I submited the following question to WCCA’s SoapBox to be asked of City Councilor Joe Petty yesterday:
I, like many law abiding citizens carry a knife in some form everywhere I go as a force of habit. What empirical evidence do you use as a foundation for your belief that an individual who has decided to commit manslaughter with a knife, or any weapon for that matter, would have a change of heart in the face of a monetary fine?
If you skip to the 3:50 mark you can see the question is essentially skipped and instead Councilor Petty is given an opportunity to explain his position. Please allow me be the first to say we as citizens of Worcester should be frightend that this man plays a role in deciding what is best for us all. Councilor Petty may be one of the least articulate and poorly reasoned men to ever hold a leadership position in our fair city. If a degenerate such as myself can identify those character flaws, you sir are in way over your head.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
I actually like the question to Joe about why more folks are using knives “economy” was included and Joe responded “economy” as one reason
we are so afraid in this city most particular our leaders to point out that a good chunk of our urban city is inhabitated by bad folks..these knife attacks have all been in D4 or pretty damn close to it..
I just wish out leaders would spend more time on this issue alone and we would see a dramatic change in the city
It’s a fair answer, but in this case based on broken logic. Criminals don’t get a pass on experiencing economic flux as a result of supply and demand. Guns simply cost more on the street than they did a decade ago. They cost more to buy legally in MA as well.
So while we may have figured out a way to price most people out of the gun market we still haven’t figured out that pesky problem of people killing one another. I just find it staggering that the Worcester City Council feels it has the tools necessary to solve problems that have plagued humanity since before the dawn of civilization.
But you’re right, our problem in Worcester is economy. Has been since around the time WWII ended.
I don’t think Mauro was asking on the terms I was thinking..seems we blame economy for everything..but reality is that this wave of violence is symbolic of a what the urban core of Worcester has been since I have owned here and with little change..streets are cleaner, yards a wee bit cleaner but Worcester leaders have yet to figure out how to make the city a vibrant one like many other ciies in New England are becoming.
I see this ordinance doing little..not sure where my logic is broken but no beef
Seems all the CC’s are for this..listening to Joff Smih right now
I was referring to Councilor Petty dealing in broken logic, not you.
Democrats can just as easily step on our civil rights like the Republicans under he guise of public safety
People in positions of authority in general, excel at dismantling systems of rights.
I want to fine people who flatulate in elevators full of people. It’s a health hazard and also an uncapped carbon emission. Farts should be taxed.
Get on that council! We need more absurdity!
http://www.telegram.com/article/20081029/NEWS/810290614/1101
So which part of this bothers me the most? The “zero tolerance” position, which likens the entire populace to children inside a government run facility (a school)? Or the contradictory, but oft-repeated, claim that officers will have great flexibility in enforcing the law?
Neither explanation/justification is acceptable in America.
This idea of officer discretion is fast becoming the de facto line of reasoning for local ordinance.
People should be cautious of this school of thought as it demands that all subsequent administrations respect the spirit of the law as it is viewed today.
Equal protection under the law, anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
The Officer discretion portion is already part of the job (and training) of every sworn officer. You stop someone going 60 in a 40 mph zone and if they’re just blasting down the street you give ‘em a ticket. If they’re on the way to the ER with a kid gushing blood, you give ‘em an escort. Same thing with a hundred other relatively mundane aspects of “spirit of the law” police work. I’m sure cops are already arresting people for using knives in an attack, a fight, a threat, whatever. This statute seems to be aimed at the benign act of simply carrying a knife. Codifying “discretion” is self-nullifying and stupid, which means that it’ll be perfectly fine with the majority of the C.C.
Of course we allow police discretion as there is always an exception to the law, but here we’re writing lazy ordinance and relying upon it.
Pretty sure we’re saying the same thing.
I’m sure we are, I just can’t help but to put my two cents in.
I don’t suppose the ACLU-seless has been making any comment on the matter, or that there’s a single pol who is actually fighting to stop this thing from happening?
I can’t believe how he just dropped the question. That is some great interviewing skills there. How is he still on public access with those killer instincts?
Maybe he didn’t know what the word “monetary” meant, so he felt foolish asking it.
Isn’t the definition of “monetary”, “of or pertaining to the money fleeced from 175,898 people through rediculous fines and taxes set up by a knee-jerk reactionary over-liberal city council”?
Do NOT allow anyone on the City Council to see this link or your toolbox may be confiscated.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2008/10/29/1029bbdeaths.html