> The tables are behind the gates of the park’s Emerson Playground, which the signs in question state is off limits to adults unaccompanied by minors.
I keep rolling this around in my mind. It makes sense but at the some time it doesn't make sense at all. I'm sure it's intended to keep people from kidnapping kids or adults from destroying equipment but I fail to see how it would even be remotely effective at that.
Should we really be encouraging children to play chess?
Not only is it terribly violent it is rather anti-american. The monarchy, church and knights all in charge capturing and crushing the pawns to gain territory, not to mention that it pitches black against white.
I think there is an american version where a beige democrat side face a grey republican side and they both discuss the issues sensibly before devolving all power to the individual pawns
Personally it never even occurred to me to read that far into chess, so i honestly doubt a child would do it either, to me its just a game and probably an educational one.
Well since, in it's modern form, it's a Persian (ie Iranian) invention and was intended as a battle field simulation for training young warriors - I suppose playing it makes you a suspected terrorist.
For what it's worth, I was just making an observation, because it struck me as unlikely beyond all speaking off it that somebody would actually be issued a summons for playing chess in a park. That set my brain down the path of "What happens in parks that we don't arrest people for but don't want to encourage?" Oh yeah, that.
I could go either way on the justice/prudential aspect of it. On the one hand, there are a lot of laws that condemn the homeless to essentially permanent low-level conflict with the police. There are justice issues with that. ("The law, in all its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges.") On the other hand, I know of public spaces which welcome the homeless with open arms and I know of public spaces which I would enjoy spending time at, and those are disjoint sets. To the extent that the general public being able to enjoy parks is important (which is very, very low on my list of priorities), I (mildly) sympathize with their desires for them to not have homeless people in them.
In some places, such laws were enacted to keep drug addicts and other such delinquents from hanging out there after hours. No idea whether that was the motivation here.
If there is a park for 'children and their guardians' only, where is the park for 'single adults only'?
I'm only half joking, but seriously what if a single adult wants to go play on a swing set to regain his youth - isn't he being discriminated against?
Obviously this was just a good excuse to kick the 'creepy looking' people out of the park. I'll bet $100 that none of the people they tried to kick out were clean cut businessmen wearing a suit and tie.
I honestly don't think this law is related to sex offenses. I think it's related to the fact that adults can easily push children away, and then the taxpayer's money is not being used for the intended purpose. Adults have plenty of places they can go. Kids, not so much.
(Similarly, if you're 40 years old, you can't go to the public kindergarten. It's because the program is designed to educate 5-year-olds, not 40-year-olds. Nothing to do with sex, it's merely practicality.)
Playgrounds shouldn’t have chessboards if they also have rules prohibiting adults without kids. Stupid planning is responsible for this ridiculous outcome.
I suspect the chessboards and rule came from different generations. During the "Searching for Bobby Fischer" era, the beat cops would probably have gotten to know the regular chessplayers and used them as resources -- i.e., asking if they had noticed strangers in the neighborhood. Nowadays, not so much, apparently.
Sure, but how is that relevant for my argument? Kids and adults enjoy chess and checkers, both should have access to public chessboards, slides and swings are for the most part only enjoyed by and only safe for kids.
There are lots of chess boards outside of playgrounds. They are generally occupied by adults. I think the point of putting the table inside the playground was specifically to enable kids to use it.
Amending the sign to read something like "no adults, unless playing or watching chess, but not if a child has been waiting to play, except ..." would get complicated fast. Just go to a different park already.
Not at all. I’m all for chessboards and I’m all for kids learning and playing chess, but the boards should be put in an area where both adults and kids have access.
With a simple rule change you wouldn’t even have to change anything about the playground layout. Just allow unaccompanied adults playing chess and nothing else and the problem is solved.
Really? I lived in the UK and I quite often take a shortcut through a playground when going for a walk near my parents place. It has never occurred to me that this might be a problem and I've never had so much as a nasty look for doing it. I'm male and apparently also an adult :)
Try being in public with a camera, or even holding a phone up to read the screen as if you might be using it as a camera.
