24-hour curfew in AR

[Homegrown Tomatoes]

Listen to this!
"Now if somebody wants to sue us, they have an option to sue, but I'm fairly certain that a judge will see it the way the way the citizens see it here," Mayor James Valley said. "The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution."

Infringement on constitutional rights OK???!!!  What are they thinking?  Oh, obviously they're not....

to see the whole story, click here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_re_us/arkansas_town_curfew

[benevolance]

I think it is a good idea... they might need to  tweak it a little to avoid getting sued.  They can just have expanded patrols in that area and people will be stopped all the time...

Those without weapons or drugs need not worry and have nothing to fear. I do not feel sorry for someone stupid enough to go into a police roadside stop with drugs and guns on their posession.

I seriously doubt that the average citizen feels their rights are being violated here. Criminals who want to flaunt the laws might be upset..those that want the gangs the drugs and the guns off the street and away from their homes are probably overjoyed.

[peternap]

I seriously doubt that the average citizen feels their rights are being violated here. Criminals who want to flaunt the laws might be upset..those that want the gangs the drugs and the guns off the street and away from their homes are probably overjoyed.

I just don't know what to say about that statement Benovelance....just amazing and sad!

[benevolance]

I do not want anyone on my land...And I do not think that anyone has the right to enter another man's land... not even the police... But the community is not owned by anyone..It is public domain..

These people are walking around in the public domain with drugs and guns... This is what the police are trying to prevent.

Nobody on their own land are being touched talked to or searched.

It is sad to think a community has gotten so bad that something like this is even necessary. Maybe people should move, but some cannot afford to I guess.

We need to remember that the police patrols and checkpoints are on public land nobody's private land is being entered here.

As far as individual rights... nobody has the right to carry illicit narcotics or illegal firearms in public so removing these things from the street is hardly a violation of our freedoms.

It is simple enough...Average people that are not breaking the law have no fear of being harassed searched or bothered.

When you pass through the gates to a base or some factories there is a security guard.. you show id and they ask you what your purposes or intentions are... then you go about your business... if you do not have a logical reason for being there they check you and search your car before they let you through.

People who work in this area and live in this area are not being harassed by police...They may have to prove who they are or where they live...

I hate dealing with police as much as the next guy..I would gladly show ID to a cop or prove I live down the street to get the drug dealers and gangs off my street corners.

[ScottA]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Forth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

But hey, "It's just a god damned piece of paper" (Shrub). Search and detain everyone who dares leave their home.

[peternap]

It is sad to think a community has gotten so bad that something like this is even necessary. Maybe people should move, but some cannot afford to I guess.

We need to remember that the police patrols and checkpoints are on public land nobody's private land is being entered here.

As far as individual rights... nobody has the right to carry illicit narcotics or illegal firearms in public so removing these things from the street is hardly a violation of our freedoms.

 
I hate dealing with police as much as the next guy..I would gladly show ID to a cop or prove I live down the street to get the drug dealers and gangs off my street corners.

Lots of people think that way. Unconstitutional justice has been around since before there was a constitution.

Here are a few quotes about lynching and the KKK. Sure is an effective way to maintain law and order.

The term lynching probably derived from the name Charles Lynch (1736-96), a justice of the peace who administered rough justice in Virginia. Lynching was originally a system of punishment used by whites against African American slaves. However, whites who protested against this were also in danger of being lynched.



n 1884 Ida Wells, editor of Free Speech, a small newspaper in Memphis, carried out an investigation into lynching. She discovered during a short period 728 black men and women had been lynched by white mobs. Of these deaths, two-thirds were for small offences such as public drunkenness and shoplifting.


Damn right! Those criminals won't be doing business around here anymore

[benevolance]

Scott

I agree in all the 4th amendment rights... our houses and property is Sacred and off limits to the government...

This is not an invasion of anyone's land.. this is a checkpoint in the open to keep drugs and guns off the street corners. and only passers by that do not live in the area and have no reason for being there are being questioned further.

if they were knocking on doors and entering houses I would be screaming bloody blue murder.

