as I understand it, yes. Which means it was a stupid law but Roberts as a judge does have to deal with the law as it is written....
Dana On 7/21/05, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All minors, by statute, had to be arrested. It did not matter if she > talked back. It did not matter if it was one fry. It did not matter if > the officer thought she should have been let off with a warning. > > The police had implemented a zero-tolerance policy. Everyone seen > eating in the subway was to be nabbed. > > If you were an adult, that could be a warning or a citation. > If you were a minor, that meant arrest. No questions. > > On 7/21/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jerry wrote: > > > Read the case. And the other cases cited. > > > > > > > So was she just nabbed and frog-marched to the police station or did > > she talk back to the officers or otherwise cause trouble before the > > detainment? > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Protect Your PC from viruses, hackers, spam and more. Buy PC-cillin with Easy Installation & Support http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=61 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:165802 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
