Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article says security will be stepped up and backpacks etc will be screened. So bubbles up wealthy suburban moms (and dads) can now breath easier when Carson and Emily start asking about going.

Are you implying that people who aren't wealthy don't care about the safety of their children, as well? Parents across the socio economic spectrum care about the safety and well-being of their children and teenagers. And why shouldn't they? We all have a fundamental right to physical safety.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is enlightening. I had no idea that “fare-jumpers were responsible for 99% of violence and shootings in the District. Where did all the PP’s get this information from how did I miss this. Can anyone provide a link?

You probably missed it because you are purposefully ignoring data that does not conform with your politics.

And of course you're twisting what previous PP actually said.

Wait, so it’s not just fare jumpers who are responsible for violence and shootings? I’m confused why is there so much focus on fare jumpers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatincentive does anyone have to actually pay for a metro card? That’s an odd way to govern a city. Broken windows theory ....

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding on the topic of fare evasion. Previously, this was a criminal activity, which meant that you could go to jail and earn criminal record for doing it. The DC Council decriminalized it. That does not mean that fare evasion is legal, but rather that it is now a civil violation punishable by a $50 fine. So, to answer your question, the incentive to pay for a metro card is to avoid a $50 fine. It is now similar to a parking violation. If you park in a metered space but don't pay for parking, you do not face the possibility of going to jail. Rather, you will likely be ticketed and fined. Notice that nobody posts questions in this forum asking about the incentive for paying for parking.

Wouldn’t a better analogy be someone parking in a parking garage (example parking garages at the Wharf) and then not paying upon leaving the garage? Not sure how you could get a car to get through the guard gate and exit a parking garage without paying but assuming that is possible...

I would assume the parking garage owner could call the police if you did this.

I don't think that is a better analogy primarily because it depends on a hypothetical assumption. Because cars can't get through gates without damaging them, laws have not been written to account for cars leaving parking garages by magically passing through the gate. Moreover, I don't understand the distinction you make between not paying for garage parking which you consider a crime and not paying for a metered space which you don't consider a crime. Why do you consider these different violations?

What about garages that have metered spaces instead of gates? Is failure to pay in that case a crime for which you should be jailed or a civil violation for which you should be ticketed?

Because street parking doesn’t start off by taking a ticket or passing through a turnstile. One can accidentally fail to pay for parking on the street by misreading a meter or losing track of time. One cannot accidentally jump a turnstile to evade fare.

I don’t think any parking violations should be considered criminal activity. Do I think jumping a turnstile and evading metro fare should be considered criminal? Yes.

DP

I think this is an important difference. You can't accidentally get onto Metro without paying.

+1.

Plus, let's compare the behavior of those two separate group of people after they don't pay.

Which one is a proven and repeated threat to public safety, and which one isn't?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the heck happened? The Post story is unclear. Fireworks we're heard (inside the zoo? Outside the zoo?) and then the fighting was outside the zoo? The shooting was outside the zoo?

They closed Conn Ave because of the people streaming out of the zoo?

Crazy. And aggravating. The zoo has been trying to increase security and close itself off from the neighborhood, and wants increased fencing. So aggravating that people likely not from the neighborhood are creating the ammunition for those m measures to go through.

Yes, it's crazy that People Not From the Neighborhood came to the National Zoo. It's crazy and aggravating that UMC white people can't have a sealed off bubble in NWDC where no urban issues, like crime or guns, intrude. How dare they do this to you!

NP. PP’s choice of words is unfortunate and reeks of lots of “isms” but this is the freaking zoo. It’s a family event. I imagine all families at the zoo tonight regardless of their race or SES expected this to be a reasonably safe place.

exactly. zoolights is full of families & babies & children of ALL RACES. drop your stupid wokeness and realize that nobody wants to have to run out of the zoo in a panic because some dumbsh*t kids are setting off fireworks.

I'm done with kids setting off fireworks in crowded places -- they need to be charged very seriously.

You mean like setting them off in metro? Im with you, but police arent allowed to address teens. Someone will "capture" it on their stupid camera phone, say they are violating the kids rights and the officers will be investigated and put on leave. And if the kids are apprehended and charged, our council will make sure they are out in a week, probably with a voucher for firecrackers.

I saw a white SJW filming 2 black police officers outside the trader Joe's on 14th street while they were calmly explaining to an erratic homeless black man , he was banned for stealing, but had the manager's permission not to arrest him as long as he never returns to the store. I still don't understand what the officers were doing wrong that the bimbo SJW felt the need to film them.

