Masked 'boot girls' are freeing booted cars in Atlanta(roadandtrack.com)
roadandtrack.com
Masked 'boot girls' are freeing booted cars in Atlanta
https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a45123358/masked-boot-girls-are-freeing-booted-cars-all-over-atlanta/
136 comments
I was getting some written by gpt vibes from some of the wording. Thanks for that alt link
> “While owning a boot key is not illegal, here is what the public needs to know,” reads the department’s Facebook page. “If you use a Boot Key to modify, tamper, or disengage a booting device from a vehicle, you can be charged with: Criminal Trespass, and/or Theft of Services, and/orTheft by Taking, and/or Damage to Property 2nd Degree.”
What's the penalty for immobilizing someone's car? If they're free to put a boot on my car because it's on their property, why am I not free to remove a boot from my property?
What's the penalty for immobilizing someone's car? If they're free to put a boot on my car because it's on their property, why am I not free to remove a boot from my property?
At risk of having no idea what I'm talking about, they helpfully quote the Georgia Codes to which they are referring, and the only one that looks like it actually applies might be the first, Criminal Trespass (GA Code § 16-7-21), depending on one's definition of "maliciously".
"A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally damages any property of another without consent of that other person and the damage thereto is $500.00 or less or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person."
That sentence isn't the best, but I think it could be argued that it can be parsed as:
"A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she <does this thing> or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person"
Unlocking it is arguably interfering with the use of the property of another person without consent; but is it malicious? Can't find a clear definition of "malicious" in Georgia law. I guess this is why lawyers get paid so much.
"A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally damages any property of another without consent of that other person and the damage thereto is $500.00 or less or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person."
That sentence isn't the best, but I think it could be argued that it can be parsed as:
"A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she <does this thing> or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person"
Unlocking it is arguably interfering with the use of the property of another person without consent; but is it malicious? Can't find a clear definition of "malicious" in Georgia law. I guess this is why lawyers get paid so much.
Well locking it is certainly interfering with the use of the property.
But taking a programmer’s look at paws like this is ill advised. These laws are there to smooth the process of the state enforcing whatever the most powerful lawyers involved in a particular matter want. No more no less.
But taking a programmer’s look at paws like this is ill advised. These laws are there to smooth the process of the state enforcing whatever the most powerful lawyers involved in a particular matter want. No more no less.
Well locking it is certainly interfering with the use of the property.
Much as someone could interfere with use a car by locking something to it rendering it immobile, perhaps. If locking the boot to it isn't a crime under the very same law, unlocking it surely also isn't.
I do agree that the law is whatever a lawyer can successfully argue; I bet there are lawyers who can successfully argue that unlocking the boot isn't criminal trespass.
Much as someone could interfere with use a car by locking something to it rendering it immobile, perhaps. If locking the boot to it isn't a crime under the very same law, unlocking it surely also isn't.
I do agree that the law is whatever a lawyer can successfully argue; I bet there are lawyers who can successfully argue that unlocking the boot isn't criminal trespass.
IANAL but those charges seem like they’ll be hard to argue that they apply in court.
For UK readers, and perhaps others, they mean car clamps, not cars that have somewhere to put your shopping.
I did briefly wonder how they could remove the boot and why they would want to.
Also on the HN home page today, and perhaps oddly relevant:
The Early Days of American English
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37529284
The Early Days of American English
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37529284
It would seem easy to catch them. A policeman messages to get a car unclamped and whoever turns up gets fined.
It's not the police putting boots on, but private companies. It probably isn't worth their time to go after people who slipped away.
Maybe being naive here, but that would be entrapment wouldn't it?
Since, in this case, they would only be doing so because a cop asked them to. Of course not sure how that fits into drug/prostitution stings.
Since, in this case, they would only be doing so because a cop asked them to. Of course not sure how that fits into drug/prostitution stings.
Not likely. The bar for entrapment is higher than that.
1) Entrapment can occur if it can be argued suspect has no pre-disposition to commit a crime
2) Government actions caused a normally law abiding citizen to commit a crime
If you are effectively running a hotline and taking orders to commit crimes, those won't apply to you.
1) Entrapment can occur if it can be argued suspect has no pre-disposition to commit a crime
2) Government actions caused a normally law abiding citizen to commit a crime
If you are effectively running a hotline and taking orders to commit crimes, those won't apply to you.
