Charlie Sykes Calls It Wrong/Mid-Course Correction

Charlie's not real pleased with booking and jailing the library-book scofflaw.

And in order to make his point, he's editing the facts. (It's how polemics work, of course.)

The woman didn't return some books and then ignored several mailed notifications.

THEN SHE IGNORED THE COURT SUMMONS and DATE.

Charlie wants to forget about the above line--but that's not possible if you wish to relay the story honestly.

She was in-slammer-ized because she ignored the Court date--not because she did not return the books.

Obviously, it was a very quiet day for the Grafton cop shop. And I'm certain they'd rather have more important things to do.

The fact remains: the girl was NOT booked for failure to return the library books. She was perp-walked for ignoring the Judge.

Too bad, but it happens.

AHAHAHA!

Update: Charlie acknowledges that ignoring the court date was the reason for the cuffs...

Better.

But there's more. Charlie also wants to make an analogy between Blockbuster (e.g.) and the Public Library.

Wrong.

The Public Library happens to be funded by the taxpayers. Blockbuster is not.

Better analogy? Maybe the parking-tickets (misuse of the public street and space) would be the closest. Both parking tickets and library-book....ahhhh....forgetfulness....are violations of taxpayer-funded entities.

His larger point is that there are some things so minor that the handcuff/jail routine is a bit much--but that happens to be POLICE PROCEDURE. The cops don't HAVE to cuff a library-book scoffer, except that the lawyers (and the cop unions) have mandated that as policy.

Should collection agencies handle this stuff? Maybe. But collection agencies are not ideal vehicles for this sort of stuff, either.