246 Are they kidding?


Tom Garrett 3 years, 7 months ago

You would probably think I am making this up if I didn't give you links, so I'll put up two links at the end of this post:

The article that started all this is the one you will go to if you click on the first link.

Here's a quote from it:

start quote

If you're old enough to drive, are you old enough to vote?

You soon will be if you live in Takoma Park, Md. The famously progressive suburb of Washington has just extended voting rights in municipal elections to 16- and 17-year-olds.

end quote

And here's a quote from the second article, the one you'll read if you click on the second link.

start quote

Metropolitan Police are cracking down on juveniles breaking curfew, which applies to both residents and non residents, Takoma Park Police said.

The curfew law applies to all persons under the age of 17 during curfew hours. This includes both District residents as well as young people who reside elsewhere.

The punishment for breaking curfew is up to 25 hours of community service."

end quote

I won't say anymore because I know doggone well you're itching to make a comment.

The links:




Robbin Flowers 3 years, 7 months ago

The youth must be very threatening. 25 hours of community service and lots of fees, I'm sure. I hope "they" don't step up enforcement here. We really don't need any more police here. The less police we have, the less "acting out" we will have. And, as far as I can tell from the sheriffs I have met, in general they are good peace keepers. Just a little misled by Globes policies.


Rex Hinshaw 3 years, 7 months ago

What does enforcement and size of the police force HERE have to do with the topic of this thread? I'm really glad that you think the sheriffs are good peace keepers...but AGAIN has nothing to do with the topic.


Ronald Hamric 3 years, 7 months ago

Well lets see. Old (responsible) enough to drive and vote, but not old enough (responsible) to be out on the streets during "curfew" hours. Talk about double standards. Tom, I know you can appreciate this. When I was a young Marine, at 17, 18, 19, and 20 years old I could not "legally" have a beer in the "E" Club on base or in any establishment off base. Old (responsible) enough to fight, take lives, or lose my life for my country but not old (responsible) enough to either vote for my Commander in Chief or have a beer. I see via your links, the incongruity of those types of views are still with us.


Kim Chittick 3 years, 7 months ago

I have always wondered at the incongruity of these views, as well.

It seems to me that the only purpose of curfew laws is to allow police to harass people. Any more, you cannot tell from looking how old or young someone is, therefore, curfew laws give police the option of harassing virtually anyone without grey hair.

As Ron stated, one is old enough to fight, take lives, or lose thier life, but not old enough to order a beer. As if most kids under 21 have not already drank. Ridiculous thinking.


Tom Garrett 3 years, 7 months ago

Yes, Ron, they are. Curfew laws, like so many other laws, are elitist laws, passed by those who are afraid of the people. Elitists are always at it, making laws telling you that you have to mow your lawn, put up iron reinforced signs, buckle your seat belt, stay off the streets at night, and be absolutely perfect when you are taking care of your children. But have you ever looked at how the same people respond when they break the laws they make? They get a phalanx of lawyers to prove they did nothing wrong.

If--God bless them!--thousands upon thousands of 17 year olds were willing and able to fight for this nation, then they at least deserve to be afforded the God-given right to stay up after dark.


Harass is the right word.

I remember one time when I was a kid in New London. It was about 2 p.m. and I and Earl Reisel, who had both just come from work at Ocean Beach, where we got off each night somewhere between midnight and four in the morning. We had come into town on the bus were enjoying a few minutes of rest on a summer's night before walking the rest of the way home (which was one mile for me and nine for him).

We were sitting on the front steps of the County Court house, built in 1784, three years before the signing of the Constitution, and talking about Nathan Hale, who taught farther up Huntington street, on which the courthouse sits. His schoolhouse was located about a hundred yards from my house and we were talking about what a great place New London was to grow up in.

Here came a cop car. Some butthead came out of it and told us to "move along." Even today I remember what that felt like. You could have searched the land and not found two better citizens. We were doing absolutely nothing wrong, and the chances that either of us ever would do anything wrong were few and none.

We both stood up, stuck out our hands, and said, "Arrest us."

That was quite a moment.


Michael Waterman 3 years, 6 months ago

That's funny Tom. In todays world the police officer would be calling for back up as he was taseing you to the ground for not obeying a lawful order and making "aggressive" moves by thrusting your hands in his direction! The proper response in 2013 is "yes Sir......leaving for home now, Sir.


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.