It isn't entrapment. Entrapment is when the government induces you to commit a crime that you weren't inclined to commit.
Good comic from a lawyer on the subject: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633
Good comic from a lawyer on the subject: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633
Entrapment with regard to that on instance, perhaps. But if you’re just looking to gather evidence related to the many other instances of boot unlocking, there’s no problem. Now you’ve got their names and cell phones and can track to see if they happened to be right where prior instances happened, according to video evidence.
They seem to be doing it for a fee, which is just stupid.
When cars are 'booted' in US, is there no ticket to go along with it to bring further repercussions if it is illegally removed?
Atlanta is one of the few places in America that allow booting.
It’s done by private orgs, not the city. There is no ticket. Just a boot and a fine to pay to remove the boot.
These boot girls are charging $50 or something. The fee to remove the boot is usually 85-200+.
Personally, I’m happy to pay these people any amount over paying the super jerk boot people.
I had a guy put a boot on my car while I was walking over to pay the parking box. He wouldn’t remove it until I paid $85.
I had another boot put on my car from a bank’s parking lot. The bank was closed, the lot was open, there were no signs or attendants. Just an open lot. The boot operator claimed he had the right to boot but would not produce any documents. I paid $160 to remove my boot. I contacted the bank the next day and they said they don’t contract with anyone for parking enforcement when they are closed.
Atlanta booters can all go bankrupt for what I care. These ladies are heroes.
It’s done by private orgs, not the city. There is no ticket. Just a boot and a fine to pay to remove the boot.
These boot girls are charging $50 or something. The fee to remove the boot is usually 85-200+.
Personally, I’m happy to pay these people any amount over paying the super jerk boot people.
I had a guy put a boot on my car while I was walking over to pay the parking box. He wouldn’t remove it until I paid $85.
I had another boot put on my car from a bank’s parking lot. The bank was closed, the lot was open, there were no signs or attendants. Just an open lot. The boot operator claimed he had the right to boot but would not produce any documents. I paid $160 to remove my boot. I contacted the bank the next day and they said they don’t contract with anyone for parking enforcement when they are closed.
Atlanta booters can all go bankrupt for what I care. These ladies are heroes.
This happened to a friend in Houston
Tried to pay for parking and it didn’t work and when we got back it was booted
An hour of illegal parking should never warrant a 160 dollar fine to remove a boot.
An hour of illegal parking should never warrant a 160 dollar fine to remove a boot.
That's the scam right there.
Step 1: Break parking pay station.
Step 2: Boot people's cars for not paying for parking.
Step 3: Profit!
Step 1: Break parking pay station.
Step 2: Boot people's cars for not paying for parking.
Step 3: Profit!
Nothing canned air and a mini sledge can't fix.
If you arrived at a store and the self-checkout was broken, would you just walk out without paying for your items? Since parking is their business I would never do something which look like stealing without some kind of protection like a recording from someone at the parking when I called. It’s just not worth the risk, otherwise, and you can always park somewhere else where you don’t have to worry.
But there are no items here. The payment is just for time, and if payment isn't working then parking there doesn't cost them anything or cause them any inconvenience.
The good for sale is the parking space. If your vehicle is there without a receipt, using it without paying looks exactly like stealing unless you can show that the property owner allowed it. You can say that the payment system was broken but they’re just going to say that’s an excuse and you just didn’t want to pay, etc. – life is way too short to spend trying to argue things like that versus just going somewhere else. Most of the possible outcome involve you paying considerably more, and the ones which don’t are only cheaper if your time is free.
> The good for sale is the parking space.
Yes, but if you want to compare it to a store then everything in the cart has to be something that will expire in an hour, and the shelves restock whether or not anyone buys them. And there's nobody around that can fix the self-checkout or check you out themselves.
> life is way too short
I'm only here to talk about the analogy you made, not give advice on parking.
Yes, but if you want to compare it to a store then everything in the cart has to be something that will expire in an hour, and the shelves restock whether or not anyone buys them. And there's nobody around that can fix the self-checkout or check you out themselves.
> life is way too short
I'm only here to talk about the analogy you made, not give advice on parking.
