Arkansas Curfew

Last ditch effort:

Since we're pontificatin' and hypothesizin' the ifs and whats and whyfors, what if the fed. decided to adopt the same curfew nation-wide. Would you be okay with that? After all, if you, Mr. Upstanding Citizen, are not doing anything after (pick a number - midnight?) why should anyone else be?

At that point, why should we even fool with the 4th amendment? If you don't have anything to hide, why shouldn't the cops be able to randomly search you, especially if you're a white boy driving through duh hood?

Am I making too much of a stretch here?

You make an excellent point. IIRC, the power of the federal government to interfere in the free movement of its citizens is pretty rigidly controlled except when there is a declaration of martial law. (looks around for billy3 to rise up and smite, er, correct him) So the chances of a nationwide curfew are pretty slim. It also makes no sense to enact a curfew in Atlanta, Georgia if there's a problem in Helena, Arkansas. Would I like a nationwide curfew? Hell, no. At this point, there would be absolutely no justification for it.

The right of local governments to enact curfews in extraordinary circumstances has been pretty well documented over the years, IIRC. (looks around for billy3 again) A curfew can't just be arbitrarily thrown over a town, there has to be a documented compelling public safety interest.

As was hammered in another thread, the police can stop someone for just about anything. Whether or not they can HOLD them is another matter entirely. A cop has to have probable cause to search a vehicle or has to ask permission, which can be denied.

You mentioned a white boy in da' 'hood getting stopped. A kid who used to work for me used to get PISSED because the cops would follow him when he was cruzn thru da nice 'hoods at 2-3 AM and occasionally he would get stopped. Duh. The cops were watching for car break ins which rarely happen during the day. This kid is white. He got stopped by both black and white officers. Not that he was doing anything wrong other than not exercising good common sense. What he was doing fit the profile of someone looking for a car to break into and the cops responded accordingly.

I have been followed in the wee hours while going home more than once (happily I was sober). It doesn't bother me a bit. I rather like the fact that the po-po in my area take their jobs that seriously. Now, if I was drunk, had a bad case of the spins and was and trying to sneak home it might seem a little different.

Ya know, I have noticed over the years that the people I hear squeal loudest about the cops interfering with their right to move about unimpeded after dark are generally the alkies who live in bars. Maybe that has something to do with it?

Jensenman wrote: billy3, you are a consummate wiseass. I like that.

Right back at ya.

Jensenman wrote: But please point out where I said these folk shouldn't work to get themselves out of those 'hoods?

I'm not saying you didn't. But your argument seems to be that the people stuck living in such hoods "need" the police to violate the rights of themselves and others to "protect" them and their children. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Jensenman wrote: 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?

I didn't cut many classes. I was paying so much in tuition I wanted to get my money's worth. However, I'm not arguing that the people in the hoods are less entitled to police protection, rather I'm arguing that they should be protected from unconstitutional exercises of those same police powers.

Also note, I never said curfews were always unconstitutional. It's just that it is very easy to go from a permissible one (e.g., in NOLA after Katrina) to an impermissible one (e.g., a nationwide one imposed this evening for no good reason). Even in a permissible one it is easy to go too far (e.g., the confiscation of firearms in NOLA after Katrina).

Jensenman wrote: 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?

In Harris county they probably get referred to a grand jury without charges and subsequently no-billed.

Jensenman wrote: 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?

Well, if you're "executing a dope dealer" you probably end up in trouble. On the other hand, if you're "firing in self defense" (which is presumably why the children are hiding on the floor--or whatever your hypothetical was) you're free and clear. The key is "returning" fire. I don't know what the law is outside Texas, but here you'd have no problems. Maybe a little paperwork hassle, but that's about it.

Moreover, as somebody else said, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

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

Maybe you do, but I've studied enough law to know that hard cases make bad law. The fact is that one neighborhood, (or hundreds of them that certainly make up less than 1% of the United States) is not worth rewriting the Constitution over.

I'm sure it sucks to be the one living next door to the crack house. However, I don't want to give up my rights to get them busted. It's sort of like the tag line for the movie "The People v. Larry Flynt"--You may not like what he says, but are you prepared to give up his right to say it.

The same thing applies here. I may not want drug dealers roaming the streets, but I don't want to have to show my papers to the Gestapo every time I want to buy a pint of ice cream for my pregnant wife, either.

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

A little bit, but mostly what I think is reasoned, dispassionate analysis.

FWIW, I lived in a couple of rough areas of Columbia SC in my younger days while I was struggling up the economic ladder. It was nice to see the cops once in a while in those 'hoods.

I bet if someone shoots a dope dealer outside their home they are gonna be in deep deep crap no matter what. Some lawyer will see a chance to make a name for him/herself and that's their ass. In fact, when there were dope dealers flashing guns and using eight year old kids to sell crack outside my dad's apartment complex, the owner of the store where this was happening told the cops if they couldn't clean it up he would. He was told in no uncertain terms he'd go to the Big House (CCI) if he did. In this (allegedly) civilized society, we are not to take the law into our own hands. That's why we have police in the first place. To take the law into your own hands is a step toward anarchy.

My point, which you keep missing (purposely?) with your reasoned, dispassionate analysis : it doesn't matter HOW much money you do or don't have, as a citizen of the community you get police protection. Or at least you should, in an ideal world. Like the one taught in school. And it's entirely possible those good folk who just happen to be poor got tired of the E36 M3 and asked for the fuzz to crack down. In fact, that's exactly what happened. Clipped from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_re_us/arkansas_town_curfew

[snip] On Tuesday, the Helena-West Helena City Council voted 9-0 to allow police to expand that program into any area of the city, despite a warning from a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas that the police stops were unconstitutional.

Police Chief Fred Fielder said the patrols have netted 32 arrests since they began last week in a 10-block neighborhood in this small town on the banks of the Mississippi River long troubled by poverty. The council said those living in the city want the random shootings and drug-fueled violence to stop, no matter what the cost.

[/snip]

So the people have told the council to tell the police to stop the random killing and drug trafficking but the ACLU says the stops are infringing on people's rights. Oh, well. I guess I'll never convince you or anyone else that maybe it could be worth it.

Sigh.

Jensenman wrote: I bet if someone shoots a dope dealer outside their home they are gonna be in deep deep crap no matter what.

Yes, but if they're shooting to defend their life or that of a third party they'll be just fine. Decide what your hypothetical is and stick with it. Either the poor kiddies are hiding under the bed because of automatic weapons fire or you're just popping a pusher to improve the neighborhood. Which one is it? One is ok; the other isn't. In some places neither may be ok. I make it a point not to live in such places.

Jensenman wrote: To take the law into your own hands is a step toward anarchy.

Yes, and to expand the powers of the state is a step towards tyranny. I'm a lot more worried about of tyranny than anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, but tyranny is pretty hard to get rid of.

Jensenman wrote: My point, which you keep missing (purposely?) with your reasoned, dispassionate analysis : it doesn't matter HOW much money you do or don't have, as a citizen of the community you get police protection.

I didn't miss it. I specificaly addressed it. I also said that you shouldn't have to give up your Constitutional rights just because you live in a hood.

Jensenman wrote: [snip] ... despite a warning from a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas that the police stops were unconstitutional ... [t]he council said those living in the city want the random shootings and drug-fueled violence to stop, no matter what the cost. [/snip] ... Oh, well. I guess I'll never convince you or anyone else that maybe it could be worth it.

I don't know whether the stops are unconstitutional or not. There aren't enough facts in the coverage I've seen for me to be able to tell. What I do know is that they are very, very close to the line.

I also know is that every time I read something like "... those living in the city want the random shootings and drug-fueld violence to stop, no matter what the cost" it makes me want to cry. There are very, very few things worth giving up freedom for. OTOH, freedom is one of the things I'm willing to give my life for.

You're right about one thing, though. You'll never convince me that preventing crime is worth giving up Constitutional rights. Especially if all you've got is a "could be worth it."

billy3esq wrote:

Jensenman wrote: I bet if someone shoots a dope dealer outside their home they are gonna be in deep deep crap no matter what.

Yes, but if they're shooting to defend their life or that of a third party they'll be just fine. Decide what your hypothetical is and stick with it. Either the poor kiddies are hiding under the bed because of automatic weapons fire or you're just popping a pusher to improve the neighborhood. Which one is it? One is ok; the other isn't. In some places neither may be ok. I make it a point not to live in such places.

Well, bully for you. Guess what; so do I. The point is that at some point in their lives a lot of people may be in such a place for any of a number of reasons. My hypothetical covers both ways a lawyer could twist a situation; one is that it was in self defense, the other that it was a cold blooded murder. That's what they get paid to do.

Jensenman wrote: To take the law into your own hands is a step toward anarchy.

Yes, and to expand the powers of the state is a step towards tyranny. I'm a lot more worried about of tyranny than anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, but tyranny is pretty hard to get rid of.

Jensenman wrote: My point, which you keep missing (purposely?) with your reasoned, dispassionate analysis : it doesn't matter HOW much money you do or don't have, as a citizen of the community you get police protection.

I didn't miss it. I specificaly addressed it. I also said that you shouldn't have to give up your Constitutional rights just because you live in a hood.

Yet you say that if you are stuck in one of those 'hoods it's your fault (since you have the freedom to move) and the cops should not be allowed to crack down on the criminals because it might infringe upon their constitutional rights? FWIW, the consensus of the online news items seems to be that the curfew and searches in question are probably within constitutional boundares, just barely.

Jensenman wrote: [snip] ... despite a warning from a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas that the police stops were unconstitutional ... [t]he council said those living in the city want the random shootings and drug-fueled violence to stop, no matter what the cost. [/snip] ... Oh, well. I guess I'll never convince you or anyone else that maybe it could be worth it.

I don't know whether the stops are unconstitutional or not. There aren't enough facts in the coverage I've seen for me to be able to tell. What I do know is that they are very, very close to the line. I also know is that every time I read something like "... those living in the city want the random shootings and drug-fueld violence to stop, no matter what the cost" it makes me want to cry. There are very, very few things worth giving up freedom for. OTOH, freedom is one of the things I'm willing to give my life for. You're right about one thing, though. You'll never convince me that preventing crime is worth giving up Constitutional rights. Especially if all you've got is a "could be worth it."

Never said anyone was giving up their constitutional rights. Let me point out that if you commit a crime you give up (or a better term is to have temporarily suspended) some of your rights, one of which is to move about the community. That's because you have proven yourself a danger to that community. In that case, the bulk of common law has supported overwhelmingly the right of the community to do exactly that. That's why we have jails and prisons. That's part of living in a civilized society, removal of those who would prey on the law abiding members of that society. That's why we have police in the first place. Yeah it's damn well worth it to have police for protection and they should be allowed to do their job. Just like you feel it's damn well worth it to have a lawyer to protect (or go after) patent rights. As has been said many times: the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.

Jensenman wrote: 'From the inside' of a prison the I'm sure the inmates see cops and guards as thugs. 'From the inside' of a community under siege from dope dealers I bet the fuzz look a wee bit different.

Um...not necessarily. The Police have frequently been used to suppress the citizenry. Therefore, some people do view them as something like an occupying force.

I also find it interesting that after they've essentialy denied people their rights they have only 32 arrests. How many of those do you think were relatively normal folks caught up in the dragnet to justify this extreme action?

Let's be real. It's amateur hour if your a criminal caught in that town. You know this curfew silliness will end. When it does you'll come back and start doing what you did before.

Security Theater all designed to get us used to further militarizing our society. Believe me, when the gov't gets tired of dealing with free citizens it will be the police they use to squash us.

Xceler8x, you are absolutely correct.. When they come to disarm us, it will be the local police that do it, not foreigners with blue helmets. Our police force, which didn't exist before the Industrial Revolution, BTW, has become a standing army. Body armor, assault rifles, Bat Utility-Belts with 50+ rounds of ammo ready for instant reloads, chemical warfare dispersal devices and now electro-torture, sniper weapons capable of killing a citizen at 1000 yards, these are all standard issue now. And all done in the name of "stopping drugs."

JM is correct in that in most communities (not Texas yet or Arkansas), shooting back at a drug dealer will get you in more trouble than the drug dealer. Why is that? Because if one takes responsibility for one's own safety, the police state has less power and authority over you. That's why states like New York, where you would go to prison for shooting someone trying to kill you (I've seen cases of it), are so totalitarian. They will not give up any power, and allowing a mere peon to defend himself is giving up that much power. The police state is also very careful to not claim any responsibility to actually protect the citizens either. That is, if you get robbed or murdered, the police have no responsibility to prevent that, otherwise the Esquires would have a field day suing various governmental branches.

Jensenman wrote: Let me point out that if you are convicted of a crime beyond reasonable doubt, after speedy, public trial by an impartial jury in which you had due process, equal protection, access to counsel, the right to confront witnesses against you, the right to call witnesses on your behalf, and the right to exclude evidence forcibly obtained without a warrant or probable cause you give up (or a better term is to have temporarily suspended) some of your rights....

Other than those edits, I'll let you have the last word.

Xceler8x wrote:

Jensenman wrote: 'From the inside' of a prison the I'm sure the inmates see cops and guards as thugs. 'From the inside' of a community under siege from dope dealers I bet the fuzz look a wee bit different.

Um...not necessarily. The Police have frequently been used to suppress the citizenry. Therefore, some people do view them as something like an occupying force. I also find it interesting that after they've essentialy denied people their rights they have only 32 arrests. How many of those do you think were relatively normal folks caught up in the dragnet to justify this extreme action? Let's be real. It's amateur hour if your a criminal caught in that town. You know this curfew silliness will end. When it does you'll come back and start doing what you did before. Security Theater all designed to get us used to further militarizing our society. Believe me, when the gov't gets tired of dealing with free citizens it will be the police they use to squash us.

Where did 'their rights were denied' come from? If someone was searched and they didn't have any contraband and were let go, their constitutional rights were not denied. I betcha every time someone was searched their permission was asked or they were told why they were being searched. if not, the Esqs. would have a field day and somehow I don't think this sheriff is that stupid.

OTOH, those carrying contraband had some of their rights suspened temporarily, as provided for by our legal system.

Again: the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.

billy3esq wrote: I don't know whether the stops are unconstitutional or not. There aren't enough facts in the coverage I've seen for me to be able to tell. What I do know is that they are very, very close to the line.

I think the answer is, that they are very close to the line. If there are halfway decent lawyers in the community, at least one will pick up at least one of these cases. The lawyer might do so because they feel morally opposed to the police stepping over the line of the people's constitutional rights. Or they might feel this would be great publicity for them. Or they might feel both.

The case will be heard in court where it will be decided by an impartial legal system.

Alternately, if these garner enough negative attention, a publicly elected official will step in and put a stop to them.

Jensenman wrote: Where did 'their rights were denied' come from? If someone was searched and they didn't have any contraband and were let go, their constitutional rights were not denied. I betcha every time someone was searched their permission was asked or they were told why they were being searched. if not, the Esqs. would have a field day and somehow I don't think this sheriff is that stupid. OTOH, those carrying contraband had some of their rights suspened temporarily, as provided for by our legal system.

The Sacramento police department just did a study on Racial Profiling in their police force. They have been holding public hearings about the subject, and I've been to them and heard some of what's going on.

There is a lot of animosity in the community towards the police. Particularly animosity from the black community. This isn't too surprising. I can't speak with authority because I'm neither a LEO or a member of the community that is saying it is treated unjustly.

My gut reaction though, is that when an area has a significant crime problem the police do their job by stepping up their actions. I'd say that's good. Unfortunately, it is very easy to become overzealous or to go over the line. This is compounded by the fact that cops might as well have a big target painted on their chests in some areas. It is hard for the grunts on the ground to police themselves, and that's why there is a whole other level of the legal system above them.

It is rare that the police force or the community tries to bridge the gap. I'm really impressed with the police chief who called for this study, and is showing up at these meetings to speak with the people and discuss their individual complaints while standing up for his officers. But the impression that I get is that what he is doing is not standard operating procedure for a chief of police.

Give me Liberty or give me death. (Trivia: who coined this famous expression?)

Teddy Roosevelt, right?

......

Tim Baxter wrote:

Ethan Allen.

........

Sorry folks.....Patrick Henry.

"Give me classy furniture, or give me death"

Ethan Allen Circa a long time ago

Jensenman wrote: Where did 'their rights were denied' come from? If someone was searched and they didn't have any contraband and were let go, their constitutional rights were not denied. I betcha every time someone was searched their permission was asked or they were told why they were being searched. if not, the Esqs. would have a field day and somehow I don't think this sheriff is that stupid. OTOH, those carrying contraband had some of their rights suspened temporarily, as provided for by our legal system. Again: the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.

Yes, but its only under the pretense of this "curfew" that anyone is fair game to be searched.

If I left my office right now to walk down to the store to grab a snack and a drink, a cop would have no reasonable suspicion to pull over and search me (sans being naked, waiving a pistol or being obvioulsy inebriated which goes back to your common sense limits on behavior)

And while they may be asked their permission to be searched, if they say no, I would find it hard to believe the officer would send them about their way.

Maybe the police chief refusing to do 'standard operating procedure' is because SOP wasn't working. One definition of insanity is to continue doing something the same way over and over yet expecting a different result.

Back to the thread a while back about searching cars: if the cop has to ask permission, it means he doesn't have probable cause. If he has probable cause, I believe he has to tell you what it is. So if he asks permission and you say no he no longer has a real reason to hold you. I believe this applies to searching of one's person as well.

The one good thing about that: it makes the possible perps aware that the police are watching closely. I see nothing wrong with that.

Closer to home: in St Stephen, a little burg outside of Chucktown, a woman was shot to death in her bed as she was sleeping. The assailants fired through a window. Possibly drug related, but th investigation is still going on.

These mean ol' cops that are forever going after the rights of po' folk were tasked with cleaning up the aftermath and comforting the kids. It's hard to watch a grown man's lip quiver while he's talking about it. Cops are people too.

Jensenman wrote: <Where did 'their rights were denied' come from? If someone was searched and they didn't have any contraband and were let go, their constitutional rights were not denied.

Well, this one is just dead square one million percent wrong. If you searched me without cause, you just violated the hell out of my constitutional rights whether you caught me with anything or not. In fact, this is precisely why these sorts of things can't be allowed to happen. The excuse that "if you don't have anything to hide, then you shouldn't mind getting searched" effectively denies ANY personal freedom whatsoever if you actually buy it. Scary stuff.

Jensenman wrote: I betcha every time someone was searched their permission was asked or they were told why they were being searched. if not, the Esqs. would have a field day and somehow I don't think this sheriff is that stupid. --- Back to the thread a while back about searching cars: if the cop has to ask permission, it means he doesn't have probable cause. If he has probable cause, I believe he has to tell you what it is. So if he asks permission and you say no he no longer has a real reason to hold you. I believe this applies to searching of one's person as well.

And these two are just friggin' hilarious. Go ahead and try that on a real cop that pulls you over and wants to search you for no clear reason. I have a feeling you will end up having to call one of those evil no-good lawyers pretty soon if you don't just give in and let them search you. Oh, what's that? You've never been pulled over for no reason, because you're white and don't go into bad neighborhoods? Not everyone has that luxury in life.

Of course, you jumped on the first paragraph without reading the second. Very good.

Then you play the race card, because you have no other cards to play. Go back and read my post about my (white) employee pulled over at 2 and 3 AM cruzn 'hoods.

Surely you can come up with a more reasoned and intelligent argument than this.

I'm white. Dutch, actually. I don't think you can get a whole lot whiter than that without being an albino, which isn't really white by racial definition, I suppose. Maybe Sweedish. I don't go into bad neighborhoods. I've been pulled over for no reason and searched. They didn't even ask. They just did it. They had guns. They can shoot you for no good reason too. "He was reaching for something." Like the sky. They just happen to get away with it more in poor neighborhoods.

You know, just before he died, assasinated by someone that was not James Earl Ray (read his book), MLK said that it wasn't a color problem, it was a poor people problem. Then he was dead.

This is relevant. It's by an underground rapper named Immortal Technique. Unfortunately, this kind of talk doesn't get you record deals or corporate sponsorships.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bURgTLHryrg

FWIW, I have been pulled for no reason by a couple of those stereotypical small town Southern cops (and no I ain't talking about Andy Griffith). I am a whitebread honky with dark (well, it used to be dark) hair. They'd just look me up and down and say something to the effect of 'you don't do nothin' dumb in my town, heah?' Never have had one ask to search my car, though.

I've been searched. The most memorable was the time I got pulled over at 4 in the morning in Eros, LA. I had orange hair and a Karmann Ghia with Florida plates and "Born to Boogie" written across the back of it. I was lucky all they did was search the car and send me on my way.

There is a town named Eros? Im guessing its full of strip clubs and adult video stores?

Unfortunately, no. Not even a bar, as far as I know. Honestly, there's not much there at all, and I bet few of the inhabitants find the town name nearly as amusing as I do.

Hmph. With a town name like Eros, be glad you didn't get a cavity search.