3 ms·

Good point about the proliferation of the absurd “crime” of loitering, which apparently just means “existing somewhere without spending money.” I remember being

Good point about the proliferation of the absurd “crime” of loitering, which apparently just means “existing somewhere without spending money.” I remember being a teen in the 80s and what we did every day would be considered “loitering” today. There’s not much else for kids to do outside the home besides loiter.

skinfaxi 5mo ago
I would be surprised if loitering laws are even enforceable today. I can see trespassing if you're asked to leave and don't, but getting arrested for being in one place too long? Especially a public place like a park? I'd donate to that gofundme. Kids could learn something from first amendment auditors and just start filming themselves in public.
- dfxm12 5mo ago
  Parks have operating hours. Cities have noise ordinances, etc., to give Cops options for booking who they want for whatever they want. Cops don't necessarily care what the laws are, anyway. I've taken a ride in paddy wagons to a station before for hanging out in a playground because a neighbor said we were causing trouble. We were just talking. No, we weren't processed, but we were left to figure out our own way back home. This was in the 90s. The same stuff happens today though.
  - hylaride 5mo ago
    The small rural Canadian town I grew up in (~2000 people) during the 1990s had a real estate agent that would call the cops if he saw any teenagers out after 9pm. He would literally lie to them, saying we were causing trouble if we were just walking to the convenience store. He was trying to keep the town "desirable" or something. This man fought anything that would keep teenagers occupied. Skate parks, benches, etc. My group would lay in the park during the dog days of summer just chatting and passing around a jug of orange juice, which he would tell the cops was spiked with vodka (which we did do, but never in the park). Of course, we (as in the teens in general) probably fed into his paranoia - let's just say harassing the neighbourhood teenagers rarely ends well...
    - greenavocado 5mo ago
      Compare how things were back then to now and this RE agent probably stroked out from the mannerisms of the recent newcomers
- t-3 5mo ago
  Very few children know enough and have the disposition to productively stand up to a cop (or any other seemingly legitimate authority) and try to defend their rights. Legally, whether they have the same rights as adults is also questionable.
BurningFrog 5mo ago
So why were loitering laws introduced? I doubt it was purely a sadistic effort to ruin the lives of kids. My guess is that combatting gang crime was a major reason.
- archonis 5mo ago
  Loitering laws have existed since english commonlaw, but in the modern era were adapted to penalize homelessness, unemployment, etc...
- probably_wrong 5mo ago
  My understanding is that loitering laws are much older than that - the first versions of these laws seems to date to 1342 [1]. IMO what all these laws have in common is that they're designed to allow the police to legally ask questions to people (or straight up remove them) who look suspicious but haven't committed any crime. Why would anyone want to remove people who haven't done anything wrong is a more nuanced question that I'm not qualified to properly answer. [1] https://eji.org/news/visual-history-loitering-laws/ https://eji.org/news/visual-history-loitering-laws/
  - strken 5mo ago
    There's an inherent tension between protecting public spaces and protecting vulnerable but disruptive people. Your link refers to an article which is very American and very 2018. Lots of large font size headings about race and sexuality and gender. I don't think it's a productive take on how to manage the tension. Racially homogenous societies still need to decide how to handle people who try to sleep at train stations and yell at the commuters.
    - wizzwizz4 5mo ago
      Sleeping at train stations is fine (as is sleeping on trains), and yelling at commuters is disruptive / antisocial behaviour. (I don't like the word "antisocial" in laws, because it's too open to interpretation, and then you have a load of case law defining what precisely "antisocial" means, known only to legal experts, leaving everyone else ignorant of the law.) It seems to me that additional rules against loitering are not useful for the situation you described.
elevation 5mo ago
> existing somewhere without spending money Existing without spending money works a lot better when you perceive and comply with social norms. At a mall, you're unlikely to meet loitering enforcement for reading a book in the food court all afternoon while sipping a drink you brought from home. You can meeting your local walking club there too and walk for miles chatting without purchasing anything -- if you're not bowling over the shoppers. But if you camp out in the entrance of the mall and roughhouse with your highschool buddies, your antisocial behavior will drive away customers. Perhaps you can't perceive this, or perhaps you do perceive it but don't care -- either way, once you're making shoppers uncomfortable, you're a strict liability. This doesn't mean you can't be kicked out for other reasons. But you get a lot farther if you play to your audience.
- mattmiller 5mo ago
  "Antisocial behavior" You are describing teens being social. You dont get to define what antisocial means.
  - abalashov 5mo ago
    Well, you do to some extent, and having people define what antisocial is for them is how teens learn to be prosocial (inshallah). Not a Karen -- it's about striking a balance.
  - yesfitz 5mo ago
    "Anti-social" has multiple definitions. The other poster was using it to mean the opposite of pro-social, i.e. behavior that is bad for society (like roughhousing in a shared space meant for shopping). This definition is frequently used in the UK and Ireland thanks to Anti-social Behavior Orders. You are using it to mean being averse to socializing.

