Curfews For Teens: Are They The Answer?

[MJS]

I see plenty wrong with it, barring unusual circumstances. I just don't think it's the government's job to deal with it.

Well, first and foremost, the parents need to start stepping up. Unfortunately, there're some that don't know how to raise their kids. So, another question for you. If the parents don't step up, who should, in order to keep a 13yo off the streets? The cops, the gvt?

Its easy for all of us, especially in these discussions, to armchair QB what should/should not be done, but a solution needs to be created.

 

[Empty Hands]

If the parents don't step up, who should, in order to keep a 13yo off the streets? The cops, the gvt?

No one, until the kid breaks the law or appears in danger. Thus, I would have no problem with the cops "apprehending" a four year old wandering the streets alone because she is clearly in need of some help. 13 yr olds though, not so much.

 

[MJS]

I see plenty wrong with it, barring unusual circumstances. I just don't think it's the government's job to deal with it.

No one, until the kid breaks the law or appears in danger. Thus, I would have no problem with the cops "apprehending" a four year old wandering the streets alone because she is clearly in need of some help. 13 yr olds though, not so much.

Maybe I'm not following your logic here, and forgive me if thats the case. But IMO, the above paragraphs contradict each other. In the first one, you say that you see plenty wrong with it, when I asked:

So, just so we're clear on this, you see nothing wrong with a 13yo being out on a Wed night at 3am?

and in the second paragraph, you're saying that you wouldn't mind it as much.

So, going back to that list of reasons why someone would be out at that hour. Ok...work...well, I highly doubt a 16yo would be working until 3am. School function...I doubt one would go until 3am. So, please point me to a solid reason as to why a 13yo would be out at 3am.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Maybe I'm not following your logic here, and forgive me if thats the case. But IMO, the above paragraphs contradict each other. In the first one, you say that you see plenty wrong with it, when I asked:

So, just so we're clear on this, you see nothing wrong with a 13yo being out on a Wed night at 3am?

and in the second paragraph, you're saying that you wouldn't mind it as much.

So, going back to that list of reasons why someone would be out at that hour. Ok...work...well, I highly doubt a 16yo would be working until 3am. School function...I doubt one would go until 3am. So, please point me to a solid reason as to why a 13yo would be out at 3am.

I think the point that you are choosing not to see is that it is not the responsibility of a private citizen to answer for their actions to the government, in any circumstances.

It is the responsibility of the government to answer to private citizens for their actions.

If their is criminal activity afoot, then it is the job of the government to prove their case. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. A person on trial need not explain themselves, hence the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Plus, as you know, a police officer can stop a child already to check on their well-being. If, they suspect criminal activity, they can stop a child on that basis.

The question is, do we want to prosecute children in a court of law for merely being out at night. I dont think that we do, regardless of the fact that childrens status in the eyes of the law are different than adults.

 

[Archangel M]

Ehhh...I dont think most curfew violations are "persecuted" as much as they are penalized through fines. Heres LA's

Violations are punishable by a fine of $250.00 totaling $675.00 with penalty assessments, community service, and/or may affect whether you can obtain or keep a driver’s license number.

And their law provides for the following exceptions.

Curfew laws restrict the rights of juveniles to be outdoors or in public places during certain hours of the day. Such laws aim to establish a safer community and to better protect kids from becoming victims of crime or becoming involved in delinquent behaviors. The Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) 45.03 states:

