Could you imagine some silly place like TRIMET actually trying to prosecute any of the people filming this now famous incident because they recorded somebody having 'private' conversation. That is TRIMET's latest attempt to stop free flow of information from its 'top secret' Transit district. Good luck Trimet with that.
Can you imagine what would have been the result of an incident like this in the geeks paradise known as Portlandia. The place where a hit TV show mocks the citizens of Portland? The epicenter of 'over the top' political correctness.
I can just envision KATU and Joe Rose going to town if something like this had occurred here in geek city. WOW, what a thought, a bus driver going that crazy and being human!
5 comments:
Stay focused on issues and not personal attacks and they won't be deleted Cris.
U give me a headache Cris.
Lane gets it ok, stop picking on him.
As much as I don't care for Lane's videos, what he's doing doesn't seem like interfering with public transportation to me (see below). Yes he's stirring the pot, but rather than getting bent out of shape, operators should just ignore him.
Or Cris, if you still think Lane is interfering with transportation, how so?
ORS 166.116 Interfering with public transportation
(1) A person commits the crime of interfering with public transportation if the person:
(a) Intentionally or knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or on a public transit vehicle or public transit station;
(b) Intentionally or knowingly interferes with the provision or use of public transportation services by, among other things, interfering with the movement of, or access to, public transit vehicles;
(c) While in or on a public transit vehicle or public transit station, engages in disorderly conduct in the second degree as defined in ORS 166.025 (Disorderly conduct in the second degree); or
(d) Subjects a public transportation passenger, employee, agent or security officer or transit police officer to offensive physical contact.
ORS 166.025 Disorderly conduct in the second degree
(1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the second degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:
(a) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior;
(b) Makes unreasonable noise;
(c) Disturbs any lawful assembly of persons without lawful authority;
(d) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public way;
(e) Congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse;
(f) Initiates or circulates a report, knowing it to be false, concerning an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, catastrophe or other emergency; or
(g) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which the person is not licensed or privileged to do.
Cris, maybe you should check out my blog. http://portlandtransitlane.wordpress.com
Yes, I have stopped recording drivers for the time being. But let me tell you, I have a weird one right now I'm working to get audio and video of. I'm getting sick and tired of getting flak for staying within MY legal boundaries as a citizen and a rider of TriMet. I've already talked to the union rep out of Powell Garage, Dan Martin. As I remember correctly, several people want me to attack management as well. I'm getting evidence on that. Lets see the video of the life saving efforts of the 54 driver! http://portlandtransitlane.wordpress.com/2012/10/13/breaking-trimet-2-lives-saved-today/
Hi Cris:
I know what the laws say, what I don't understand is how Lane broke them. Could you show me where in Lane's videos he's doing something that is against the law (point out the specific video, time, and how a law was being broken). Seriously, I don't see it - so please point it out.
You mentioned 166.116 (1) (b) - My read is that this is saying you're interfering by physically blocking a bus from moving, blocking passengers from boarding, etc.
With regards to disorderly conduct, I could see how you might make the case that Lane was causing "public annoyance", but even if he was, being annoying is not disorderly conduct.
"A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the second degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, [...], the person:"
In other words, you must be intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm while doing something listed under (a) through (g).
Post a Comment