24-hour curfew in AR

[Sassy]

I drive through areas that have heavy gang activity & drugs on my way home from work - sometimes it is midnite, sometimes it is 2, 3 or 4am - I wouldn't appreciate being stopped by police at a checkpoint everytime I drive home!  Our freedoms & right to privacy keeps getting eroded more & more as we allow these types of monitoring to go on.  It will be just like the old communist countries  "papers please!"

[benevolance]

the papers please to me is more nazi germany

And again nobody who is not committing a crime has been detained...

[NM_Shooter]

Notice though that the "curfew" has no teeth.  In a traditional curfew, if you violate it, you are likely to be arrested just for that.  The article says that no one has been arrested for violation of curfew. 

If I or my wife) had to drive through a really bad neighborhood, I would welcome a police stop.  At least I would know that for that short bit there would unlikely be any trouble there.  Betcha after one or two times this happened they would recognize my vehicle and know there was no need to stop me.

I understand the sentiment about the advancement of restrictive laws being bad.  I applaud what the police are doing, but I can also see that they could have done this without using the word "curfew".  I suspect that was done to give those in the area a feeling of seriousness.

One other point though... in Arkansas, you don't have to register your weapons, so "unregistered guns" are not illegal. 

[NM_Shooter]

And another thing 

Back in 1981 or so, I was driving from my parent's house in Mountain Home Arkansas on my way to Chicago.  I stopped for fuel near E. St. Louis, and got turned around getting back on the highway.  I drove around for a bit before I passed a cop who immediately "profiled" me.  My profile was that I was a white kid in an out of state old car packed with boxes driving along looking at street signs in a nasty neighborhood. 

He flipped on his lights, stopped me, asked what was going on, then proceeded to lead me to the on ramp. 

I sure as heck did not mind.  From then on I always fueled near Gray Summit instead 

-f-

[peternap]

And another thing 

Back in 1981 or so, I was driving from my parent's house in Mountain Home Arkansas on my way to Chicago.  I stopped for fuel near E. St. Louis, and got turned around getting back on the highway.  I drove around for a bit before I passed a cop who immediately "profiled" me.  My profile was that I was a white kid in an out of state old car packed with boxes driving along looking at street signs in a nasty neighborhood. 

He flipped on his lights, stopped me, asked what was going on, then proceeded to lead me to the on ramp. 

I sure as heck did not mind.  From then on I always fueled near Gray Summit instead 

-f-

All the reasons supporting this are good from a "I don't have anything to hide" standpoint.....well, almost all ...but the problem is not the police trying to keep crime out of an area, it's about setting a bad precedent for the future. Give em an inch and they'll take a mile.
To set up checkpoints and still be legal, they have to develop a plan complete with time, date, who is stopped, etc.

For instance, set up 24 hours a day and stop every third car, or every 7th car, etc. But the plan has to be followed to the letter or it is an illegal stop.

If they are allowed to deviate from the plan and just say they will block off an area and check everybody but residents, you just chip a little off our constitutional protection.

Remember when George Bush said that to stay safe we needed to give up some freedom. When they did give in (I didn't give up jack Sh&t) the Patriot Act came along, then terrorist lists and warrant less wire taps and required passports, biometric drivers licenses, new hires laws...on and on.

Some still say it's a good thing  .....but thankfully, many of us have a zero tolerance policy and won't allow it.

[NM_Shooter]

Unfortunately, the bad folks are worse when it comes to "give them an inch" argument. 

But some folks prefer to protect criminals rather than innocents.

[peternap]

Your right NM and there's no simple answer. The answer is not to give up the protections that this country was built on. The ultimate answer is for the people that live there to take back their own area. They won't cooperate with police and the reason often given is, they're afraid. That's not it though. The real reason is that the criminals are often their own kids or brothers and sisters or husband or wife.

Richmond has tried this time and again and it just doesn't work.

I;ve seen this happen over and over. Police put a push in an area and the drug activity just moves a couple blocks over. Police move over and they go back. The answer isn't police, it's the folks that live there.

I don't have problems like that...Might be my laser scoped rocket launcher.

[Homegrown Tomatoes]

I;ve seen this happen over and over. Police put a push in an area and the drug activity just moves a couple blocks over. Police move over and they go back. The answer isn't police, it's the folks that live there.

You hit the nail on the head there, IMO.  I'm all the time reading some story about some little old grandma who got sick of crime in her neighborhood and started enlisting the neighborhood to help fight it.  People need to stop tolerating the gangs and drugs and crime.  Instead of trying to "stay out of it" for fear of retaliation when they see crimes happening, they need to get involved. 

[NM_Shooter]

I don't have problems like that...Might be my laser scoped rocket launcher.

Ha!  funny how a rifle and a backhoe have the ability to make problems disappear!

I have a neighbor who says something like "you can get a lot more done in politics with a good argument and a bomb than you can with just a good argument" (or something similar).