It is unlawful for any minor under the age of eighteen (18) to be present in or upon any public street, highway, road, curb area, alley, park, playground, or other public ground, public place, or public building, place of amusement or eating place, vacant lot or unsupervised place between the hours of 10 p.m. on any day and sunrise of the immediately following day; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply:

a. when the minor is accompanied by his or her parent or parents, legal guardian or other adult person having the lawful care or custody of the minor, or by his or her spouse eighteen years of age or older; or

b. when the minor is upon an errand directed by his or her parent or parents or legal guardian or other adult person having the legal care or custody of the minor, or by his or her spouse eighteen years of age or older; or

c. when the minor is attending or going to or returning directly home from a public meeting, or a place of public environment, such as a movie, play, sporting event, dance or school activity; or

d. when the presence of such minor in said place or places is connected with or required with respect to a business, trade, profession or occupation in which said minor is lawfully engaged; or

e. when the minor is involved in an emergency such as a fire, natural disaster, automobile accident, a situation requiring immediate action to prevent serious bodily injury or loss of life, or any unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state which calls for immediate action; or

f. when the minor is in a motor vehicle involved in interstate travel; or

g. when the minor is on a sidewalk abutting the minor’s residence.

In other words, your kid would have to be out wandering about with no apparent purpose. I would have to think that the fines are applied to the parents. I would love to be able to sock a juveniles parent with a fine when little johhny is out at 3 AM breaking into cars or lighing the local playground equipment on fire. The kid typically gets a slap on the wrist in Family Court and goes his merry way.

 

[MJS]

I think the point that you are choosing not to see is that it is not the responsibility of a private citizen to answer for their actions to the government, in any circumstances.

It is the responsibility of the government to answer to private citizens for their actions.

If their is criminal activity afoot, then it is the job of the government to prove their case. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. A person on trial need not explain themselves, hence the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Plus, as you know, a police officer can stop a child already to check on their well-being. If, they suspect criminal activity, they can stop a child on that basis.

The question is, do we want to prosecute children in a court of law for merely being out at night. I dont think that we do, regardless of the fact that childrens status in the eyes of the law are different than adults.

So, pretty much what you're saying is that if a kid wants to stay out all night, thats fine, and nobody should question it. Its not the job of the govt., the police or anyone else to ask why any parent with any amount of common sense, would allow their 12 yo, 13yo, etc to be out at 3am.

Unless I'm missing it, according to the articles, nobody is getting arrested. They are being brought to a location where they can be picked up. I don't recall seeing that they'd be brought to the PD, fingerprinted, cuffed, and thrown in a cell.

So if a cop can do the well being check, why have the curfew at all? I mean, either way, the cop is going to question them. I'm assuming by your post here:

"Plus, as you know, a police officer can stop a child already to check on their well-being. If, they suspect criminal activity, they can stop a child on that basis."

that they can stop them without any suspicion of criminal activity?

Hey, maybe I'm the only one who wonders why any parent would allow their kid to be out, because we all know how people love to cry foul. So imagine this...a single mothers 3 kids, ages 12, 10, and 14 are out at 3am, while she's in bed sleeping. The kids happen to be in the wrong area at the wrong time and get mugged, beat up, kidnapped, shot, stabbed, raped, and the first thing out of this mothers mouth is, "Why weren't the police doing their job protecting the public and my kids?"

 

[MJS]

Ehhh...I dont think most curfew violations are "persecuted" as much as they are penalized through fines. Heres LA's



And their law provides for the following exceptions.



In other words, your kid would have to be out wandering about with no apparent purpose. I would have to think that the fines are applied to the parents. I would love to be able to sock a juveniles parent with a fine when little johhny is out at 3 AM breaking into cars or lighing the local playground equipment on fire. The kid typically gets a slap on the wrist in Family Court and goes his merry way.

