Got busted WITH(out) a MetroCard

[prunenoir]

I don't know where I should post this and it might seem ridiculous to some. I received a ticket today issued by the Transit Adjudication Bureau (or NYC Transit Authority).

I don't know how I came to do this (a combination of stupidity, laziness and ignorance) but while I was at a subway station I entered through the gate (where they let people with luggage etc. pass) that happened to be open. I was stopped by two police officers who in the end issued a ticket over $60 (because I can't lie ).

Now what makes me look very stupid is the fact that I have a valid 30-day MetroCard. I just walk 3 feet to the left, get my wallet out, swipe my MetroCard and walk through the turnstile. For some reason, and I honestly can not explain it, I did not do so.

Anyways, back to my beloved police officers... I tried to tell them that I had a valid MetroCard with me and wanted to swipe it so I could prove that. Normally you would think that would solve the problem. After all I paid $76 for that freaking MetroCard. One of them actually wanted to let me go and just issue a caution but the other just pounded on enforcing the "law" wanted to be a good cop so they started to fill out my ticket.

They took my civilian military I.D. (my father is a retiree) and wrote down my data (name, SSN, date of birth) and asked me for my address. Now my I.D. has, because of the fact that my dad is my sponser, both of our names on the front of it.

When I got my ticket I thanked both and went to the subway to catch my ride. In the subway I took the ticket and started reading the instructions because I have never got ticket in my life. So I didn't want to be ignorant again.

I checked my data and the first thing that caught my eye was that they wrote the name of my dad on the ticket. Everything else is correct but the name.

The next thing is that I am not registered. No phone, no P.O box, no cell phone, not even a bank account or any other type of contract. The only place I have given my address is my job (I just moved here 3 weeks ago from overseas). So technically I (almost) don't exist in the States.

Is it possible for me to ignore this and claim faultiness (how do they call that - technicality) when they send a letter (this person does not live here/return letter) or will they "hunt me down" through my SSN? I don't want to pay. Then I would have to officially admit that I was so dumb. Can't I just get away with puerility?

I’m already paying the MTA $76 (MetroCard) and $40 (AirTrain)… They're not getting more money from me for their "service" and disgusting trains... if it’s possible…

Constructive advice: No it’s not possible. Now way you’ll get through with that./ Yes it’s possible. And this is how you do it….
Unconstructive advice: Well you violated the law so just pay./You should have known better (I know that too, duh…)

Thanks in advance for all the people that don’t give me a sermon….

 

[You Are Guilty]

No one is going to assist you in your search to become a lowlife (you seem to be well on your way). What I will tell you is that shoudl you "skip out on it", while they may not send the sherriffs to come look for you, guess what happens the next time the police stop you/pull you over? You will have a bench warrant out and they wil gladly take you down to the local clink for you to straighten it all out.

So it's your choice in the end.

 

[prunenoir]

Now if I wanted to become a lowlife I would have ran. That is really below the belt. But whatever.

Thanks for the advice anyways.

 

[hemingway]

http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/metrocard/problems.htm

go down to bottom of screen
there is a customer center in Brooklyn
you can try to get this mistake fixed
I am not a lawyer. good luck!

 

[You Are Guilty]

No one is going to assist you in your search to become a lowlife (you seem to be well on your way). What I will tell you is that shoudl you "skip out on it", while they may not send the sherriffs to come look for you, guess what happens the next time the police stop you/pull you over? You will have a bench warrant out and they wil gladly take you down to the local clink for you to straighten it all out.

So it's your choice in the end.

Normal citizens don't jump turnstiles. In fact, the reason the NYPD are cracking down on such people is because, as luck would have it, it seems people who jump turnstiles tend to commit far worse crimes once they're in the subway. By catching these people "at the gate" so to speak, they have managed to reduce underground crimes by a significant margin.

Normal citizens also don't shirk their responsibilies. If they're guilty of an offense, they take their lumps and pay the ticket without trying to twist the facts to support some obscure loophole.

Still think you're not on your way to being a lowlife?

 

[prunenoir]

The art of understanding is reading between the lines... You don't even read the lines. I told you that I walked through the gate. I didn't jump a turnstile, neither was I without a valid MetroCard. I did not "enter without paying", duh.... I HAD a MetroCard. So what I'm accused of doesn't make sense... So to make it direct: I'M NOT GUILTY

So now what? Have I ever commited a crime? No. Did I commit a crime? No. Was I intending to commit a crime? No. Am I going to commit a crime? Never, as far as I am concerned about that. I am a good citizen that pays taxes and has never violated anything with the flaw that I walked through a open gate WITH a MetroCard.

So what lesson does a person learn out of this that jumps a turnstile? Not to jump a turnstile and to be a honest citizen and buy a ticket. What does a person learn that gets stopped by PO's because of walking through a open gate with a valid MetroCard? That you can't rely on talking to people with common sense. Whoever it may be...

Thank you hemingway for the tip.

 

[You Are Guilty]

The art of understanding is reading between the lines... You don't even read the lines. I told you that I walked through the gate. I didn't jump a turnstile,

You really can't be this dense, can you? "Jumping the turnstile" is the term encompassing ALL means and methods of entering the NYC subway system without paying the proper fare. That means, either literally jumping a turnstile, ducking under it, walking, hopping, jumping or skipping through a gate, climbing down through a sidewalk grate, squeezing inbetween the bars of an "iron-maiden" (aka "the cheesegrater). So it looks like you're already off to a bad start.

...neither was I without a valid MetroCard. I did not "enter without paying", duh.... I HAD a MetroCard.

DUH, you didn't use it, so guess what. You entered without paying!

So what I'm accused of doesn't make sense... So to make it direct: I'M NOT GUILTY

Actually, yes you are. See above.

So now what? Have I ever commited a crime? No.

Oh really? Did I miss the part where not paying to get into the subway is no longer illegal? I better throw out my Metrocards then, thanks!

Did I commit a crime? No.

Here we go again... see above.

Was I intending to commit a crime? No.

Intent is not necessary - only the commission of the act is, and you admitted you did it. Uhoh.

Am I going to commit a crime? Never, as far as I am concerned about that.

Why stop at one? I'm sure you'd make an excellent 'home-invasion artist'.

I am a good citizen that pays taxes and has never violated anything with the flaw that I walked through a open gate WITH a MetroCard.

Well, that wouldn't be "anything" now, would it? And since when does paying your taxes entitle you to "get away" with things? You're supposed to pay your taxes. You don't get a cookie if you do.

So what lesson does a person learn out of this that jumps a turnstile? Not to jump a turnstile and to be a honest citizen and buy a ticket.

Looks like you did learn something here!

What does a person learn that gets stopped by PO's because of walking through a open gate with a valid MetroCard? That you can't rely on talking to people with common sense. Whoever it may be...

Or that the NYPD properly ticketed someone who committed a crime. Your guess is as good as mine.

Thank you hemingway for the tip.

LOL. Please, please go down to the "lost Metrocard" center to contest your ticket, and don't forget to report back on the results. (Here's a tip - that office and the TAB have nothing to do with each other.)

 

[prunenoir]

>>You entered without paying! <<

No, I didn't! Let me explain how I see this situation:

One-Ride MetroCard:
$5 (bought ticket) - $5 (swipe at turnstile) = $0 on your one-ride MetroCard

30-day MetroCard:
$76 / 60 (makes 2 rides per day)? No
$76 - $5 (for each swipe at turnstile)? No

If I would exaggerate, I personally think I could jump over, climb under, do a flip flops across and crawl in military style under the turnstile as much as I like AS LONG AS I HAVE MY PAID AND VALID 30 DAY METROCARD IN MY POCKET BECAUSE I DON'T OWE THEM JACK.

to pay:
to give in return for goods or service
to discharge indebtedness for
to discharge a debt or obligation
to make a disposal or transfer of (money)

I already tranferred my money into the MTA's holey pockets on the morning of 15 March 2005. So how did I not pay???

Today I sent in my hearing request by mail. I'll keep you up to date if I am acquited in the end or not. I told them the truth, added my compelling evidence and we'll see if the judge sees it your way or my way. End of that.

 

[You Are Guilty]

>>You entered without paying! <<

No, I didn't! Let me explain how I see this situation:

One-Ride MetroCard:
$5 (bought ticket) - $5 (swipe at turnstile) = $0 on your one-ride MetroCard

30-day MetroCard:
$76 / 60 (makes 2 rides per day)? No
$76 - $5 (for each swipe at turnstile)? No

If I would exaggerate, I personally think I could jump over, climb under, do a flip flops across and crawl in military style under the turnstile as much as I like AS LONG AS I HAVE MY PAID AND VALID 30 DAY METROCARD IN MY POCKET BECAUSE I DON'T OWE THEM JACK.

to pay:
to give in return for goods or service
to discharge indebtedness for
to discharge a debt or obligation
to make a disposal or transfer of (money)

I already tranferred my money into the MTA's holey pockets on the morning of 15 March 2005. So how did I not pay???

Today I sent in my hearing request by mail. I'll keep you up to date if I am acquited in the end or not. I told them the truth, added my compelling evidence and we'll see if the judge sees it your way or my way. End of that.

I understand your "point", you're just legally wrong. An unlimited card does not mean you get to skip the turnstile part. Post the results (it'll be a few months). You never know what a stupid ALJ will do in the end.

 

[jkruler]

<<Disclaimer: For informational purposes only, not intended as legal advice.>>
"Was I intending to commit a crime? No."
"Intent is not necessary - only the commission of the act is, and you admitted you did it. Uhoh."

I little clarification with regard to intent--I’m sorry but both of your posts are technically incorrect.

“Intent” or the technical Latin term “mens rea” is a required element for the conviction of any crime—HOWEVER, you do not need to intentionally violate the law; you only need to intentionally, or recklessly commit the act that is considered a violation of the law. THIS IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. Consider the following examples:

Scenario 1
X picks up a gun and kills Y. X then (honestly) claims that he did not know that killing people was illegal. This defense obviously would not hold up in court, because even if X really did not intentionally violate the law, he did intentionally shoot and kill Y.

Scenario 2 (not likely-but for arguments sake)
X, while SLEEPWALKING, picks up a gun and shoots Y. X could not be convicted of a crime because not only did X not intentionally violate the law, he also did not intentionally or recklessly kill Y. In fact he was not even aware of what he was doing. While this defense would prevent X from going to prison, he may very well end up in a mental institution (which some would consider worse than prison).

Therefore, even if you did not intentionally break the law, if you intentionally walked through the gate without using your metro card, then the requisite mens rea will be satisfied regardless of whether you knew that what you were doing was illegal. Your only legal defense would be that you did not intentionally or knowingly walk through the gate. (I don’t know how you could prove that, sleeping walking maybe??—just kidding).

Regardless of the disposition, you made the right decision by deciding to contest the ticket in court instead of ignoring it and hoping it never catches up to you.

 

[You Are Guilty]

<<Disclaimer: For informational purposes only, not intended as legal advice.>>
"Was I intending to commit a crime? No."
"Intent is not necessary - only the commission of the act is, and you admitted you did it. Uhoh."

I little clarification with regard to intent--I’m sorry but both of your posts are technically incorrect.

“Intent” or the technical Latin term “mens rea” is a required element for the conviction of any crime—HOWEVER, you do not need to intentionally violate the law; you only need to intentionally, or recklessly commit the act that is considered a violation of the law. THIS IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. Consider the following examples:

Scenario 1
X picks up a gun and kills Y. X then (honestly) claims that he did not know that killing people was illegal. This defense obviously would not hold up in court, because even if X really did not intentionally violate the law, he did intentionally shoot and kill Y.

Scenario 2 (not likely-but for arguments sake)
X, while SLEEPWALKING, picks up a gun and shoots Y. X could not be convicted of a crime because not only did X not intentionally violate the law, he also did not intentionally or recklessly kill Y. In fact he was not even aware of what he was doing. While this defense would prevent X from going to prison, he may very well end up in a mental institution (which some would consider worse than prison).

