Reply #84: You missed every single point I made.

[nyhuskyfan]

First of all, northzax didn't say anything about the kid's response until halfway through the thread. If in fact the kid responded with an "FU" that changes everything I said before that point came up. I made that point twice.

I also never said that the kid should have been allowed to eat or that the officer was wrong for approaching the girl. The point was that the original story made it seem like the kid was arrested and handcuffed for nothing more than eating a fry. The rule is fine. The enforcement of it was the issue. The point I had all along was that all it took was the cop saying, "Hey kid, no eating on the train" to handle the problem. If the kid responded with an "FU" then the citation probably should have included disobeying an officer or something, instead of only eating, but that's really neither here nor there.

If the cops handcuffed a kid for no other reason than eating a fry (which appears not to be the case), they should be fired. For the sake of argument, let's pretend the kid never said "FU". The problem is that the "No Eating" rule is a simple trivial regulation. It can happen to honest people in everyday life. If you can get arrested and handcuffed for eating a fry, can't it also happen for something like talking too loud in the library? Walking into a beachfront store, talking on the cell and forgetting you don't have shoes on? What about having 11 items in the express lane? Playing golf without a collared shirt? Stepping into a crosswalk before the walk light comes on? Loitering?

As for the police, I would hope that police can exercise decent judgment both in terms of knowing WHAT the rules are and HOW to enforce them. Handcuffing a 12-year old girl for eating is not the right way to handle that situation. In fact, in some cicrumstances, it's a good way to start a riot. A cop can be correct in knowing the law, but I hope that I wouldn't get billy-clubbedin the back of the head if my parking meter runs out. Again, if the kid caused a disturbance and said "FU", I can understand a little better. But we'd all be in jail if you think eating a fry on the Metro requires handcuffs.

The human rights issue involved is to be able to go through life without being worried about being detained for something completely trivial. If I accidentally do something wrong at the wrong time, I would hope that I wouldn't have to worry about the handcuffs coming out.

I swear -- some of you act like the Metro is the Sistine Chapel or something. The rule is fine, but let's not act like this is some precious work of art that needs full-time protection.