I'm sure some will still insist this is wrong and cry foul, because as its been said, kids should be able to be out and the gvt. has no right, blah, blah. Personally, I see nothing wrong with LAs policy. If the kid is out, with a legit reason, such as whats listed, fine. If the kid is with a legal guardian, fine. That, IMO, is where I think we all may be getting confused. I'm not questioning the kids who have a legit purpose, I'm questioning the ones who are out for the sake of being out, with no purpose. I doubt anywhere, that a minor would be allowed to work a PT job, that has hours that extend past a certain time. Looking at this I see nothing that has them working past 12am. While it takes time to travel back home, its a legit reason to be out.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I'm sure some will still insist this is wrong and cry foul, because as its been said, kids should be able to be out and the gvt. has no right, blah, blah. Personally, I see nothing wrong with LAs policy. If the kid is out, with a legit reason, such as whats listed, fine. If the kid is with a legal guardian, fine. That, IMO, is where I think we all may be getting confused. I'm not questioning the kids who have a legit purpose, I'm questioning the ones who are out for the sake of being out, with no purpose. I doubt anywhere, that a minor would be allowed to work a PT job, that has hours that extend past a certain time. Looking at this I see nothing that has them working past 12am. While it takes time to travel back home, its a legit reason to be out.

You are continually trying to frame the debate in your own context, without even trying to begin to understand where the other side is coming from.

Not a single person here said that it is ethically or morally right for children to be allowed out at 3 am. What we are saying is that the government should not have any right to prosecute people, even children, just for being outside.

That, IMO, is where we all may be getting confused.

So if a cop can do the well being check, why have the curfew at all? I mean, either way, the cop is going to question them. I'm assuming by your post here:

"Plus, as you know, a police officer can stop a child already to check on their well-being. If, they suspect criminal activity, they can stop a child on that basis."

that they can stop them without any suspicion of criminal activity?

I agree, why have the curfew. It is another limit to the freedom of non-criminal persons within this country.

Hey, maybe I'm the only one who wonders why any parent would allow their kid to be out, because we all know how people love to cry foul. So imagine this...a single mothers 3 kids, ages 12, 10, and 14 are out at 3am, while she's in bed sleeping. The kids happen to be in the wrong area at the wrong time and get mugged, beat up, kidnapped, shot, stabbed, raped, and the first thing out of this mothers mouth is, "Why weren't the police doing their job protecting the public and my kids?"

I hate to break it to you, but the police are under no legal obligation to protect anyones specific child. She may cry foul, but it doesn't really matter.

And you are not the only one to wonder such a question. But again, I don't think that is where the confusion arises. It is a question of the legitimate role of government and police, not whether a child should be outside at that time.

And do you think that an individuals / special interest group should be allowed to dictate government policy. Just because it may occur, doesn't make it right.

 

[MJS]

You are continually trying to frame the debate in your own context, without even trying to begin to understand where the other side is coming from.

Not a single person here said that it is ethically or morally right for children to be allowed out at 3 am. What we are saying is that the government should not have any right to prosecute people, even children, just for being outside.

That, IMO, is where we all may be getting confused.

Who said anything about prosecuting people? They're picking up the kids, taking them to a location, calling the parents, and having them pick up their kids. Again, I don't recall seeing anything on a kid being brought to jail, unless a crime was taking place.

I understand what people are saying here. Parents don't want anyone telling them what their kid can/can't do. I guess I'm just curious as to what reason one could possibly have for letting a 12yo out at 3am. If its not morally right, and you state that nobody here has said anything different, then again, why would someone condone their kid being out...if its not morally right?

Let me ask you this. if the kid is out at 2am, just hanging around on the sidewalk, is that loitering? If they're on their own property in the back yard, with 6 of their friends playing and being loud, is that disturbing the peace? If they're hanging out at the local school, is that trespassing? Would a police officer have a right to take any action?

I agree, why have the curfew. It is another limit to the freedom of non-criminal persons within this country.

And like I've said a number of times already, yes, unfortunately, the good ones will suffer for the actions of the bad ones.

I hate to break it to you, but the police are under no legal obligation to protect anyones specific child. She may cry foul, but it doesn't really matter.

Simply an example. We see it all the time. People love to blame others for their own faults, because they don't have the guts to admit when they're wrong. Again, I was simply using an example that we've seen a million times. I mean how many times have we heard people say, "Maybe if the cops were patrolling instead of sitting in their cars, (insert crime here) wouldn't have happened!"

And you are not the only one to wonder such a question. But again, I don't think that is where the confusion arises. It is a question of the legitimate role of government and police, not whether a child should be outside at that time.

And do you think that an individuals / special interest group should be allowed to dictate government policy. Just because it may occur, doesn't make it right.

But if you stop and think about it, this example of the curfew is just one of countless that the govt. is using to control what people do. If people don't want to be told what to do, perhaps they should move to an island in the middle of nowhere, where they can be their own boss.

 

[Empty Hands]

Maybe I'm not following your logic here, and forgive me if thats the case. But IMO, the above paragraphs contradict each other.

Not at all. My entire argument here is pointing out a dichotomy between what I find personally wrong and what the government should find wrong and enforce by law. For instance, I think adultery is wrong, and I also think it shouldn't be illegal. Same here. I wouldn't want my kid out at that time, but I don't think it is the place of the government to make that determination unless there is danger or lawbreaking involved.

 

[MJS]

Not at all. My entire argument here is pointing out a dichotomy between what I find personally wrong and what the government should find wrong and enforce by law. For instance, I think adultery is wrong, and I also think it shouldn't be illegal. Same here. I wouldn't want my kid out at that time, but I don't think it is the place of the government to make that determination unless there is danger or lawbreaking involved.

Ok, thanks. One thing that I would like you to further expand on is your last paragraph. For reference, I put it in bold. The reason for the curfew law, is due to the increase in violence in the city. Every Summer it blows up, hense the reason for the State Police to come in to help. Shootings pretty much on a daily basis. So, IMHO, there is a big risk of danger. Now, perhaps you or someone else may have a different view, and thats fine, but I'd have to say that a young kid being out, alone without an adult, in the city is pretty dangerous.

 

[Empty Hands]

Now, perhaps you or someone else may have a different view, and thats fine, but I'd have to say that a young kid being out, alone without an adult, in the city is pretty dangerous.

Well I must admit I was thinking of my own childhood in these responses, which is in the suburbs. I suppose there has to be room for a reasonable compromise depending on where and what we are talking about. Crime at its worst these days though is still a fairly unlikely event to happen to any individual. I lived in one of the highest crime cities in America for a year, walking through and working in one of the worst areas, and I never had a problem. A sense of balance needs to be present.

 

[MJS]

Well I must admit I was thinking of my own childhood in these responses, which is in the suburbs. I suppose there has to be room for a reasonable compromise depending on where and what we are talking about. Crime at its worst these days though is still a fairly unlikely event to happen to any individual. I lived in one of the highest crime cities in America for a year, walking through and working in one of the worst areas, and I never had a problem. A sense of balance needs to be present.

Likewise, I didn't grow up in the city. I feel pretty confident to say that I could walk around my town at 3am and not have to worry about getting mugged. Could it happen? Well, anything could happen, but the odds IMO are lower vs. the city. Now, head about 10min north of me on the highway to where this curfew is going on...forget it. Now, this isn't to say that crime doesn't happen in my town because it does. However, on the same scale as the city in question...there is a huge difference.

So, let me ask this question to everyone. If a curfew isn't the answer because you feel that its violating some right, what would you suggest to curb the issues that are going on in the city where this curfew is in effect?

 

[Archangel M]

If you look at crime trends, crime is really not "at its worst" these days. The crime rate has been relatively stable and actually decreasing over a 40 year period. What does change are crime patterns. What types of crime go up and what types go down, and where these crimes happen.

 

[Archangel M]

And under my states definition, all the curfew laws I have come across are not "criminal" in nature (a "crime" by definition carrys a punishment of imprisionment). These laws a local ordinance violations, they carry a fine. Pretty much the equivalent of a traffic ticket.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

And under my states definition, all the curfew laws I have come across are not "criminal" in nature (a "crime" by definition carrys a punishment of imprisionment). These laws a local ordinance violations, they carry a fine. Pretty much the equivalent of a traffic ticket.

