"Pull up your pants" or Face Fines.....

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by snarky412
This ridiculous law is in the state of Massachusetts where the Black Mental Health Alliance of Massachusetts has released a Public Service Announcement warning citizens about the state’s penalties for sporting saggy pants.

I personally can't stand that look but this is crazy.

1/24/13
New Massachusetts PSA: ‘Pull Up Your Pants’ or Face Fines

The announcement alerts baggy-pants wearers that sporting pants “hip-hop style” with your “underwear exposed” could result in fines of up to $300 or even land you behind bars.

“You still think it’s cool?” a cop asks. “It’s the law. Pull up your pants. Respect yourself.”


Evidently Massachusetts law bans ”open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior” and warns that such behavior can be punished by up to three years in state prison or two years in county jail.

Seems a little harsh to me......... a warning maybe but jail time???? No way.....



At least with this being brought about by Black representatives, they can't be called racists or accused of harassment.

I have seen at various events in some places where the cops will demand that guys pull their pants up. Not fine them but order them to do it. Usually it's a black cop so I don't know if they don't like the image/message that these young black boys are sending out or if they just think it's not appropriate. Some of the gangs wear this type of attire so maybe they are trying to cut down on the stereotyping that some people have on young black people.

Yes, that style of clothing looks idiotic at it's best, indecent at it's worst, but not worthy of fines/jail time IMO.


This actually proves we live in an oppressive feminist matriarchy. As this law is primarily targeted at males(yet it is perfectly fine for female to parade around half naked because someone suggested they don't dress like a prostitute).
learning.blogs.nytimes.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

You better believe that this will be used to expand upon both the gender war and the looming generational war.




posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
public indecency is a real issue

wanna look like a fool in private ? cool

in public ? get a grip

if there is no consequence, there is no change



Right, but it is perfectly acceptable for young women to dress half naked. Stop being a feminist sharia supporter!



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
For those who think it is, this is not racist, because all races have those who exhibit this type of behavior. I think that baggy pants are fine, but I also think that pants should go around your waist. I have seen people with their pants literally down to almost their knees. That should be public indecency or something anyway. The government cannot tell us what to wear, but they can tell us we are not allowed to expose ourselves by going out into public without properly covering ourselves. I think that is fair, and that the majority would support it.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
For those who think it is, this is not racist, because all races have those who exhibit this type of behavior. I think that baggy pants are fine, but I also think that pants should go around your waist. I have seen people with their pants literally down to almost their knees. That should be public indecency or something anyway. The government cannot tell us what to wear, but they can tell us we are not allowed to expose ourselves by going out into public without properly covering ourselves. I think that is fair, and that the majority would support it.


I don't think it's the governments place to regulate clothing but up to the individual "stores and restaurants".

I have seen some places with signs on their doors that along with the usual "must wear shoes/shirts" now they have a "no baggy pants" posted.
I say it should be up to the individual business owners, not the legislatures.


edit on 27-1-2013 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
With the unlawful unonstitutional things occurring and the police refusing to do their duty and arrest the PTB and leaders, I would tell my employees that they're going to be fined, and lose their jobs if they start to do their real ones. But on personal issues, buzz off!



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Like many others I do not like this look nor do I find it attractive. However, with so many people going on about how much they want the government out of their personal business, the complete opposite keeps occurring. From clothing choices, vaginas, and how much soda one is allowed to purchase, where will government interference in one's on life end?

I can understand how fighting for what can be called a fashion choice (regardless of how silly it looks) can seem like a waste of time, but then when and where is it appropriate to stop fighting against governmental and "big brother" interference?

I will not make a slippery slope argument about how terrible thing "could" end up, but seriously, WHERE IS THE LINE?



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I don't like baggy jeans, but I also don't "skinny jeans" where you can pretty much see the wearer's junk. So what? They want to wear them, let them. I refuse to wear a necktie as well, it's terribly uncomfortable.

