dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:

(Re: NJ Disorderly Conduct and Harassment Laws)
...
I think those don't really work, because they're not doing it for the purpose of harassment. They're doing it for the purpose of solicitation.

...

The simple reason the laws don't work, is like many laws, they're not enforced. Might be an novel idea to try enforcing existing laws, before creating more populist legislation that sits idly in the rule books.

score09 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

score09 wrote:
Like an APARTHEID wall on the Israeli West Bank, in order to preserve the status quo at the expense of humanity. In this person?s mind, there is apparently a ?marketing 101? sensibility. A mind that is all too mindful of MONEY.

My guess is that a local High School kid laid this out just a few short hours after the news story broke on nj.com. What an unbelievable turnaround! No doubt way better than those who ascribe to the money institutions offering courses like ?marketing 101" and whose sole mission is to preserve the status quo, ie, Harvard Business School, Columbia Business School and all other "business" schools.

1. The "apartheid" wall was pretty smart, actually. If I lived in Israel I would be a huge fan. Attacks from the Palestinian territories have basically stopped.

2. You have no idea what goes on in elite MBA programs. Seriously. For one, they don't teach "marketing 101", nor do you have any clue what marketing is about.

3. The status quo in the developed world is actually pretty freakin' good. Feel free to look at the rest of the world to understand why.

Well now, Devilsadvocate, I guess we just getting started. Hope you stay tuned ALL, there be trouble in the waters. An ass whoopin comin' on for sure, lol.

"...was pretty smart ACTUALLY...?" Nah, not merely an ass whoopin' that's coming on, but rather, an EVISCERATION.

joe wrote: hello

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

score09 wrote:
Like an APARTHEID wall on the Israeli West Bank, in order to preserve the status quo at the expense of humanity. In this person?s mind, there is apparently a ?marketing 101? sensibility. A mind that is all too mindful of MONEY.

My guess is that a local High School kid laid this out just a few short hours after the news story broke on nj.com. What an unbelievable turnaround! No doubt way better than those who ascribe to the money institutions offering courses like ?marketing 101" and whose sole mission is to preserve the status quo, ie, Harvard Business School, Columbia Business School and all other "business" schools.

1. The "apartheid" wall was pretty smart, actually. If I lived in Israel I would be a huge fan. Attacks from the Palestinian territories have basically stopped.

2. You have no idea what goes on in elite MBA programs. Seriously. For one, they don't teach "marketing 101", nor do you have any clue what marketing is about.

3. The status quo in the developed world is actually pretty freakin' good. Feel free to look at the rest of the world to understand why.

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:

This do?

http://www.newjersey-legal-guide.com/ ... y-Disorderly-Conduct.html

Backtracking? Nope - just highlighting the absurd, discriminatory nature of the proposed law. People shouldn't have to deal with any aggression directed at them, panhandler or not. And equally, panhandlers shouldn't have to deal with aggression directed at them.

So here's the description from the site: "To be convicted of New Jersey disorderly conduct, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2, the person must engage in fighting, threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior or create a hazardous or physically dangerous condition by an act which serves no legitimate purpose."

I can think of plenty of aggressive panhandling situations that would still not clearly fall under that. Again, WHY do we not want a law that very clearly bans the behavior. The people doing it, after a few arrests, will leave. That is GOOD. I'm not interested in crying for the homeless, I'm interested in them not bothering me.

devilsadvocate wrote:

(Re: NJ Disorderly Conduct and Harassment Laws)
...
I think those don't really work, because they're not doing it for the purpose of harassment. They're doing it for the purpose of solicitation.

...

JCMan8 wrote:

I've never heard of a normal person on the street aggressively harassing a panhandler but have seen it the other way around.

In any event, this proposed law was tabled to allow the clergy to have input. Surely you can support that?

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
...
I can think of plenty of aggressive panhandling situations that would still not clearly fall under that.
...

The ones that don't fall under disorderly conduct law, probably fall under the Harassment law.

http://www.newjersey-legal-guide.com/New-Jersey-Harassment.html

The nice thing about the existing laws, is that they provide equal protection to all parties. Like you, I'm sure most panhandlers don't want to be on the receiving end of aggression or harassment.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
...
I can think of plenty of aggressive panhandling situations that would still not clearly fall under that.
...