None of which changes the fact that you can’t use property which doesn’t belong to you except on the owner’s terms unless there’s some kind of legal right such as the “right to roam” laws in many European countries. There is no right to store your car without paying for it so there’s no gray area here.
There's some gray area because charging on entry would be better, and if you can't pay with actual money that's a real problem.
But I wasn't arguing that, I'm saying it's not like theft.
But I wasn't arguing that, I'm saying it's not like theft.
It’s theft of service, which is definitely not identical to theft of property but I think the analogy is useful because more people understand that a business screwing up doesn’t mean you get their products for free - it means you go somewhere else.
It especially doesn’t mean you have any expectation not to be treated poorly by that business the way you would if you’d complied with your side of the legal agreement. If you’d paid and the business failed to track that payment properly, you’d be getting serious compensation because there would be a legal contract they weren’t honoring.
It especially doesn’t mean you have any expectation not to be treated poorly by that business the way you would if you’d complied with your side of the legal agreement. If you’d paid and the business failed to track that payment properly, you’d be getting serious compensation because there would be a legal contract they weren’t honoring.
> legal right such as the “right to roam” laws in many European countries.
What are these laws you speak of?
What are these laws you speak of?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
It varies but the general idea is that large landowners have to allow some access for hiking or even camping.
It varies but the general idea is that large landowners have to allow some access for hiking or even camping.
Thanks
It was really weird as an American going on hikes through private land and realizing that the owner couldn’t just haul off and shoot you.
If I walked into a store (meaning it was open, not locked), and the self checkout was broken, and there was no other checkout, no staff member there to collect money or explain how to pay, no jar saying “honor system”, nothing…
Then yea, I would probably walk out with my stuff, knowing I had made a good faith effort to pay.
Then yea, I would probably walk out with my stuff, knowing I had made a good faith effort to pay.
That’s called stealing, even if you have a rationalization. Until money changes hands, you don’t have a right to someone else’s property and their permission is conditional on payment.
No one is arguing that they don’t have some right to recourse. Just that booting and charging a ton of money to remove is excessive and an invasion of that person property.
If it was the city, sure, but it’s private property so this feels like complaining that a hotel charges a hefty cancellation fee for no-shows. Yes, it’s eye-watering but short of passing a law capping this I don’t think there are options other than not accepting the terms for use of someone’s private property.
> I contacted the bank the next day and they said they don’t contract with anyone for parking enforcement when they are closed.
So this means that you can start a business and simply put a boot on any car almost everywhere ...and people just have to pay???
So this means that you can start a business and simply put a boot on any car almost everywhere ...and people just have to pay???
These aren’t big corporations. This was literally just a guy in a pickup truck and a few boots.
I paid because I wanted to get the boot off my car. I also then warned someone else away before they got a boot and the boot operator started screaming at me. All pretty shady.
I paid because I wanted to get the boot off my car. I also then warned someone else away before they got a boot and the boot operator started screaming at me. All pretty shady.
If things work this way the solution seems to be relatively simple in that you put a boot on the booter's car and demand at least as much to take it off as the booter demands from you. When the booter approaches you to get his pound of flesh you take your pound of steel out of the boot (pun intended) and lock it to his truck. If he starts getting physical you call the cops and/or defend yourself. Given that this seems to be a form of legalised extortion it should be fought, not rewarded. Also, next time there is something to vote for vote for the politico who promises to do away with these practices.
You clearly interfered with the operator's method of income -- which is booting cars and then holding them for ransom.
Wicked, if anyone put a boot on my car and he was not employed by the city, I'd call the police to take care of it.
I'd take an Uber to Home Depot, pick up a 3" grinder and cutoff wheel and be on my merry way.
People underestimate how many locks/doors a 3" grinder and some time can open.
The beauty of it is that it's an economic argument... in order to make something impervious to grinding, you'd generally have to make the thing too expensive for its primary purpose.
The beauty of it is that it's an economic argument... in order to make something impervious to grinding, you'd generally have to make the thing too expensive for its primary purpose.
It’ll be faster to pull up a video of the Lockpicking Lawyer and grab a paper clip.
The locks on these things (and other things) are 99% of the time abysmal.
The locks on these things (and other things) are 99% of the time abysmal.
And a gun, worn on your belt.