Do some people really think that we should let criminals do whatever they please with impunity ?

That's what the Mayor actually does.

Just wait until after she is re-elected in 2022. That’s when the real fun starts. Item #1 on the agenda will be to make all high schools city wide. Then, all the upper NW pearl clutches get to send their snowflakes to the other side of town. And just wait until you see who comes out of the Tenleytown metro 180 times a year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is enlightening. I had no idea that “fare-jumpers were responsible for 99% of violence and shootings in the District. Where did all the PP’s get this information from how did I miss this. Can anyone provide a link?

You probably missed it because you are purposefully ignoring data that does not conform with your politics.

And of course you're twisting what previous PP actually said.

Anonymous wrote:Article says security will be stepped up and backpacks etc will be screened. So bubbles up wealthy suburban moms (and dads) can now breath easier when Carson and Emily start asking about going.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatincentive does anyone have to actually pay for a metro card? That’s an odd way to govern a city. Broken windows theory ....

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding on the topic of fare evasion. Previously, this was a criminal activity, which meant that you could go to jail and earn criminal record for doing it. The DC Council decriminalized it. That does not mean that fare evasion is legal, but rather that it is now a civil violation punishable by a $50 fine. So, to answer your question, the incentive to pay for a metro card is to avoid a $50 fine. It is now similar to a parking violation. If you park in a metered space but don't pay for parking, you do not face the possibility of going to jail. Rather, you will likely be ticketed and fined. Notice that nobody posts questions in this forum asking about the incentive for paying for parking.

Wouldn’t a better analogy be someone parking in a parking garage (example parking garages at the Wharf) and then not paying upon leaving the garage? Not sure how you could get a car to get through the guard gate and exit a parking garage without paying but assuming that is possible...

I would assume the parking garage owner could call the police if you did this.

I don't think that is a better analogy primarily because it depends on a hypothetical assumption. Because cars can't get through gates without damaging them, laws have not been written to account for cars leaving parking garages by magically passing through the gate. Moreover, I don't understand the distinction you make between not paying for garage parking which you consider a crime and not paying for a metered space which you don't consider a crime. Why do you consider these different violations?

What about garages that have metered spaces instead of gates? Is failure to pay in that case a crime for which you should be jailed or a civil violation for which you should be ticketed?

Because street parking doesn’t start off by taking a ticket or passing through a turnstile. One can accidentally fail to pay for parking on the street by misreading a meter or losing track of time. One cannot accidentally jump a turnstile to evade fare.

I don’t think any parking violations should be considered criminal activity. Do I think jumping a turnstile and evading metro fare should be considered criminal? Yes.

DP

I think this is an important difference. You can't accidentally get onto Metro without paying.

Anonymous wrote:This thread is enlightening. I had no idea that “fare-jumpers were responsible for 99% of violence and shootings in the District. Where did all the PP’s get this information from how did I miss this. Can anyone provide a link?

Anonymous wrote:Because street parking doesn’t start off by taking a ticket or passing through a turnstile. One can accidentally fail to pay for parking on the street by misreading a meter or losing track of time. One cannot accidentally jump a turnstile to evade fare.

I don’t think any parking violations should be considered criminal activity. Do I think jumping a turnstile and evading metro fare should be considered criminal? Yes.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatincentive does anyone have to actually pay for a metro card? That’s an odd way to govern a city. Broken windows theory ....

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding on the topic of fare evasion. Previously, this was a criminal activity, which meant that you could go to jail and earn criminal record for doing it. The DC Council decriminalized it. That does not mean that fare evasion is legal, but rather that it is now a civil violation punishable by a $50 fine. So, to answer your question, the incentive to pay for a metro card is to avoid a $50 fine. It is now similar to a parking violation. If you park in a metered space but don't pay for parking, you do not face the possibility of going to jail. Rather, you will likely be ticketed and fined. Notice that nobody posts questions in this forum asking about the incentive for paying for parking.

Wouldn’t a better analogy be someone parking in a parking garage (example parking garages at the Wharf) and then not paying upon leaving the garage? Not sure how you could get a car to get through the guard gate and exit a parking garage without paying but assuming that is possible...

I would assume the parking garage owner could call the police if you did this.

