4 ms·
So... If all they are authorized to do is issue verbal warnings, the "warnings" are essentially meaningless, aren't they? Not saying this is a bad thing, just s
by dandelany 14y ago
So... If all they are authorized to do is issue verbal warnings, the "warnings" are essentially meaningless, aren't they? Not saying this is a bad thing, just strikes me as a bit odd - "Warning - stop smoking or I'll... Issue you another warning?"
- dagw 14y agoI'm guessing the process is: Issue warning. If person heeds warning, move on. If person ignored warning, grab them for something related, like loitering, being a public nuisance, disorderly conduct, harassment or whatever the local equivalent of not doing as you're told is.
- notimetorelax 14y agoThe article gives a reason for that: it's not clear at the moment how to enforce it, they are waiting for the new regulation to be drafted. I think it's absolutely correct on the part of the police department not to invent its own rules.
- snogglethorpe 14y agoThey're not going to enforce anything right now, but things are still up in the air, and they may in the future. By warning now, they can get the word out to people who start (following the election victory) lighting up in public, that "you might want to be careful about that, and here's why." So if they do decide to get more harsh on public use in the future, the the public will be more prepared, and there'll be less of a mess due to a sudden shift in enforcement. It seems pretty clever, and good policy.