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
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.
Quote from: benevolance on August 13, 2008, 03:50:03 PM
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!
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.
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.
Quote from: benevolance on August 13, 2008, 04:27:19 PM
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
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.
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.
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
Quote from: benevolance on August 13, 2008, 05:11:26 PM
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.
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
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.
Quote from: benevolance on August 13, 2008, 04:27:19 PM
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 ;D)
-f-
Quote from: NM_Shooter on August 13, 2008, 06:12:22 PM
Quote from: benevolance on August 13, 2008, 04:27:19 PM
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 ;D)
-f-
;D
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 :P
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.
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
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 ?
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.
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!"
the papers please to me is more nazi germany
And again nobody who is not committing a crime has been detained...
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.
And another thing ;D
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 :D
-f-
Quote from: NM_Shooter on August 14, 2008, 08:44:39 AM
And another thing ;D
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 :D
-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 rofl.....but thankfully, many of us have a zero tolerance policy and won't allow it.
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.
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.
Quote from: peternap on August 14, 2008, 09:29:59 AM
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.
Quote from: peternap on August 14, 2008, 09:29:59 AM
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.
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" >:(
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.
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.
Maybe the cops can't afford gas so they just set up a checkpoint and write tickets that way.
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
Quote from: NM_Shooter on August 14, 2008, 12:20:39 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: StinkerBell on August 14, 2008, 02:34:25 PM
Quote
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.
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.
Quote from: StinkerBell on August 14, 2008, 03:03:26 PM
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.
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).
well do you beat your wife or not?
Quote from: benevolance on August 14, 2008, 03:31:01 PM
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?
Quote from: peternap on August 14, 2008, 03:14:30 PM
Quote from: StinkerBell on August 14, 2008, 03:03:26 PM
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.
Quote from: StinkerBell on August 14, 2008, 03:35:59 PM
Quote from: peternap on August 14, 2008, 03:14:30 PM
Quote from: StinkerBell on August 14, 2008, 03:03:26 PM
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 :-\
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.
Yeah I remember being a kid we would have bruises and cuts from running through the woods like little savages...and we would get asked by teachers all kinds of ridiculous questions..
I would go home tell my parents and my dad would go down to have a talk with the teacher...It happened a couple of times. My brother and I fought a lot and he would have a black eye or I would have a bruise from where he whacked me with a stick (he was a year younger thus he was sneaky and would use a broom handle or whatever he could get his hands on... Heck we were just kids...
And on the wife beating...Yeah I like your approach better stink... I should have put the question this way:
Do you beat your wife...If not, why Not? d*
Okay enough joking someone might think I am serious...I am at the house today waiting for half a dozen windows to be delivered...I did the dishes washed the bed linens scrubbed the fridge and 3 bathrooms and I will vacuum before the wife gets home at 7... and supper is in the oven...*LOL*
And the catch and release is absolutely one of the biggest problems concerning crime. That and the DEA is as crooked as the Federal Reserve..Abolishing the DEA would go a long way toward getting drugs off the street.
You folks are cracking me up.
I live in a small village, and within the last month our cops (who have always had a bad reputation about speed traps) have gone from being annoying to downright predatory.
I'd almost like to challenge one of their traps. It is the only 4 way stop in my village. The cops sit back from the stop on one leg of the road, parked half on / half off the roadway. They sit there and wait for someone to not make a complete stop, and then they nab them. They even sit there at night, in the dark. I seem to recall that it is illegal to remain in a parked car on a roadway after sunset without parking lights on... but I can't find it on the web.
9 years ago, my house was burglarized. I would much prefer to have them cruising around my neighborhood, and stopping and visiting with people instead of staying parked at a trap.
That does not generate much revenue though.
you are spot on about the revenue generation.
They say publically they are out there for "public Safety" When they could care less about public safety.. It is all about generating their revenues.
Once upon a time when you had a light out the cop showed you were the auto part store was and you shook his hand... Now you get a ticket and he walks away.. you get to find the auto part store for yourself...
They have roadblocks here on friday nights a lot! Looking for DUI's and seatbelts stuff like that... easy money for them....Just off the interstate where there are 2 busy 2 lane roads intersecting... a good bet there will be a roadblock there.
There were fun and games down in Houston about 12 years ago.
The cops set up on Hwy 59 to the SW of town, a big sign that said: Mandatory Drug Inspection stop at exit 122 (or whatever exit it was).
