Reply With QuoteYour argument hinges on the assumption that the police will always be benevolent. That's a bad assumption.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/13/tow....ap/index.html
If my area were this plagued with crime I'd be thrilled to have a 24-hour curfew to help make things safer. I mean, what's better? Being terrified everytime you go outside you may be raped, mugged or killed? or being randomly searched by police? I wouldn't care if I were ever randomly searched by Police. To me, it means they'll catch more people running around with illicit weapons and its making me safer.ACLU cries foul as city nets arrests with 24-hour curfew
Your argument hinges on the assumption that the police will always be benevolent. That's a bad assumption.
Some people object to being treated like a criminal for existing, especially when the potential for corruption and the planting of evidence exists.
An assumption that the founding fathers strongly disagreed with.Originally Posted by Kraaze
A 24 hour curfew is always good as long as it applies to "them." Now, if they do it in your neighborhood......
Wait, does this curfew actually last 24 hours in a row, or just 24 hours total? 8 hours a night spread over 3 nights sounds ok, but 24 hours a day is just crazy.
Okay, I am the first to argue against militarized cops, but this first sentence just sounds funny if you are a firearms enthusiast:
Oh noes!!!HELENA-WEST HELENA, Arkansas (AP) -- Officers armed with military rifles, some with laser sights, have been stopping and questioning passers-by in a neighborhood plagued by violence that's been under a 24-hour curfew for a week.
It's basically a police occupation from the sounds of it.
That town sounds more like war-torn Africa than somewhere in the U.S.
Maybe some of the citizens are just as sick of the bullshit as the police?
How. The Fuck. Are you People. Defending This? It violates pretty much the entire Bill of Rights. How scared are you people, that non-official martial law makes sense?
H.
They are wealthy and live in low crime neighbor hoods. The police are a benevolent force that is there to protect them and their wealth.
I agree. I totally assumed the first reply to the OP would be a Ben Franklin quote (and quite appropriately so).
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I have it as my email sig at work.
I guess we'll tear down democracy rather that legalize drugs.The council said those living in the city want the random shootings and drug-fueled violence to stop, no matter the cost.
I love this quote:
It's like he realized what he just said in the middle of the sentence and then tries to cover by saying exactly the opposite.
On the other hand, the city council isn't allowed to legalize drugs. They're hamstrung by centralization.
Booya, I knew there'd be a way to criticize the feds with this story!! ;-)
Wow, have street thugs dealing small-time drugs moved up to rifles? I'm impressed, they might actually be able to hit something beyond 5 yards now.Many dealing crack cocaine and marijuana in the city carry pistols and AK-47 assault rifles, he said.
Been to Helena, AR recently, have you?
Which is interesting because if you read the article on The Daily World, Helena's newspaper, the mayor fucking admits it:
"It's something akin to martial law," Valley said. "It got to the point where somebody was going to get seriously hurt or killed if we didn't do something."
If it follows the usual bullshit alarmist pattern, they have umpty-hundred arrests where they found a steak knife, a cheap .25 auto or a rusty revolver, a few dozen with a modern pistol, and one big bust where they found a rifle. Ergo, all street dealers are packing AKs.
H.
Rockin' the Shock Doctrine, baby.
This is ridiculous. People serving in government should be required to take a course on the Constitution, because these people clearly have no fucking clue what it says or why it's important.
That said, I sympathize with their predicament, just not their methods. If I were in that situation, I'd call in the National Guard (if they weren't all in Iraq) and station a guy on every street corner to reestablish order. Simply putting in a heavy police presence doesn't violate anyone's rights as long as they're not conducting unwarranted searches or seizures, preventing the freedom of assembly or expression, or arresting people without charges. Just stand there and look imposing when people start getting rowdy, and let the police get a handle on things when they don't have to try to be everywhere at once.
Why do I get the feeling many of you crying afoul have never been extremely poor and lived in high violent-crime areas? I have, and let me tell you something... it sucks seeing drug dealers walk around like they they own the place making everyone live in REAL fear. It sucks having innocent people 3 doors down from you shot in the face. Why? Oh, she answered the door and and at 8:00 mid-summer it's not safe to answer the door.
So, IF the violent crime is as bad as they say... what is your solution if you live in the middle of it and you cannot move? Despite the fact that it is unconstitutainol what's the quick solution to save people from a super high-crime area?
Snarky remarks like "move" - need not apply. It's not always possible to move.
You can follow my Internet friend's journey at http://www.progunprogressive.com/. He is using both bottom-up and top-down methods to clean up his neighborhood and push for better gun and self-defense rights in MD. He even acquired a concealed carry permit, which is pretty amazing in that state.
I've read another story about it in a car forum of a guy that lives in a poor area of Nashville. Seems like you have to be of a certain mindset to challenge these people (big dogs and a no-nonsense look seem to help), but most of the time you don't end up dead as you sweep them into the trash pile.
This is all moderate violent crime and high-drug, high-trash stuff though.
You say that moving's not an option because you can't move. By the same token, what they are doing here is not an option because it's unconstitutional.
You saying, "This is maybe okay because the situation is really bad and difficult to deal with," is no different from somebody saying, "Move."
NowhereDan has the best solution - if it was available.
Not curfew, just presence.
I guess I might as well dive in. What is presence going to do after they're gone? From the real-life stories I've read of these guys, they usually retreat to another hole like a cockroach and come back when the heat is off.
Obviously a city is going to be bleeding money if they have to pay for NG presence for more than a few days, and every other town is going to want the same treatment if it's on the state or federal dime.
But I empathize with the idea; I wish our NG was doing a lot of stuff at home rather than being over in Iraq. Oh well.
Well, it's not like Mayor Valley is a particularly good lawyer. So it's no real shocker that he failed ConLaw.I love this quote:
It's like he realized what he just said in the middle of the sentence and then tries to cover by saying exactly the opposite.
EDIT: It gets better!
SECOND EDIT: And better still! It's good to know that the people implementing this strict measure are such upstanding citizens.
Last edited by Dave47; 08-13-2008 at 04:14 PM.
Yeah, because you live in a drug & crime infested neighborhood and know exactly what these people might be going through, right?
Shut up.
Search all the drug dealing pieces of shit. Fuck their rights. You're not hanging out on the street corner just to enjoy the day. I'm sure these cops are doing lots of profiling too. Good. It's pretty fucking easy to spot a crackhead or a drug dealer on a corner, the peaceful residents have been watching that shit go on for years.
Last edited by Pogo; 08-13-2008 at 05:18 PM.
I like how the cops are just innocent bystanders. Towns definitely don't develop areas like this from intentional police neglect! Christ, this is what it must have been like during prohibition.
Posting Permissions