It's not the place of laws to regulate clothing styles.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   
lol I like baggy, but not sporting the waste line down around my knee's so I can barely walk.


how do people walk like that your legs would be sore by the end of the day.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by freebornman
 


In Australia they call it plumbers crack cause thats what you see when they go under the sink. lol 1%



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
How ridiculous. Rather than addressing the cause of this stupid behavior, lawmakers try to regulate it instead. Just like government. You can't legislate morality, or stupidity.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Denis Leary had it right!

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Wow, it amazes me how quick you all are to condemn the lawmakers for thinking that they're doing this purposefully because it offends some and just looks ridiculous.
Ever heard of safety? This law will teach these ridiculous individuals that wearing their pants like that is not only stupid but extremely unsafe for themselves and others. I personally witnessed a car accident caused a few years ago by some reject who didn't have his pants where they belong. He was crossing the street (at the wrong time, I might add) when his pants fell down and he tripped. Caused 3 different cars to get into an accident at that intersection because he didn't know how to keep his danged pants up.

I say good on those who are making this law. Keep those damn pants up, for your safety and others.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
This is a blatantly racist law in my opinion, and if I'm wrong about that - it is at the bare minimum sexist.

It's an ugly style, but nothing is exposed - these boys are more covered up than in swim trunks or summer shorts. I agree with the person who said it's a teen issue in general, but it's a style that is more popular among black kids. This is insane. It goes waaaay too far. It's an excuse to arrest and search kids if police feel like it, and I doubt anyone is going to give a white girl with her thong hanging out and her actual crack exposed a hard time under this law. It's gonna be a bunch of 15 year old black boys hanging out at the playground.

This is horrifying and wrong.

And to the people who think this is about safety - then lets make high heels and confining skirts illegal as well as not wearing a coat in winter. Come on.
edit on 27-1-2013 by Avalon42 because: one last thought



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by crankyoldman
Let me get this straight.

The STATE has determined that it is the singular and only definable "victim" of the crime of saggy pants. The STATE has determined that being victimized by the horrendous baggy pants offense is causing the STATE undue harm and damage. Those who persist in such egregious actions AGAINST the STATE are to be punished by fine and or imprisonment.

300 dollars to the STATE makes the state whole again when the pants are dropped below the belt-line. The STATE suffers damages to the tune of 300 dollars. Does the STATE have to define what, where, or how those damages are derived? Why 300?

The STATE has also determined in some instances, 300 dollars does not even BEGIN to cover the damages the STATE has suffered. So the STATE has decided to incarcerate such individuals at a cost to the STATE! So, the STATE can either take money to cover the damages it has suffered by the "crime" of baggy pants, OR, the STATE can incarcerate the offending individual AND pay money to do so. Huh? So, say it costs 3000 dollars a month to incarcerate someone, the STATE can either collect 300 or spend 3000? WTF?

Does this make sense?

Oh, wait. Screw me, I just realized, the STATE determined long ago, not unlike the plantation owners of the south, that the ONLY way to change behavior is to fine, beat, or imprison the slaves, since "beating" is now passe, the state must utilize the other two in order to force all to conform. Though, seriously, wouldn't it make more sense to lash each offending individual with 20 lashes in a public square?

BTW, it was the STATE, yes, the STATE that caused the problem in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!! "It" did so by incarcerating people in once size fits all clothing, so those who were let out of prison simply continued the STATE'S own clothing mandate of PRISON-BAGGY-PANTS!!!!!!!!

As an aside, I hate the baggy pants, it "offends" me, I am the one who's eyes are damaged to the tune of 300 dollars, but for some inexplicable reason I can't seem to get ahead of the STATE to collect my damages.

In all seriousness, when are people going to stop accepting economic punishment as way to change behavior? The STATE seems to get rich by defining everything anyone can do as a crime, yet, the same said STATE has the most horrendous educational system on the planet, oh, wait, it seems the STATE educates, or rather mis-educates, then fines the folks for the behavior they learned at the STATE institutions - what F*&*^&% racket!



Hehehe, love your dry humor, very well put.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I hate the look of saggy pants, but I hate the way a lot of people dress. But guess what? They have a right to dress how they want to dress. I won't impose my personal preference of dress on someone else. If you want to look like an idiot, by all means go ahead and look like an idiot. As for it effecting employment. Who cares, don't hire someone who sags their pants.