[ScottA]

I guess you missed the part aout being secure in our persons as well as our houses. The way I read it they need a warrant to search your person. Lock up the crooks and keep them in jail and this problem will go away. Our revolving door justice system created this mess along with little or no chance for good jobs.

[benevolance]

Not sure I agree with the way you interpret that. I do not consider someone to be carrying an illegal weapon on their person to be immune from persecution or search.

When criminals enter public domain they endanger the lives of everyone! They should not be given free passage to transport drugs or guns or whatever.

A also agree that the people convicted of gun and drug crimes need to be thrown in jail for a long long time...even first offense... We do have a revolving door system and you are correct that it is part of the problem.

People openly on the street carry illegal firearms and drugs is another problem that needs to be addressed.

Our right to bear arms was issued to protect our homes...Not to protect the territory of a drug dealer or gang

[peternap]

Not sure I agree with the way you interpret that. I do not consider someone to be carrying an illegal weapon on their person to be immune from persecution or search.

When criminals enter public domain they endanger the lives of everyone! They should not be given free passage to transport drugs or guns or whatever.

A also agree that the people convicted of gun and drug crimes need to be thrown in jail for a long long time...even first offense... We do have a revolving door system and you are correct that it is part of the problem.

People openly on the street carry illegal firearms and drugs is another problem that needs to be addressed.

Our right to bear arms was issued to protect our homes...Not to protect the territory of a drug dealer or gang

Fortunately the courts differ somewhat from your interpretation.
Might want to re-read the constitution.  It pertains to this country, not your house.

[apaknad]

dear scott,

i ask you as a fellow forumite to please not use the G.D. word. even in qoutes from shrub it is too disrespectful to our creator. i swear like a marine(i was) but i know that the people on this site are god fearing, honest americans(canadians and others) that believe in the constitution and other peoples rights. your point is valid and insightful, thank you for stating it.
i remain, very truly yours my friend, dan

[NM_Shooter]

Hey! This ought to be fun!

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures etc."


That little word "unreasonable" sort of throws a spin into things.  What is reasonable and what isn't? 

Is it unreasonable to get searched at an airport?  No! At the entrance to a concert?  No!

And keep in mind that folks are not getting searched as part of a standard procedure.  The article just said that they are getting stopped and asked why they are there at 3 in the morning, in an area where random shootings and drug deals are going down.  In a mostly abandoned neighborhood. 

No one is getting arrested for breaking the curfew.

BTW...Those are not illegal weapons unless they are being carried around by a convicted felon, or if they are fully automatic, or concealed without permit.

"Security in persons" pertains much more to the moms who make their kids lay on the floor to sleep at night, over drug dealers performing random shootings.   

You can't protect one without infringing on the other.  I vote for protecting the innocent persons in body as well as rights.   

Those stops seem perfectly "reasonable" to me. 

[NM_Shooter]

It is simple enough...Average people that are not breaking the law have no fear of being harassed searched or bothered.


I hate dealing with police as much as the next guy..I would gladly show ID to a cop or prove I live down the street to get the drug dealers and gangs off my street corners.

Yikes...I am agreeing with Benevolence on this... (maybe I should check my blood sugar  )


-f-

[peternap]

It is simple enough...Average people that are not breaking the law have no fear of being harassed searched or bothered.


I hate dealing with police as much as the next guy..I would gladly show ID to a cop or prove I live down the street to get the drug dealers and gangs off my street corners.

Yikes...I am agreeing with Benevolence on this... (maybe I should check my blood sugar  )


-f-

[ScottA]

It wasn't my intention to offend anyone. Point is this... If you allow little breaches in the rights of people to travel freely and not be frisked searched or whatever for no reason other than they are doing it to everyone for everyones saftey then before long it's ok go to the next level and the next. Before you know it we have no rights at all. How do they know who has an illegal gun or drugs until they serch them? How do they decide who to search? I for one do not want to be stopped just because they decided to stop everyone. Why am I being stopped? No reason other than maybe I did something. That's not reasonable IMO.

[StinkerBell]

The right to assembly, contained in the First Amendment.

And there inherent, albeit not specifically enumerated, rights to be left alone, to freely travel, to move around in a free society.

The article also expresses concern that the police will begin to use this curfew as the pretext to conduct searches of homes and detentions of people without probable cause or warrants, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

[benevolance]

Nobody is saying people cannot travel... or assemble.

The police simply are setting up in a very bad area where there has been rampant out of control shootings, gang activity and drug trafficking. People can still go there if they want to...But the police are letting them know that they are going to be  staying in that area and discouraging people from conducting illegal activities.

The point was made that people are not being arrested for just traveling going to and fro work to the store or whatever.

Some people are upset because the Police are staying in one particular area getting involved with who comes and goes in an effort to try to discourage shootings and drug trafficking.

And nowhere are people saying that guns are illegal.. but unregistered firearms are illegal... convicted felons cannot have guns. Show me a report where a law abiding citizen is violated and their legal firearms are stolen from them by police in this area...

This is simply not happening. So if anyone from this board who is not a felon wants to get in their car and go to that crime infested area they could...And if they had a legal weapon that they have a permit to carry, they could take it with them... though to be fair if anyone from this board wanted to go to a hell hole like that more questions would need to be asked.

So I ask just what are all of these violations of our rights?

[muldoon]

I am truly surprised to see this much debate over this here. 

Many many people will happily give up their freedoms for what they perceive as safety.  More specifically, they will happily give up what they perceive as other peoples freedoms for what they perceive as their safety.  I say if they are committing a crime, arrest them.  If you have reason to think they committed a crime, question them.  Taking a blanket approach to stop everyone and search them is wholesale unacceptable in my opinion.

If they are carrying a weapon, whats the real harm?  Is this more thought crime?  Someone might do something?  They also might be prepared to simply protect themselves in a bad environment.  The harm come in using the weapon, not carrying it.  If they are using it in a predatory manner - enforce the law - and put them in prison, not jail, prison for a long time.  This is just another open invitation for police fishing expeditions, and by and large it only sweeps the very lowest and dumbest of the criminal element.  It has no real affect on crime because it targets the clueless, it does however make serious inroads into the rights of everyone. 

If they are suspicious (and the example posted above of walking around at 3am is suspicious in any neighborhood), ask them for permission to search, if they refuse, get a warrant or drug dog.  No bench judge says no to this.  Why do they need additional privileges when police have shown time and time again they cannot be trusted with the ones they have now? 

I think it stinks, and I say the hell with it. 

[benevolance]

I agree that no new rights need to be bestowed to the police. However it think it more than a little suspicious that someone would be going to a specific area where there is known drug gang and illegal activity at 3 am... and carry a weapon.

And a police officer does have the right to investigate suspicious activity.

I do agree though that criminals need to go to prison for a decent length of time.. instead of a few weeks at the resort.

My dad and I have been calling it the Catch and Release program for years now...Like one of those sport fishing shows on ESPN.. Where the guy with the big ego catches the bass and then let's it go.

[Homegrown Tomatoes]

Darn... If you're going into a gang and drug-infested area at 3 AM, you'd betterbe packing!!!  I sure as heck would... though I don't really have any reason to go places like that, especially at that time of day.

[benevolance]

Homegrown you are making half of my point for me... Why would anyone want to go to those specific areas in the first place? the neighborhood is mostly vacant housing there are not many residents... But all these people want to go to gang and drug central...

It does not pass the stink Test... Sorry Stink this was not a jab or anything.. just an old saying

[muldoon]

I grew up poor, and part of growing up poor is being in poor neighborhoods.  Who cares why they want to be there, or why they want to drive through there, or walk through there, as long as public streets and public sidewalks are legal for pedestrian traffic they have every right to be there.  If they are causing a problem, well then the police are certainly supposed to take care of that .. but if they are not causing a problem, well then, whats the problem?

I understand fear, I do.  It's a powerful motivator, and god forbid some darkies are outside at 3am because surely they are up to no good huh?  Why not just make it illegal for law abiding citizens to go outside their houses after dark.  That ought to fix everything. 

I'll give you a damn good reason off the top of my head.  Tuesday the 11th started the perseids meteor shower.  It's debris from the swift-tuttle comet that we see every August.  Visible in the darkest hours of the night.  In fact, you should get away from the light of heavily populated areas to see it better.  Perfectly legitimate reason to be outside at 3am.  And unless your disturbing someone else, you have every right to be there, enjoying the meteor shower WITHOUT being harassed by the police without cause. 

If your doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear is a horrible reasoning to strip away our freedoms.  It's down there with "think of the children" in my opinion.  Something that gets drug out when power hungry law makers want to add to there already sickening amount of power.   

I respect your right to your opinion, but this is something I just cant be swayed on. 

[benevolance]

Muldoon

Nobody has been told they cannot be outside at 3 am...even in crack central. I never said the word darkies I hope you are not trying to make this racial...People from all walks of life commit drug and gun crimes.

And as for the meteor shower...Great example..If that part of town was the best place to see such a thing then that would be a very plausible explanation for being there at 3 am.

Remember the part where police only asked people what they were doing. It is easy enough to tell them star gazing and then point to the sky to show the officer all the meteors.

Nobody was being forced off the street or forced back into their homes. The cops just set up in the worst part of town and started to patrol the area...asking questions.

again people are not told they cannot be there even at 3 am.. but the cops are there to make sure the violence the shooting and the drugs stay off the street.

When people are told that they cannot go to and fro you have big news. When the cops set up a checkpoint in a very bad neighborhood to prevent crime I do not see anything wrong.

The only thing I saw in the story was a fear from the ACLU or whatever liberties union that the Cops might start door to door searches for criminals...But it is a free country...A cop can walk up to you or me on the street and ask us what we are doing....We can always tell them to leave us alone and it is none of their business.

There are loitering laws and vagrancy laws...if you want to get technical the cops can say they are there to prevent loitering or vagrancy.

If you want to grab your binoculars and go watch the stars in that crack infested Sh*t hole go ahead the cops will not stop you...they might laugh and scratch their heads... but it is not illegal to watch the stars

[muldoon]

well, yes they are being told they cant be there.  Specifically that's what a police curfew is:

cur·few  (kûrfy)
n.
1. A regulation requiring certain or all people to leave the streets or be at home at a prescribed hour.
2.
a. The time at which such a restriction begins or is in effect: a 10 p.m. curfew for all residents.

or

curfew. A police or military regulation requiring people to be off the streets during a certain period, generally at night.


Only this is a 24 hour curfew, for a week, a means to be able to stop anyone at any time and question and search them because they broke the curfew law as there crime.   Yes, they will catch some criminals.  If they just patrolled the area and talked to people (which is within their existing job descriptions) they would likely catch many of them anyway.  Remember this is a high drug area, they arrested 32 people in a week in cracktown?  They couldn't do that under existing laws? 

I have no problem putting criminals in jail, I'm not defending drug addicts, or criminals.  I'm saying the police have a duty to 1) prove guilt and 2) treat people as innocent until they can prove otherwise.  Taking the approach that it is illegal to go outside and oh by the way we'll let you go if we deem your not doing anything wrong is not acceptable. 

Good point on vagrancy and loitering laws.  Why are they not simply enforcing those?  Why the need to make police state ? 

[benevolance]

well I read that they were asking people 24 hours a day what they were doing...Only  those that acted suspiciously were questioned further. The reason there was a 24 hour curfew was because they stayed there 24-7 patrolling the area.

Nobody who was not committing a crime or doing anything wrong has been detained or violated...and because the curfew was 24 hours a day people can go outside or wherever, whenever they want.. but the cops are letting the thugs know that they are going to be there looking around asking questions keeping things safe.