This is the Conneticut penal code definition of a crime:

Sec. 53a-24. Offense defined. Application of sentencing provisions to motor vehicle and drug selling violators. (a) The term "offense" means any crime or violation which constitutes a breach of any law of this state or any other state, federal law or local law or ordinance of a political subdivision of this state, for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment or to a fine, or both, may be imposed, except one that defines a motor vehicle violation or is deemed to be an infraction. The term "crime" comprises felonies and misdemeanors.

Here is the Hartford Ordinance Section:

Sec. 25-4. Curfew for minors.
It shall be unlawful for any child under the age of eighteen (18) years to loiter on the streets or in any theater or other public place in the city after 9:00 p.m., unless such child is accompanied by his/her parents or guardian, or other adult person into whose care and custody such child has been committed by his/her parent or guardian.

(Code 1977, § 24-5; Ord. No. 57-93, 9-16-93)

Now this:

Sec. 25-1. Penalty.A person who violates any provision of this chapter, with the exception of a person who violates section 25-14, shall be summoned or brought to community court pursuant to P.A. 97-199. A person who is summoned or brought before the community court cannot invoke any of the appeal rights provided by section 1-5 of the Hartford Municipal Code. The superior court judge assigned to the community court may impose a penalty of community service, a fine up to ninety dollars ($90.00) or a jail sentence of up to twenty-five (25) days to any person who is convicted of violating any provision of this chapter.

It is therefore a crime, with a penalty attached. Whether the police department chooses to ask for the penalty portion or not, is irrellevant to the defining of a curfew violation being a crime.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Who said anything about prosecuting people? They're picking up the kids, taking them to a location, calling the parents, and having them pick up their kids. Again, I don't recall seeing anything on a kid being brought to jail, unless a crime was taking place.

The municipal code section that I cited said that they could prosecute. That is a crime for just being outside.

I understand what people are saying here. Parents don't want anyone telling them what their kid can/can't do. I guess I'm just curious as to what reason one could possibly have for letting a 12yo out at 3am. If its not morally right, and you state that nobody here has said anything different, then again, why would someone condone their kid being out...if its not morally right?

It is not about whether parents want other people telling their children what to do. It is about whether the government has a right to detain their children, transport them anywhere, possibly issue them a citation associated with a penalty, all for just being outside after a certain time.

Let me ask you this. if the kid is out at 2am, just hanging around on the sidewalk, is that loitering? If they're on their own property in the back yard, with 6 of their friends playing and being loud, is that disturbing the peace? If they're hanging out at the local school, is that trespassing? Would a police officer have a right to take any action?

Yes, but that does not mean it is a crime.

If a person makes a compaint, then yes.

If school is out, and there are laws against it, yes.

Disturbing the peace is a crime, and so is trespassing. So yes, a police officer would be able to take action.

And like I've said a number of times already, yes, unfortunately, the good ones will suffer for the actions of the bad ones.

And the question is, is that the right action. Suppose this situation. Kid just got into an argument with his parents and take a walk around the block to cool off. Say this occurs around 10pm. The police see him and arrest him.

So now, we got a good kid trying to cool off, and we penalize him for it.

But if you stop and think about it, this example of the curfew is just one of countless that the govt. is using to control what people do. If people don't want to be told what to do, perhaps they should move to an island in the middle of nowhere, where they can be their own boss.

[/QUOTE]

No one is saying that the government should not stop people from injuring others. But what is the injuryto a kid walking around the block, going to their friends home, playing basketball in the park, even though it occurs at 9:30pm.

 

[MJS]

The municipal code section that I cited said that they could prosecute. That is a crime for just being outside.

I highly doubt they'll bring the kid to jail, and I say this because I've seen records of criminals who have done far worse crimes than being out past a certain amount of time, get nollied, when one would think, that after doing the same crime 10 times, they'd be in jail.