In consideration of folks in the neighborhood "doing something", I think that putting up with some police aggravation and working with this curfew qualifies as doing something.  I would prefer to leave the policing to the police (at least initially).  I can't imagine most Sr. Citizens confronting gang activity.  I personally could not be around to protect my family and property on a 24 hour basis. 

[Sassy]

One night while driving home from work @ 0130-0200 I was surrounded by 5 cars with teenagers, maybe early 20's - didn't look real hard - they were in front of me, beside me & behind, going 20 mph - probably thinking about car jacking me, I guess...  we went along for several blocks like that, then suddenly they all made a left turn in front of in-coming traffic - I was praying a lot - just figure they saw my great big, fearsome guardian angel & took off, lol!  But not a cop in site - usually when you need one, they aren't around...  (I told this story a few months ago when it happened.)

I have several cop friends at the hospital & we discuss a lot of this - they feel frustrated that their hands are tied in so many ways, but then again, I always think of what Benjamin Franklin said

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

The Patriot Act has only made a lot more restrictions for citizens of the USA, given the gov't "carte blanche" & left the borders, container ships, Mexican truckers free reign...  so much for "security & prosperity"   

[peternap]

Your missing my point NMS.
I'm not suggesting feisty old lady's go out with the broom to run the lizards off the corner.

The police checkpoints do nothing but get a few DWI;s and dead inspection stickers. All the drug trade has moved to the next neighborhood which is often in another venue.

The problem with catching them is that the cops don't know enough about what;s going on to make an arrest...but the neighbors do. Corner dealers don't just stand on the corner with their pockets loaded with dope. The projects usually have limited street access and I've seen them with spotters with radios at the entrances, reporting on who comes in.

The dealers have their drugs under a brick or trashcan at a safe distance. Police car comes in, spotters see him and the dealer is clean.

A simple call from a neighbor makes all the difference. The cop knows what to ask. Where is he holding the drugs, does he work alone, what time is he there, where does he keep his gun......
'
That little bit of information allows the officer to make an arrest and the caller remains name is not used.

Now that I've said that....again, the residents WON'T cooperate because those are their people.

[NM_Shooter]

Nope, I am not missing your point..  I am merely refuting it because it appears to me it is based on speculation.   i don't understand what you find objectionable (is it the mayor's comment?).  The police have stepped up enforcement and are talking to people in the neighborhood.  Why is this a bad thing?   

What is the "unreasonable" act?

One of two conditions primarily exist..Either:

1)  The neighborhood is harboring and fostering criminals.  In this case they deserve no protection and they deserve to be under close scrutiny by the police.

2)  The neighborhood is victim to gangs and they are afraid of them.  In this case they need the police to assist.

What is a better solution than having the police there talking to people?

I am talking very specifically about this situation in Arkansas.  I think you are speaking much more globally.  A quote from the article:

"Among the curfew operation's arrests, 10 came from felony charges, including the arrest of two people carrying both drugs and weapons"

What DWIs are you talking about? 



Actually Sassy, you are paraphrasing.  The quote is this:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

What Essential Liberty is being given up in Arkansas?  The liberty to smoke crack on a corner at 3a.m. and ward off boredom by shooting at folks at random?  I'm pretty sure the founding fathers did not have that in mind, but now I am speculating.

This still boils down to the 4th amendment and the term "unreasonable".  From what I have read, it is all reasonable.

"Unreasonable" and "Essential".... These are some very critical adjectives.  Don't ignore them.

[ScottA]

Maybe the cops can't afford gas so they just set up a checkpoint and write tickets that way.

[benevolance]

Nice point scott... Here in Small town SC there was a story where local police were complaining about the price of gas... said that they would be forced to patrol town more and not drive around... People got upset.. Mostly because it meant the cops were in town setting up the gun in the speed traps... and not patrolling outside of town at all.

They just sat in town and handed out tickets all day long... which is what they would prefer to do..

Okay so maybe some cops care about the community.. but the town's budget depends on revenues and from a revenue standpoint staying in town and writing tickets all day long is what the police prefer to do... maximum revenue minimum effort

[peternap]

Nope, I am not missing your point..  I am merely refuting it because it appears to me it is based on speculation.   i don't understand what you find objectionable (is it the mayor's comment?).  The police have stepped up enforcement and are talking to people in the neighborhood.  Why is this a bad thing?   

What is the "unreasonable" act?

One of two conditions primarily exist..Either:

1)  The neighborhood is harboring and fostering criminals.  In this case they deserve no protection and they deserve to be under close scrutiny by the police.

2)  The neighborhood is victim to gangs and they are afraid of them.  In this case they need the police to assist.

What is a better solution than having the police there talking to people?

I am talking very specifically about this situation in Arkansas.  I think you are speaking much more globally.  A quote from the article:

"Among the curfew operation's arrests, 10 came from felony charges, including the arrest of two people carrying both drugs and weapons"

What DWIs are you talking about? 

