news Cops crack down on acrobatic dancing in subway trains as part of MTA complaint program

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So the only entrepreneurs that don't wear suits are Thugs in your logic? Give me a break man.

No, just these characters that go around harassing people who want a peaceful ride home after a long day from work.  Aside from their obnoxious behavior, some of them have the audacity to become nasty and hostile if people don't give them money.  The word thug was used because the word fits their behavior perfectly.

[SubwayGuy]

Straw man. 

 

You don't arrest people for drinking alcohol, even though their risk of injuring themselves or others skyrockets. We don't imprison Christians, even though their likelihood of a Crusade is far higher than with atheists. 

 

We shouldn't be arresting people under the assumption they will commit a crime. This isn't 1984 or the Minority Report. 

 

Consuming alcohol does not bear the inherent risk of self injury. Additionally, self injury is a very different prospect than injury to another. Historically, the right to be an idiot as long as you weren't exposing OTHERS to injury has been protected, but nanny state legislation has cracked down on that somewhat. HOWEVER, the right to be an idiot while exposing others to danger (IE drunk driving with no accident resulting) has NEVER been protected under the law, as far back as the case histories establishing those laws go.

 

People have the right to expect safety from the moving limbs of others in public unless they directly place themselves in harms way, in which case it becomes self injury. Being inside of a subway car, using the subway car for its intended purpose of going somewhere, is not in any context, placing yourself in harm's way (as compared to, say, standing on the tracks).

 

The threat of physical violence is assault. Raise your hand to hit someone, cause them to flinch, and technically it is assault. It is ILLEGAL to cause them that fear for their safety. Actually strike them, and now it's BATTERY. The only difference between assault and reckless endangerment is intent. Assault bears intent, while reckless endangerment does not.

 

The fact that a commuter riding the subway should fear for their own safety through no acts of their own, and be exposed to a real threat of violence (not a perceived one, or a race based one), merits the crackdown.

 

If you don't believe me, go juggle kitchen knives in Times Square during rush hour and see what happens to you, or that one person that "accidentally" gets cut.

[MHV9218]

Straw man? I gave realistic analogies. There are laws against public drinking (which you conveniently omit), and you will get arrested for it — especially driving after drinking, but of course the driver not having commited a crime yet should not be arrested? Crusades are as likely here as the KKK going around lynching minorities — the FBI would be on it before they mobilize. And the cops in 1984 arrested people for thinking! That doesn't actually happen often here, does it?

 

Here, I posit that the dancers pose a risk to people other than themselves, which is true. The likelihood of someone getting hurt is high enough. And when someone does get hurt, there's little you can do for recourse other than calling the cops. They would be long gone before you get to make a call and who knows if the cops will ever find them. Here's the keyword: risk. You don't allow any risk to people's safety for a performance not everyone wants.

 

Tell me you don't agree with that.

 

The public drinking issue is not what I'm discussing: alcohol consumption poses inherent danger to the self and to others. Should we arrest people preemptively for their consumption? I think no. My 1984 analogy was a comparison of this type of pre-crime arresting policy.

 

I still maintain that the ratio of accidents to performances is low enough that is safe to call this a harmless activity. And, arguably, one which contributes to the culture of the subway system.

 

The fact that a commuter riding the subway should fear for their own safety through no acts of their own, and be exposed to a real threat of violence (not a perceived one, or a race based one), merits the crackdown.

 

Ha!

[bobtehpanda]

The public drinking issue is not what I'm discussing: alcohol consumption poses inherent danger to the self and to others. Should we arrest people preemptively for their consumption? I think no. My 1984 analogy was a comparison of this type of pre-crime arresting policy.

 

I still maintain that the ratio of accidents to performances is low enough that is safe to call this a harmless activity. And, arguably, one which contributes to the culture of the subway system.

 

We arrest people for doing things that endanger the public, if they're doing them in public. We don't arrest people who are drinking in the privacy of their homes or at a bar, but we do arrest people drinking on the streets or in public facilities. Likewise, you can breakdance at a park, at a studio, or in your home, and the only risk you'd be posing would be to yourself and anyone who happened to be you. However, it's not okay to do this sort of stunt in a public facility that cannot handle such activity, like the trains.

 

Regardless of whether or not it should be illegal, it is actually prohibited on trains. Regulations are meant to be enforced. If you have a problem with it, get the law changed.

[Kamen Rider]

Consuming alcohol does not bear the inherent risk of self injury. 

Aside from trashing your liver...

[CenSin]

Aside from trashing your liver...

Bear in mind that consuming a lot of anything will slowly kill you. Soda will give you diabetes over the years (or decades). Spinach will cause kidney stones in sufficient quantities over a period of months. Predatory fish from the ocean will give you small doses of fat soluble toxins which build up over the years. If you look hard enough, just about everything is lined with barbed wire on the inside waiting to hurt you.

[S78 via Hylan]

It's a good thing I completely cut down on soda then.

[Harry]

Why the hell do you need to pole dance in a crowded subway car? If I want to see pole dancing I can go to a strip club and enjoy it while sipping on an ice cold beverage.

[GojiMet86]

Bear in mind that consuming a lot of anything will slowly kill you. Soda will give you diabetes over the years (or decades). Spinach will cause kidney stones in sufficient quantities over a period of months. Predatory fish from the ocean will give you small doses of fat soluble toxins which build up over the years. If you look hard enough, just about everything is lined with barbed wire on the inside waiting to hurt you.

 

So it's just fine then to call it a day and equate the damage alcohol can do in x timespan with the damage soda can do in x timespan? Alcohol affects people at a much faster rate than soda. I've seen it's affects on people who've drank soda over the years, and alcohol does hell of a lot more damage than soda.

[CenSin]

So it's just fine then to call it a day and equate the damage alcohol can do in x timespan with the damage soda can do in x timespan? Alcohol affects people at a much faster rate than soda. I've seen it's affects on people who've drank soda over the years, and alcohol does hell of a lot more damage than soda.

Let's not pick at the details. The broad points still stand. If you compare most things, you'll find that most things don't equate 1 to 1. They only approximate or contrast like pixels in a photo. The big picture is what needs to be seen.

[traingoat]

If someone gets hurt then the MTA pays and you lose some small amount of service or have a fare increase sooner. This is not a social or economic justice issue of any sort as this is a subway car not running for political office.

[RTS CNG Command]

"One of those helpless victims" -- what helpless victims? 

 

These guys don't hurt anybody. Arrest them when they do. 

Even if one doesn't happen, these acrobatic dances run the serious risk of injuring someone. The subway dances may be fun to watch because of how athletic they are, but it's also very dangerous because these spaces are crowded, and these stunts offer almost no margin for error. One accident is one too many, and it's best to stop it before someone gets badly hurt.