🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <3a191d9e.24133855@news.mindspring.com>,
>  send-to-spam991@yahoo.com (Spam) wrote:
>>
>> So, please explain your point.  Do you support the severity of the
>> action taken by the authorities in this case?  Or are you simply so
>> intolerant about the smell of French fries that you feel children
>> should be handcuffed and arrested for bringing them onto Metro
>> property, rather than being issued a ticket or a verbal warning?

Michael Malak <malak@claygency.com> wrote:

>I feel that an official action stronger than a verbal warning was
>justified and necessary, given the willful intent and the reported
>history of problems at the location.

Where is the proof that there was willful intent to disregard the
rule, as opposed to careless or ignorant behavior?

>DC laws require taking into custody for minors.

I somehow doubt that minors are required to be arrested for any and
all offenses.

>I'm not a lawyer nor a psychologist, so I defer
>to them to judge whether that is good policy.

If I'm not mistaken, that's what this whole discussion is about.

>Handcuffs were probably going too far

Now I'm confused.  You do or you don't support what the Metro police
did?

>but then again, I really can't say since I'm also not a
>police officer who lives with danger daily.

We're talking about Metro police here, not the DCPD.  The level of
"daily danger" is quite a bit lower.