Here's the gig.... This was placed right by an underpass U-Turn for hwy59 that only allowed you to exit the highway, pass underneath, and get back on the road going north. So if you were transporting, you would see that sign, and then immediately get off on exit 121 and uturn, right? Except that the cops were not up ahead by exit 122. They were under the underpass waiting and stopping anyone who exited to turn around. rofl
I seem to recall that every one of those arrests and violations were thrown out of court.
pretty creative though you gotta admit
being a retired corrections officer i couldn't agree more. too much law enforcement on dubious stupid laws and not enough on serious crimes.
yeah it makes you want to scream to think that a cop was writing a jay walking ticket at the exact same time somewhere else in the district someone was raped murdered or robbed...
Those criminals do not pay fines they just go to prison...
Quote from: desimulacra on August 14, 2008, 03:15:51 PM
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).
A year ago June I broke my right hand walking through the house and slipping on some water the kids had spilled. I tried to catch the doorframe to keep from face-planting, but my hand didn't bend when it hit the wall, for some reason. Anyway, I broke it at 3 PM and we were planning company for dinner. I already had dinner started. I called my husband at work and told him I'd just broken my hand, and he asked if I wanted to cancel the dinner, and I told him no because it was already in the works, and besides, I knew that when we got to the ER we'd probably have to sit there forever before finally getting in, and I'd rather not sit there on an empty stomach. So, I sat there with my hand on the half-frozen chicken until it was completely cold-numb, and then I went on and prepped the rest of the dinner. Well, by the time we got dinner done and the dishes loaded in the dishwasher, etc., it was something like 7:30. So, we go to the nearly-empty ER and still wait for an hour or more before they finally get me in. Every doc and nurse or radiologist I saw wanted to know how I'd done it, and if my husband beats me, and if I feel safe, etc. I felt like I was being cross-examined... and it didn't help that one of my daughters had a big bruise on her forehead, and the other one was covered in huge mosquito bites, which look awful because she is allergic to them. The doctor on duty cast a sideways glance at my husband who was about to fall asleep in his chair with our younger daughter; he leaned in and said, "Well, I just don't see how you could get more than one break just walkng and slipping." By this time I was getting pretty tired and a little crabby and I said, "Look. When I'm walking I'm not tiptoeing through the tulips; I have a purpose and I've got things to do. At the time, I was trying to get stuff ready for the dinner so that when our company arrived I could sit and visit rather than storming around the kitchen. Do you honestly think he could beat me? Look at him! If nothing else, I could throw his skinny little butt out the front door!" He still didn't look like he believed my husband was innocent as far as the broken hand... he asked me why if I'd broken it at 3 and knew it was broken, why didn't I come in until 7:30-8:00? I told him the real reason... I know how slow waiting in an ER can be, and I didn't want to sit there all night hungry, and because what I was cooking was a heck of a lot better than what you could get out of a hospital vending machine. He then tried to insinuate that DH wouldn't take me to the hospital until he'd been served his dinner and brought his slippers, etc. The next day when I went to see the orthopedist, he asked kindly, "So, how did you manage to do that?" I must have sounded impatient when I gave him the condensed version, because he laughed out loud and asked, "They wanted to know at the ER if your husband beat you, huh?"
I can't help but laugh, HG! You always tell a good story rofl sorry... I've rarely had to ask any questions like that - we see mostly men, but I do see a lot of elderly people who have been neglected, which is sad. A lot of times they want to just dump off a family member & leave them, but there's laws to keep family from abandoning them - which is good for us or we'd be overflowing even more than we already are. And then we see the men who've been in fights...
With our veterans we have to ask if they've experienced any "sexual trauma" while in the military. The stories are coming out in the news right now on the high percentage of "military sexual trauma" that veterans (mostly female) have experienced. Don't know if it is the military or the type of woman that joins or what, but the women seem a lot more psychologically messed up on the whole after getting out of the service. Very needy, many suicidal - just really messed up.
Well to tell the truth I beat my wife regularly and she complains loudly sometimes scaring my relatives and friends. It can get to be a hassle but I think that if you can you should do so to keep them in line. Besides I can't just sit there and take it when she starts laughing and mouthing at me.
Its' usually when I beat her at rook she gets the maddest. But any card game gets her fired up! d* On the other hand I have five fingers.
Beat her on Monday so she is healed up for the week-end when company comes over ;)
Course you know I'm kidding about beating her??? If I beat her too often she would burn the cards, burn my food and scorch my ears! :(
My wife does not do a lot of cooking so burned supper is no threat for me. beating smacked in the head with frying pan while asleep probably is something I would be prone to though d*