Arkansas Curfew

If by John Hancock you mean Patrick Henry....

Carry on!

As for the poor Bill of Rights, both sides are doing their damndest to ruin it. We can only blame ourselves.

Tim Baxter wrote: Did a quick google search, here's Helena's 2006 crime: - 3 murders (21.9 per 100,000) - 5 rapes (36.4 per 100,000) - 26 robberies (189.5 per 100,000) - 202 assaults (1472.5 per 100,000) - 475 burglaries (3462.6 per 100,000) - 621 thefts (4526.9 per 100,000) - 51 auto thefts (371.8 per 100,000) Remember, that's in a city of about 6500. http://www.city-data.com/city/Helena-Arkansas.html Judging by some other info there, I think some of this may be racially based, but no matter how you look at it, Helena's got problems. Helena compared to Arkansas state average: * Median household income significantly below state average. * Median house value significantly below state average. * Unemployed percentage significantly above state average. * Institutionalized population percentage above state average. * Estimated median household income in 2005: $19,400

Not a flame, just a statement:

It's not a crime to be poor.

It's not a crime to be unemployed.

It IS a crime to shoot up the neighbors' houses.

Once again I applaud that Arkansas cop for doing what's right: protect the law abiding populace from criminals even though the citizens don't fall into the higher socio-economic strata.

Just offering some statistics. That definitely looks like high crime to me, for a city of that size. The demographic info just gives a little more insight into the city. Demographically, it sounds almost identical to the city I grew up in.

None of you read my berkeleying posts, do you?

You've been posting?

Yeah, I wasn't trying to flame, just pointing out that IMHO it's a great tihng that this cop is willing to take the heat in order to help out the citizens of this poor backwoods Arkansas town.

Demographics can be misleading. I lived in North Charleston which demographically is rated one of the moost dangerous cities in South Carolina. Here's the thing: North Charleston includes what is known as the 'Neck' area which probably is very similar to Helena. That is without a doubt one of the poorest and roughest sections of the greater Charleston area yet it is only about 1/5 of North Charleston. The rest of it is middle Americana at its best; quiet established neighborhoods with big old oak trees. There's enough crime in that one small part to make EVERYTHING look bad, so the local populace want it cleaned up. The police and city officials started several efforts to clean up the Neck area and those efforts were then called 'gentrification', which around here is another word for pushing poor people out of their homes. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

poopshovel, I did read your posts, that's where the 3AM thing came from. I agree 100% with your assessment of the root cause of these people's problems. Any time people learn they can eke out a freebie bare existence from their government, things are going to spiral downwards in a hurry.

Jensenman wrote: Legalizing drugs might be a good idea, but here's the thing: where do you draw the line? Should we just say 'the hell with it' and let people kill themselves any way they wish, or should there be some curbs? Doc Hess's LD100 is a LOT different for different people. What about PCP? That crap is an animal tranquilizer which has, in some people, a startlingly different effect. It makes them act, well, wild and they don't seem to feel pain. If it were only themselves at risk, maybe it wouldn't be so bad but those around them are at tremendous risk. So now what do you do? No nebulous idealistic answer, now- just imagine it's YOUR neighbor lit up on this E36 M3 and threatening YOUR family. I bet you'll look at a blanket legalization of drugs a little differently. Or maybe you are willing to take that chance. Bravo. You are willing to sacrifice your family for an ideal. You go, boy.

I don't give a damn if someone wants to use animal tranquilizers. Their use of PCP in their own home does absolutely zero to effect me. Now, if they threaten my family, it's game on. Of course, that is the case regardless of whether they are on PCP or not.

If assault is the problem, deal with assault, not the drug. If DWI is the problem, deal with the DWI, not the drug. If someone chooses to smoke crack and can pull it off without effecting my life, why should I care? I know that cheesburgers are bad for me, yet I continue to consume them. If you want to do something to your own body that is bad for you, and can do it without affecting my life, liberty, or property, go for it.

Personally, I think that the drug laws have created more problems than the drugs themselves. Sure, drugs are bad for the individual and bad for the community as the individuals are less productive. That is, someone blazing on acid is not a very good worker. However, arresting them costs more than the damage they do to society. Then you add in the entire illegal economy and the rampant crime that goes with it because it's illegal anyway and now we have a much bigger problem than just letting someone do whatever drugs they want.

Why won't drugs ever be legalized? Because there's money involved. A lot of money, and a lot of people are getting rich or getting by, from our congress critters, to the prison guards. There are rumors that Uncle Bill financed his first Presidential bid off of cocaine profits from the Iran-Contra fiasco. If they are true (and I don't know, as anyone involved or with knowledge seems to be, uh, dead) then from that we conclude that the U.S. Federal Government (led by the R's at the time) was using the drug money to finance the Contras because Congress would not, and Uncle Bill (D) used the drug money to become President so he could get the BJ's from the hired help in the oval office, suck millions in various "donations" and leave us with the LQ next time. If drugs were legal and given away, both the Feds and Uncle Bill would have lost out. Where's the incentive to fix the problem? There is none. Instead, there are towns like West Helena, full of poor people who are poor because they have always been poor and don't understand how not to be poor. Their way of life is robbing, dealing drugs, shooting at each other, etc. You can't fix that. Well, you can, but it takes a Cat 5 hurricane, and mostly pushes it into other areas, where they eventually may learn that is not acceptable behavior.

And LD100 is the same for everyone, that's why it's LD100.

Legalize it and tax the E36 M3 out of it, just like tobaco and alcohol.

The cost of manufacturing and transporting a pack of cigarettes is approx 20% of the cost, the rest is tax.

Do the same with the other stuff.

Yeah. I was trying to avoid the whole "I'm a berkeleying crazy libertarian" thing, but I'm a berkeleying crazy libertarian. Prohibition doesn't work. Never has. Never will. All it does is make something that costs relatively nothing to make incredibly valuable, fill our jails with non-violent "criminals," and put tax-free cash money in the pockets of those willing to take the risk to sell it.

Like Hardy said - as long as you're not infringing upon my right to life, liberty, or property, knock yourself out. If you're cruising down the highway at 110mph, smoking crack in a stolen car with the woman you've kidnapped in the passenger's seat, that's a different story.

We have now touched upon one of my concerns with the full libertarian stance. (Not that I don't lean that way on a lot of issues.)

On the drug legalization issue: should it be legal for an adult to feed their 3 year old child PCP?

Don't tell me people wouldn't do it, either.

Face facts: there have to be some curbs on human behavior.

Jensenman wrote: We have now touched upon one of my concerns with the full libertarian stance. (Not that I don't lean that way on a lot of issues.) On the drug legalization issue: should it be legal for an adult to feed their 3 year old child PCP? Don't tell me people wouldn't do it, either. Face facts: there have to be some curbs on human behavior.

I thought it went without saying that the "legalization" of drugs, meant treat them like other legal drugs.

Alcohol is legal. Tobacco is legal. There are ways of using them that are illegal. Drinking and driving, smoking in non-smoking areas.

In either case, you're not allowed to give these drugs to your 3 yearold.

Jensenman wrote: We have now touched upon one of my concerns with the full libertarian stance. (Not that I don't lean that way on a lot of issues.) On the drug legalization issue: should it be legal for an adult to feed their 3 year old child PCP? Don't tell me people wouldn't do it, either. Face facts: there have to be some curbs on human behavior.

Just like grandma will tell you to some whiskey on the sucker to help put a baby to sleep.

Legal or not, people are going to abuse it. So why allow an entire criminal underground dealing with drugs exist?

The thing is, most of these things held up as examples are wrong and punishable by law anyway.

If someone breaks into my house, I really don't give a damn if he's high or not. If he survives, he'll be charged with B&E.

If someone's cruising down the highway at 110mph in a stolen car with the woman they've kidnapped in the passenger's seat, it really doesn't matter much if they're on crack. We have enough laws to prosecute the hell out of them.

And if somebody's feeding their baby PCP, enforce the child abuse laws.

Point is, if someone's committing a crime what difference does it really make if they're lit up on chemicals or stone sober?

captainzib wrote:

Jensenman wrote: We have now touched upon one of my concerns with the full libertarian stance. (Not that I don't lean that way on a lot of issues.) On the drug legalization issue: should it be legal for an adult to feed their 3 year old child PCP? Don't tell me people wouldn't do it, either. Face facts: there have to be some curbs on human behavior.

I thought it went without saying that the "legalization" of drugs, meant treat them like other legal drugs. Alcohol is legal. Tobacco is legal. There are ways of using them that are illegal. Drinking and driving, smoking in non-smoking areas. In either case, you're not allowed to give these drugs to your 3 yearold.

Which brings me back to the 'full libertarian' stance supported by hardy and poopshovel where there should be no restrictions on anything. Libertarianism DOES allow for some curbs on human behavior.

I like the bit about whiskey helping a baby sleep. There was a case not long ago where a mother was putting vodka in her baby's formula so she'd sleep. The kid is now dead.

jensenman said:Which brings me back to the 'full libertarian' stance supported by hardy and poopshovel where there should be no restrictions on anything.

Yeah. I distinctly remember saying "There should be no restrictions on anything." Since you're a Republican, we should be able to stone Home Depot employees to death for working on the Sabbath, right? C'mon man. Get off it.

Jensenman wrote: We have now touched upon one of my concerns with the full libertarian stance. (Not that I don't lean that way on a lot of issues.) On the drug legalization issue: should it be legal for an adult to feed their 3 year old child PCP? Don't tell me people wouldn't do it, either. Face facts: there have to be some curbs on human behavior.

Easy - Does giving your kid PCP infringe on his life, liberty, or property? Why yes it does. Ding Ding Ding - Not OK!

Jensenman wrote:

billy3esq wrote: First they came for the drug dealers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the street gangs, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't in a street gang. ... Admittedly, I'm stretching it a bit, but what Jensenman calls "'idealistic law school' crap," I call upholding my oath to support and defend the Constitution. That's right, lawyers are sworn to support and defend the Constitution, just like elected officials, soldiers, sailors, marines, and LEOs. My oath wasn't limited to upholding Constitutional rights for people I think deserve them, and I'm pretty sure nobody else's was either.

Like I said, put aside the idealistic law school crap and imagine YOU are the one whose constitutuional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are being violated by some dope dealer who thinks an AK47 is the proper intimidation machine.

Bzzzt. Thank you for playing. First, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the DOI, not the Constitution. Second, nobody other than the government can violate your Constitutional rights. The Constitution is, in effect, a contract between the government and its people. I can bonk you over the head and take your stuff, and it might be evil, wicked, mean, and nasty, but I've not violated your constitutional rights. Nowhere in there does it say you have a right not to get bonked on the head and have your stuff taken. (By the way, this would be a great segue into that whole line of victim's rights BS, but that is a separate thread.)

Jensenman wrote: Secondly, Think about YOUR kids laying on the floor so they won't get shot. How would YOU feel about that?

Fortunately, I don't have to. Graduating near the top of one's law school class comes with a number of perks, not the least of which is being able get a job that pays well enough to live in a neighborhood that isn't overrun with drug dealers and other thugs.

That said, I'm not unsympathetic to people who haven't been as fortunate as I was. After all, not everybody has the opportunity to work themselves through law school. However, if I found myself in that position, I'd rather get myself out of it, whether by moving, returning fire, or whatever. I don't need some "benevolent" government to come violate other people's civil rights to increase my property values. Where's that individual responsibility you're such a fan of whenever anybody talks about tort damages?

Jensenman wrote: Yeah, I thought so.

As explained above, you thought wrong. My view of civil liberties is not dependent on whose civil liberties we're talking about. The government is almost never the solution to a problem. The government taking away liberties is certainly never the solution to a problem.

Jensenman wrote: I realize you were taught in law school to step outside of a situation and view it dispassionately. Unfortunately that backfires badly at times.

I don't think it's unfortunate. It's people who are willing to stand up for the rule of law, no matter how unpopular it may be at times, that stand between us and tyranny. It actually saddens me that otherwise right thinking people are willing to give up Constitutional rights because they think it's a good fix to a problem that is really pretty minor in the grand scheme of the American way of life.

<---applauds for Billy3. Just one thing:

people who haven't been as fortunate as I was

If you're talking about people who weren't born with all their fingers and toes, or half a brain, that makes sense. Otherwise, keep in mind that you've worked your ass off for what you have, and "fortune" has little to do with it.

There is a need for common sense restrictions, is the point I am making and the whole reason for me whacking this hornets' nest with a stick.

People argue constantly about what constitutes 'common sense restrictions'. It's always been that way and it always will. For instance: Christian Scientists would rather let their kids die for lack of proven effective medical care than violate the tenets of their faith, the majority of the population feels otherwise. That's been in and out of the courts over the years.

The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle and groups on both ends will continually try to push the 'line' their way at the expense of the other's point of view. Both sides refuse to see that life is full of compromises.

Back to the thread subject: if a few dope dealers feel their 'rights were violated' by curfews and traffic stops try to imagine just how little I care.

I don't care about the dope dealers, but I do have a problem with all the law-abiding citizens having their rights violated along with the dope dealers.

poopshovel wrote: <---applauds for Billy3. Just one thing:

people who haven't been as fortunate as I was

If you're talking about people who weren't born with all their fingers and toes, or half a brain, that makes sense. Otherwise, keep in mind that you've worked your ass off for what you have, and "fortune" has little to do with it.

It was partially sarcastic, hence the comment about working my way through law school.

However, I was fortunate to be born into a family that, among other things, placed significant value on getting an education and covered everything scholarships didn't for my undergrad degree. I was born on second base, and my parents sacrificed to get me to third. I'm not going to pretend I hit a home run.

Besides, I went to law school with a bunch of people that only had half a brain.

billy3, you are a consummate wiseass. I like that.

But please point out where I said these folk shouldn't work to get themselves out of those 'hoods? Quite the opposite; I think they should. That's not central to the discussion of the 'violation of constitutional rights'. But it is why I said I agree 100% with poopshovel's assessment of the root causes of the problem.

During the time they are in poor 'hoods, they are no less entitled to police protection than any other law abiding citizen. Or at least the idealistic law school view holds that to be true. Did you perhaps cut class that day?

And can you kindly explain, with your great big legal brain, what happens to a private citizen who executes a dope dealer by 'returning fire' when that individual is outside their home, rather than inside? Hint: he or she winds up on trial for murder. The law has found that to be the case over and over. INSIDE the house is another thing entirely. Now our poor person is really hamstrung; can't shoot back and the cops won't come. Whaddya do now?

Somehow I have a hard time viewing this sort of situation as being 'pretty minor in the grand scheme of American life'.

Let me guess: you'll get back to me with some more sarcasm, right?

Tim Baxter wrote: I don't care about the dope dealers, but I do have a problem with all the law-abiding citizens having their rights violated along with the dope dealers.

Which brings me back to my question of how are the cops supposed to know the difference beforehand? It being that a lot of inner city kids like to dress and act 'thuggy', even if they aren't, it's gotta be really hard to tell. They are not imbued with magical mind reading powers or X ray vision. All they can go with is what their five senses tell them.

Also, has anyone considered that maybe, just maybe, the citizens got together and either asked or demanded that this be done? It wouldn't be the first time.

billy3esq wrote: The Constitution is, in effect, a contract between the government and its people.

Philosophically, it's a covenant. We're giving up rights in exchange for unspecified defense.

Ascends back into ivory tower