Actually, the DWI's come from Richmonds programs, they also got a few low level felony arrests that had to be dropped due to constitutional matters.
As far as my objections, they are irrelevant. Different people have different tolerance levels so what you use is the Courts objection.

This idea isn't new and definite parameters have mandated by the courts. This one does goes beyond the parameters and is discriminatory if a single resident goes unchallenged.
In short, these checkpoints are impossible to maintain for more than a day or two without breaking the rules.
In Richmond, There was a 24 hour video camera set up to record one of them. It was used as evidence in each arrest they made and because they made one mistake, the entire operation was blown.

Bad idea, Bad program and as much as I dislike the ACLU, the faster they shut it down, the better. 

[StinkerBell]

All the reasons supporting this are good from a "I don't have anything to hide" standpoint.....well, almost all ...but the problem is not the police trying to keep crime out of an area, it's about setting a bad precedent for the future. Give em an inch and they'll take a mile.
To set up checkpoints and still be legal, they have to develop a plan complete with time, date, who is stopped, etc.

IMO that standpoint is proving my innocence. Here let me show you I have nothing to hide I am innocent. Thats kinda how I see it.

[peternap]

All the reasons supporting this are good from a "I don't have anything to hide" standpoint.....well, almost all ...but the problem is not the police trying to keep crime out of an area, it's about setting a bad precedent for the future. Give em an inch and they'll take a mile.
To set up checkpoints and still be legal, they have to develop a plan complete with time, date, who is stopped, etc.

IMO that standpoint is proving my innocence. Here let me show you I have nothing to hide I am innocent. Thats kinda how I see it.

In Va the police also got very rough with people who had guns (Perfectly legal here) Virginia has a very strong gun lobby and it got so bad in some cities, that the General Assembly passed full preemption. They revoked all authority for localities to control either the sale or carryi of a firearm.

That bit the Police departments in the backsides.

Like I said, they were tried here in some of the cities and just didn't work.

[StinkerBell]

The core of the problem is catch and release. Doesnt matter how many laws you have, if they are not enforced in a way to detour criminals then any law new or old will not work.


New laws are like a UN resolution. Tax Payer Funded Impotence TPFI.

[peternap]

The core of the problem is catch and release. Doesnt matter how many laws you have, if they are not enforced in a way to detour criminals then any law new or old will not work.


New laws are like a UN resolution. Tax Payer Funded Impotence TPFI.

The ironic thing is that the United States imprisons more people that any other country. Why can't we get a handle on crime....because we stuff so many people for stupid things (It's real easy to commit a felony and not know it, most people do it at least once a week)....that there isn't room for real criminals.

[desimulacra]

Hey what do you think of this? My wife went to the local doctor and had to fill out the standard form about medical details THEN the nurse started asking questions Do you feel safe in your home? Do you have guns in your home? Bless my wife she stopped and questioned why are you asking me these questions?
The nurse said that they were looking for abused spouses or dangerous houses. The nurse said that people were afraid to ask for help and this let them find out indirectly.
The Wife refused anymore questions and the doctor visit went normally.
So this can of worms brings many questions to mind  but two of them and foremost is what do they do with this information? Report to police? And who determined that a gun in the home was dangerous what about knifes or automobiles or drugs or sticks of wood or stupid or white or jews........ (no they did not ask about drugs).

[benevolance]

well do you beat your wife or not?

[StinkerBell]

well do you beat your wife or not?

That is not how you ask the question...tsk tsk


This is how you ask the question....


How often to you beat your wife?

[StinkerBell]

The core of the problem is catch and release. Doesnt matter how many laws you have, if they are not enforced in a way to detour criminals then any law new or old will not work.


New laws are like a UN resolution. Tax Payer Funded Impotence TPFI.

The ironic thing is that the United States imprisons more people that any other country. Why can't we get a handle on crime....because we stuff so many people for stupid things (It's real easy to commit a felony and not know it, most people do it at least once a week)....that there isn't room for real criminals.

Might be true, but on the other hand other parts of the world execute and detour people from comiting crimes.

[peternap]

The core of the problem is catch and release. Doesnt matter how many laws you have, if they are not enforced in a way to detour criminals then any law new or old will not work.


New laws are like a UN resolution. Tax Payer Funded Impotence TPFI.

The ironic thing is that the United States imprisons more people that any other country. Why can't we get a handle on crime....because we stuff so many people for stupid things (It's real easy to commit a felony and not know it, most people do it at least once a week)....that there isn't room for real criminals.

Might be true, but on the other hand other parts of the world execute and detour people from comiting crimes.

Good point

[StinkerBell]

btw Regarding the question being asked my the medical community about your wifes safety. If she declines to answer, the assumption is she is in fear and that is how they will report the survey.