Wuhan Coronavirus: Lockdowns, Quarantines, Cancellations

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Freya said:
www.usatoday.com

Police cite woman for going on leisurely drive during Pennsylvania stay-at-home order

It's the first time a person has been cited under the state's disease control and prevention act of 1955, police say.
www.usatoday.com
Click to expand...

Archive:
archive.vn

Coronavirus stay-at-home order: PA woman cited after going for a drive

archived 4 Apr 2020 03:45:41 UTC
archive.vn archive.vn

This girl must have been a dumbass. How hard is it to bullshit the cop and tell them you're on the way to pickup a pizza and it's not going to be ready for another 20 min. Or literally any excuse.
 
Freya said:
www.usatoday.com

Police cite woman for going on leisurely drive during Pennsylvania stay-at-home order

It's the first time a person has been cited under the state's disease control and prevention act of 1955, police say.
www.usatoday.com
Click to expand...
According this people in PA can still engage in outdoor activity. Manitaining social distancing --walking, hiking, running- are allowed. It doesn't make sense to me that a driving a vehicle would make such a difference that people need to be cited. Being in a vehicle driving down a road, it would still maintain social distancing. Walking, hiking, running, the person would still be out of the home, just as one driving down the road.

1585974662100.png
 
mothman96 said:
According this people in PA can still engage in outdoor activity. Manitaining social distancing --walking, hiking, running- are allowed. It doesn't make sense to me that a driving a vehicle would make such a difference that people need to be cited. Being in a vehicle driving down a road, it would still maintain social distancing. Walking, hiking, running, the person would still be out of the home, just as one driving down the road.

View attachment 1214742
Click to expand...

In my neck of the woods there are legally no restrictions on travel, just the prevelant no gatherings/unessential businesses closed. You are highly encouraged to stay home but not prohibited. And yet I have a credible anecdote of someone in the next county being pulled over and questioned by the cops as to where they were going with no probable cause. They said work and were let go, but still...

This is going to happen more and more. It may not be legal or Constitutional, but that won't stop overzealous cops and local officials from acting first and asking questions later in the name of public safety.
 
Dog-O-Tron 5000v5.0 said:
This is going to happen more and more. It may not be legal or Constitutional, but that won't stop overzealous cops and local officials from acting first and asking questions later in the name of public safety.
Click to expand...

If they want to play that game, the public can make their life a living hell. Pretty easy to call and report what "sounds like" a party or group of people in xxxx block of Whatever St. It's not a false report if you truly believe you heard it. How were you to know your neighbor was playing partysounds.mp3 over their speakers?

People could easily have them constantly running around.
 
Dog-O-Tron 5000v5.0 said:
In my neck of the woods there are legally no restrictions on travel, just the prevelant no gatherings/unessential businesses closed. You are highly encouraged to stay home but not prohibited. And yet I have a credible anecdote of someone in the next county being pulled over and questioned by the cops as to where they were going with no probable cause. They said work and were let go, but still...

This is going to happen more and more. It may not be legal or Constitutional, but that won't stop overzealous cops and local officials from acting first and asking questions later in the name of public safety.
Click to expand...
I have a source that told me. The police went into a store and started to search people's bags for non-essential items. If the cop found such items $100 fine.
 
Freya said:
www.usatoday.com

Police cite woman for going on leisurely drive during Pennsylvania stay-at-home order

It's the first time a person has been cited under the state's disease control and prevention act of 1955, police say.
www.usatoday.com
Click to expand...
The woman was initially pulled over for another violation.
Flaming Carrot said:
theintercept.com

NYPD’s Aggressive Policing Risks Spreading the Coronavirus

As Gov. Andrew Cuomo calls on the NYPD to be more aggressive, community advocates say police need to practice social distancing.
theintercept.com theintercept.com

http://archive.li/o4Z9q
Click to expand...
The individuals cited were not traveling, they were gathering in numbers that have been temporarily restricted.
deeplyhigh said:
View attachment 1214771

Archive
Source
Click to expand...
All individuals cited were initially approached (and subsequently cited) for other violations.

