sol740 Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 What you're describing is a national state of emergency declared so through the proper channel. Not the mayor and city council of 'podunk town a' . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 Hal/Scotty I think you lack any sort of legal knowledge to argue the side you are taking so I'll break it down into something you might grasp better. What both of you are suggesting to be lawful, has already proven to not work both in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Lets just play through a senario and see what you guys agree/disagree with... Martial law has been delcared in Westerville for months and a private security force hired by the government has been initiating curfews, checkpoints, and seizures. They stop by Hal/Scottys house: Man thats a nice house buddy, food smells good too... How 'bout we stop in for something to eat? Oh whats that? We can't? Private Property? Trespassing? Constitution? LOL (TAZE, handcuff) Man this is some good shit, mind if we get a little puss off your old lady? Oh whats that? This is a "state of emergency", we are the cops!! (Puss is ravaged) Holy fuck, thats a nice car in the driveway. How fast is she? I think I'll take it for a spin... Why do you keep talking about common law, private property, and the constitution? You surrendered all your rights to me for a false sense of security, stupid!! Man, I must be an idiot. Why the fuck would we need to preserve our Constitutional rights? Thank god there are still some truely intelligent people left in society that help allow everyone to live in a somewhat free society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 Martial law has been delcared in Westerville for months and a private security force hired by the government has been initiating curfews, checkpoints, and seizures. They stop by Hal/Scottys house: Man thats a nice house buddy, food smells good too... How 'bout we stop in for something to eat? Oh whats that? We can't? Private Property? Trespassing? Constitution? LOL (TAZE, handcuff) Man this is some good shit, mind if we get a little puss off your old lady? Oh whats that? This is a "state of emergency", we are the cops!! (Puss is ravaged) Holy fuck, thats a nice car in the driveway. How fast is she? I think I'll take it for a spin... Why do you keep talking about common law, private property, and the constitution? You surrendered all your rights to me for a false sense of security, stupid!! Man, I must be an idiot. Why the fuck would we need to preserve our Constitutional rights? Thank god there are still some truely intelligent people left in society that help allow everyone to live in a somewhat free society. When has that happened in the US? Because it happened else where that doesn't mean it would/will happen here. What these LEO are doing in Arkansas are the equvalent of a DUI check point once again. You must have no grasp of what a TCP (Tactical Check Point) is. Not all cars end up being searched. It's a random screaning, and mostly asking people for intel (who,what,where,when,why type questions) Some of you are blowing a simple TCP up into, full blown Martial Law. Martial Law could always be enforced at some point of an emergency, and in that situation individuals will be detained (meaning you can be held for quite some time). It's not like the curfew/check points have spread all over the city, it is in a confined area. And once again, the COMMUNITY, law enforcement, judge and mayor all approved of this. So far it seems nobody has complained about their civil rights or rights in general being infringed upon. I'll say it is drastic in a way, and seems like it was a brain storm of some former military personell, but it works. Now if this were a whole ENTIRE city, I would see wrong in that. They're targeting a small community inside of a city. Again not an entire city. TCP's are set up via intelligence, and facts. As I've read so far, the outcome has been quite successful. Hell you are the type of person that would cry wolf, if a Law Enforcement officer wasn't at your house in under 5 minutes to help you in time of need. The fact that they have a heavy LEO presence is quite impressive. If you need a snake to die, cut the head off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 I agree with 90% of all the statements on Constitutional rights, but this is a small area in a town in which residents can't enjoy their freedom. So if freedom is momentarily impeaded upon for a brighter future, then by all means, that seems right to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 I agree with 90% of all the statements on Constitutional rights, but this is a small area in a town in which residents can't enjoy their freedom. So if freedom is momentarily impeaded upon for a brighter future, then by all means, that seems right to me. If they got search warrants for every house in the area and seized all guns they found, even those purchased legally, then crime would go down. If the city approved it, would it be OK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 Hal/Scotty I think you lack any sort of legal knowledge to argue the side you are taking so I'll break it down into something you might grasp better. What both of you are suggesting to be lawful, has already proven to not work both in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Lets just play through a senario and see what you guys agree/disagree with... Martial law has been delcared in Westerville for months and a private security force hired by the government has been initiating curfews, checkpoints, and seizures. They stop by Hal/Scottys house: Man thats a nice house buddy, food smells good too... How 'bout we stop in for something to eat? Oh whats that? We can't? Private Property? Trespassing? Constitution? LOL (TAZE, handcuff) Man this is some good shit, mind if we get a little puss off your old lady? Oh whats that? This is a "state of emergency", we are the cops!! (Puss is ravaged) Holy fuck, thats a nice car in the driveway. How fast is she? I think I'll take it for a spin... Why do you keep talking about common law, private property, and the constitution? You surrendered all your rights to me for a false sense of security, stupid!! Man, I must be an idiot. Why the fuck would we need to preserve our Constitutional rights? Thank god there are still some truely intelligent people left in society that help allow everyone to live in a somewhat free society. A bit over the top ... but a slippery slope meets rock bottom somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 If they got search warrants for every house in the area and seized all guns they found, even those purchased legally, then crime would go down. If the city approved it, would it be OK? That's blatantly unconstitutional. A TCP is far from unconstitutional, and if it is, then so would be DUI check points. It's the same general concept of what this city is doing. If they have these TCP (Tactical Check Point) already in place 24/7 then I can see the curfew being excessive. But in any case a TCP/DUI check point are one in the same. If they called it a DUI check point, and happened to find guns/drugs etc.. would it be so bad? A DUI check point doesn't seem to get the ACLU mad, nor do people scream it's unconstitutional. DUI check points take care of drunks, these TCP's are taking care of criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 Hal/Scotty I think you lack any sort of legal knowledge to argue the side you are taking so I'll break it down into something you might grasp better. What both of you are suggesting to be lawful, has already proven to not work both in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Lets just play through a senario and see what you guys agree/disagree with... Martial law has been delcared in Westerville for months and a private security force hired by the government has been initiating curfews, checkpoints, and seizures. They stop by Hal/Scottys house: Man thats a nice house buddy, food smells good too... How 'bout we stop in for something to eat? Oh whats that? We can't? Private Property? Trespassing? Constitution? LOL (TAZE, handcuff) Man this is some good shit, mind if we get a little puss off your old lady? Oh whats that? This is a "state of emergency", we are the cops!! (Puss is ravaged) Holy fuck, thats a nice car in the driveway. How fast is she? I think I'll take it for a spin... Why do you keep talking about common law, private property, and the constitution? You surrendered all your rights to me for a false sense of security, stupid!! Man, I must be an idiot. Why the fuck would we need to preserve our Constitutional rights? Thank god there are still some truely intelligent people left in society that help allow everyone to live in a somewhat free society. Under Martial Law I'd actually be out enforcing it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffmeden Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 That's blatantly unconstitutional. A TCP is far from unconstitutional, and if it is, then so would be DUI check points. It's the same general concept of what this city is doing. If they have these TCP (Tactical Check Point) already in place 24/7 then I can see the curfew being excessive. But in any case a TCP/DUI check point are one in the same. If they called it a DUI check point, and happened to find guns/drugs etc.. would it be so bad? A DUI check point doesn't seem to get the ACLU mad, nor do people scream it's unconstitutional. DUI check points take care of drunks, these TCP's are taking care of criminals. One thing: There was a 24hr curfew, not just a checkpoint. "Good evening miss, oh so you just wanted to go for a walk? You know that's illegal, right? I'm supposed to book you, but if you cooperate..." Another thing: Sobriety checkpoints HAVE successfully been argued as unconstitutional. There are very specific means in which they must be carried out. If they stopped you at a DUI checkpoint and had no reason to suspect that you were drinking and insisted on searching your trunk, you bet your ass that would be unconstitutional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 I have posted this before.... http://www.flexyourrights.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pomade Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 Another thing: Sobriety checkpoints HAVE successfully been argued as unconstitutional. There are very specific means in which they must be carried out. If they stopped you at a DUI checkpoint and had no reason to suspect that you were drinking and insisted on searching your trunk, you bet your ass that would be unconstitutional. I'm far from well versed in sobriety checkpoint law/statutes, but I believe that they have circumvented many of the challenges to the constitutionality of the sobriety checkpoints by giving "advanced warnings" of the dates of the checkpoints and their anticipated locations in the local media (e.g., in the Dispatch, through local T.V. news broadcasts) a day or so in advance. So, while I agree with your assertion that sobriety checkpoints have been successfully argued as unconstitutional as well as your assertion that they must be carried out in accordance with specific guidelines, I believe law enforcement can, by way of their "advanced warnings," use sobriety checkpoints as a way of circumventing illegal search and seizure. Of course, there's nothing preventing any of us from claiming that police violating our constitutional right against illegal search and seizure, I'm just saying that, from what I understand, law enforcement has used the "advanced warnings" tactic as a preemptive defense against such accusations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 Hal/Scotty I think you lack any sort of legal knowledge to argue the side you are taking so I'll break it down into something you might grasp better. What both of you are suggesting to be lawful, has already proven to not work both in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Lets just play through a senario and see what you guys agree/disagree with... Martial law has been delcared in Westerville for months and a private security force hired by the government has been initiating curfews, checkpoints, and seizures. They stop by Hal/Scottys house: Man thats a nice house buddy, food smells good too... How 'bout we stop in for something to eat? Oh whats that? We can't? Private Property? Trespassing? Constitution? LOL (TAZE, handcuff) Man this is some good shit, mind if we get a little puss off your old lady? Oh whats that? This is a "state of emergency", we are the cops!! (Puss is ravaged) Holy fuck, thats a nice car in the driveway. How fast is she? I think I'll take it for a spin... Why do you keep talking about common law, private property, and the constitution? You surrendered all your rights to me for a false sense of security, stupid!! Man, I must be an idiot. Why the fuck would we need to preserve our Constitutional rights? Thank god there are still some truely intelligent people left in society that help allow everyone to live in a somewhat free society. I stopped reading halfway through, did you even read the article? It seems you lack any intelligence or knowledge. Your arguments are always some of the most retarded things I have read. You are way off the deep end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 One thing: There was a 24hr curfew, not just a checkpoint. "Good evening miss, oh so you just wanted to go for a walk? You know that's illegal, right? I'm supposed to book you, but if you cooperate..." Another thing: Sobriety checkpoints HAVE successfully been argued as unconstitutional. There are very specific means in which they must be carried out. If they stopped you at a DUI checkpoint and had no reason to suspect that you were drinking and insisted on searching your trunk, you bet your ass that would be unconstitutional. The 24 hour curfew is excessive, I will agree 100% with that. Hell we let the Iraqis have more freedom than that. I'm sure the story isn't pointing out every aspect as to which the TCP/Curfew was set up, but I'm sure they covered their tracks on it. But conducting a TCP in such a small area in which crime is rapant, should be in noway, shape, or form considered unconstitutional. Seems like most in this thread are taking it to the point of Martial Law, in which this case, it is nowhere CLOSE to Martial Law. And yes things could get lots worse, I can use Katrina as an example. Rampant crime, looting, and other acts against the law forced Lousiana to call upon the National Guard to come into effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotCarl Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 So... did everyone miss the part where the handful of arrests' and conviction's will undoubtably be overturned in court due to being unconstitutional? Doesnt this in and of itself make this whole argument a moot point? And HeftyJesus you are correct, this is the first time in recent... hell ANY memory I have agreed with the chiropractor on anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 I stopped reading halfway through, did you even read the article? It seems you lack any intelligence or knowledge. Your arguments are always some of the most retarded things I have read. You are way off the deep end. Seems like he reads a lot of "abovetopsecret.com". Really. I mean...you do know that we made a ship disappear and because people started finding out we had to create a huge diversion, make a president a hero, then destroy him and create a lot of confusion during the 2008 election, then, once the time is right, WE STRIKE. The Illuminati is coming kids, they've teamed up with the NWO to create the new legion of doom. Be aware, wear your tinfoil, and don't drink tap water. The Communists are tampering with it in a plot to fluoridate water supplies, so we lose our "bodily essences". Bottled is the way to go. It all starts in Arkansas, in mid 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 You are all talking about a loss of rights. What kind of rights are you giving away when you fear for your life everyday? The right to be scared? The right to wonder if your kids are going to make it home from school? Sounds like the criminals already took away so much of their freedom that they feel like prisoners in their own homes. The questions we need to ask may not even be what rights are they giving away... you may want to ask, "By doing this what rights are they gaining back?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 Its not going to stop no matter what they do. The criminals call that place home. They will influence others, and the cycle will continue. The curfews and bs is just a temporary band-aid. (This is me being against it...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 "Real life" meets "what if"...... 1. Have a bad luck streak, or get raised in poverty and live in a place like the one discussed. 2. Have people selling drugs and shooting up your neighborhood while you try to save up enough money to move out. 3. Witness some of these bullets penetrate the building in which you live. Or get to hear gun shots on a daily/nightly basis. 4. Fear for the lives of your children with no immediate way to get them out of harms way. 5. Idea of a curfew and searches to help deter crime is extended to you. 6. A). You say no because you feel it is a violation of your rights. B). You say yes out of fear for the lives of loved ones C). You say yes not knowing its a violation of your rights 7. A). You have your rights, and your child is the lucky winner of a stray bullet due to nothing being done to clean up your neighborhood. B). Everyone survives. You save up enough money to move out, and someone else takes your apartment and gets to deal with the crime infested city you ran away from. C). Your small town was the first step in America turning into a communist run country. Now we all have curfews, guns are illegal, everything is rationed, and you still live in a shitty neighborhood. D). They do the the searches and curfew. It stops crime for a month but then comes back worse than ever. E). People on a forum critique decisions made by the people that live there before going outside to water their flowers and take their little doggy Fufu on a walk. While walking Fufu and greeting every neighbor in the neighborhood by first name they think about how stupid these people are for giving up their rights. Then they come back, make ice tea, and post about lost rights. All the time the people in charge over there are getting the publicity they need to get themselves re-elected. (This is the me being bored at 6am triple) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 You are all talking about a loss of rights. What kind of rights are you giving away when you fear for your life everyday? The right to be scared? The right to wonder if your kids are going to make it home from school? Sounds like the criminals already took away so much of their freedom that they feel like prisoners in their own homes. The questions we need to ask may not even be what rights are they giving away... you may want to ask, "By doing this what rights are they gaining back?" With a constant patrol they're gaining a lot more back as far as freedom is concerned. Again, I hate to compare Iraq to America for God's sake, but it works. While in Tikrit after we took out what was left of the Republican guard/Ba'ath party/Fedayeen, the people we happy and felt so much better. Granted for a while we had to keep a lock down going, but in the end result a temporary loss was better in a long term gain. Granted, I still agree with the curfew being accessive, but at times drastic measures tend to work. Maybe it won't fix 100% of the problems, but will deffinately make criminals scared shitless to try anything in that area. The sight of a police force with automatic weapons sends a good signal, they aren't there to play Mr.Nice Guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffmeden Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 I'm far from well versed in sobriety checkpoint law/statutes, but I believe that they have circumvented many of the challenges to the constitutionality of the sobriety checkpoints by giving "advanced warnings" of the dates of the checkpoints and their anticipated locations in the local media (e.g., in the Dispatch, through local T.V. news broadcasts) a day or so in advance. So, while I agree with your assertion that sobriety checkpoints have been successfully argued as unconstitutional as well as your assertion that they must be carried out in accordance with specific guidelines, I believe law enforcement can, by way of their "advanced warnings," use sobriety checkpoints as a way of circumventing illegal search and seizure. Of course, there's nothing preventing any of us from claiming that police violating our constitutional right against illegal search and seizure, I'm just saying that, from what I understand, law enforcement has used the "advanced warnings" tactic as a preemptive defense against such accusations. It is a bit of a gray area, given that statistically these checkpoints do a lot to prevent and/or persecute drunk drivers, and naturally legislators want to keep them around so they can look like they are doing something useful. However, per the Supreme Court, a DUI checkpoint has to be used explicitly to screen drivers for intoxication, and *nothing else*. Only if you demonstrate intoxication (or are very blatantly breaking some other law) can you be asked to stop for questioning, if you aren't suspected you must be allowed to pass without delay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 With a constant patrol they're gaining a lot more back as far as freedom is concerned. Again, I hate to compare Iraq to America for God's sake, but it works. While in Tikrit after we took out what was left of the Republican guard/Ba'ath party/Fedayeen, the people we happy and felt so much better. Granted for a while we had to keep a lock down going, but in the end result a temporary loss was better in a long term gain. Granted, I still agree with the curfew being accessive, but at times drastic measures tend to work. Maybe it won't fix 100% of the problems, but will deffinately make criminals scared shitless to try anything in that area. The sight of a police force with automatic weapons sends a good signal, they aren't there to play Mr.Nice Guy. Scott, I hate to disagree with you. There is a big difference between a military operation and policing. The goal of the military is to kill the enemy. There is a good reason the US military is not allowed to conduct operations within the US. The military is not equipped or trained to provide civil protection with regard for the civil rights that our Constitution provides us. I certainly dont agree with the military tactics that our police forces have adopted. Citizens are being harassed, assaulted, and killed with this shift to a more aggressive police forces It is easy to think that locking down an area will solve the problems that are due to lack of education, lack of father figures, poverty, and poor morals. Once the curfew is lifted the problems will return. I am not advocating that the government step in and pour money into fixing these people. You cant throw money at this type of a problem and get it to go away. When the people get tired of living that way, they will change there neighborhoods. Don't forget they can leave the bad areas and move at will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doggo Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 When has that happened in the US? Because it happened else where that doesn't mean it would/will happen here. What these LEO are doing in Arkansas are the equvalent of a DUI check point once again. You must have no grasp of what a TCP (Tactical Check Point) is. Not all cars end up being searched. It's a random screaning, and mostly asking people for intel (who,what,where,when,why type questions) Some of you are blowing a simple TCP up into, full blown Martial Law. Martial Law could always be enforced at some point of an emergency, and in that situation individuals will be detained (meaning you can be held for quite some time). It's not like the curfew/check points have spread all over the city, it is in a confined area. And once again, the COMMUNITY, law enforcement, judge and mayor all approved of this. So far it seems nobody has complained about their civil rights or rights in general being infringed upon. I'll say it is drastic in a way, and seems like it was a brain storm of some former military personell, but it works. Now if this were a whole ENTIRE city, I would see wrong in that. They're targeting a small community inside of a city. Again not an entire city. TCP's are set up via intelligence, and facts. As I've read so far, the outcome has been quite successful. Hell you are the type of person that would cry wolf, if a Law Enforcement officer wasn't at your house in under 5 minutes to help you in time of need. The fact that they have a heavy LEO presence is quite impressive. If you need a snake to die, cut the head off. Screw all that, I'd be pissed if someone was stopping me and searching etc on a regular basis 'for my own security'. Fuck that- I MAKE my own security, I don't expect anyone else to help provide it for me, especially when I haven't asked for any help. One thing I hate hearing at airports and more and more places nowadays is '...for your own safety'. When I hear those four words, I know that I'm not going to like hearing whatever follows, and I'm in for a class A line of bullshit. And I've never been disappointed yet. The war on terror would be over in a week if the government wanted it over. Remember the "war on drugs" (and what happened to that?) I don't think it we won did we.... Turned out terror is a far easier sell for the gov... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 Screw all that, I'd be pissed if someone was stopping me and searching etc on a regular basis 'for my own security'. Fuck that- I MAKE my own security, I don't expect anyone else to help provide it for me, especially when I haven't asked for any help. One thing I hate hearing at airports and more and more places nowadays is '...for your own safety'. When I hear those four words, I know that I'm not going to like hearing whatever follows, and I'm in for a class A line of bullshit. And I've never been disappointed yet. The war on terror would be over in a week if the government wanted it over. Remember the "war on drugs" (and what happened to that?) I don't think it we won did we.... Turned out terror is a far easier sell for the gov... Look, another idiot. PS. You do realize a war on terror is impossible, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 The sight of a police force with automatic weapons sends a good signal, they aren't there to play Mr.Nice Guy. Thats got to be a joke right ? Wait ... you're not joking ... *shakes head* A high crime area in the United States of America is not analogous to a war-torn middle eastern country. The comparison is pretty thin. PS. You do realize a war on terror is impossible, correct? Terrorist acts are for the most part an inevitability. Whether foreign, or home grown. Terrorism is a loose term though, unless you're talking about post 911 terrorism which lets face it, means "extremist Islam". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 Thats got to be a joke right ? Wait ... you're not joking ... *shakes head* A high crime area in the United States of America is not analogous to a war-torn middle eastern country. The comparison is pretty thin. Fear is a motivating factor. Yes the comparison is thin, but the overall goal is somewhat similar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.