The full City Council next month could be voting on a proposed curfew that would ban youths 17 and under from a variety of public places without a parent or legal guardian between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. Sunday-Thursday and midnight and 6 a.m. Friday and Saturday. In light of state officials recently defining a minor under the age of 18, some council members want the curfew to include anyone 17 and under.
The proposed curfew has been working its way through the city’s legislative body following the reaction to the shooting death of 14-year-old Justin Thompson in January. Do you support the curfew? Is it enforceable?
For more see here.
0
A knee-jerk reaction by a bunch of jerks on the council. Sure, let’s tie up the cops babysitting kids who should simply be parented a little better. Then when crime occurs while the cops are rounding up these kids, the rest of the city suffers. Brilliant!
This is just another law that can’t be enforced. The people on the council are pandering to a small group of people who are afraid to say what the real problem is. The real problem is parents of these kids are not doing their job. It is the parents’ responsibility to keep track of their kids, not the police department.
Why do we think every problem in society can be handled by passing a new law? Why do we think the average street cop can handle every social problem that is out there?
We have 21 cops on patrol duty for every shift and now the council expects them to be a taxi service for kids who are out too late.
This new law is bullshit and the people who are going to pass it are cowards.
You’re absolutely right, Andy. Does anyone really believe a curfew would have prevented the shooting death of 14-year-old Justin Thompson in January? What happens when police are accused of profiling? What happens when an underage youth is injured fleeing from the police? Well intentioned perhaps, but unenforceable in my eyes. The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.
There is already a curfew on the books. It is not enforced. Andy Fardy is correct–it is the PARENTS’ responsibility to know where their children are. Tell me–what was a 14 year old doing out walking the streets at 1 in the morning with a 20 year old and a 21 year old??? Please!!! my child is my responsibility–no one else’s.
No, it isn’t the parents’ job anymore. It’s the government’s job to raise them. To tell them not to drink big gulps, use salt or trans fats. It’s government’s job to provide food, shelter and free health care. Isn’t this the message folks are getting these days? It’s never their fault!
*** You’re right Phantom, all the effects of “GOP” trickle-down economics are continuing to plague our country today. Hopefully another four years of “Obama Care” might see us towards some type of economic recovery, no? *** WHO’S ZOOMING WHOM? ***
*** Fact of the matter is many of these kids hanging out or in gangs sometimes only have (if lucky) one parent or guardian at home who usually works long hours to make ends meet and does not spend quality time with their kids. It’s already been established 7 out of 10 black and Latino kids only have one parent or guardian at home, and that’s usually a mother or grandmother. Introduce the economic problems in America, drugs and lack of moral discipline along with failing quality education and you have chaos (mass confusion) in a materialistic urban setting. The old days are gone and these kids have to be taught right from wrong at an early age and not when they’re preparing to enter high school. Big Brother (Gov) must step in if only to be the disciplinarian on a temporary basis during the adolescent years and offer interesting positive alternatives that hopefully stimulate mature personal growth in time. And it’s not just in urban areas anymore, whites in the ‘burbs are going through many of the same problems, just at a slower pace! Could a curfew make a positive change in crime, parents and young kids’ attitudes? Maybe. Should it only be enforced on weekends say from Memorial Day to Labor Day on a trial basis with kids 17 years old and younger? Should the city do away with a lot of old unenforced laws on the books, also free up officers on a lot of unnecessary routine escort calls (example) like a call for EMS transportation, etc.? Whatever ideas politicians, City, State or Fed. government come up with, it’s going to take “BENJAMIN$!” But in the end, “it’s easier to build children than to mend adults” (PAL). Plus in the long run, adolescent programs and curfews are cheaper than keeping people in prison! No easy answers when “BENJAMIN$” and P/D manpower is down, crime and taxes are up and politicians are looking for a quick fix during an election year! But fact of the matter is “crime” is affecting everybody everywhere and like it or not, it’s everybody’s business to try to find a positive solution to a growing problem that’s not going away by ignoring it or blaming someone else. *** PEOPLE PROBLEMS NEED PEOPLE SOLUTIONS ***
Top Stories
City Council set to vote on youth curfew 07/12/2012 10:58 PM
BRIDGEPORT — Two City Council committees voted Wednesday to bring a proposed youth curfew as soon as August before the council.
The resolution now would allow police to outlaw anyone under age 17 from being out in public — including in theaters, cafes, shopping centers and vehicles — without a parent or legal guardian with few exceptions between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and between midnight and 6 a.m. Fridays and Saturdays.
But Wednesday, members of the council’s Public Safety and Transportation and Ordinance committees said they want to raise that age to anyone younger than 18, citing the state’s recent change the legal definition of a minor to 17 and younger.
Months ago, police supplied data supporting a curfew for residents 16 and younger. Council members Wednesday requested new data counting 17-year-olds in hopes of establishing a reason to amend the resolution before a full council vote, which likely will take place either at a special council meeting in coming weeks or at the body’s next scheduled meeting Aug. 6.
The resolution harks back to the public outcry following the slaying of 14-year-old Justin Thompson in January. Thompson was walking home from a Sweet 16 party when he and two others, both older than 18, were shot. The others were injured. Police have made no arrests.
The city put a youth curfew on its books in 1994, but it has been little, or never, enforced. Council member Warren Blunt sought to finally enforce the measure following Thompson’s death.
Police, city officials and civic groups discussed how to dust off the curfew ordinance to curtail what they described this spring as rising youth criminal activity and violence. One goal was to better link parents with programs of the state Department of Children and Families, RYASAP — a community development coalition — and other organizations.
“We are intent to keep (youths) out of the criminal justice system,” Blunt said. “We want to get them back on track.”
Police Chief Joseph Gaudett said Wednesday he wants flexibility in enforcing the curfew. He envisions it as one of many tools to prevent youths from engaging in criminal activity. It would not be universally enforced, he said.
Youths would be exempt from the curfew under several circumstances — while attending or coming directly home from a school, church or recreational event supervised by adults; during an emergency situation such as a fire, natural disaster or car accident; while working or coming straight home from work; while with a parent in a vehicle engaged in interstate travel; while on property adjacent to one’s home, assuming the property owner is OK with that; or while carrying a parent-signed permission slip with the youth’s name, home address, parent’s phone number, reason for being out and expected time home.
Officers could transport offending youths home or to the police department. Parents would be fined $25 after the first offense, $50 after the second and $90 after the third. Youths, after a fourth offense, could be reported to juvenile authorities as needing supervision.
This ranks among the dumbest comments Anastasi has made and he has made some really stupid ones.
Hopefully because of all the hard work the committee has done there will be no challenge.
Thank God Anastasi was not among the framers of the constitution because logic like this would have ignored the Supreme Court.
“We’ve taken into account concerns brought up at public hearings, we’ve discussed the case law,” said City Attorney Mark Anastasi on Wednesday night. “We’re hopeful because of the hard work of the committee there will be no challenge.”
And Gaudett is on record supporting selective enforcement.
What a God-damned joke this city is.