The police would not help, these corporations, however scummy, are seemingly authorized to do this. The police would just tell you to pay the fine.
Yes and no.
I had a cop help me try to cut an unlabeled bike lock off my bike.
The business had double-locked it to a rail I'd locked it to, because apparently that was forbidden. Unfortunately, there was no sign, so I had no idea.
Cop and I worked on it for awhile, then he gave the security guard an earful for not leaving a message.
Side note: of all the bike locks, braided are by far the most annoying to cut, because they're impervious to bolt cutters.
I had a cop help me try to cut an unlabeled bike lock off my bike.
The business had double-locked it to a rail I'd locked it to, because apparently that was forbidden. Unfortunately, there was no sign, so I had no idea.
Cop and I worked on it for awhile, then he gave the security guard an earful for not leaving a message.
Side note: of all the bike locks, braided are by far the most annoying to cut, because they're impervious to bolt cutters.
I am specifically assuming that the corporations in Atlanta that put boots on cars are permitted to do so via a public private partnership, and the officer would tell you to contact the corporation to deal with it. I doubt any similar situation exists with bike locks, so I don’t see that as comparable.
the lockpicking lawyer on youtube has a video showing how to pick a boot
> It’s done by private orgs, not the city. There is no ticket. Just a boot and a fine to pay to remove the boot.
So you can expect that "thanks" to these girls, the city will give authority to these third party companies to put a boot on the car and make it illegal to remove it? I don't foresee any other pro-people action: the easiest is to make it illegal to remove a boot.
So you can expect that "thanks" to these girls, the city will give authority to these third party companies to put a boot on the car and make it illegal to remove it? I don't foresee any other pro-people action: the easiest is to make it illegal to remove a boot.
From the article, it sounds like it already is:
> “While owning a boot key is not illegal, here is what the public needs to know,” reads the department’s Facebook page. “If you use a Boot Key to modify, tamper, or disengage a booting device from a vehicle, you can be charged with: Criminal Trespass, and/or Theft of Services, and/orTheft by Taking, and/or Damage to Property 2nd Degree.”
> “While owning a boot key is not illegal, here is what the public needs to know,” reads the department’s Facebook page. “If you use a Boot Key to modify, tamper, or disengage a booting device from a vehicle, you can be charged with: Criminal Trespass, and/or Theft of Services, and/orTheft by Taking, and/or Damage to Property 2nd Degree.”
Even if these are from third parties and not the city itself?
I read comments here of people who got their car "booted" (not sure what verb to use:) ) by not authorized companies.
How do you even know what is authorized and what is scam?
What a nasty issue, to be honest.
I read comments here of people who got their car "booted" (not sure what verb to use:) ) by not authorized companies.
How do you even know what is authorized and what is scam?
What a nasty issue, to be honest.
That was my biggest complaint. There’s a lot of rules around towing, but booting is all over the place and not really regulated.
There’s a bill in the state assembly to make booting illegal. It didn’t pass this year, but the representative claims they will reintroduce it again. It’s already only legal in a few small areas.
It’s more likely that booting will stop altogether than new, pro-boot legislation will pass.
It’s more likely that booting will stop altogether than new, pro-boot legislation will pass.
I hope so for you guys. I personally don't have experience with this extortion around booting a car, but, wow.
It's incredible sometimes to hear that this happens in a modern city/country.
It's incredible sometimes to hear that this happens in a modern city/country.
Can you cite a law that says it is “illegal” to remove a boot? You need a law before something is illegal.
I often wondered how boots are even legal, particularly when used on private lots. Like, they just took control of your property. If that's ok, would the same principle allow them to take your wallet and put it in a safe until you paid a fine?
What is “excessive booting” in this context? IIUC here in NYC, booting is usually a response to thousands of dollars in unpaid fines (unpaid fines are public record here, so you can even look them up.)
I realize it's always an unpopular opinion to be pro-parking-enforcement, but to be honest, I'm always glad to see a car booted. Some people think they have a god-given right to leave their car wherever is convenient to them, it's nice to see at least some of them face consequences.
I realize it's always an unpopular opinion to be pro-parking-enforcement, but to be honest, I'm always glad to see a car booted. Some people think they have a god-given right to leave their car wherever is convenient to them, it's nice to see at least some of them face consequences.
