Thursday, March 3, 2016

City changes way it will treat people drinking or urinating (or both) in public


[Pee Phone™ photo from 2014]

Well, we somehow missed this announcement on Tuesday... via the DA's office...

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., New York City Police Department Commissioner William J. Bratton, and Mayor Bill de Blasio today announced a new initiative to change how individuals who commit low-level offenses are processed in Manhattan.

Beginning on Monday, March 7, 2016, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office will no longer prosecute most violations or infractions, and the NYPD will no longer arrest individuals who commit these offenses – such as littering, public consumption of alcohol, or taking up two seats on the subway – unless there is a demonstrated public safety reason to do so.

This initiative will enable the NYPD to devote its resources to investigating serious crimes, while further reducing the backlog of cases in Criminal Court. The issuance of summonses instead of arrests is expected to result in the diversion of approximately 10,000 arrests that would be prosecuted in Manhattan Criminal Court.

Public urination is also on the list of low-level offenses, per published reports.

Will the city's new policy make you more likely to urinate in public?
Yes
Yes, and when is SantaCon?
No
If you don't like urinating in public, then move to _____
Beer store!
personality test

23 comments:

  1. Has anyone pee'd on one of those LinkNYC things yet? There aren't any reviews on Yelp.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is great news, no need to pick up now when I take a public dump just like the many people whose dogs shit on my block.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When does this start? I've been holding it in for hours now.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was walking by a LinkNYC monolith the other day and thinking of tacos. Boom! It showed me an ad for Taco Bell. Weird.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm a public defender. I don't see any change with this law. The only time we saw these cases, were if they had a prior warrant.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm calling this change in the law "piss-drunk".

    ReplyDelete
  7. What a load of....! If you live in the EV, long or short time, you know that these "supposed" laws are never enforced. Yes I said never. You know it, I know it and the police know it. Nobody cared one way or the other. So why bother to even spend time thinking about it?
    But if my dog poops on the spot where someone pisses...or vice a versa....maybe I won't bother to pick it up. Why should I? Nobody seems to care about anything anymore. Civility and respect have become obsolete.

    So sure...go ahead..piss, drink, throw up, pass out all you want. Nobody cared before and nobody will care now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @anon 10:00
    If a person defecates on the street as humans we can imagine it is out of desperation and not because that's is that person's preferred choice. When your leave your dog's poop on the street you should be fined and shamed by your neighbors, there is a huge difference. Just because someone else breaks a law this does not entitle you to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is an example of structural racism. Why not in the Bronx or Bed-Sty? Because the perps in Manhattan are whites and tourists. They really need to do something about spitting and snotting. People really do have to be instructed in this stuff, its not common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I didn't think they arrested people in the first place for these violations, just a ticket to be paid by mail or in person? Will they not be giving these tickets out anymore if they see a pisser, drinker, or litterer? That seems lazy af. Also with you grump, spitting of any manner snot oriented or not in public is appalling, where did all the manners go?

    ReplyDelete
  11. My name's I.P Freely and I endorse this message.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh no. Beer Store is the John Kasich of urination policy. Vote beer drinkers!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I received a robocall questionnaire about this exact thing the other night. The questions were clearly biased so I did my best to choose the opposite of everything they were hoping for.

    Example: Broken window policy has been credited with saving thousands of lives, mostly of young, inner city men. Does this fact make you A) more likely to want a return to broken window policing or B) Less likely to want a return.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Excellent news for urinary artists!

    I always considered it censorship to restrict urinary art.
    We have had excellent white canvases in the form of several snowstorms.
    With the next snow, I will finally be able to re-create Duchamp's Mona Lisa in yellow on white.

    Urs

    ReplyDelete
  15. No different than what they were doing before. Instead of arrests, w Bratton's Gestapo Force (BGF) will now only be giving summonses to the minorities while turning the blind eye or giving verbal warnings to the white privileged or not. BGF is counting on the fact that it’s a pain in the ass to fight these types of minor tickets, and maybe not even financially worth it, considering that the ticketed minority might need to take time off work in order to get the fine dismissed. Not to mention the fact that sometimes courts rule in favor of the these very minor offenses.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Since when do people taking up two seats on the subway get issued tickets? I instagram them and tag them #metrocardvip.

    ReplyDelete
  17. it's not so much how the police enforce pissing and drinking in the street - it's the fact that the policy is now to allow it.
    more and more anti-social behavior is being ignored.
    how far can we push the envelope against common sense and consideration?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I can't believe I am somewhat siding on the public pissers but the city offers little in the way of public facilities.

    ReplyDelete
  19. When has loitering EVER been prosecuted? According to article cited, it will be continued to be prosecuted by DA's office.

    ReplyDelete

Your remarks and lively debates are welcome, whether supportive or critical of the views herein. Your articulate, well-informed remarks that are relevant to an article are welcome.

However, commentary that is intended to "flame" or attack, that contains violence, racist comments and potential libel will not be published. Facts are helpful.

If you'd like to make personal attacks and libelous claims against people and businesses, then you may do so on your own social media accounts. Also, comments predicting when a new business will close ("I give it six weeks") will not be approved.