legalized. Of course, since they lived in Virginia (which has a strong law against these unions) their relationship would still go unrecognized.
Lisa wanted a baby. Together (by one report, other reports say no) they went to the doctor's office to conceive along with the help of Donor 2309. Four months after Lisa delivered a little girl, Isabella, they decided to move to Vermont, where their relationship was legal.
But as happens in many relationships, things turned sour. Lisa moved back to Virginia and took little Isabella with her. This is when things got confusing. Seems that Janet wanted custody. The Washington Post has a LONG history of the case here, and it gets confusing. I hope you'll go read it, but you might need to take notes as you go along.
At the heart of the case is which state's laws apply? Of course, if it becomes messy enough to go to the Supreme Court, the question will be can Virginia establish a law to not recognize Vermont marriages. If a homosexual couple marries in Vermont, does Virginia have to recognize it? In the past, I felt like this was a matter best left to the states, but the supremes may decide others.
Reading the details of the story, I'd bet that the case will be decided on some technicality. There are questions about jurisdiction, improper representation and what the mother signed vs what she understood. I'm afraid the supremes will choose not to get involved with the meat of this case and dodge it instead. But be watching the case of Miller v Jenkins.
* updated spelling
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Occupancy by more than 50 people...
... is dangerous and unlawful.
That's what the sign on the wall of this courtroom said where I spent the first hour of this day (more on why I was there in another post, another day).
So, when we crowded 92 people into this room made for 50, I was just a little surprised. What a way to show respect for the law...
That's what the sign on the wall of this courtroom said where I spent the first hour of this day (more on why I was there in another post, another day).
So, when we crowded 92 people into this room made for 50, I was just a little surprised. What a way to show respect for the law...
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Texas Student Booted From School for Wearing John Edwards T-Shirt
Apparently, it's against the rules in a particular Texas school district to wear t-shirts with political slogans. Read the whole story here.
The question becomes, does the school district have the right (or responsibility) to restrict the clothes worn in order to keep the peace in school? Apparently, the fact that it was an Edwards shirt really didn't matter, the student would have had the same punishment for wearing a Clinton, Obama, Rudy or Thompson shirt.
The parents are talking about a law-suit (of course), claiming freedom of speech. I side with the school district here. If the policy was well documented (I'm assuming here), then they should be allowed to enforce the policy. The parents could sue, but shouldn't allow their son to wear the shirt until the policy is changed.
Somehow parents need to understand that the schools are at a disadvantage. They get complaints when they don't set standards, and then complaints when they do. Parents should support the schools, then work through normal channels to effect changes if needed. Using your kid (or allowing your kid) to effect the changes is just plain wrong. Kids need to respect authority, even if the authority is wrong. There's a better way to correct the wrongs.
The question becomes, does the school district have the right (or responsibility) to restrict the clothes worn in order to keep the peace in school? Apparently, the fact that it was an Edwards shirt really didn't matter, the student would have had the same punishment for wearing a Clinton, Obama, Rudy or Thompson shirt.
The parents are talking about a law-suit (of course), claiming freedom of speech. I side with the school district here. If the policy was well documented (I'm assuming here), then they should be allowed to enforce the policy. The parents could sue, but shouldn't allow their son to wear the shirt until the policy is changed.
Somehow parents need to understand that the schools are at a disadvantage. They get complaints when they don't set standards, and then complaints when they do. Parents should support the schools, then work through normal channels to effect changes if needed. Using your kid (or allowing your kid) to effect the changes is just plain wrong. Kids need to respect authority, even if the authority is wrong. There's a better way to correct the wrongs.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Divorce American Style
You may have seen the story featured on NBC's Today. (Some of) the women that read this will love it. (Some of) the men will snicker. Personally, I think it's funnny and sad at the same time. Pardon the subject line, a bad take-off on an old TV show (shows my age).
Seems Leroy Greer and his wife were on the outs. Their marriage was headed to Divorce Court. During the separation, unknown to his wife, Leroy found a new friend, surely for emotional support. But things with the wife improved and they got back together. Until.
Leroy's wife received a thank you note from 1-800-FLOWERS. Realizing that she hadn't received any flowers, she called the office and asked for a copy of the receipt. Not realizing the predicament (or maybe some scorned admin realized it and wished to cause Leroy more pain) she received a copy of the receipt along with a copy of the card which said "Just wanted to say I love you".
I'm sure Leroy explained that it didn't really mean anything and that she (his wife) was the only one for him, but she didn't accept the story. Instead, she increased the amount she was asking for in the divorce settlement. Of course Leroy says that worse than the financial impact, his marriage is now soured and he's suing 1-800-FLOWERS (it's the American way).
You can't make this stuff up. Read one account here. Your comments welcome
Seems Leroy Greer and his wife were on the outs. Their marriage was headed to Divorce Court. During the separation, unknown to his wife, Leroy found a new friend, surely for emotional support. But things with the wife improved and they got back together. Until.
Leroy's wife received a thank you note from 1-800-FLOWERS. Realizing that she hadn't received any flowers, she called the office and asked for a copy of the receipt. Not realizing the predicament (or maybe some scorned admin realized it and wished to cause Leroy more pain) she received a copy of the receipt along with a copy of the card which said "Just wanted to say I love you".
I'm sure Leroy explained that it didn't really mean anything and that she (his wife) was the only one for him, but she didn't accept the story. Instead, she increased the amount she was asking for in the divorce settlement. Of course Leroy says that worse than the financial impact, his marriage is now soured and he's suing 1-800-FLOWERS (it's the American way).
You can't make this stuff up. Read one account here. Your comments welcome
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)