You're not generally going to get a ticket or arrested for wandering through the tennis or soccer courts. Designated is one thing, legal restrictions are another.

In NYC parks, you can absolutely get a ticket for loitering on the ballfields if you're not there to play ball.

I dunno, I have concerns about it both from a civil liberties perspective (restricting areas of a public park skeeves me) and from a false-sense-of-security parenting persepective.

Yeah, the security theater aspect is what struck me. Most pedophiles are not strangers on the street (or the playgrounds), they're people within the social networks of the children they abuse. Refusing adults unaccompanied by children access to playgrounds doesn't actually do much (if anything) to protect those children, who presumably are already accompanied by an adult anyway.

In NYC parks, you can absolutely get a ticket for loitering on the ballfields if you're not there to play ball.

But sitting on a bench watching, or reading a book?

But sitting on a bench watching, or reading a book?

There generally aren't benches in the middle of the soccer fields. If you're on one of the benches inside the fence that's reserved for the players, then yes.

There generally aren't benches in the middle of the soccer fields. If you're on one of the benches inside the fence that's reserved for the players, then yes.

But that's still interfering with the activity that's supposed to be going on. Just sitting on a bench in a playground, as long as you aren't taking up space that a child or caregiver needs, isn't interfering with anybody.

And if you're just sitting there to talk to a friend and eat donuts, the kids probably barely register, so it's not as though (in this case) the women would have been staring at the kids.

Just sitting on a bench in a playground, as long as you aren't taking up space that a child or caregiver needs, isn't interfering with anybody.

Which is why most of the time, people get away with it and nobody's bothered.

I've only ever called the cops once from a playground, and it was to get rid of some older teens/young adults who were sitting on the swingset screaming profanities at little kids. Only other time I've even *heard* of this happening was a guy who was hanging around at a playground taking pictures of the kids without the parents' permission (legal, but creepy).

I dunno, I have concerns about it both from a civil liberties perspective (restricting areas of a public park skeeves me) and from a false-sense-of-security parenting persepective.

This, and plus if you then selectively enforce the law (which many people are advocating for these doughnut-eating girls), I start to worry about things like racism and classism. I'm betting the "discretion" would be a lot less kind for a black man, or a homeless guy. Even if they just want to sit on the bench and eat a doughnut.

And if you're just sitting there to talk to a friend and eat donuts, the kids probably barely register, so it's not as though (in this case) the women would have been staring at the kids.

So, what if I have a friend who has a kid, and she and I meet up on the playground to chill? She's there with her kid--can I also claim to be there with her kid, or does it need to one person per child? Even though I'm not a parent? Could ten of us (aunts! uncles! parent! friends! grandparents!) all go there for one child? Where do you draw the line?

There is also this, a bit further down in the article:

I got really angry and asked the officer if he honestly believed he was helping this community by giving us these summonses. His response only made me more angry. “I don’t believe in anything,” he said. “You don’t believe in anything? In helping people? Then you probably shouldn’t be a cop,” I said.

Whether or not she was doing anything illegal, the above is a pretty textbook way not to talk your way out of a ticket.

Yeah, pretty much.