The ones that don't fall under disorderly conduct law, probably fall under the Harassment law.

http://www.newjersey-legal-guide.com/New-Jersey-Harassment.html

The nice thing about the existing laws, is that they provide equal protection to all parties. Like you, I'm sure most panhandlers don't want to be on the receiving end of aggression or harassment.

devilsadvocate wrote:
...
I can think of plenty of aggressive panhandling situations that would still not clearly fall under that.
...

dtjcview wrote:

This do?

http://www.newjersey-legal-guide.com/ ... y-Disorderly-Conduct.html

Backtracking? Nope - just highlighting the absurd, discriminatory nature of the proposed law. People shouldn't have to deal with any aggression directed at them, panhandler or not. And equally, panhandlers shouldn't have to deal with aggression directed at them.

dtjcview wrote:
Aggressive begging is probably already illegal also. So what is the point of the law, if not a NIMBY means to target street begging because it looks bad? Sweep the problem under the carpet.

neverleft wrote:
How about prohibiting Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

quotes

within quotes

within quotes

within quotes....

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Why not prohibit road-rage, drunken rages, cab-fare rage, pedestrian rage, dog-poop rage, and all acts of intimidation and aggression?

I find it troubling that the proposed law targets a minority - the poor and homeless - when aggressive behavior is much more widespread.

Road rage is already illegal. Not sure what the rest would entail. This proposed law targets a group that ..., no, wait, it doesn't target a group at all. It targets an activity. If a specific group primarily engages in it then that group needs to cut it out. I've never been particularly sensitive to "disparate impact" type arguments. This isn't being done to "stick it to the poor" (most of which do not engage in this behavior). This is being done to eliminate a major QOL issue in major cities.

That's the weasely way of it. The law supposedly isn't targeting the activity - it's targeting the aggression. Non-aggressive begging is fine. It just so happens the law is being attached to activities associated with homeless and the very poor. It's clearly a NIMBY law targeting a minority.

No, it is targeting the activity but that is fine because aggressive panhandling shouldn't be permitted. Really, I don't like non-aggressive panhandling either but we have to draw the line somewhere, and that seems like a reasonable place. I'm fine with NIMBY in this case. If someone else would like to adopt our homeless population and let them aggressively beg on their streets then I would be THRILLED with that.

Seriously, how on earth can anyone actually defend the right to aggressively panhandle? Have you liberals lost your freakin' minds?

I was arguing the case against all aggressive actions. Lawyers - sheesh!

The other aggressive actions you mentioned are already illegal or don't occur with any frequency (dog poop rage).

So what is your point?

Aggressive begging is probably already illegal also. So what is the point of the law, if not a NIMBY means to target street begging because it looks bad? Sweep the problem under the carpet.

Probably illegal? Sure about that? Link? You're backtracking a lot. Cut your losses.

Anyways, the problem is that people shouldn't have to deal with aggressive panhandlers.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Why not prohibit road-rage, drunken rages, cab-fare rage, pedestrian rage, dog-poop rage, and all acts of intimidation and aggression?

I find it troubling that the proposed law targets a minority - the poor and homeless - when aggressive behavior is much more widespread.

Road rage is already illegal. Not sure what the rest would entail. This proposed law targets a group that ..., no, wait, it doesn't target a group at all. It targets an activity. If a specific group primarily engages in it then that group needs to cut it out. I've never been particularly sensitive to "disparate impact" type arguments. This isn't being done to "stick it to the poor" (most of which do not engage in this behavior). This is being done to eliminate a major QOL issue in major cities.

That's the weasely way of it. The law supposedly isn't targeting the activity - it's targeting the aggression. Non-aggressive begging is fine. It just so happens the law is being attached to activities associated with homeless and the very poor. It's clearly a NIMBY law targeting a minority.

No, it is targeting the activity but that is fine because aggressive panhandling shouldn't be permitted. Really, I don't like non-aggressive panhandling either but we have to draw the line somewhere, and that seems like a reasonable place. I'm fine with NIMBY in this case. If someone else would like to adopt our homeless population and let them aggressively beg on their streets then I would be THRILLED with that.

