5 ms·

Let's find some common sense here... This is one of those open ended laws that's designed to allow authorities to take action if a problem arises based on good

by dotBen 4y ago

Let's find some common sense here... This is one of those open ended laws that's designed to allow authorities to take action if a problem arises based on good judgement but most of the time you can ignore it it. If you use "specialist equipment" to perform an auto repair inside your closed garage no one is going to know. But if you are constantly repairing cars in your garage, it's likely that will cause a nuisance and you will get cited. This is just like a "no food or drink" ordinance on public transport - no one is going to enforce if you are sipping coffee from a travel mug or eating a candy but can enforce if you bring on a bag of McDonalds and leave it on the seats.

mschuster91 4y ago
I agree and while I am a supporter of such laws, I do see the problem of "selective enforcement" that these policies tend to bring with them. Either they apply for everyone, get enforced by everyone and the enforcement agencies are monitored for that, or it will get abused. For example, in a lot of public transport in Germany, alcohol consumption is banned, after young people partied and trashed trains too often. Enforcement is usually only limited to these people as well (and let's be real, it's disproportionately targeted towards non-white people), and people looking like managers or tradesmen don't get into trouble - obviously, young people are right to call that "double standards".
akerl_ 4y ago
A law that relies on the good judgement of the people enforcing it is a bad law, both because reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes "good" judgement and because the law needs to guard against both malicious and unintentional misuse of the state's power.
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  Ultimately every law relies on judgment calls. It’s impossible to make laws 100% clear cut in all situations.
  - kortex 4y ago
    That's no excuse for obnoxiously vague laws. Let's say, hypothetically, the premise of "save the environment" is valid. Instead of banning "tools not commonly found in the residence", which is completely open to interpretation, you could specifically ban refrigeration evacuation equipment. This is still bad (as it singles out HVAC repair folks), but it's worlds better than letting enforcers arbitrarily decide whether a vacuum pump, security torx set, tachometer, or ignition tester is verboten. Also, oil changes are specifically allowed, and they are one of the primary causes of pollution from home car tinkerers.
  - akerl_ 4y ago
    Thankfully nobody is suggesting that laws be made 100% clear cut in all situations.
- dotBen 4y ago
  But that's not how laws work in reality. The police decide whether to enforce a law or not - eg whether to give you a speeding ticket or not. The district attorney will decide whether to bring a case to trial. Even the supreme Court, as we've seen with Roe v. Wade, can decide a different interpretation on the same fundamental laws and constitutional rights. As an engineer who has worked with a lot of lawyers, a great observation I once received from one was that the law is fungible and should not be treated like source code.
  - akerl_ 4y ago
    The statistics make pretty clear that the examples you listed are all pretty good examples of my point. Police disproportionally apply traffic laws to some groups vs others, and DAs apply similar profiling in deciding who to charge and for which crimes. It's not a good thing.
    - naasking 4y ago
      Exactly, fungibility is a problem, not a feature. If the law were not fungible and the police were obligated to charge any violations, and the DA was obligated to prosecute any charges, then the law becomes a nuisance to everyone and we'd see a lot more citizen involvement in reducing that nuisance by more strictly limiting state power. Reducing that nuisance by making the law fungible instead means those in power people get to be selective and make exceptions for friendlies while oppressing their opponents.
  - quadrifoliate 4y ago
    > As an engineer who has worked with a lot of lawyers, a great observation I once received from one was that the law is fungible and should not be treated like source code. Yes. This keeps lawyers employed, because rich people and companies can employ a "great lawyer" to present creative interpretations of various fungible laws; whereas poor people and companies cannot afford to do so, and have to fall upon the mercy of those enforcing the law, like in the cases you mentioned. This does not mean that we should just accept the state of affairs. Laws with clear-cut examples and precedents will reduce the inherent unfairness that I cited above. This is especially true in the US, where lots of groups with differing backgrounds form a melting pot culture where norms can change rapidly. Even if you are a member of a group that's a beneficiary of the status quo, that is not guaranteed forever; so it is to your benefit to have clarity in law.
yardie 4y ago
> based on good judgement but most of the time you can ignore it it. When it comes to laws and the American justice system we should absolutely ask where does it end. I have yet to see a law use good judgement. And sometimes that "judgement" leaves people dead. Philando Castile died for driving while black. In fact, there was no reason to pull him over other than the fact that he may have looked like a suspect. So no I do not give the justice system in this country any common sense. It has proven repeatedly not to operate with any.
- peteradio 4y ago
  Breaking news cop acts with good discretion, oh wait that's not something that goes in the news because its the normal state of affairs.
3np 4y ago
> This is just like a "no food or drink" ordinance on public transport - no one is going to enforce if you are sipping coffee from a travel mug or eating a candy I've been told off by an official for sipping water from a small pet bottle on a balmy summer day in the metro. I wouldn't know if being obviously foreigner had anything to do with that or not.
iudqnolq 4y ago
> This is just like a "no food or drink" ordinance on public transport - no one is going to enforce if you are sipping coffee from a travel mug or eating a candy but can enforce if you bring on a bag of McDonalds and leave it on the seats I suggest going to your local municipal courthouse some day and listening to the cases. Because you're extrapolating from your own experience, and are completely wrong.
- dotBen 4y ago
  Say more
cataphract 4y ago
If the problem is the nuisance caused by people constantly repairing cars in the garage then cite those people for the noise, visual pollution or whatever is actually causing the nuisance. It's like those people saying cannabis should be illegal not because cannabis it's a problem per se but because it gives the authorities a pretext to stop people, look for unregistered weapons and otherwise help with their investigations. I get that the job of the police is hard, but that's how it's supposed to be.
Turing_Machine 4y ago
> This is just like a "no food or drink" ordinance on public transport - no one is going to enforce if you are sipping coffee from a travel mug or eating a candy but can enforce if you bring on a bag of McDonalds and leave it on the seats Or if they just don't like they way you look. Selectively-enforced laws are, and always have been, a recipe for abuse.
hartator 4y ago
> Let's find some common sense here... This is one of those open ended laws that's designed to allow authorities to take action if a problem arises based on good judgement but most of the time you can ignore it it. Give me a man and I will find the crime. This is the kind of law-ness that allows racism and authoritarianism.
Nifty3929 4y ago
One of my tests for a law is: "If this law were enforced 100% (regardless of feasibility of doing so) would we still want this law?" Otherwise, we're asking for selective, discriminatory enforcement, and also overly-strict laws which we tolerate because they aren't enforced much. $250k and/or 5 years in prison for some ripped MP3's anyone? Not enforced much, so we tolerate it. But if enforced 100% how would we feel about it?
- bfgoodrich 4y ago
  [dead]
HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
Or unless, you know, they just don't like you for some reason but now have an excuse they can use to go after you.
np- 4y ago
Is there really common sense though? A similarly low stakes example, when public drinking was banned in NYC in 1979, there was a direct quote from the council member who sponsored it that basically implied the same thing, that proper judgment will be used [1]. > “We do not recklessly expect the police to give a summons to a Con Ed worker having a beer with his lunch,” said Councilman Frederick E. Samuel, DemocratLiberal of Manhattan, who was one of the primary sponsors of the bill. Nowadays, 40 some odd years later, yes, that same ConEd worker will definitely be cited if they crack open a drink. Judgment has long since been thrown out the window for a literal interpretation of the law, and it's likely the original context has also long since been forgotten. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1979/05/10/archives/new-york-to-ban-alcoholic-drinks-in-public-areas-a-little-sociable.html https://www.nytimes.com/1979/05/10/archives/new-york-to-ban-...

