hoya4ever
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 805
|
Post by hoya4ever on Oct 25, 2007 13:43:11 GMT -5
Hey I didn't say it made sense to compare Georgetown students in the nice Georgetown neighborhood and your average gangster somewhere in New York, but I do think that is what they are trying to do. I do agree it is a horrible tactic. Persecuting college students is more reminiscent of other areas of the world but that is what they are doing.
If anyone on HoyaTalk lives in Georgetown and has some sway, could you please, please do something about this? The students are trying really hard as well and I know some parents have gotten involved.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 25, 2007 15:20:15 GMT -5
Well, when I was in school (1998-2002) the DC Metro started a huge "campaign" against underage drinking that involved numerous sting operations, undercover officers and full on bar raids. Dozens and dozens of students were arrested each year and placed in central holding for the night to be released at 5:30AM downtown. Goodtimes. Some of the more egregious arrests I heard of: 1) 20-year old junior arrested on while walking down Prospect with his aunt (granted she looked young for 35); his offense was helping her carry her groceries from the car to the house which included a case of beer. 2) Plain-clothes officer posing as the bagger in Freshfields arresting my friend for attempting to purchase two bottles of wine without an ID. 3) DC police calling up to my friend as he sat on his back porch during a casual weekend afternoon BBQ and asking him to come down and chat with them...as soon as he stepped out into the alley with his plastic cup he was arrested for possession of alcohol in public. Those are just some of the countless arrests that took place during operation Iron Fist. The end result, in 2004 GW, Gtown and AU students filed a class-action suit on behalf of all students arrested on the grounds that under a 1997 DC statute "minor in possession" was NOT an arrestable offenses. The law had actually been specifically amended to prevent arrest of minors. This effectively shut down DC metros efforts for the duration of the lawsuit which eventually settled. www.thehoya.com/news/021004/news7.cfmSeems that DC Metro is finding new ways to go after the students now that this door was shut. My advice, find another reason why the police harassment is illegal. I suggest sending over a scouting party to the Gtown law center...I bet you can find more than one 3L who'll gladly research and advocate the issue for you.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Oct 25, 2007 15:52:07 GMT -5
Well, when I was in school (1998-2002) the DC Metro started a huge "campaign" against underage drinking that involved numerous sting operations, undercover officers and full on bar raids. Dozens and dozens of students were arrested each year and placed in central holding for the night to be released at 5:30AM downtown. Goodtimes. Some of the more egregious arrests I heard of: 1) 20-year old junior arrested on while walking down Prospect with his aunt (granted she looked young for 35); his offense was helping her carry her groceries from the car to the house which included a case of beer. 2) Plain-clothes officer posing as the bagger in Freshfields arresting my friend for attempting to purchase two bottles of wine without an ID. 3) DC police calling up to my friend as he sat on his back porch during a casual weekend afternoon BBQ and asking him to come down and chat with them...as soon as he stepped out into the alley with his plastic cup he was arrested for possession of alcohol in public. Those are just some of the countless arrests that took place during operation Iron Fist. The end result, in 2004 GW, Gtown and AU students filed a class-action suit on behalf of all students arrested on the grounds that under a 1997 DC statute "minor in possession" was NOT an arrestable offenses. The law had actually been specifically amended to prevent arrest of minors. This effectively shut down DC metros efforts for the duration of the lawsuit which eventually settled. www.thehoya.com/news/021004/news7.cfmSeems that DC Metro is finding new ways to go after the students now that this door was shut. My advice, find another reason why the police harassment is illegal. I suggest sending over a scouting party to the Gtown law center...I bet you can find more than one 3L who'll gladly research and advocate the issue for you. Irony? The author of that Hoya article is a 1L at GULaw right now. I'm sure when winter break rolls around, he'd find this pretty interesting to look into. I'm curious what Metro is actually doing with students right now. Are they actually getting arrested, fined, detained? So far, my friends still on campus have been lucky and haven't had any problems, but I just wonder what this who thing actually looks like on a typical campus weekend.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,920
|
Post by Filo on Oct 25, 2007 21:13:05 GMT -5
Of course, if you read Freakanomics you'll find that there is little data to support the tactic. In fact, all the data suggests that crime was already decreasing at the same rate prior to Giuliani's election and the implementation of the "broken window" theory. The actual cause of the decrease in crime--the increased number of police officers hired under Dinkins and also Giuliani. Of course, Freakonomics is one man's theory on the data and it is far from settled that the actual cause of the decrease in crime was the result of merely increasing the number of officers hired. Policing methods make a huge difference. Unfortunately for Georgetown students, the MPD has chosen to use the wrong methods by targeting the wrong areas and wrong crimes.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 25, 2007 23:14:44 GMT -5
Actually my point was that there is an academic theory for everything.