I don't think that is a better analogy primarily because it depends on a hypothetical assumption. Because cars can't get through gates without damaging them, laws have not been written to account for cars leaving parking garages by magically passing through the gate. Moreover, I don't understand the distinction you make between not paying for garage parking which you consider a crime and not paying for a metered space which you don't consider a crime. Why do you consider these different violations?

What about garages that have metered spaces instead of gates? Is failure to pay in that case a crime for which you should be jailed or a civil violation for which you should be ticketed?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatincentive does anyone have to actually pay for a metro card? That’s an odd way to govern a city. Broken windows theory ....

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding on the topic of fare evasion. Previously, this was a criminal activity, which meant that you could go to jail and earn criminal record for doing it. The DC Council decriminalized it. That does not mean that fare evasion is legal, but rather that it is now a civil violation punishable by a $50 fine. So, to answer your question, the incentive to pay for a metro card is to avoid a $50 fine. It is now similar to a parking violation. If you park in a metered space but don't pay for parking, you do not face the possibility of going to jail. Rather, you will likely be ticketed and fined. Notice that nobody posts questions in this forum asking about the incentive for paying for parking.

Wouldn’t a better analogy be someone parking in a parking garage (example parking garages at the Wharf) and then not paying upon leaving the garage? Not sure how you could get a car to get through the guard gate and exit a parking garage without paying but assuming that is possible...

I would assume the parking garage owner could call the police if you did this.

I don't think that is a better analogy primarily because it depends on a hypothetical assumption. Because cars can't get through gates without damaging them, laws have not been written to account for cars leaving parking garages by magically passing through the gate. Moreover, I don't understand the distinction you make between not paying for garage parking which you consider a crime and not paying for a metered space which you don't consider a crime. Why do you consider these different violations?

What about garages that have metered spaces instead of gates? Is failure to pay in that case a crime for which you should be jailed or a civil violation for which you should be ticketed?

Because street parking doesn’t start off by taking a ticket or passing through a turnstile. One can accidentally fail to pay for parking on the street by misreading a meter or losing track of time. One cannot accidentally jump a turnstile to evade fare.

I don’t think any parking violations should be considered criminal activity. Do I think jumping a turnstile and evading metro fare should be considered criminal? Yes.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatincentive does anyone have to actually pay for a metro card? That’s an odd way to govern a city. Broken windows theory ....

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding on the topic of fare evasion. Previously, this was a criminal activity, which meant that you could go to jail and earn criminal record for doing it. The DC Council decriminalized it. That does not mean that fare evasion is legal, but rather that it is now a civil violation punishable by a $50 fine. So, to answer your question, the incentive to pay for a metro card is to avoid a $50 fine. It is now similar to a parking violation. If you park in a metered space but don't pay for parking, you do not face the possibility of going to jail. Rather, you will likely be ticketed and fined. Notice that nobody posts questions in this forum asking about the incentive for paying for parking.

Wouldn’t a better analogy be someone parking in a parking garage (example parking garages at the Wharf) and then not paying upon leaving the garage? Not sure how you could get a car to get through the guard gate and exit a parking garage without paying but assuming that is possible...

I would assume the parking garage owner could call the police if you did this.

I don't think that is a better analogy primarily because it depends on a hypothetical assumption. Because cars can't get through gates without damaging them, laws have not been written to account for cars leaving parking garages by magically passing through the gate. Moreover, I don't understand the distinction you make between not paying for garage parking which you consider a crime and not paying for a metered space which you don't consider a crime. Why do you consider these different violations?

What about garages that have metered spaces instead of gates? Is failure to pay in that case a crime for which you should be jailed or a civil violation for which you should be ticketed?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatincentive does anyone have to actually pay for a metro card? That’s an odd way to govern a city. Broken windows theory ....

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding on the topic of fare evasion. Previously, this was a criminal activity, which meant that you could go to jail and earn criminal record for doing it. The DC Council decriminalized it. That does not mean that fare evasion is legal, but rather that it is now a civil violation punishable by a $50 fine. So, to answer your question, the incentive to pay for a metro card is to avoid a $50 fine. It is now similar to a parking violation. If you park in a metered space but don't pay for parking, you do not face the possibility of going to jail. Rather, you will likely be ticketed and fined. Notice that nobody posts questions in this forum asking about the incentive for paying for parking.

Wouldn’t a better analogy be someone parking in a parking garage (example parking garages at the Wharf) and then not paying upon leaving the garage? Not sure how you could get a car to get through the guard gate and exit a parking garage without paying but assuming that is possible...

I would assume the parking garage owner could call the police if you did this.