by dotBen 4y ago

mschuster91 4y ago

I agree and while I am a supporter of such laws, I do see the problem of "selective enforcement" that these policies tend to bring with them. Either they apply for everyone, get enforced by everyone and the enforcement agencies are monitored for that, or it will get abused. For example, in a lot of public transport in Germany, alcohol consumption is banned, after young people partied and trashed trains too often. Enforcement is usually only limited to these people as well (and let's be real, it's disproportionately targeted towards non-white people), and people looking like managers or tradesmen don't get into trouble - obviously, young people are right to call that "double standards".

akerl_ 4y ago

A law that relies on the good judgement of the people enforcing it is a bad law, both because reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes "good" judgement and because the law needs to guard against both malicious and unintentional misuse of the state's power.

zeroonetwothree 4y ago
Ultimately every law relies on judgment calls. It’s impossible to make laws 100% clear cut in all situations.
- kortex 4y ago
  That's no excuse for obnoxiously vague laws. Let's say, hypothetically, the premise of "save the environment" is valid. Instead of banning "tools not commonly found in the residence", which is completely open to interpretation, you could specifically ban refrigeration evacuation equipment. This is still bad (as it singles out HVAC repair folks), but it's worlds better than letting enforcers arbitrarily decide whether a vacuum pump, security torx set, tachometer, or ignition tester is verboten. Also, oil changes are specifically allowed, and they are one of the primary causes of pollution from home car tinkerers.
- akerl_ 4y ago
  Thankfully nobody is suggesting that laws be made 100% clear cut in all situations.
dotBen 4y ago
But that's not how laws work in reality. The police decide whether to enforce a law or not - eg whether to give you a speeding ticket or not. The district attorney will decide whether to bring a case to trial. Even the supreme Court, as we've seen with Roe v. Wade, can decide a different interpretation on the same fundamental laws and constitutional rights. As an engineer who has worked with a lot of lawyers, a great observation I once received from one was that the law is fungible and should not be treated like source code.
- akerl_ 4y ago
  The statistics make pretty clear that the examples you listed are all pretty good examples of my point. Police disproportionally apply traffic laws to some groups vs others, and DAs apply similar profiling in deciding who to charge and for which crimes. It's not a good thing.
  - naasking 4y ago
    Exactly, fungibility is a problem, not a feature. If the law were not fungible and the police were obligated to charge any violations, and the DA was obligated to prosecute any charges, then the law becomes a nuisance to everyone and we'd see a lot more citizen involvement in reducing that nuisance by more strictly limiting state power. Reducing that nuisance by making the law fungible instead means those in power people get to be selective and make exceptions for friendlies while oppressing their opponents.
- quadrifoliate 4y ago
  > As an engineer who has worked with a lot of lawyers, a great observation I once received from one was that the law is fungible and should not be treated like source code. Yes. This keeps lawyers employed, because rich people and companies can employ a "great lawyer" to present creative interpretations of various fungible laws; whereas poor people and companies cannot afford to do so, and have to fall upon the mercy of those enforcing the law, like in the cases you mentioned. This does not mean that we should just accept the state of affairs. Laws with clear-cut examples and precedents will reduce the inherent unfairness that I cited above. This is especially true in the US, where lots of groups with differing backgrounds form a melting pot culture where norms can change rapidly. Even if you are a member of a group that's a beneficiary of the status quo, that is not guaranteed forever; so it is to your benefit to have clarity in law.