Freakonomics and Tipping Point are filled to the brim with the same uncertainties.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Oct 26, 2007 19:21:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 2, 2007 8:24:03 GMT -5
I know we have some actual lawyers on this board, so I'm not going to pretend that I know squat 2 months into law school BUT (just putting a theory out there):
Is it at all reasonable for a group, here the student body or representatives of the student body, to sue the police force and the city for some kind of negligent allocation of resources? Maybe the correct parties aren't even limited to students because the crimes going unchecked aren't limited to the University. There were apparently several incidents on campus this week, two of which involved mace. (http://www.thehoya.com/news/110207/news1.cfm) So I'm just thinking that any reasonable and prudent police force turns the bulk of its resources towards violent crime, robberies, and girls getting hit in the head with bottles as opposed to minor drinking and noise disturbances. If it could be shown that the increased cost, time, man-power, etc. of the party-patrolling should reasonably be applied to the more serious problems, you think there might be a case?
I know this would lead to an obvious argument that allowing such a suit would allow people to sue over speeding tickets or anything else they consider too insignificant to warrant the time of the police. But to me, consciously taking a bulk of man-power and very openly declaring that it will be used for party busting seems like a more extreme, almost reckless abuse of discretion, especially in light of increasing violence around campus.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Nov 2, 2007 17:30:49 GMT -5
I remember those days too, Cam (I was in school the same years as you). The best stories of "non arrests" during those years that I can remember (all names withheld to protect members of HoyaTalk and the legal, government, and medical professions who may be implicated): 1. A stupid freshman walks out of a house in 2001 with a beer in hand, is promptly busted by Metro, and is given a choice: go to jail or pick up every piece of trash on N street between 36th and 37th. He choses trash duty. Bonus: I got it all on videotape. 2. A sophomore in 2000 sitting on a stoop in Burleith gets caught red-handed (literally; he had a red solo cup) by a passing squad car. As he's being frisked on the hood of the car, he asks "officer am I in trouble," to which the officer replies "oh no, you're just going to jail." Officer then -- without having gotten his ID -- goes into the house to see if there are any other underaged drinkers. The sophomore books it for Henle and never sees that cop again. 3. A group of sophomores in Alumni Square throw a joint party in their stairwell in 2000. Having figured out that you can fit a keg behind each fridge in an Alum Sq kitchen (current residents, you listening?), their plan to avoid an alcohol violation if DOPS or Metro come calling is to - first - take the kegs out the opposite door to one of the other parties in the stairwell, and - second - to hide them behind the fridges. Well, there were 4 parties in the stairwell, and after about an hour of back-and-forth (and DOPS getting increasingly frustrated and threatening to involve the real cops), DOPS pulls the fire alarm and clears everyone out onto the street. They search the apts, find one of the kegs (hadn't been hidden), and begin questioning everyone. Everyone promptly denies living there and walks to Village A. 4. Apartment mates in Nevils in 2001 decide to throw a kegs-n-eggs on St Pattys. After the two-story beer-drop into a buddy's mouth and tons of noise, DOPS gets wise. Upon entering the house and not finding any kegs - just empty cups - they go upstairs and proceed to check the rooms themselves. The final room they come to is the bathroom, where one of the apartment mates is showering....with the keg in the shower to protect it from DOPS. After a minute or so of questioning, the student refuses to let them in while he's "indecent" and denies the keg's very existence. DOPS leaves, and keg (and party) are saved. 5. This one's my favorite: a bunch of students throw a party. Said members decide that--it being April--it was time to get rid of the christmas tree. Well, there were no dumpsters around, so why not throw it off the Key Bridge into the river? they thought. On the walk down to the bridge, lots of branches and leaves fall off. Once tossed over the bridge, they deicde to pick up all the fallen timber and burn them (they "realized" they should have lit the tree on fire before tossing). Said members then find a tub in which to burn the tree's remains, and get to it. Well, the tub starts to melt, and after about 2 hours -- once the tub was a pile of molten goo, and the fire almost out -- they hear a deep voice say "you know that's illegal in the District of Columbia, right?" and turn to see a DOPS officer. Ol' DOPSy decides to go to the street to call for backup, goes out of sight, and the students scatter, close down the party, and a different party ends up getting busted. And that's the way the belly buttons. Well, when I was in school (1998-2002) the DC Metro started a huge "campaign" against underage drinking that involved numerous sting operations, undercover officers and full on bar raids. Dozens and dozens of students were arrested each year and placed in central holding for the night to be released at 5:30AM