Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
147 user(s) are online (114 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 147

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 3 »


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#87
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
3/21 23:34
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5375
Offline
Sometimes an ordinance that is proposed is used differently than the original purpose. The fact it has the term ?aggressive behavior? is disturbing. I remember when Episcopal priest, Jim Pinto, with Hudson County roots, was arrested in the South at an abortion clinic for handing out literature. This happened in the 1990s and then President Clinton filed a friend of the court to keep him in jail. So if I were to protest an abatement, could this proposed ordinance be used against me? Chicago instituted a ?bubble zone? to keep out protests, I find it disturbing that the first amendment rights are under seize.

Posted on: 2014/4/3 18:05
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#86
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/3/2 23:05
Last Login :
2023/11/10 23:17
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 218
Offline
I've seen the delightful Paco and Taco now a few times! So cool to see that they have traded in the shopping cart this spring for a wheelchair!

Posted on: 2014/4/3 16:46
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#85
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
And I just looked at the math. A 90-day jail sentence plus a $1250 fine works out at somewhere between a $15k-$40k* cost to the City or County for every conviction. Seriously? The City proposes to spend that amount of our tax dollars when someone waves a cup in our face twice? Un-freaking-believable!

Why not just give them a month's light rail pass, a couple of hundred, and tell them to spend the month in Bayonne or Hoboken.

* NJ average jail cost/year is $60k, NYC is $160k+, Hudson is probably somewhere between those 2 numbers.

Posted on: 2014/3/28 22:00

Edited by dtjcview on 2014/3/28 22:21:22
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#84
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
Devils advocate - even with a clear directed law, I doubt the cops will bother. Not likely they'll collect on any fine from a panhandler. St Lucy's will end up with a stack of undelivered summonses. The police wouldn't even want most of these folks in the back of their squad cars, never mind in a jail cell, or courtroom. They'd only bother if a more serious law was broken.

(...or might be a way for the homeless to get a warm cell bed and meal on cold winter nights.)






Posted on: 2014/3/28 19:35
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#83
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

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.


Because prosecutors don't like cases that are a challenge to win. They are already overloaded, so if they have to adapt a broad law for some aggressive panhandlers they'll just avoid prosecuting. Then the message that will get sent to cops is "don't bother arresting them, no one is going to jail or getting fined for it." That is why you need a clear law directed at the exact activity.

Posted on: 2014/3/28 17:31
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#82
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

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.


Ok, waiting for some Marxist idiocy to come up on the screen. Anytime now.

Posted on: 2014/3/28 17:29
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#81
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/10/7 15:46
Last Login :
3/24 18:05
From jersey city
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3377
Offline
Also with the quotes if you didn?t already know?I just cut and paste the text I want to use and stick in a **** wrote:


Replace > < with left and right brackets


>quote< joe wrote: hello

>/quote<


Quote:
joe wrote: hello


Posted on: 2014/3/28 11:04
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#80
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/5/4 18:05
Last Login :
2020/9/18 1:42
From Botswana
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 214
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2014/3/28 4:34
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#79
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/10/1 1:03
Last Login :
2023/10/30 19:51
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1280
Offline
Quote:

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.


If you think that making something illegal puts an end to it, perhaps you'd like to hear about the tooth fairy too.

Sure, a law banning aggressive panhandling situations is something I'd favor in theory but in reality, the city council is just wasting their time and energy on something that is unenforceable and there are already state laws on the books for anyway. There are better things for them to focus on; passing this proposed law will be symbolic at best and nothing will change from it. I don't want this law because - what's the point? It will do nothing.

Posted on: 2014/3/28 0:10
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#78
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42
Last Login :
2022/2/28 7:31
From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4192
Offline
CHRIS
CHRISTIE
GUILTY


of aggressive begging, soliciting, panhandling and bullying for votes

Posted on: 2014/3/27 22:48
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#77
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2014/3/27 22:14
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#76
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
Quote:

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?


I don't know if that homeless guy in Hoboken, asked the JC kids for cash before he got killed by them, but I believe beggars and panhandlers are regular targets for abuse and violence - any complaint stops at "name and address?". And yes, I can support the clergy representing the interests of the targets of the proposed legislation.

Posted on: 2014/3/27 22:00
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#75
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42
Last Login :
2022/2/28 7:31
From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4192
Offline
Resized Image


Resized Image

Posted on: 2014/3/27 21:08
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#74
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

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.


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.

I don't understand why you think this only applies to homeless people. If I get out of my luxury car tonight and start being a jerk to try to get you to give me money because I left my wallet at home and need gas then I would equally be aggressively panhandling. I don't see anything in the proposed legislation that says "where person has a net worth of less than X" or "where the defendant has an income of no more than Y"...

Posted on: 2014/3/27 20:59
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#73
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3071
Offline
Quote:

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.


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?

Posted on: 2014/3/27 20:57
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#72
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2014/3/27 20:51
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#71
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2014/3/27 20:36
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#70
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

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.


Not necessarily. One can be rude and aggressive without necessarily doing anything illegal. However, we do not want people to rudely and aggressively panhandle. Therefore, we should ban it because it is a nuisance.

Posted on: 2014/3/27 20:33
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#69
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3071
Offline
Yeah, you hit reply instead of quote when there are too many posts.

Posted on: 2014/3/27 18:55
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#68
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
Quote:

neverleft wrote:
How about prohibiting Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
quotes
within quotes
within quotes
within quotes....


There a button for that?


Posted on: 2014/3/27 18:52
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#67
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/10/7 15:46
Last Login :
3/24 18:05
From jersey city
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3377
Offline
How about prohibiting quotes within quotes within quotes within quotes....

Posted on: 2014/3/27 18:39
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#66
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
Quote:

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.


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.

Posted on: 2014/3/27 17:31
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#65
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1907
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2014/3/27 17:23
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#64
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2014/3/27 17:17
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#63
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3071
Offline
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?

Posted on: 2014/3/27 16:48
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#62
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1907
Offline
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!


No, you were saying this law targets a group instead of an activity.

Posted on: 2014/3/27 16:11
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#61
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
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!

Posted on: 2014/3/27 16:08
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#60
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
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?

Posted on: 2014/3/27 15:35
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#59
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1907
Offline
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's targeting an activity.

If I were to aggressively panhandle, I would be violating the law. So no, it's not targeting the homeless or the poor. We all know that not everyone who panhandles is homeless or poor.

Posted on: 2014/3/27 15:19
 Top 


Re: Prohibiting Aggressive Begging, Soliciting, and Panhandling
#58
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/9/15 19:03
Last Login :
2023/8/15 18:42
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 9302
Offline
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.


Resized Image

Posted on: 2014/3/27 15:19
 Top 




(1) 2 3 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017