About 8 years ago in Atlanta, I got booted on my first offence, by overstaying in the nearly empty parking lot in midtown by 15 mins (I paid for the hour of parking before that, but the restaurant took their time with the checks). I think "first time offense of being late on your parking by 15 mins - you get a boot" is pretty excessive.
Don't get me wrong, I am totally in favor of parking enforcement, and wouldnt have even been that upset to take the hit and pay the fine. Instead, I had to both pay the fine and wait an hour in that parking lot until someone (working for the boot company) came to unlock the boot on my car (and i was lucky they weren't busy that night).
Don't get me wrong, I am totally in favor of parking enforcement, and wouldnt have even been that upset to take the hit and pay the fine. Instead, I had to both pay the fine and wait an hour in that parking lot until someone (working for the boot company) came to unlock the boot on my car (and i was lucky they weren't busy that night).
I think the problem here is the state (or city) offloading its basic enforcement functions to private corporations. And then most worryingly financially incentivizing over enforcement. This also happens with excessive towing [1]
The city should have these folks on payroll instead of constantly contracting this stuff out.
Yes, even on private property because it’s adjudication between two private properties (the car and the parking lot)
[1] https://youtu.be/cs6u0iExry8?si=HQdJts_liwCP1_tV
The city should have these folks on payroll instead of constantly contracting this stuff out.
Yes, even on private property because it’s adjudication between two private properties (the car and the parking lot)
[1] https://youtu.be/cs6u0iExry8?si=HQdJts_liwCP1_tV
I think cities do this because it’s cheaper. Parking enforcement costs the same whether it’s private or public but you can extract more money out of it by being dirty. It’s a bad look for the city if they’re dirty but if the private company they contract out does it, the city gets to wash their hands of it. Also pensions and stuff.
Pretty bad.
Pretty bad.
Parking enforcement in just about any city costs nothing, it's profit making. Surely a private company can only be cheaper if it's literally paying the city?
[deleted]
If they can make money off of it, why wouldn't they pay the city for the contract?
If they can double profits by being dirty and give 60% of their profits to the city, then everyone wins except the citizens.
If they can double profits by being dirty and give 60% of their profits to the city, then everyone wins except the citizens.
[deleted]
[deleted]
How would it be any different if the city applied the boots themselves? That sounds like an entirely orthogonal issue.
Because city workers aren’t paid more to boot/tow more cars while private companies are.
If the profit motive could be aligned with actual progress, somehow objectively measurable then contracting might makes sense.
If the profit motive could be aligned with actual progress, somehow objectively measurable then contracting might makes sense.
I’d add greater oversight, too: you can’t FOIA the internal policies or records of a private company, and if there’s some policy change you have to rebid or do a painful contract amendment.
I think the appeal to privatization is sometimes corruption – when we lived in New Haven, at least two of the city’s tow contracts always went to cousins of council members – but mostly it’s the hope that magic pixie dust will avoid the need for competent oversight. As you noted that only works out when the incentives align, and I don’t see that here.
I think the appeal to privatization is sometimes corruption – when we lived in New Haven, at least two of the city’s tow contracts always went to cousins of council members – but mostly it’s the hope that magic pixie dust will avoid the need for competent oversight. As you noted that only works out when the incentives align, and I don’t see that here.
Yea Atlanta parking enforcement sucks. At least as of a few years ago it was outsourced to a private company(/companies) and they are very trigger happy. Had two tickets assessed incorrectly
The same thing happened to a colleague of mine in ATL just a month or so ago, so it seems the practice is longstanding and current.
Note that it's private parking companies, not municipal agencies, doing the booting.
Note that it's private parking companies, not municipal agencies, doing the booting.
Was that a private lot?
Not sure, but it was this[0] parking lot. It was behind a place that is currently marked as Sebastian Pintxos Bar on google maps. At the time, it was a korean-mexican fusion restaurant, forgot the name, it closed down permanently not that long ago.
0. https://maps.app.goo.gl/dQUE4yaaJTqVQ7En6?g_st=ic
0. https://maps.app.goo.gl/dQUE4yaaJTqVQ7En6?g_st=ic
My problem with it is when private entities are allowed to boot your car.