downtown. Goodtimes. Some of the more egregious arrests I heard of: 1) 20-year old junior arrested on while walking down Prospect with his aunt (granted she looked young for 35); his offense was helping her carry her groceries from the car to the house which included a case of beer. 2) Plain-clothes officer posing as the bagger in Freshfields arresting my friend for attempting to purchase two bottles of wine without an ID. 3) DC police calling up to my friend as he sat on his back porch during a casual weekend afternoon BBQ and asking him to come down and chat with them...as soon as he stepped out into the alley with his plastic cup he was arrested for possession of alcohol in public. Those are just some of the countless arrests that took place during operation Iron Fist. The end result, in 2004 GW, Gtown and AU students filed a class-action suit on behalf of all students arrested on the grounds that under a 1997 DC statute "minor in possession" was NOT an arrestable offenses. The law had actually been specifically amended to prevent arrest of minors. This effectively shut down DC metros efforts for the duration of the lawsuit which eventually settled. www.thehoya.com/news/021004/news7.cfmSeems that DC Metro is finding new ways to go after the students now that this door was shut. My advice, find another reason why the police harassment is illegal. I suggest sending over a scouting party to the Gtown law center...I bet you can find more than one 3L who'll gladly research and advocate the issue for you.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 2, 2007 18:25:20 GMT -5
I know we have some actual lawyers on this board, so I'm not going to pretend that I know squat 2 months into law school BUT (just putting a theory out there): Is it at all reasonable for a group, here the student body or representatives of the student body, to sue the police force and the city for some kind of negligent allocation of resources? Maybe the correct parties aren't even limited to students because the crimes going unchecked aren't limited to the University. There were apparently several incidents on campus this week, two of which involved mace. (http://www.thehoya.com/news/110207/news1.cfm) So I'm just thinking that any reasonable and prudent police force turns the bulk of its resources towards violent crime, robberies, and girls getting hit in the head with bottles as opposed to minor drinking and noise disturbances. If it could be shown that the increased cost, time, man-power, etc. of the party-patrolling should reasonably be applied to the more serious problems, you think there might be a case? I know this would lead to an obvious argument that allowing such a suit would allow people to sue over speeding tickets or anything else they consider too insignificant to warrant the time of the police. But to me, consciously taking a bulk of man-power and very openly declaring that it will be used for party busting seems like a more extreme, almost reckless abuse of discretion, especially in light of increasing violence around campus. Governmental immunity would protect the government being sued for exercising its discretion in allocating such resources. Otherwise you could sue for not allocating enough money to the school marching band, or not spending enough on parks & recreation, etc.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 2, 2007 18:36:44 GMT -5
I know we have some actual lawyers on this board, so I'm not going to pretend that I know squat 2 months into law school BUT (just putting a theory out there): Is it at all reasonable for a group, here the student body or representatives of the student body, to sue the police force and the city for some kind of negligent allocation of resources? Maybe the correct parties aren't even limited to students because the crimes going unchecked aren't limited to the University. There were apparently several incidents on campus this week, two of which involved mace. (http://www.thehoya.com/news/110207/news1.cfm) So I'm just thinking that any reasonable and prudent police force turns the bulk of its resources towards violent crime, robberies, and girls getting hit in the head with bottles as opposed to minor drinking and noise disturbances. If it could be shown that the increased cost, time, man-power, etc. of the party-patrolling should reasonably be applied to the more serious problems, you think there might be a case? I know this would lead to an obvious argument that allowing such a suit would allow people to sue over speeding tickets or anything else they consider too insignificant to warrant the time of the police. But to me, consciously taking a bulk of man-power and very openly declaring that it will be used for party busting seems like a more extreme, almost reckless abuse of discretion, especially in light of increasing violence around campus. Governmental immunity would protect the government being sued for exercising its discretion in allocating such resources. Otherwise you could sue for not allocating enough money to the school marching band, or not spending enough on parks & recreation, etc. Yeah, I thought something immunity might apply. This seems like such a more intentionally reckless allocation that I thought there may be an exception. I mean, imagine a city that uses 95% of its money on band uniforms and ignores adequately policing. I wasn't sure if there was some sort of angle that a suit could approach that from.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 3, 2007 11:52:06 GMT -5