Therefore, even if you did not intentionally break the law, if you intentionally walked through the gate without using your metro card, then the requisite mens rea will be satisfied regardless of whether you knew that what you were doing was illegal. Your only legal defense would be that you did not intentionally or knowingly walk through the gate. (I don’t know how you could prove that, sleeping walking maybe??—just kidding).

Regardless of the disposition, you made the right decision by deciding to contest the ticket in court instead of ignoring it and hoping it never catches up to you.

So you wasted all that time to point out that I was correct? Or did you plan on lecturing me about strict liability next?

 

[jkruler]

So you wasted all that time to point out that I was correct? Or did you plan on lecturing me about strict liability next?

Actually, since you spent so much time ridiculing someone who made a stupid mistake, and posting information that is technically WRONG, I figured I would spend a fraction of the time posting correct information. And by the way, you probably are incapable of even understanding the concept of strict liability.

 

[CarlJStoneham]

prunenoir (or is BlackPlum? )

Have you considered going to court and asking for them to waive the ticket or perhaps consider deferred ajudication (or whatever term they use in NY). In my limited experience, the clerk at the courthouse (or one of the officers running the metal detector) is usually pretty helpful in explaining the options and consequences.

On a few cases with a small "meaningless" ticket like this, just showing up to court and asking the judge to dismiss it has worked for me. That fact that you'd only been in NY for 3 weeks might help explain it a bit. I guess you can always get a hard-nosed judge, but you might also get one with a bit of perspective. Maybe admitting your "stupidity" is all they need. On more than one ticket (expired vehicle registration oin college and recently an expired inspection), I've said "Your honoer, I'm sorry. I simply was not thinking. As soon as I got the ticket, I went out got this fixed. I have no real excuse and won't try to make one up. it was dumb and I'm sorry." Both times, the judge looked at me with shock and dismissed the ticket. I dunno. maybe they're just used to people making stuff up and an honest person is refreshing. Maybe you could do similarly?

I WOULD get the issue with your Dad's name fixed since I can only assume it could come back around and cause problems (the SSN should clear it up). Worst case scenario = you go to court and get stuck with the ticket. As much as that would suck, it's always a possibility. Not necessarily fair (in a moral sense), but c'est la vie. Skipping out = lowlife for sure. If you want to think of it this way, you can (this is the silver lining when I get stuck with a ticket). "I broke the law, even if I felt it was a silly law. They got me and now I'm gonna take it. Those are the same people that may lock up a murderer tomorrow, so if they bust me for jumping a turnstile, but get the murderer, I figure I'm ahead." Silly, I know, but it helps me out.

Hope your future experiences in the USA are better. You can always move to TX. Texans may be dumb & conservative, but they're pretty nice (for the most part)...

Bonne chance!

PS By no means should you assume that I know what I'm talking about. Everything above is simply my experience. Might be useful, might be harmful. Take it with a grain of salt.

PPS The above is proofread, so if something doesn't make sense, lemme know and I'll try to clarify. This site loads pretty slowly for me, so I click submit and don't check back until I get an e-mail...

 

[You Are Guilty]

Actually, since you spent so much time ridiculing someone who made a stupid mistake, and posting information that is technically WRONG, I figured I would spend a fraction of the time posting correct information. And by the way, you probably are incapable of even understanding the concept of strict liability.

"Technically wrong" because you seem to want to read it incorrectly. Try reading the actual words that are written, i.e. that intent to commit a crime isn't necessary, and you might actually pass your CrimLaw final.

 

[jkruler]

"Technically wrong" because you seem to want to read it incorrectly. Try reading the actual words that are written, i.e. that intent to commit a crime isn't necessary, and you might actually pass your CrimLaw final.

Its technically wrong because you stated "only the commission of the act is, and you admitted you did it. Uhoh."
Amazing how you can't even read your own writing. And by the way, I passed my criminal law final a long time ago.