One time in Berkeley I parked in a parking lot and walked across the street to pick up some food. I was gone 5 minutes and when I returned there was a boot on my car. There was an attendant in the parking lot who informed me it was private property and only for the businesses next to the parking lot. They wanted $150 to remove the boot. This wasn't city parking enforcement, it was a private party.
It's basically extortion. I get that they're trying to discourage non customers from using the lot, but it wasn't obvious it was restricted and clearly if they have someone in the lot full time, they could have warned me instead of immediately holding my car for ransom. Especially since I'm not from that area and I'm not familiar with local parking rules. It's purely an expensive trap.
I don't think this case should be legal.
One time in Berkeley I parked in a parking lot and walked across the street to pick up some food. I was gone 5 minutes and when I returned there was a boot on my car. There was an attendant in the parking lot who informed me it was private property and only for the businesses next to the parking lot. They wanted $150 to remove the boot. This wasn't city parking enforcement, it was a private party.
It's basically extortion. I get that they're trying to discourage non customers from using the lot, but it wasn't obvious it was restricted and clearly if they have someone in the lot full time, they could have warned me instead of immediately holding my car for ransom. Especially since I'm not from that area and I'm not familiar with local parking rules. It's purely an expensive trap.
I don't think this case should be legal.
If it's a private lot, stealing their product is theft and trespassing.
Should it be legal for people to do the same in your kitchen?
Should it be legal for people to do the same in your kitchen?
Does you kitchen have an Open door to the street and big "welcome" sign? I think that would be a fair equivalent
Are you the person drinking from the free self-serve soda dispensers at fast food restaurants?
So sue for theft and trespassing. Confiscating my property and holding it hostage before a trial should be illegal.
On my property, a call to towing company removes it. The vehicle owner can deal with the tow and impound charges, during their business hours.
If you leave an open table full of food on the sidewalk, you shouldn’t then harass people for taking from it.
Is the sidewalk public?
Is your kitchen public?
The lawn next to the public sidewalk is “private” in much the same way the parking lot next to the public street is “private”.
No, but it should be illegal to handcuff their bags to the table until they pay $150.
This isn’t police boots, these are private lots. Personally, I think it should be illegal in any civil instances to boot a car, it should only be used by cops for major offenders.
There is nothing immoral about what these girls are doing, IMO. There are a LOT of boot lickers in this thread today.
There is nothing immoral about what these girls are doing, IMO. There are a LOT of boot lickers in this thread today.
I am somewhat skeptical of the $50 they take for "freeing" the car. That for me personally puts it in a bit of gray area...
That's why they wear masks. Plenty of Silicon Valley businesses start out by openly breaking the law, too.
The $50 covers the cost of travel, tools, advertising and personal risk.
The $50 covers the cost of travel, tools, advertising and personal risk.
> Plenty of Silicon Valley businesses start out by openly breaking the law, too.
If these girls had an app, they'd qualify for Y Combinator.
If these girls had an app, they'd qualify for Y Combinator.
Maybe, but their time to drive to your car and unlock it is worth something. And if you've gotten booted, your ticket fines greatly exceed $50, possibly by an order of magnitude. A Boot Girl's gotta eat, y'know?
[deleted]
Someone drives onto your private lot and leaves. What should be the recourse available to you as a property owner?
Paper ticket. Eligible for tow X hours after the ticket.
Immobilizing the car is a ludicrous solution. Someone left something on your property you want them to remove- and the solution is to prevent them from removing it?
Immobilizing the car is a ludicrous solution. Someone left something on your property you want them to remove- and the solution is to prevent them from removing it?
Why a delay before it is eligible for tow?
To cover the common case where someone is slightly late to move their vehicle in a way that is less disruptive to both the vehicle owner and road users than a large tow vehicle loading the vehicle to haul away. And to provide an evidence trail to combat fraudulent tow companies.
You're arguing a strawman.
Were there large signs, fences and gates to suggest it was private?
I used to live across the street from a park with public parking, and a business with a private lot. I saw people park in the private lot all of the time because there was no signage indicating it was private. It never became a problem for anyone, but the point is people make honest mistakes.
Were there large signs, fences and gates to suggest it was private?
I used to live across the street from a park with public parking, and a business with a private lot. I saw people park in the private lot all of the time because there was no signage indicating it was private. It never became a problem for anyone, but the point is people make honest mistakes.