I know we have some actual lawyers on this board, so I'm not going to pretend that I know squat 2 months into law school BUT (just putting a theory out there): Is it at all reasonable for a group, here the student body or representatives of the student body, to sue the police force and the city for some kind of negligent allocation of resources? Maybe the correct parties aren't even limited to students because the crimes going unchecked aren't limited to the University. There were apparently several incidents on campus this week, two of which involved mace. (http://www.thehoya.com/news/110207/news1.cfm) So I'm just thinking that any reasonable and prudent police force turns the bulk of its resources towards violent crime, robberies, and girls getting hit in the head with bottles as opposed to minor drinking and noise disturbances. If it could be shown that the increased cost, time, man-power, etc. of the party-patrolling should reasonably be applied to the more serious problems, you think there might be a case? I know this would lead to an obvious argument that allowing such a suit would allow people to sue over speeding tickets or anything else they consider too insignificant to warrant the time of the police. But to me, consciously taking a bulk of man-power and very openly declaring that it will be used for party busting seems like a more extreme, almost reckless abuse of discretion, especially in light of increasing violence around campus. It's intriguing, but unfortunately your suit would lack standing. You can't bring a suit as a tax payer alone. If you allowed people to do this, they would bring suits about every spending decision made by legislature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2007 11:00:52 GMT -5
strummer85 - just stop. Please. I beg you. Don't remind me why I hate law students and their Editeding hypotheticals. EDIT: 4. Apartment mates in Nevils in 2001 decide to throw a kegs-n-eggs on St Pattys. After the two-story beer-drop into a buddy's mouth This sounds vaguely familiar...
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 5, 2007 12:37:06 GMT -5
strummer85 - just stop. Please. I beg you. Don't remind me why I hate law students and their Editeding hypotheticals. You may not have gone to law school, but do you know what the word hypothetical means? The situation is actually going on. And a number of years ago, people (largely students) actually did file a suit against Metro for making inappropriate arrests. Now, it seems like they're working around that previous decision. So how is it a hypothetical to look at an actual situation in the neighborhood and ask if there's a new basis for suing? Next time you get maced, hit in the face with a bottle, and robbed, we can talk about the hypothetical nature of police resources in Georgetown. It's very likely that the same group robbed multiple people within blocks of the front gates over the course of an hour, and no one was caught. Damn law students.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2007 14:47:43 GMT -5
You may not have gone to law school, but do you know what the word hypothetical means? The situation is actually going on. And a number of years ago, people (largely students) actually did file a suit against Metro for making inappropriate arrests. Now, it seems like they're working around that previous decision. So how is it a hypothetical to look at an actual situation in the neighborhood and ask if there's a new basis for suing? Next time you get maced, hit in the face with a bottle, and robbed, we can talk about the hypothetical nature of police resources in Georgetown. It's very likely that the same group robbed multiple people within blocks of the front gates over the course of an hour, and no one was caught. Damn law students. As a law school graduate, I can safely say that with his last post strummer has successfully added the "Arrogant Prick" law student routine to his already potent "I Don't Profess To Be An Expert In Subject X, But Let Me Give You A Long Dissertation Anyway So I Can Hear Myself Speak" routine! You're a "Resume Boast" away from "That Guy" status! Bravo!!! I understand the meaning of "hypothetical." Do you understand the concept of people speaking figuratively? If you want to continue your semantics hissy-fit, feel free to PM me.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 5, 2007 15:01:25 GMT -5
Oh please. Someone with my credentials, not to mention political connections, would never need to stoop to "That Guy" status. I also had a stellar GPA, and my mom says I'm the handsomest guy in school.
I'm not going to fight with a stranger in public. All I was doing in the first place was responding to a previous post with an idea. Apologies if it really irked you that much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2007 15:07:41 GMT -5
Oh please. Someone with my credentials, not to mention political connections, would never need to stoop to "That Guy" status. I also had a stellar GPA, and my mom says I'm the handsomest guy in school. I'm not going to fight with a stranger in public. All I was doing in the first place was responding to a previous post with an idea. Apologies if it really irked you that much. Well played. Maybe you don't need to double the fiber in your diet like most 1L's should. There's hope for you yet...
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 5, 2007 16:58:23 GMT -5
Buff, your private practice defending child molesters and war criminals has been lucrative, but it has made you soft.
|
|