Full Version: Loitering!
CNN: Loitering and teens
Eh, so they're trying to restore order downtown, yet they cite no disorderly incidents when attempting to make their case. Instead, they claim groups of people "indimidate" customers entering shops and that groups of teens are hurting the revitalization program for downtown. They go on to say that currently, police can only disperse them if they are breaking curfew (subject of another thread) or engaged in disorderly conduct.
There's a novel idea... having to wait until somebody actually engages in disorderly conduct or commits a crime before interfering with or arresting them.
It seems to me that if groups of teenagers were truly "intimidating" shop customers, the police could already enforce current laws to disperse them. So why should they now have a loitering law with accompanying jail time and fines of as much as $1,000?
While I don't live in Souderton, it sounds to me as though this is a law being proposed strictly for economic reasons (luring businesses) rather than real reasons of disorder or danger requiring law. Question(s) for debate:
Should people be subject to arrest and fines for simply gathering in groups, without disorderly conduct?
Does this or does this not infringe on the right to peaceably assemble, as granted to every American?
QUOTE
SOUDERTON, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Borough officials are considering an ordinance that would make it illegal for groups of people to gather anywhere from public sidewalks to parks, with the threat of jail time for loiterers -- and, in the case of juvenile repeat offenders, their parents.
Local leaders say the loitering ordinance is needed to address what they say is a growing incidence of vandalism and other misbehavior.
...Borough Manager Michael Coll said the ordinance was proposed because downtown residents and business owners complained that loitering teens were intimidating potential shoppers.
"What the ordinance is designed to do is to give the police department a tool to help them move individuals along and try to restore a little better order in and around downtown," Coll said.
The proposed ordinance would ban loitering, defined as two or more people congregating in a place without permission and causing "discomfort or danger."
...Coll said loitering teens can hurt the borough's effort to lure new businesses as it pursues a downtown revitalization program. Currently, police in Souderton can order teens to disperse only if they're breaking curfew or engaged in disorderly conduct, he said.
..."We don't have a totalitarian regime in this country; people have the right to spend time on the streets with their friends and associates," Presser said. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the streets belong to the people."
Local leaders say the loitering ordinance is needed to address what they say is a growing incidence of vandalism and other misbehavior.
...Borough Manager Michael Coll said the ordinance was proposed because downtown residents and business owners complained that loitering teens were intimidating potential shoppers.
"What the ordinance is designed to do is to give the police department a tool to help them move individuals along and try to restore a little better order in and around downtown," Coll said.
The proposed ordinance would ban loitering, defined as two or more people congregating in a place without permission and causing "discomfort or danger."
...Coll said loitering teens can hurt the borough's effort to lure new businesses as it pursues a downtown revitalization program. Currently, police in Souderton can order teens to disperse only if they're breaking curfew or engaged in disorderly conduct, he said.
..."We don't have a totalitarian regime in this country; people have the right to spend time on the streets with their friends and associates," Presser said. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the streets belong to the people."
Eh, so they're trying to restore order downtown, yet they cite no disorderly incidents when attempting to make their case. Instead, they claim groups of people "indimidate" customers entering shops and that groups of teens are hurting the revitalization program for downtown. They go on to say that currently, police can only disperse them if they are breaking curfew (subject of another thread) or engaged in disorderly conduct.
There's a novel idea... having to wait until somebody actually engages in disorderly conduct or commits a crime before interfering with or arresting them.
It seems to me that if groups of teenagers were truly "intimidating" shop customers, the police could already enforce current laws to disperse them. So why should they now have a loitering law with accompanying jail time and fines of as much as $1,000?
While I don't live in Souderton, it sounds to me as though this is a law being proposed strictly for economic reasons (luring businesses) rather than real reasons of disorder or danger requiring law. Question(s) for debate:
Should people be subject to arrest and fines for simply gathering in groups, without disorderly conduct?
Does this or does this not infringe on the right to peaceably assemble, as granted to every American?
QUOTE
"...would make it illegal for groups of people to gather anywhere from public sidewalks to parks,"
okay I can understand the sidewalk part, but PARKS? I thought that was what they were for! and jail for loitering on a sidewalk seems a LITTLE exsessive. why can't they they just tell these people to go away instead of arresting them?
this is what happens in dictatorships, not a free society. we are slowly moving towards a police state, and it is a sad day when stuff like this happens. and it is sad when this kind of thinking takes over.
people should not be subject to arrest at all, and fines only if they are told to stop loitering and refuse to do so. this violates the right of peaceable assembly, in my opinion.
They are only going to arrest "suspicious" minorities and people with tatoos for loitering too. This is terrible, arresting someone for going outside to get some fresh air. If I like using the park system in my city should I be arrested?
QUOTE(Ranciduncle @ Apr 20 2003, 12:20 PM)
They are only going to arrest "suspicious" minorities and people with tatoos for loitering too.
Is that a wool blanket your using to cover the whole police force with?
There are no loitering laws all over the place. Have been for years.
Criminals are getting younger and younger. 50 years ago, we didn't have the problems with kids "hanging out" that we do today. So we make laws to counter them.
Maybe if a few rotten apples (those who graffiti, intimidate, harrass, and cause trouble while "hanging out") behaved themselves, it would not have come to this.
--cheers
It will probably come as no surprise to you all that I have no fondness for laws against loitering. This is one of those extremely broad laws -- like "disorderly conduct" -- that can be used to punish a person that a particular police officer does not like. Individual police officers should have an absolute minimum of this kind of arbitrary power. There are already plenty of laws to deal with actual destructive and/or threatening behavior.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.