yardie 4y ago

> based on good judgement but most of the time you can ignore it it. When it comes to laws and the American justice system we should absolutely ask where does it end. I have yet to see a law use good judgement. And sometimes that "judgement" leaves people dead. Philando Castile died for driving while black. In fact, there was no reason to pull him over other than the fact that he may have looked like a suspect. So no I do not give the justice system in this country any common sense. It has proven repeatedly not to operate with any.

peteradio 4y ago
Breaking news cop acts with good discretion, oh wait that's not something that goes in the news because its the normal state of affairs.

3np 4y ago

> This is just like a "no food or drink" ordinance on public transport - no one is going to enforce if you are sipping coffee from a travel mug or eating a candy I've been told off by an official for sipping water from a small pet bottle on a balmy summer day in the metro. I wouldn't know if being obviously foreigner had anything to do with that or not.

iudqnolq 4y ago

> This is just like a "no food or drink" ordinance on public transport - no one is going to enforce if you are sipping coffee from a travel mug or eating a candy but can enforce if you bring on a bag of McDonalds and leave it on the seats I suggest going to your local municipal courthouse some day and listening to the cases. Because you're extrapolating from your own experience, and are completely wrong.

dotBen 4y ago
Say more

cataphract 4y ago

If the problem is the nuisance caused by people constantly repairing cars in the garage then cite those people for the noise, visual pollution or whatever is actually causing the nuisance. It's like those people saying cannabis should be illegal not because cannabis it's a problem per se but because it gives the authorities a pretext to stop people, look for unregistered weapons and otherwise help with their investigations. I get that the job of the police is hard, but that's how it's supposed to be.

Turing_Machine 4y ago

> This is just like a "no food or drink" ordinance on public transport - no one is going to enforce if you are sipping coffee from a travel mug or eating a candy but can enforce if you bring on a bag of McDonalds and leave it on the seats Or if they just don't like they way you look. Selectively-enforced laws are, and always have been, a recipe for abuse.

hartator 4y ago

> Let's find some common sense here... This is one of those open ended laws that's designed to allow authorities to take action if a problem arises based on good judgement but most of the time you can ignore it it. Give me a man and I will find the crime. This is the kind of law-ness that allows racism and authoritarianism.

Nifty3929 4y ago

One of my tests for a law is: "If this law were enforced 100% (regardless of feasibility of doing so) would we still want this law?" Otherwise, we're asking for selective, discriminatory enforcement, and also overly-strict laws which we tolerate because they aren't enforced much. $250k and/or 5 years in prison for some ripped MP3's anyone? Not enforced much, so we tolerate it. But if enforced 100% how would we feel about it?

bfgoodrich 4y ago
[dead]

HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago

Or unless, you know, they just don't like you for some reason but now have an excuse they can use to go after you.

np- 4y ago

Is there really common sense though? A similarly low stakes example, when public drinking was banned in NYC in 1979, there was a direct quote from the council member who sponsored it that basically implied the same thing, that proper judgment will be used [1]. > “We do not recklessly expect the police to give a summons to a Con Ed worker having a beer with his lunch,” said Councilman Frederick E. Samuel, DemocratLiberal of Manhattan, who was one of the primary sponsors of the bill. Nowadays, 40 some odd years later, yes, that same ConEd worker will definitely be cited if they crack open a drink. Judgment has long since been thrown out the window for a literal interpretation of the law, and it's likely the original context has also long since been forgotten. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1979/05/10/archives/new-york-to-ban-alcoholic-drinks-in-public-areas-a-little-sociable.html https://www.nytimes.com/1979/05/10/archives/new-york-to-ban-...