Town Under 24-Hour Curfew

[K-Mac]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_...sas_town_curfew

"As far as I'm concerned, at 3 o'clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law," Councilman Eugene "Red" Johnson said. "Anyone out at 3 o'clock shouldn't be out on the street, unless you're going to the hospital."

There are so many problems with what is going on in this town, I'm not even sure where to start. That quote is just one example. Perhaps I was hot and couldn't sleep, so I'm going for a walk. Perhaps I am on my way to work. Perhaps I'm a night owl. Does it really matter? Do I not have the right to walk down a public street at 3am?

Then there's the Mayor...

"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."

Well which is it, Mayor? Is it "some infringement on constitutional rights" or have you "not violated anything as far as the Constitution"?? Does he even know what the Constitution is all about?

My question is this, though, what is a town's government to do, if anything? Per the articles I've read, some residents sleep on their floors at night because they're afraid of stray bullets hitting them while they sleep. That definitely sounds like a situation where government intervention is needed, but this 24-hour curfew and the things being said by the Mayor and city councilman are way out of line.

[01503]

The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution.

Isn't that basically saying "We can do X as long as we don't break the rule Y which says we can't do X?"

I can't believe this BS.

[EDIT]

Also, it really isn't public property when the public doesn't have access to it, is it?

"Public Property" means nobody owns it, except those who claim it by force.

Edited August 13, 2008 by NickS

[Rearden_Steel]

I would go out at 2Am and when they ask me what I'm doing I'd say: "I'm sorry Mr Lincoln say I free" in my best old southern accent.

[Marty McFly]

Are they actually arresting people for being up at 3 or just stopping them to ask some questions? making sure you don't carry an illegal gun and are on your way to murder someone?

[EC]

Why does it matter Marty? A person can go out at any time they want, as long as they aren't under house arrest or whatever. By what right does a government have to tell when you can leave your house or not?

[01503]

I once went out for a walk at 2 30 or something around then because I was feeling depressed. A breath of fresh air helps. Besides, isn't it PUBLIC property? Aren't I part of the public? It really isn't public property when the public doesn't have access to it, is it?

"Public Property" means nobody owns it, except those who claim it by force.

[BrassDragon]

However, such stops likely violate residents' constitutional rights to freely assemble and protections against unreasonable police searches, said Holly Dickson, a lawyer for the ACLU of Arkansas who addressed the council at its packed Tuesday meeting.

It doesn't seem like the curfew violates citizens' rights to freely assemble. Nor does it seem like questioning everyone passing through such an extremely high-crime area constitutes an "unreasonable" police search. I would welcome such a thing if I lived in that town.

"The residents of these high-crime areas are already victims," she said. "They're victims of what are happening in the neighborhoods, they're victims of fear. But for them to be subject to unlawful stops and questioning ... that is not going to ultimately going to help this situation."

Well clearly it IS helping the situation - by helping the police apprehend criminals. And at some point, the people living in that neighborhood have to bear responsibility for choosing to live there, rather than leaving.

I don't have a problem with the situation... the proper government response to a super-crime-ridden area is to do whatever is necessary to apprehend criminals.

That said, I don't have any information other than the article, so my comments are somewhat speculative.

I once went out for a walk at 2 30 or something around then because I was feeling depressed. A breath of fresh air helps. Besides, isn't it PUBLIC property? Aren't I part of the public? It really isn't public property when the public doesn't have access to it, is it?

"Public Property" means nobody owns it, except those who claim it by force.

Based on the information in this article, if you went outside at night in this neighborhood, you'd very likely be murdered.

[KurtColville]

I don't have a problem with the situation... the proper government response to a super-crime-ridden area is to do whatever is necessary to apprehend criminals.

Really? The government can properly violate citizens' rights by imposing curfews in order to apprehend criminals? Do you actually understand what "the right to your life" means?

[BrassDragon]

Really? The government can properly violate citizens' rights by imposing curfews in order to apprehend criminals?

Well, it depends on the situation, of course. In this case, from what I know, I would say the government acted properly.

Do you actually understand what "the right to your life" means?

Do you?

Edited August 14, 2008 by BrassDragon

[K-Mac]

According to the article, this is one of the poorest neighborhoods in the country, so it could be that those who desperately want to leave, may not be able to. That being said, I don't think that's a reason for them to be stripped of their rights. I mean, why doesn't the government just round up everyone in the 10 block radius and take them all in for questioning, since some of them may be the trouble makers? Why not strip them all of their handguns, knives, baseball bats, etc, since some of them may be murderers? Why not just confiscate all their money, since it may be used in a drug trade? Is this not the slippery slope you start to slide down when you start chipping away at any people's rights?

I find it hard to believe that if the police focused their patrols in this area and did regular, old-fashioned, rights-respecting police work, they couldn't clean it up. In addition, if things are as bad as they say, couldn't they ask for help from other departments/agencies? (County, State, FBI, etc.) It sounds like some simple undercover work could clean up a measly 10 blocks. Is there really a need to take away innocent people's rights?

[BrassDragon]

I find it hard to believe that if the police focused their patrols in this area and did regular, old-fashioned, rights-respecting police work, they couldn't clean it up. In addition, if things are as bad as they say, couldn't they ask for help from other departments/agencies? (County, State, FBI, etc.) It sounds like some simple undercover work could clean up a measly 10 blocks. Is there really a need to take away innocent people's rights?

We can't really know that; only the police can answer that question properly. We just have to decide if we accept their answer, which I guess is the point of this thread.

According to the article, this is one of the poorest neighborhoods in the country, so it could be that those who desperately want to leave, may not be able to.

This might be beside the point, but I don't believe there has ever been a situation in America where people could not leave a neighborhood after the end of slavery. "Poverty" is not an excuse.

That being said, I don't think that's a reason for them to be stripped of their rights. I mean, why doesn't the government just round up everyone in the 10 block radius and take them all in for questioning, since some of them may be the trouble makers? Why not strip them all of their handguns, knives, baseball bats, etc, since some of them may be murderers?

If it got bad enough, I'd say those would be proper actions to take. Like if this were Sadr City.

The point is that keeping crime in check can trump individual rights in some instances. That's why it would be fine, under the right circumstances, to nuke Iran, for example.

The government would be absolutely failing in its most basic duty if it didn't take the steps necessary to stop violent crime.

[KurtColville]

The point is that keeping crime in check can trump individual rights in some instances. That's why it would be fine, under the right circumstances, to nuke Iran, for example.

The government would be absolutely failing in its most basic duty if it didn't take the steps necessary to stop violent crime.

Clearly you do not understand the nature of rights and that they are essential to man. Rights are not something to be traded for or trumped by crime prevention. Good grief -- the very reason to prevent crime is to protect rights. This is the old, false argument that rights conflict with crime prevention. They do not -- not with proper, just crime prevention. Even in a crime-ridden hellhole, a man needs to know that he won't be facing the law's initiation of force instead of the criminals'.

And the reason to nuke Iran is not to "trump rights in some instances", but to protect our rights from being further violated by Iranians who have no rights, by the fact that they have initiated force against us.

[Mammon]

Glad to see you'd be comfortable under a facist police state BrassDragon.

[K-Mac]

We can't really know that

Well, we can look to other cities and neighborhoods as examples. This is 10 blocks. If a major city can live in relative peace, why can't several dozen police, or fewer, control 10 blocks?

"Poverty" is not an excuse.

Why isn't it? Moving is expensive. There are deposits, first month's rent, taking time off work to get your crap from one place to another, possibly changing jobs (if your commute is effected.) If you're poor and living in your family's home or a home that's already paid for, or walking to your job, for example, it may not be feasible for you to relocate.

If it got bad enough, I'd say those would be proper actions to take.

So are you basically saying that it's okay to take away a person's rights if it's for the greater good?

[BrassDragon]

Clearly you do not understand the nature of rights and that they are essential to man.

Clearly.

Good grief -- the very reason to prevent crime is to protect rights. This is the old, false argument that rights conflict with crime prevention. They do not -- not with proper, just crime prevention. Even in a crime-ridden hellhole, a man needs to know that he won't be facing the law's initiation of force instead of the criminals'.

I think the predominant need for citizens living in this neighborhood and in other areas is to know that they won't be murdered.

You say that "the very reason to prevent crime is to protect rights," but I think that's a rationalistic way of thinking. In fact, the very reason to protect rights is to prevent crime - crime initiated by the government or by criminals.

In this case, it's not the government that is infringing upon people's rights; it's the criminals. The subsequent police action is a corrective measure, judged to be necessary by the police.

I see K-Mac just posted, so let me address that separately, if this doesn't cover it.

[KevinDW78]

Why isn't it? Moving is expensive. There are deposits, first month's rent, taking time off work to get your crap from one place to another, possibly changing jobs (if your commute is effected.) If you're poor and living in your family's home or a home that's already paid for, or walking to your job, for example, it may not be feasible for you to relocate.

I agree with BrassDragon on this aspect - this is not an excuse. I get tired of hearing this excuse from people who are unhappy with their current location. As long as someone's legs work, there is no excuse. Put your stuff in a bindle (ala hobos) and start walking. If your life is in danger (or you are simply THAT displeased with where you currently live) then stop whining, get off your bum-bum, and walk out the door and never look back.

Edited August 14, 2008 by KevinDW78

[BrassDragon]

Well, we can look to other cities and neighborhoods as examples. This is 10 blocks. If a major city can live in relative peace, why can't several dozen police, or fewer, control 10 blocks?

They can; this is what they say is necessary. They might be a bunch of rights-disrespecting idiots (wouldn't surprise me), but it seems plausible to me that a particular area could become so crime-ridden that measures such as these become warranted.

Why isn't it? Moving is expensive. There are deposits, first month's rent, taking time off work to get your crap from one place to another, possibly changing jobs (if your commute is effected.) If you're poor and living in your family's home or a home that's already paid for, or walking to your job, for example, it may not be feasible for you to relocate.

I didn't say it was easy, but it's certainly do-able. Especially with time. I don't think this neighborhood became unlivable overnight. (Remember, the article tells us people are sleeping on the floor to avoid bullets.)

So are you basically saying that it's okay to take away a person's rights if it's for the greater good?

Of course not! Don't know where this "greater good" thing came from. See my comments above. The #1 duty of the government is to protect individual rights, but here it is the criminals who have infringed upon people's rights, not the government. The government should take appropriate corrective action, and if citizens have a problem with it, it should be dealt with in court (where the specifics of the case can be examined).

[Zip]

Brass Dragon, do you then believe that the majority of the people in this area are criminals, or is it that you see no problem with punishing all the people in this area because there are criminals among them?

Before you comment that no one is being punished ask yourself if you would like to have your liberty (freedom) removed at the stroke of midnight each night and returned to you at 0600 in the morning.

[K-Mac]

Put your stuff in a bindle (ala hobos) and start walking.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it may take time and the problem with crime in the town is current. Also, I don't think trading a roof over your head for homelessness is necessarily any safer or better. It helps to be able to shower and provide your employer with a home address when employed/seeking employment.

They might be a bunch of rights-disrespecting idiots (wouldn't surprise me)...

I suspect that like most Americans, they're just unaware of what rights really are anymore, so they have no problem stomping all over them or giving them up voluntarily.

Of course not! Don't know where this "greater good" thing came from.

It came from the fact that you seem okay with taking away individual rights (of the poor, floor-sleeping, innocent, by standing citizens) as long as it serves the needs of the community (the police have to get rid of the crime and this is the only way possible.) Is this not the position you are taking? My hope was that if I summed up your argument that way, you would see the problem with it.

[KevinDW78]

Also, I don't think trading a roof over your head for homelessness is necessarily any safer or better. It helps to be able to shower and provide your employer with a home address when employed/seeking employment.

Not if you have to sleep on the floor to avoid being hit by a bullet! I am also saying if your LIFE is in danger - you shouldn't care about your roof, your job, your employer, your dog, your car (or lack thereof), your water bill, etc - all you should care about is saving your life by getting the hell out of there.

Edited August 14, 2008 by KevinDW78

[BrassDragon]

Brass Dragon, do you then believe that the majority of the people in this area are criminals, or is it that you see no problem with punishing all the people in this area because there are criminals among them?

I don't consider this a punishment, I consider it to be (potentially) necessary to protect these people from criminals (i.e. necessary, to protect their rights).

Before you comment that no one is being punished ask yourself if you would like to have your liberty (freedom) removed at the stroke of midnight each night and returned to you at 0600 in the morning.

Yes! I would gladly submit to some temporary reduction in "rights" (though I don't really see it that way) in order to make my neighborhood safe.

I would be surprised if anyone who's commented so far (besides me) knows what it's like to have someone you're close to murdered, and to no longer feel safe in the town where you life. It really brings the whole criminal justice issue into perspective. I don't want to harp on that, though. The point here is that there is room for police action (in certain cases) that would not be appropriate under normal circumstances in order to protect people from criminals; would anyone disagree with that?

[BrassDragon]

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it may take time and the problem with crime in the town is current. Also, I don't think trading a roof over your head for homelessness is necessarily any safer or better. It helps to be able to shower and provide your employer with a home address when employed/seeking employment.

Well, it all depends on the context. In the South, it's actually not that hard to live in/off the woods and maybe take some small jobs on the side for a while (for a rational person).

It came from the fact that you seem okay with taking away individual rights (of the poor, floor-sleeping, innocent, by standing citizens) as long as it serves the needs of the community (the police have to get rid of the crime and this is the only way possible.) Is this not the position you are taking? My hope was that if I summed up your argument that way, you would see the problem with it.

I'm not OK with "taking away individual rights." I think an appropriate way to state my argument would be: police action that is not acceptable under peaceful conditions could be, in some cases, necessary and proper in order to protect individual rights.

As for the "greater good"/"needs of the community" stuff... just like you, I know that the "community" is just made up of individuals, whose rights need to be protected. I don't think including that phraseology is an accurate way to describe my argument.

[Zip]

I don't consider this a punishment, I consider it to be (potentially) necessary to protect these people from criminals (i.e. necessary, to protect their rights).

So when the government next tells you that in order to ensure your safety they will ask you to surrender your guns (because the murderers in our midsts use them), you will have no problem with that either?

[Tenure]

BrassDragon: You accused someone else of rationalism, saying that man's right to... well, his rights, trumped any practical implementation of the protection of those rights. You then go on to say that the reason we protect rights is to stop crime? In other words, the reason we have a police force is to fight crime. Well, yes, that's true, but it isn't the very reason for the existence of the police force. That's like saying, "I have a cooker because chickens need cookin'" rather than, "Because eating raw meat will probably kill me".

Are we going to then insist on turning our houses into furnaces on this basis, if we have to cook for a banquet?

Edited August 14, 2008 by Tenure

[KevinDW78]

I have a cooker because chickens need cookin'

lol i can't stop laughing at this. People are gonna start giving me weird looks in my office.