It is not about whether parents want other people telling their children what to do. It is about whether the government has a right to detain their children, transport them anywhere, possibly issue them a citation associated with a penalty, all for just being outside after a certain time.



Yes, but that does not mean it is a crime.

If a person makes a compaint, then yes.

If school is out, and there are laws against it, yes.

Disturbing the peace is a crime, and so is trespassing. So yes, a police officer would be able to take action.

I'm quoting both parts here even though they're for 2 seperate questions. When I asked if it was a crime to be on school grounds if the school is closed, you said, yes, if there is a law against it. Therefore, if there is a law against kids under a certain age being out, then yes, wouldn't the gvt. have the right?

And the question is, is that the right action. Suppose this situation. Kid just got into an argument with his parents and take a walk around the block to cool off. Say this occurs around 10pm. The police see him and arrest him.

So now, we got a good kid trying to cool off, and we penalize him for it.

And in the meantime, if the parents call the police to report a domestic, the kid is going to get picked up either way. However, you're right, yes, a good kid would end up suffering. Par for the course, just like we have to pay the price for people that shoplift, and run various scams. The good people pay the price because the dirtbags don't want to play by the book.

No one is saying that the government should not stop people from injuring others. But what is the injuryto a kid walking around the block, going to their friends home, playing basketball in the park, even though it occurs at 9:30pm.

Hmm..I recall in another post, someone mentioned:

"4. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor; for the parents AND anyone over 18 in the group, if there are kids out there. Why? Because they're letting the kids be in a situation that could render them delinquent (breaking the law...)"

BTW, I'm still interested in hearing a reply to this question I asked a few posts back:

So, let me ask this question to everyone. If a curfew isn't the answer because you feel that its violating some right, what would you suggest to curb the issues that are going on in the city where this curfew is in effect?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I highly doubt they'll bring the kid to jail, and I say this because I've seen records of criminals who have done far worse crimes than being out past a certain amount of time, get nollied, when one would think, that after doing the same crime 10 times, they'd be in jail.

I wouldn't want to rely on your "highly doubt" hypothesis.

You are also talking about a situation which has recieved an inordinate amount of public scrutiny, about which the police and city management feel the need to do something about. Just because they don't do anything about adults who do something, does not mean that the same will apply to these childrens.

I'm quoting both parts here even though they're for 2 seperate questions. When I asked if it was a crime to be on school grounds if the school is closed, you said, yes, if there is a law against it. Therefore, if there is a law against kids under a certain age being out, then yes, wouldn't the gvt. have the right?

You are right. What I am debating here is that there should not even be a curfew law. If they have one, I fully expect that they will enforce it.

And the only reason I say "if there is a law against it" is that a school is not public property, even though it is owned by the city. Often, there must be "No Tresspassing" signs posted in conspicuous places in order for it to be actually illegal as well.

And in the meantime, if the parents call the police to report a domestic, the kid is going to get picked up either way. However, you're right, yes, a good kid would end up suffering. Par for the course, just like we have to pay the price for people that shoplift, and run various scams. The good people pay the price because the dirtbags don't want to play by the book.

I don't understand you point about if the parents call the police to report a domestic. How is that pertinent to this discussion?

I may pay the price for people shoplifting, but that is in the prices that I pay at a private business. Plus, I don't lose my freedom because someone else shoplifts, which interestingly enough, is ironic. You are saying that a minor who does nothing more the be outside after a certain time be punished via the criminal justice system for the crimes other people commit.

Hmm..I recall in another post, someone mentioned:

"4. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor; for the parents AND anyone over 18 in the group, if there are kids out there. Why? Because they're letting the kids be in a situation that could render them delinquent (breaking the law...)"

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

BTW, I'm still interested in hearing a reply to this question I asked a few posts back:

Easy answer. Directed enforcement related to the high crime areas and specific people actually committing, or suspected of committing violent crime.

Even though minors may be proportionately more affected because that is the demographic committing the crime, this will not affect, without the reasonable suspicion required by law, non-criminal minors.