But here's the slippery slope. So three inches of underwear is somehow offensive and a threat to the state.

How about the top of a thong sticking out above pants, intentional or not? Sometimes it's a fashion statement, sometimes it just happens when bending down to pick something up or kneeling.

How about all the fat people who effectively do sag their pants because their guts are so big they can't pull them up properly? Know what you see when they bend down in the supermarket or to pick up dog poop? About two inches of buttcrack.

Will plumbers butt be deemed illegal and worthy of a fine at some point? Plumbers who are so caught up in repairing your sink that their crack might show?

How about when I see a woman kneeling forward,doing whatever it is and I possibly see a nipple?

I've seen people here say sagging pants is a safety issue. Really? More a safety issue than being 100 pounds overweight? The fat guy who can barely stand up is going to get out of the way of an oncoming car faster than some 17 year old who sags his pants?

And this is coming from someone who really doesn't like the style, although when I was a teen I did partake for a few years. Spending a bunch of time in Europe recently I really came to appreciate the style of dress, that just about everyone dresses well. But, they also wouldn't be offended at the sight of someones underwear. This was a place where nudity is common, especially during the summer on beaches but uncovered boobs on magazines in supermarkets as well. No one looked twice. I commented to my fiance we wouldn't see that back home because some group of people would be up in arms about how offended they are, that a boob is a threat to society.

Americans are offended far too easily. Far too uncomfortable with their bodies. You're offended so instead of learning to tolerate it, you want government to step in. Teens showing their underwear is offensive so yes, the cops should step in? Well, I find fat people offensive and lose my appetite when I see them in tight clothing, so let's ban fat people from walking around in public. Sagging pants a safety issue? Those same fat people couldn't bend down and tie their own shoes if their lives depended on it, but they somehow are better prepared for a threat on safety?

Unbelievable how many completely shallow members we have on ATS who support something like this, whom don't have the foresight to see the longterm ramifications either. It's still illegal in parts of the world for a woman to show her calves. Is that where you want to take this?
edit on 28-1-2013 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by MysticPearl
 





But here's the slippery slope. So three inches of underwear is somehow offensive and a threat to the state.


The ones I see are down below their butt.....looks stupid as hell, especially when they walk!!!
But I don't see where it deserves a fine or jail time. That's even more idiotic IMO.

Give them a few years to grow out of it and they'll be like, "Oh man, did I really dress like that?
No way...."



ETA: You do bring up many "offensive" views if they were to be challenged. Hopefully not.....



edit on 28-1-2013 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
For those who think it is, this is not racist, because all races have those who exhibit this type of behavior. I think that baggy pants are fine, but I also think that pants should go around your waist. I have seen people with their pants literally down to almost their knees. That should be public indecency or something anyway. The government cannot tell us what to wear, but they can tell us we are not allowed to expose ourselves by going out into public without properly covering ourselves. I think that is fair, and that the majority would support it.

Unless you're not wearing underwear underneath when sagging your pants, you are properly covered. Boxers or shorts underneath sagging pants are no different than just wearing shorts in public.

Did you literally see someone's genitals when they were sagging their pants? I never have. If not, then they're covered, just not covered the way you'd like.

The most buttcrack I usually see is on fat people bending down in public areas because they literally can't pull their pants up. That's indecent, if anything in this conversation is. But even when sagging pants, what should be covered still is.

Don't want to see their underwear? Well, I don't want to see your bra strap. See where this can go?
edit on 28-1-2013 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by snarky412
 



Boxers exposed are one thing, but if anyone has gym shorts underneath the pants, this stupid law CANNOT be enforced! Matter of fact I'm going to start sagging with gym shorts on, and if i'm stopped and fined...well I promise mr popo is losing his job



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Coming from a state that wants to make gun owners get insurance I don't find this very surprising, I am also from MA.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   
At least with sagging pants its very hard to hide a handgun.

some jokers i know would take pepper spray and mix it with water and fill water guns with it and walk up behind these morons and give them a good spray. in a couple minutes there backside starts getting warm then hot.

gasoline also works but will melt plastic water pistols.





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum