US town set to ban saggy trousers

[Jason Rimbaud]

If I may offer another point of view about the real reason, not the reason the Mayor cited in that article, but maybe the real reason they want to create a law.

 

I've worked in bars and restaurants for most of my adult life. And in most of those establishments, they had a dress code. Guys couldn't wear tank-tops, no hats allowed, no thug attire, IE: saggy britches, back wards hats, bling bling, etc etc. This was done not because it offended patrons, but because they wanted to keep out a certain element of society that usually caused the problems. This was the ONLY reason certain liquors weren't sold in those clubs as well. And believe me, it works.

 

Now I'm not saying that the bar or restaurant owners were right or wrong in making this decision, but I could tell you that it made less hassle for the staff as well as the other patrons. Granted, this wasn't a law but more of a choice.

 

The mayor went out of his way to say this law would not be targeting blacks only, yet he had to say that. The media and the citizens of this country would throw him out of office so fast if he even showed a hint of questionable actions. Due a bit a research, and I bet you'll find that town has a high crime rate and maybe even a major problem with gang activity. It's just not about indecent exposure. But here, in America, you can't say certain things. He has a better shot at passing this law, citing indecent exposure then he would ever have citing gang attire. America has gotten so scared to offend people, that we go beyond political correctness. We have entered into stupidity.

 

Before you get in an uproar, I'm not saying that everyone who sags their britches are gang members or even criminals. We all know better than that. I know several guys who sags their britches, and they are all law abiding citizens. And blacks are not the only class of people who are involved in gangs, white, Mexican, Asian gangs are problems, big problems in San Francisco. So much for the city of peace and gay love. Anway.

 

Yet I also live in an area that are filled with gangs. And face it, they all have a dress code they wear, it's a uniform so rival gang members know who's turf they've wandered into. If the Mayor passes that law, the police can start enforcing it, and in the act of enforcing what would be a very stupid law, it would give them the excuse to approach certain individuals. And in the process of citing them for indecent exposure, they could run that person's fingerprints and check to see if any of the those individuals has warrants against them. It would give the police an excuse to stop individuals that they know are criminals, yet they are powerless to approach because America frowns upon racial profiling.

 

For most of this post, I've been playing devils advocate. Do I think it's a stupid law? Yes. And in a perfect world, it would never happen. But unfortunately, America is not a perfect world. We can't, as American's, sit back and let the criminal get away with destroying our home from within. In the wake of Rodney King, the police has been bound by stupid restrictions, frivolous lawsuits, and fear of being called racist. Nowadays, most of the police departments spend more of their time searching for drunk drivers then they do trying to stop crime. Why? One, it brings in more money than busting criminals. And two, the public has tied their hands so tightly, that a hint of racism or racial profiling, and that officer is suspended indefinitely.

 

I'm no fan of police, believe me, but I know personally of a officer that was approached by a drug dealer while he was off duty and in street clothes. When he pulled his badge from his pocket, the drug dealer attacked him and in the struggle, the officer broke the drug dealers arm. The drug dealer sued the police department, and the officer was fired. Why, because the officer had three beers with dinner and the lawyers claimed that he used unnecessary force because he was drunk. The drug dealer, a known criminal was released and the police not only paid his doctor bills but gave him a settlement as well.

 

Okay, I think I went off topic and began ranting. I guess what I'm trying to say, before you automatically dismiss this law, maybe try and find out why they want it passed. And if you find out some old lady is being offended because the neighbor kids are showing off their boxers, then lets all fight this law. But it might be for the reason I cited above, though I'm just guessing, it could very well be election year.

 

Jason R.

[Graeme]

Thanks, Jason, for a very thoughtful post.

 

I usually try to think of potential reasons for apparently illogical actions, but in this case I didn't. What you've said makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not saying it is what is happening here, but it is certainly a possibility. It is a similar reason (which was made more publicly) for sections of the UK to ban the "hoodie".

 

Even if what you've suggested is not true, it is a good example that there is often more to something than meets the eye. When I was doing software development, I would occasionally get what appeared to be stupid requests from customers. When I spoke to them, though, I found out why they want that "stupid request" and it all made sense -- given their situation.

[MMandM]

I am very vigilant. I won