What I find remarkable, however, is that this law (or its current enforcement) is not even designed to arrest/detain criminals. According to the article, it is designed to keep children off the street so that they cannot become victim's of crime. So really, the targeted demographic are the victim's twice, once for the violent crime, and second for the enforced curfew due to the violent crime.

It reminds me of the fact that here in my city, if your car is stolen, it is often towed to the city tow yard. All of the towage and storage costs are then incurred by the victim of the theft. How about that for justice.

 

[MJS]

I wouldn't want to rely on your "highly doubt" hypothesis.

You are also talking about a situation which has recieved an inordinate amount of public scrutiny, about which the police and city management feel the need to do something about. Just because they don't do anything about adults who do something, does not mean that the same will apply to these childrens.

Given the high crime rate in the city, I still stand by my comment. And one would think, given the high attention this situation is getting, that if someone was arrested, you would think it would say in the paper.

You are right. What I am debating here is that there should not even be a curfew law. If they have one, I fully expect that they will enforce it.

And the only reason I say "if there is a law against it" is that a school is not public property, even though it is owned by the city. Often, there must be "No Tresspassing" signs posted in conspicuous places in order for it to be actually illegal as well.

The curfew law isa 30 day trial. It'll be interesting to see the results and what happens after the 30 days.

I don't understand you point about if the parents call the police to report a domestic. How is that pertinent to this discussion?

You said:

"And the question is, is that the right action. Suppose this situation. Kid just got into an argument with his parents and take a walk around the block to cool off. Say this occurs around 10pm. The police see him and arrest him."

To which I replied:

"And in the meantime, if the parents call the police to report a domestic, the kid is going to get picked up either way. However, you're right, yes, a good kid would end up suffering."

My point was good kid or not, he'd still be picked up by the police.

I may pay the price for people shoplifting, but that is in the prices that I pay at a private business. Plus, I don't lose my freedom because someone else shoplifts, which interestingly enough, is ironic. You are saying that a minor who does nothing more the be outside after a certain time be punished via the criminal justice system for the crimes other people commit.

Is there a lgeit reason for the kid to be out? If the kid was coming home from work, a school activity, with a parent, etc., then no, nothing should happen. There is a legit reason. Just being out for the sake of being out at 3am, to hang out on the street corner, to hang in front of a business. Come on. So now you could have an elderly person or a female who could feel intimidated by this group, which now causes the store to lose business.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

I'm assuming you've read this entire thread before jumping in? The post I quoted was made by someone who commented on something I said about an incident that happened in the city that I work for. Here, let me point you to the posts in question. Here, and here. I would think that as a LEO, you're familiar with ways to get around things. I mean, you see a car, that you know is being driven by a known drug dealer. But to pull him over for no reason...well, we know that isn't right. So you drive behind and wait until he fails to signal for a turn. There is your reason to pull him over, get a look in the car, etc. But I don't think I need to be saying this.

Easy answer. Directed enforcement related to the high crime areas and specific people actually committing, or suspected of committing violent crime.

Even though minors may be proportionately more affected because that is the demographic committing the crime, this will not affect, without the reasonable suspicion required by law, non-criminal minors.

What I find remarkable, however, is that this law (or its current enforcement) is not even designed to arrest/detain criminals. According to the article, it is designed to keep children off the street so that they cannot become victim's of crime. So really, the targeted demographic are the victim's twice, once for the violent crime, and second for the enforced curfew due to the violent crime.

Thank you! Now we're getting somewhere! I think the idea of special groups to focus on problem areas are great and they actually do work too!

It reminds me of the fact that here in my city, if your car is stolen, it is often towed to the city tow yard. All of the towage and storage costs are then incurred by the victim of the theft. How about that for justice.

That happens where I work as well. And yes it does suck that the victim has to pay the price 2 times...once for the loss/damage to the car and second for the tow fees.