Seriously, how on earth can anyone actually defend the right to aggressively panhandle? Have you liberals lost your freakin' minds?

I was arguing the case against all aggressive actions. Lawyers - sheesh!

The other aggressive actions you mentioned are already illegal or don't occur with any frequency (dog poop rage).

So what is your point?

Aggressive begging is probably already illegal also. So what is the point of the law, if not a NIMBY means to target street begging because it looks bad? Sweep the problem under the carpet.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Why not prohibit road-rage, drunken rages, cab-fare rage, pedestrian rage, dog-poop rage, and all acts of intimidation and aggression?

I find it troubling that the proposed law targets a minority - the poor and homeless - when aggressive behavior is much more widespread.

Road rage is already illegal. Not sure what the rest would entail. This proposed law targets a group that ..., no, wait, it doesn't target a group at all. It targets an activity. If a specific group primarily engages in it then that group needs to cut it out. I've never been particularly sensitive to "disparate impact" type arguments. This isn't being done to "stick it to the poor" (most of which do not engage in this behavior). This is being done to eliminate a major QOL issue in major cities.

That's the weasely way of it. The law supposedly isn't targeting the activity - it's targeting the aggression. Non-aggressive begging is fine. It just so happens the law is being attached to activities associated with homeless and the very poor. It's clearly a NIMBY law targeting a minority.

No, it is targeting the activity but that is fine because aggressive panhandling shouldn't be permitted. Really, I don't like non-aggressive panhandling either but we have to draw the line somewhere, and that seems like a reasonable place. I'm fine with NIMBY in this case. If someone else would like to adopt our homeless population and let them aggressively beg on their streets then I would be THRILLED with that.

Seriously, how on earth can anyone actually defend the right to aggressively panhandle? Have you liberals lost your freakin' minds?

I was arguing the case against all aggressive actions. Lawyers - sheesh!

The other aggressive actions you mentioned are already illegal or don't occur with any frequency (dog poop rage).

So what is your point?

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Why not prohibit road-rage, drunken rages, cab-fare rage, pedestrian rage, dog-poop rage, and all acts of intimidation and aggression?

I find it troubling that the proposed law targets a minority - the poor and homeless - when aggressive behavior is much more widespread.

Road rage is already illegal. Not sure what the rest would entail. This proposed law targets a group that ..., no, wait, it doesn't target a group at all. It targets an activity. If a specific group primarily engages in it then that group needs to cut it out. I've never been particularly sensitive to "disparate impact" type arguments. This isn't being done to "stick it to the poor" (most of which do not engage in this behavior). This is being done to eliminate a major QOL issue in major cities.

That's the weasely way of it. The law supposedly isn't targeting the activity - it's targeting the aggression. Non-aggressive begging is fine. It just so happens the law is being attached to activities associated with homeless and the very poor. It's clearly a NIMBY law targeting a minority.

No, it is targeting the activity but that is fine because aggressive panhandling shouldn't be permitted. Really, I don't like non-aggressive panhandling either but we have to draw the line somewhere, and that seems like a reasonable place. I'm fine with NIMBY in this case. If someone else would like to adopt our homeless population and let them aggressively beg on their streets then I would be THRILLED with that.

Seriously, how on earth can anyone actually defend the right to aggressively panhandle? Have you liberals lost your freakin' minds?

I was arguing the case against all aggressive actions. Lawyers - sheesh!

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Why not prohibit road-rage, drunken rages, cab-fare rage, pedestrian rage, dog-poop rage, and all acts of intimidation and aggression?

I find it troubling that the proposed law targets a minority - the poor and homeless - when aggressive behavior is much more widespread.

Road rage is already illegal. Not sure what the rest would entail. This proposed law targets a group that ..., no, wait, it doesn't target a group at all. It targets an activity. If a specific group primarily engages in it then that group needs to cut it out. I've never been particularly sensitive to "disparate impact" type arguments. This isn't being done to "stick it to the poor" (most of which do not engage in this behavior). This is being done to eliminate a major QOL issue in major cities.