British Airways recently had to admit they had a secret policy of moving men seated next to other's children on flights.
It only came up when they moved Boris Johnson from sitting next to his own kids, they didn't realise they were his own children - presumably they looked human (although you have to wonder if the kids were secretly relieved)
You know, i hear stuff like this a lot. Mostly on reddit and sometimes on here. But Ive never experienced anything like this at all, nor am i aware of anyone i know experiencing anything like that so i just choose to forget about. I still smile at kids in the street and use my camera phone in public and trust people not to be complete idiots, works for me :)
Here's a novel idea: Instead of a summons, how about the police calmly but firmly explain the law to them and ask them to leave? If they won't leave, THEN issue them a summons.
Somehow I think thats probably what happened. My guess is the plaintiff in question made a scene, "What? I'm just playing chess." and then a summons was written.
Then, I don't think its a coincidence that this is on the news. He probably kept complaining and got picked up by local news.
The police in NYC have illegal quotas on summonses and tickets. They were a sort of quasi-secret until very recently. Perhaps these cops needed to meet theirs?
"And a police spokesman said that the summonses were part of a larger campaign to clean up the park, driven by complaints from residents about crime.
“There’s been an effort over time to address these concerns, and a lot of it begins with very simple innocuous violations such as this,” the spokesman said."
Why couldn't this effort instead begin with addressing the crimes that residents were complaining about? If they're complaining about, say, drug dealing in this playground, why not deal with that first and leave the chess players until after the real problems have been fixed (or try removing the chessboards...).
Or they could find some way to legalize the chess-playing so that it's no longer an infraction, no longer a broken window, hence no longer a prelude to more crime. They could redefine the "kid's park" to exclude the chess tables, for instance, so the rule did not apply there.
But honestly, I think the "broken window" reasoning has nothing to do with them breaking the rules and more to do with class. A lot of the chess players are poor, some of them are street people, and a lot of the ones who aren't poor look and dress like the ones who are. The parents look at them with a certain prejudiced eye and think, "These people are not a wholesome element, they are of the street." And the parents fear that criminals and junkies might look at the chess players with the same prejudiced eye and think, "These guys are of the street; they're poor and low-class like me. If they're welcome here, then me and my criminal behavior are welcome here too." So the theory is that parents will stop bringing their kids, and low-grade criminals will start hanging out. Because of the perception of the chess players as a "street" element, basically a conflation of class with criminality, their presence can turn a park sleazy through no fault of theirs, just through the prejudice of other people. And some instinctive, gut-feeling version of that theory is what resulted in the police being tasked to "clean up" the park by evicting the chess players.
That's unfair. Innocent people shouldn't be punished because of how they're perceived by other people, even if that perception is causing real harm.
I guess this is just a case of cognitive dissonance. The spokesperson realized that what the police did was wrong and instead of admitting it he will make up "reasons" to make everything look alright. This is probably enhanced by it being hard to say "My fellow coworkers made a mistake." and the being part of an institution that works solely on authority.
Well, not trying to say what is right or wrong here, but the article describes a 40-year old homeless spending time at this playground. Sure, playing chess is harmless, but do you think it would intimidate 5-10 year old kids into not going to that playground? What if a larger group of homeless moved in?
Either the sign is legal, in which case it's good to enforce it (a warning I'm sure is enough for a first "offense"), or fight the legality of the sign.
people, unfortunately even in the US, give pretty unlimited power to the governments at all levels. The lower level of government, ie. the less visible they are, the more moronic laws they are coming with. Police is supposedly just enforcing the laws, whatever it be (of course there is a lot of discretion in the enforcement and prosecution, yet it would be a separate matter)
I keep rolling this around in my mind. It makes sense but at the some time it doesn't make sense at all. I'm sure it's intended to keep people from kidnapping kids or adults from destroying equipment but I fail to see how it would even be remotely effective at that.