Sue them for trespass.
mathisfun123(1)
Well I'd just use a cordless drill on the lock with titanium bit. That'll make quick work and ruin their little scam.
Lol. You'll be mugged for the drill before you make a dent in it. An angle grinder will slice through it like warm butter. That's what those damn bicycle thieves use.
Compare and contrast with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre_Extinguishers
One works for the citizen and the other works against them.
One works for the individual, the other against the individual.
One works for the collective, the other against the collective.
As a "citizen" who is pretty firmly anti-car within urban areas, my views on who is working for and against me are going to differ from yours.
I don't necessarily agree with the actions the Tyre Extinguishers are taking, but I definitely sympathize and appreciate the end-goal.
On the other hand, as a "citizen" who wants parking within urban areas to be less subsidized, I don't agree with skirting enforcement for fines around illegal parking.
One works for the collective, the other against the collective.
As a "citizen" who is pretty firmly anti-car within urban areas, my views on who is working for and against me are going to differ from yours.
I don't necessarily agree with the actions the Tyre Extinguishers are taking, but I definitely sympathize and appreciate the end-goal.
On the other hand, as a "citizen" who wants parking within urban areas to be less subsidized, I don't agree with skirting enforcement for fines around illegal parking.
I would be cautious in assuming that the parking enforcement fines and conditions are justified, especially when examined from the angle of class and how they might disproportionately affect certain groups.
Private companies booting cars is atrocious but charging $50 a pop is pretty scummy
Yeah. If it's going to be a Robin Hood thing, charging money is sure to invite a visit to the Fulton County Jail. Free = cool. Charging money = criminal enterprise, where Georgia has liberal RICO statutes.
Good news, since apparently your time is less valuable than theirs you will have no problem undercutting them.
The economics are irrelevant. I'm pointing out that replacing shitty behavior with slightly less shitty behavior is still shitty. Do you have an issue with people posting their observations on a web forum?
Sounds like a market opportunity to acquire your own key and charge $49.99.
Good on them!
I hope they do this with the understanding that it almost certainly ends with a visit to the jail.
Actually, it won’t. These aren’t police boots. It doesn’t damage anyone’s property to remove the boot, just a key.
In some jurisdictions it is a crime to remove a private parking enforcement device without authorization. Check your local laws/ask a lawyer.
The article even explicitly says so:
> “While owning a boot key is not illegal, here is what the public needs to know,” reads the department’s Facebook page. “If you use a Boot Key to modify, tamper, or disengage a booting device from a vehicle, you can be charged with: Criminal Trespass, and/or Theft of Services, and/orTheft by Taking, and/or Damage to Property 2nd Degree.”
> “While owning a boot key is not illegal, here is what the public needs to know,” reads the department’s Facebook page. “If you use a Boot Key to modify, tamper, or disengage a booting device from a vehicle, you can be charged with: Criminal Trespass, and/or Theft of Services, and/orTheft by Taking, and/or Damage to Property 2nd Degree.”
It’s mealy language. “You can be charged…”
These are private booters. No one has ever been charged. Atlanta police barely respond to real crime, much less this.
It would be interesting to see what happens if the booter hires an off duty cop to charge the boot girls or write them a ticket. I expect it would not result in conviction, much less even prosecution.
And the ticket would be on the boot girls, not the person who hires them.
I think the risk would be if the cops were in on the racket or got some kind of bribe “dukes of hazard” style. But the boot industry doesn’t make enough money to pull local cops and politicians in.
These are private booters. No one has ever been charged. Atlanta police barely respond to real crime, much less this.
It would be interesting to see what happens if the booter hires an off duty cop to charge the boot girls or write them a ticket. I expect it would not result in conviction, much less even prosecution.
And the ticket would be on the boot girls, not the person who hires them.
I think the risk would be if the cops were in on the racket or got some kind of bribe “dukes of hazard” style. But the boot industry doesn’t make enough money to pull local cops and politicians in.
> These aren’t police boots.
Ah, missed that part. Thanks.
Ah, missed that part. Thanks.
Cops have bigger fish to dry. A law is only as good as its enforcement.
The first article linked is more informative for those who are hearing about this for the first time. https://abcnews.go.com/US/atlantas-rise-car-booting-prompts-...