That's the weasely way of it. The law supposedly isn't targeting the activity - it's targeting the aggression. Non-aggressive begging is fine. It just so happens the law is being attached to activities associated with homeless and the very poor. It's clearly a NIMBY law targeting a minority.

No, it is targeting the activity but that is fine because aggressive panhandling shouldn't be permitted. Really, I don't like non-aggressive panhandling either but we have to draw the line somewhere, and that seems like a reasonable place. I'm fine with NIMBY in this case. If someone else would like to adopt our homeless population and let them aggressively beg on their streets then I would be THRILLED with that.

Seriously, how on earth can anyone actually defend the right to aggressively panhandle? Have you liberals lost your freakin' minds?

I was arguing the case against all aggressive actions. Lawyers - sheesh!

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Why not prohibit road-rage, drunken rages, cab-fare rage, pedestrian rage, dog-poop rage, and all acts of intimidation and aggression?

I find it troubling that the proposed law targets a minority - the poor and homeless - when aggressive behavior is much more widespread.

Road rage is already illegal. Not sure what the rest would entail. This proposed law targets a group that ..., no, wait, it doesn't target a group at all. It targets an activity. If a specific group primarily engages in it then that group needs to cut it out. I've never been particularly sensitive to "disparate impact" type arguments. This isn't being done to "stick it to the poor" (most of which do not engage in this behavior). This is being done to eliminate a major QOL issue in major cities.

That's the weasely way of it. The law supposedly isn't targeting the activity - it's targeting the aggression. Non-aggressive begging is fine. It just so happens the law is being attached to activities associated with homeless and the very poor. It's clearly a NIMBY law targeting a minority.

No, it is targeting the activity but that is fine because aggressive panhandling shouldn't be permitted. Really, I don't like non-aggressive panhandling either but we have to draw the line somewhere, and that seems like a reasonable place. I'm fine with NIMBY in this case. If someone else would like to adopt our homeless population and let them aggressively beg on their streets then I would be THRILLED with that.

Seriously, how on earth can anyone actually defend the right to aggressively panhandle? Have you liberals lost your freakin' minds?

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Why not prohibit road-rage, drunken rages, cab-fare rage, pedestrian rage, dog-poop rage, and all acts of intimidation and aggression?

I find it troubling that the proposed law targets a minority - the poor and homeless - when aggressive behavior is much more widespread.

Road rage is already illegal. Not sure what the rest would entail. This proposed law targets a group that ..., no, wait, it doesn't target a group at all. It targets an activity. If a specific group primarily engages in it then that group needs to cut it out. I've never been particularly sensitive to "disparate impact" type arguments. This isn't being done to "stick it to the poor" (most of which do not engage in this behavior). This is being done to eliminate a major QOL issue in major cities.

That's the weasely way of it. The law supposedly isn't targeting the activity - it's targeting the aggression. Non-aggressive begging is fine. It just so happens the law is being attached to activities associated with homeless and the very poor. It's clearly a NIMBY law targeting a minority.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Why not prohibit road-rage, drunken rages, cab-fare rage, pedestrian rage, dog-poop rage, and all acts of intimidation and aggression?

I find it troubling that the proposed law targets a minority - the poor and homeless - when aggressive behavior is much more widespread.

Road rage is already illegal. Not sure what the rest would entail. This proposed law targets a group that ..., no, wait, it doesn't target a group at all. It targets an activity. If a specific group primarily engages in it then that group needs to cut it out. I've never been particularly sensitive to "disparate impact" type arguments. This isn't being done to "stick it to the poor" (most of which do not engage in this behavior). This is being done to eliminate a major QOL issue in major cities.

That's the weasely way of it. The law supposedly isn't targeting the activity - it's targeting the aggression. Non-aggressive begging is fine. It just so happens the law is being attached to activities associated with homeless and the very poor. It's clearly a NIMBY law targeting a minority.

dtjcview wrote:
Why not prohibit road-rage, drunken rages, cab-fare rage, pedestrian rage, dog-poop rage, and all acts of intimidation and aggression?

I find it troubling that the proposed law targets a minority - the poor and homeless - when aggressive behavior is much more widespread.