What would you have done?
What do you think I should do now?
On Tuesday, February 5 (today), I caught Bus 57 from Forest Grove towards Beaverton Transit Center. I got on the bus at 1:44 p.m. I do not know the bus number.
During the ride, as we were traveling, the bus driver said, in a loud voice, "You need to turn the audio off on your device! Turn it off, not just down." The passengers, most of whom were near the back of the bus, including myself, stared at each other. I didn't hear anything and it looked like no one else did either. There weren't even people talking.
After a few minutes, and another stop, the driver made the comment again. Again, the passengers looked at each other. Some double checked their phones and other devices to make sure they were off - I know I did.
The driver then pulled over, I believe at SW Tualatin Valley Hwy & 209th E, Hillsboro (Stop ID 5637), and said, "We'll continue when whoever it is decides to turn off his audio device." He shut down the bus, got off, walked down the sidewalk and began vaping.
The passengers all stared at each other. I didn't want to sit there forever, so I got up and walked nearer the front of the bus, up near two guys who were closest to the driver. One was, indeed, playing a video game on his device and it was making noise. Because he was in the front of all other passengers, we couldn't hear the sounds his phone was making - hence why we had all looked at each other in confusion when the driver was getting mad. I realized the guy probably didn't speak English and asked, in Spanish, if he spoke English. He said no. So I told him, in very poor Spanish, that the driver did not like the noises from his phone and he needed to turn the sound off. He was deeply apologetic. Then I went to the front of the bus, got off, and told the driver that the guy making the noise didn't speak English, he didn't know he was causing problems, he had turned his phone off now. The driver did immediately stop vaping and get back on the bus, and we continued on the way.
I was going to let this go, however, by the time we go to the stop I needed to get to, to take the bus to Aloha Community Library, I could not cross the four lanes of traffic in time to catch the bus I needed - it pulled away without me. The next bus wouldn't come for 30 minutes so, to make my meeting, I had to call a Lyft and pay $5.
I think Trimet should reimburse me $5. I should not have had to handle this problem on behalf of the driver so we could continue on our way, PLUS, I'm out $5. And, yes, I wrote them and complained.
So, what do YOU think?
Showing posts with label Beaverton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beaverton. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Washington County Sheriff and District Attorney both oppose Measure 105 in Oregon
On Wednesday, August 08, 2018, Kevin Barton, Washington County District Attorney, and Pat Garrett, Washington County Sheriff, had their joint statement in opposition to Oregon Measure 105 published in various newspapers in the Portland, Oregon metro area. These newspapers require registration to read their statement online, and while registration is free, the registration step turns a lot of readers away. So below is the statement in full. One of the points the sheriff makes repeatedly, and rightly so, is that the current law (ORS 181A.820) provides no sanctuary to an undocumented immigrant who commits a crime in Oregon.
As district attorney and sheriff, we are the elected law enforcement leaders in Washington County. One of our primary obligations is to ensure public safety. We believe every member of our community has the right to live, work and raise a family in safety and that an essential aspect of being safe is feeling safe and having access to justice.
Through our role as public safety leaders, we are aware of Ballot Measure 105 (formerly known as Initiative Petition 22). This measure seeks to repeal ORS 181A.820, a 31-year-old Oregon law that controls when local law enforcement agencies may use local resources to enforce federal immigration laws. We are compelled to speak because we believe this ballot measure may negatively impact public safety.
Oregon's Legislature passed ORS 181A.820 in 1987 to provide structure regarding how and when local police can be involved in enforcing federal immigration law. This longstanding law states local police cannot use resources to detect or apprehend persons whose only law violation is federal immigration law. Importantly, this law does not prohibit local police from using resources to detect, apprehend or even cooperate with immigration officials for people who have violated federal immigration law and committed a crime. In other words, the current law (ORS 181A.820) provides no sanctuary to an undocumented immigrant who commits a crime in Oregon. In fact, it specifically authorizes police to share information with federal immigration authorities.
ORS 181A.820 strikes the right balance. Under this law local police cannot enforce federal immigration laws but can cooperate and communicate with immigration authorities if an undocumented immigrant commits a crime. While there are certainly ways the current law could be improved or clarified, and there appears to be some misunderstanding regarding how this law works, repealing it altogether is not the answer.
A repeal of ORS 181A.820 would likely create a chilling effect in our community. Certain members of the immigrant population may be less likely to report crimes, to access justice services such as restraining orders, or to even appear in court and testify as witnesses. Immigrant communities and families may become greater targets for criminals because they may be less likely to come forward or appear in court to testify. These are not hypothetical concerns; we have already seen these issues occur. If ORS 181A.820 is repealed, we believe these problems may increase.
Additionally, a repeal of the current uniform law that allows all law enforcement throughout Oregon to communicate with immigration authorities regarding criminal defendants would likely result in a patchwork of inconsistent ordinances and rules from various cities and counties.
Our community is safer when citizens and non-citizens alike report crimes and testify in court so we can arrest and prosecute criminals. We believe that ORS 181A.820 strikes the right balance to keep our community safe and we oppose the effort to repeal it.
Kevin Barton, Washington County District Attorney, and Pat Garrett, Washington County Sheriff.
As district attorney and sheriff, we are the elected law enforcement leaders in Washington County. One of our primary obligations is to ensure public safety. We believe every member of our community has the right to live, work and raise a family in safety and that an essential aspect of being safe is feeling safe and having access to justice.
Through our role as public safety leaders, we are aware of Ballot Measure 105 (formerly known as Initiative Petition 22). This measure seeks to repeal ORS 181A.820, a 31-year-old Oregon law that controls when local law enforcement agencies may use local resources to enforce federal immigration laws. We are compelled to speak because we believe this ballot measure may negatively impact public safety.
Oregon's Legislature passed ORS 181A.820 in 1987 to provide structure regarding how and when local police can be involved in enforcing federal immigration law. This longstanding law states local police cannot use resources to detect or apprehend persons whose only law violation is federal immigration law. Importantly, this law does not prohibit local police from using resources to detect, apprehend or even cooperate with immigration officials for people who have violated federal immigration law and committed a crime. In other words, the current law (ORS 181A.820) provides no sanctuary to an undocumented immigrant who commits a crime in Oregon. In fact, it specifically authorizes police to share information with federal immigration authorities.
ORS 181A.820 strikes the right balance. Under this law local police cannot enforce federal immigration laws but can cooperate and communicate with immigration authorities if an undocumented immigrant commits a crime. While there are certainly ways the current law could be improved or clarified, and there appears to be some misunderstanding regarding how this law works, repealing it altogether is not the answer.
A repeal of ORS 181A.820 would likely create a chilling effect in our community. Certain members of the immigrant population may be less likely to report crimes, to access justice services such as restraining orders, or to even appear in court and testify as witnesses. Immigrant communities and families may become greater targets for criminals because they may be less likely to come forward or appear in court to testify. These are not hypothetical concerns; we have already seen these issues occur. If ORS 181A.820 is repealed, we believe these problems may increase.
Additionally, a repeal of the current uniform law that allows all law enforcement throughout Oregon to communicate with immigration authorities regarding criminal defendants would likely result in a patchwork of inconsistent ordinances and rules from various cities and counties.
Our community is safer when citizens and non-citizens alike report crimes and testify in court so we can arrest and prosecute criminals. We believe that ORS 181A.820 strikes the right balance to keep our community safe and we oppose the effort to repeal it.
Kevin Barton, Washington County District Attorney, and Pat Garrett, Washington County Sheriff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)