Potential 16 years in jail and 3/4 million dollar fine for arguing with someone on…

By /
Potential 16 years in jail and 3/4 million dollar fine for arguing with someone on a bus?
I am not cool with this. 


This post has been reshared 1 times on Google+
 View this post on Google+

21 thoughts on “Potential 16 years in jail and 3/4 million dollar fine for arguing with someone on…”

  5. Seth Jefferies

    I guess it all needs to be put into perspective. Two guys were stabbed on the bus that goes by my old house, one died, and several others were injured in the fight.

  7. Jürgen Erhard

    So stabbing someone is a "disturbance"?  Stabbing someone is… aggravated assault?  Not sure if that's something on the books, but stabbing certainly is that, at least.  If not, as Brandon says, even (attempted, if he lives) murder.

  8. Ian Santopietro

    To be fair, the disturbance has to hinder operation of the bus. You can be loud and shouty all day, but if the bus keeps going on as normal, they can't nab you with this.

  13. Seth Jefferies

    The point is not that murder, stabbing etc… are simply disturbances, but they aren't going to spell out all potential crimes that could be committed on a bus in a 7-8 line sign on the bus. They are going to paint with broad strokes using general terms in the hope that things will not escalate.
    Imagine them putting up a sign that says, "murdering on this bus will not be tolerated", that would just make people either more angry or view the sign as nothing less than absurd. So they use a word like disturbance, put out this huge penalties that likely apply to a situation like the one that occurred in the 135 and hope that things don't escalate.

  15. Brandon Peterson

    Sorry Seth, I'm not buying it. If there's actually any portion of the population that thinks stabbing/murdering people on the bus is fair game without that sign then we need to seriously re-evaluate our society. A "disturbance" charge should carry at most a couple hundred bucks fine and little/no jail time. Anything beyond a reasonable definition of "disturbance" should be fairly obvious to anyone with a brain that it would entail much more severe charges and punishment.

    The laws in our country have gotten way out of control. There's been many books written about it – one for example argues that any average person commits three felonies per day. I sure hope that's not true but even if it's only one per week it's clear we seriously need to reform things here.

  16. Ian Santopietro

    It goes beyond simply attempting to prevent murder. It's trying to maintain pleasant, civil atmosphere (as pleasant as a public bus can be), not prevent a murder. It's also ensuring prompt service to the public.

    If the bus is late, it not only affects the people on the bus presently, but anybody waiting down the line to ride that bus later. It can cause missed connections/transfers to many people as well.

    The penalties may be a bit steep, but the combination of these two effects represent a good incentive, IMO.

  17. Brian Covey

    It's not about the sign, or about the law. It's about empowering the citizens and the driver who don't seem capable of acting without explicit direction.

    No sign? No power to tell asshat to sit his ass down.
    With sign? "Hey dipshit. Either sit your ass down or I'm stopping the next cop I see."

    In the past things like this wasn't needed because the driver would kick you off the bus, with the help of the other passengers. Now, with lawsuit threats and "Hey, you can't touch me…" bullshit the public simply cannot act without explicit direction.
    This sign is that explicit direction. Thats all.

  18. Jonathon Barton

    +Brian Covey *Explicit direction* need not entail the explicit threat of the loss of your freedom (and sudden entitlement to 3-squares and plenty of time to take up that exercise regimen you had as a New Year's Resolution) for *up to 32% of an average adult American's life*

    Because this is the letter of the law (which, by the way, explicitly says "All Violators Will Be Prosecuted To The Fullest Extent Of The Law) , there's going to be someone, somewhere, who stands up to the dude with the Too Loud Music, "Hey, dipshit, turn your music down!" – and an argument will ensue.
    This person will not get to court and be able to assume the mantle of "Upper Middle Class White Male Commuter With A Good Job And A Suit, Full Of Contrition and Remorse For His Momentary Lapse Of Reason", and they will get the judge on a bad day, with a bad lawyer, etc…and they will actually get the full 16 years. 

    For. A. Single. Heated. Conversation.

    Alternately, because I don't want to go to prison for over a decade, I am the one going to sit down, shut up, and not ask Miss Too Loud Music to please turn her goddamn Miley Cyrus down.

    Essentially, there is no argument that you can make that makes this sign, as written, anything but a sign of government wildly out of control, and I submit for your consideration that, considering the nature of the crime (causing a disturbance on a bus), this punishment (if handed down by a Prosecution To The Fullest Extent Of The Law) may potentially be considered to be in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the precedents set by Furman v. Georgia, wherein Justice Brennan wrote:
    Rather, these "cruel and unusual punishments" seriously implicated several of the principles, and it was the application of the principles in combination that supported the judgment. That, indeed, is not surprising. The function of these principles, after all, is simply to provide means by which a court can determine whether a challenged punishment comports with human dignity. They are, therefore, interrelated, and in most cases it will be their convergence that will justify the conclusion that a punishment is "cruel and unusual." The test, then, will ordinarily be a cumulative one: If a punishment is unusually severe, if there is a strong probability that it is inflicted arbitrarily, if it is substantially rejected by contemporary society, and if there is no reason to believe that it serves any penal purpose more effectively than some less severe punishment, then the continued infliction of that punishment violates the command of the Clause that the State may not inflict inhuman and uncivilized punishments upon those convicted of crimes. (emphasis mine)

    Unfortunately, some sucker has to actually take that bet to take it up to SCOTUS to challenge it.

  20. Jonathon Barton

    Nah, I just have Law as a Hobby.

    It leads me to spending too much time making well crafted, very defensible arguments on the internet that nobody actually reads.

    It's a terrible affliction.

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top