skinfaxi 5mo ago

I would be surprised if loitering laws are even enforceable today. I can see trespassing if you're asked to leave and don't, but getting arrested for being in one place too long? Especially a public place like a park? I'd donate to that gofundme. Kids could learn something from first amendment auditors and just start filming themselves in public.

dfxm12 5mo ago
Parks have operating hours. Cities have noise ordinances, etc., to give Cops options for booking who they want for whatever they want. Cops don't necessarily care what the laws are, anyway. I've taken a ride in paddy wagons to a station before for hanging out in a playground because a neighbor said we were causing trouble. We were just talking. No, we weren't processed, but we were left to figure out our own way back home. This was in the 90s. The same stuff happens today though.
- hylaride 5mo ago
  The small rural Canadian town I grew up in (~2000 people) during the 1990s had a real estate agent that would call the cops if he saw any teenagers out after 9pm. He would literally lie to them, saying we were causing trouble if we were just walking to the convenience store. He was trying to keep the town "desirable" or something. This man fought anything that would keep teenagers occupied. Skate parks, benches, etc. My group would lay in the park during the dog days of summer just chatting and passing around a jug of orange juice, which he would tell the cops was spiked with vodka (which we did do, but never in the park). Of course, we (as in the teens in general) probably fed into his paranoia - let's just say harassing the neighbourhood teenagers rarely ends well...
  - greenavocado 5mo ago
    Compare how things were back then to now and this RE agent probably stroked out from the mannerisms of the recent newcomers
t-3 5mo ago
Very few children know enough and have the disposition to productively stand up to a cop (or any other seemingly legitimate authority) and try to defend their rights. Legally, whether they have the same rights as adults is also questionable.

BurningFrog 5mo ago

So why were loitering laws introduced? I doubt it was purely a sadistic effort to ruin the lives of kids. My guess is that combatting gang crime was a major reason.

archonis 5mo ago
Loitering laws have existed since english commonlaw, but in the modern era were adapted to penalize homelessness, unemployment, etc...
probably_wrong 5mo ago
My understanding is that loitering laws are much older than that - the first versions of these laws seems to date to 1342 [1]. IMO what all these laws have in common is that they're designed to allow the police to legally ask questions to people (or straight up remove them) who look suspicious but haven't committed any crime. Why would anyone want to remove people who haven't done anything wrong is a more nuanced question that I'm not qualified to properly answer. [1] https://eji.org/news/visual-history-loitering-laws/ https://eji.org/news/visual-history-loitering-laws/
- strken 5mo ago
  There's an inherent tension between protecting public spaces and protecting vulnerable but disruptive people. Your link refers to an article which is very American and very 2018. Lots of large font size headings about race and sexuality and gender. I don't think it's a productive take on how to manage the tension. Racially homogenous societies still need to decide how to handle people who try to sleep at train stations and yell at the commuters.
  - wizzwizz4 5mo ago
    Sleeping at train stations is fine (as is sleeping on trains), and yelling at commuters is disruptive / antisocial behaviour. (I don't like the word "antisocial" in laws, because it's too open to interpretation, and then you have a load of case law defining what precisely "antisocial" means, known only to legal experts, leaving everyone else ignorant of the law.) It seems to me that additional rules against loitering are not useful for the situation you described.

elevation 5mo ago

> existing somewhere without spending money Existing without spending money works a lot better when you perceive and comply with social norms. At a mall, you're unlikely to meet loitering enforcement for reading a book in the food court all afternoon while sipping a drink you brought from home. You can meeting your local walking club there too and walk for miles chatting without purchasing anything -- if you're not bowling over the shoppers. But if you camp out in the entrance of the mall and roughhouse with your highschool buddies, your antisocial behavior will drive away customers. Perhaps you can't perceive this, or perhaps you do perceive it but don't care -- either way, once you're making shoppers uncomfortable, you're a strict liability. This doesn't mean you can't be kicked out for other reasons. But you get a lot farther if you play to your audience.

mattmiller 5mo ago
"Antisocial behavior" You are describing teens being social. You dont get to define what antisocial means.
- abalashov 5mo ago
  Well, you do to some extent, and having people define what antisocial is for them is how teens learn to be prosocial (inshallah). Not a Karen -- it's about striking a balance.
- yesfitz 5mo ago
  "Anti-social" has multiple definitions. The other poster was using it to mean the opposite of pro-social, i.e. behavior that is bad for society (like roughhousing in a shared space meant for shopping). This definition is frequently used in the UK and Ireland thanks to Anti-social Behavior Orders. You are using it to mean being averse to socializing.