None of these are examples of freedom of movement being restricted.
 
A friend alerted me to this. Edinburg is in Hidalgo Co. Tx. The city wants people to report others. Another thing. the county gov't has given the Sheriffs dept and the police departments of the various cities within, full authority to stop motorists, question them and cite them $1000.00 and/or jail time if the officer deems the motorist's reason for being on the road does not qualify as "essential".

1586001548882.png
 
Pargon said:
The woman was initially pulled over for another violation.

The individuals cited were not traveling, they were gathering in numbers that have been temporarily restricted.

All individuals cited were initially approached (and subsequently cited) for other violations.

None of these are examples of freedom of movement being restricted.
Click to expand...

I find this line of thought you're going down a bit puzzling. Either the government gave itself a power it doesn't need and isn't using, or the police are failing to effectively protect the populace by using the authority necessary to stop everyone from dying. It doesn't really make sense to say they need this power to protect people, then to also say that they aren't going to use it.

I just find it weird to criticize people for finding this policy overreaching, while also saying it isn't actually doing anything since it isn't being used. If the policy's necessary and not overreaching, it should be used. If it's not necessary and they won't use it...then why not criticize them for giving themselves the power?
 
I can't imagine said:
I find this line of thought you're going down a bit puzzling. Either the government gave itself a power it doesn't need and isn't using, or the police are failing to effectively protect the populace by using the authority necessary to stop everyone from dying. It doesn't really make sense to say they need this power to protect people, then to also say that they aren't going to use it.

I just find it weird to criticize people for finding this policy overreaching, while also saying it isn't actually doing anything since it isn't being used. If the policy's necessary and not overreaching, it should be used. If it's not necessary and they won't use it...then why not criticize them for giving themselves the power?
Click to expand...

It's just Protect and Serve, bro
 
3 massholes thought they would be slick and switch to a car with RI plates. The cops set up a stakeout and busted them :lol:

nypost.com

Three golfers’ intricate plan to beat coronavirus order blew up at McDonald’s

Not even a global pandemic was getting between these men and their golf. Three men from Massachusetts were charged with violating Rhode Island governor Gina Raimando’s order, which calls for out-of…
nypost.com nypost.com

archive

Delaware following RI and FL's lead.
philadelphia.cbslocal.com

Coronavirus Delaware: Police Authorized To Pull Over Out-Of-State Drivers During Pandemic

The order does not apply to out-of-state drivers on I-95, I-295, or I-495.
philadelphia.cbslocal.com philadelphia.cbslocal.com
archive
 
Pargon said:
The woman was initially pulled over for another violation.

The individuals cited were not traveling, they were gathering in numbers that have been temporarily restricted.

All individuals cited were initially approached (and subsequently cited) for other violations.

None of these are examples of freedom of movement being restricted.
Click to expand...
She was cited for being out for no reason. Literally says right in there.
Stop being dishonest.
 
Freya said:
She was cited for being out for no reason. Literally says right in there.
Stop being dishonest.
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20200404-172538.png

So easy.

I can't imagine said:
I just find it weird to criticize people for finding this policy overreaching, while also saying it isn't actually doing anything
Click to expand...
It is doing something. Millions of people are adhering voluntarily for the safety of them and their families and for the benefit of friends and strangers alike.

I have no issue criticizing people saying this is overreaching because the orders are based on piles of empirical evidence showing how the virus spreads alongside the fact that outside of an emergency order people will ignore advice from medical professionals and in doing so needlessly endanger others. No checkpoints are being set up and no papers are being asked for and so the common comparisons being drawn are ridiculous and therefore deserving of mockery. The same people laughing at some users on here for being doomers (which they are) are some of the same ones turning around saying that we're a step and a half away from the Stasi checking in on households nightly to make sure all residents are accounted for.

I could care less whether myself or other people can go to the beach for a few months. Consider your fellow man and find something else to do with your time. Difficult circumstances try everyone. Get over it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom