Tag: neo-prohibition

VanRy’s Express

Turns out Lemkin|5 came a few days too soon; here we have a bit of follow up that reaches all the way back to dickity-nine. You no doubt fondly recall the sad tale of Kimber VanRy, the man who received a $25 summons for just sitting there, drinking his own beer, on his own stoop, all safely enclosed behind his own gate there in Brooklyn.

Well, they’re at it again. The New York Times (again) reports that this time it’s Andrew Rausa and a few friends that were sitting on a similarly figured stoop behind bars; each received a summons. Even one friend who “was holding a red plastic cup filled with soda” received a $25 summons. This is hardly surprising, in that they made the cardinal mistake of pointing out the inherent foolishness and likely illegality of this sort of enforcement. Gentlemen, to the iPhone:

Holding his phone, Mr. Rausa approached the officer and said that because he was sitting on a private stoop behind a gate, he was not breaking the law.

“I don’t care what the law says, you’re getting a summons,” the officer said before rolling up his window, according to Mr. Rausa.

Frankly, he’s lucky he didn’t get his face used as a door opener for a few hours while the cops made their rounds. At the very least, a savage in situ beat-down would have ensued in various parts of town. Even in the absence of all that, a simmering rage gradually built over the $25 fines:

“We had an ‘I am Spartacus’ moment,” he recalled. “They were like, ‘No way, we’re going to fight this. This is injustice.’”

[…]

“My issue is not some yuppie, I-think-I’m-above-the-law-issue, it’s the fact that I brought to the attention of the police officer that he was not in the right and he was not receptive at all,” Mr. Rausa said.

File that last sentence under “least surprising thing ever reported by The Times of New York.” I’m not even entirely sure Mr. Rausa is still speaking English at that moment. But he’s right about the legality part. And that’s something, isn’t it? Rest assured we’ll be watching for the outcome of this one. If CourtTV hadn’t long ago switched its programming to only Bahrani hard-R independent films, we could all expect extensive coverage. But we can’t. So it goes.

Regarding the mechanics of the piece itself: what beers were they drinking? How many? Crown tops or twist? Where did you learn your trade, Vivian Yee? Clearly not from Clyde Haberman, who I trust is still with us. But, in partial recompense, Vivian does offer up some spicy VanRy where-are-they-now:

Since contesting his summons [and having it dismissed on a technicality], Mr. VanRy has moved from Prospect Heights to a brownstone in Windsor Terrace, but he hasn’t stopped enjoying his beers outside

Thank FSM for that. And godspeed to you, Andrew Rausa. A parched nation looks to you as you defend our freedom to drink a beer quietly whilst safely ensconced on our own property.

Neo-Prohibitionism

Somehow these sorts of observations never come up when, constant as the North Star, MADD is yet again pushing to get the limit down to 0.002  for anyone deigning to utilize a public sidewalk or somesuch:

Detective Spellman, who was given a blood test five and a half hours after the crash, had a blood alcohol level of 0.21 percent, according to the law enforcement official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to be identified discussing material related to a continuing investigation.

FIVE HOURS! Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. How was he able to reach his fucking car!?! But, by all means, let’s have the policy set to jail the soccer mom who had an utterly harmless glass of wine with her dinner.

I have no a priori sympathy for drunk driving/drunk drivers. Far from it. But it is beyond me why we can’t talk about the actual, observed BAC in accidents (and, for that matter, in drivers pulled over for substantive violations and not just the ever-popular “suspicion” canard) vs. where we are setting the standard. Just like with arguments over speed limits, no rationality is allowed in that debate, ever. In fact, it’s the anti-rational arguments that are ceaselessly rewarded and turned into the law of the land. We must solely THINK OF THE CHILDREN! and accept our marching orders; debate ended. Just why is that, and what sort of country does that governance structure create? I’d say California is currently a fairly obvious indication. Just how many Jordin’s Laws can we have before we get back to calling them “Sensible Limitations on Repeat Offenders Act of 2010"  (SLO-ROAd!) and such? Just after we’ve regained our collective sanity, I’d say.