Arkansas town in state of "martial law"

[Sims2789]

The 1st amendment is the constitution (The first 10 affectionately called the Bill of Rights). It's essentially the constitution. The patriot act violated the constitution and according to you so do these patrols. The Patriot Act lets officers enter a premises with "Probable Cause" instead a warrant so it violates the 4th amendment.

A warrant isn't always necessary; for example, if you see a crime through a window then you can enter the residence without a warrant as long as your activities are constrained to the crime you witnessed. But a warrant is required in most circumstances, and the Patriot Act is clearly unconstitutional.

 

[Zebra 9]

I won't argue about it but from what you have said (I haven't read the patriot act, although I should) and from what the 4th amendment says I have come to the conclusion that if you repeal the patriot act and the police are going to do a search on your property (or what ever else) they will just get the warrant. So in my opinion, just so long as there is a way to prevent abuse, the patriot act isn't all that bad even though it does skip a constitutional step.

 

[IglooDame]

Am I the only liberty loving, non-let's-shoot-em-all type who is not that upset by the Mayor, so long as the situation is very temporary and its being used to get the kind of foothold that will allow the police and the city to gain positive traction?

Perhaps so, and maybe the chance for a little enlightenment on my part. Do you see temporary suspensions of chunks of the Bill of Rights as generally acceptable whereas permanent suspensions obviously are not?

 

[JohnRM]

I won't argue about it but from what you have said (I haven't read the patriot act, although I should) and from what the 4th amendment says I have come to the conclusion that if you repeal the patriot act and the police are going to do a search on your property (or what ever else) they will just get the warrant. So in my opinion, just so long as there is a way to prevent abuse, the patriot act isn't all that bad even though it does skip a constitutional step.

 

[Zebra 9]

LOL, well like I said, I'm not gona argue.

Totally agree with the last line in your sig.

 

[JohnRM]

Mayor James Valley: "The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK(..)"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/13/town.curfew.ap/index.html


I could almost cry.

 

[Zebra 9]

Many dealing crack cocaine and marijuana in the city carry pistols and AK-47 assault rifles, he said.

Now if this is true I can see the point of heavily armed police, not the curfew.

I totally agree John, when someone feels peace is better then rights, I feel very sorry for them.

Quote from Benjamin Franklin
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

[Hygro]

Perhaps so, and maybe the chance for a little enlightenment on my part. Do you see temporary suspensions of chunks of the Bill of Rights as generally acceptable whereas permanent suspensions obviously are not?

The problem is the slippery slope, and there not being a clear line once we start

Permanent suspensions are bad. We both agree. Temporary suspensions are bad. We both agree. But can temporary suspensions be good enough to both overcome the bad and avoid setting what is potentially a dangerous precedent? I believe it's possible, but dangerous. The law isn't working if there are outlaws taking away peoples safety and therefore liberty. But suspending the law for the sake of safety is also wrong.

I can't help but think of Abraham Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus, which in effect was allowed by the Constitution because of the threat of national destruction and defeat to the hands of an enemy army. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. This is something I support, but it requires "good government", something I'm not so sure we can trust.

Eh I'm rambling without a conclusion.

 

[Shylock]

Maybe during all hours of the day yes, but this is at night what useful thing could you be doing.

So because you and them do not think there is a "useful" reason for going out at night no one should be able to it.

I believe there is no useful reason to watch the Olympics. We should stop people from doing that.

I haven't read the patriot act

Don't worry. Neither did most of the people who signed it.

 

[C~G]

"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."

I really want someone take this to the court if necessary all the way to the supreme court.

Freaking fascist craphead.

EDIT: Let alone this is funny as hell, how incompetent you have to be not able to handle that kind of area?

 

[bhsup]

I would hope some God-fearing good Arkansans with guns would resist this forcibly. Just sit out on their porch with a hunting rifle cradled in their arms and see which cop tries to arrest them first.

 

[IglooDame]

The problem is the slippery slope, and there not being a clear line once we start

Permanent suspensions are bad. We both agree. Temporary suspensions are bad. We both agree. But can temporary suspensions be good enough to both overcome the bad and avoid setting what is potentially a dangerous precedent? I believe it's possible, but dangerous. The law isn't working if there are outlaws taking away peoples safety and therefore liberty. But suspending the law for the sake of safety is also wrong.

I can't help but think of Abraham Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus, which in effect was allowed by the Constitution because of the threat of national destruction and defeat to the hands of an enemy army. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. This is something I support, but it requires "good government", something I'm not so sure we can trust.

Eh I'm rambling without a conclusion.

I think you miswrote what I bolded up there. Not wanting to suspend safety for the sake of the law (what I assume you meant) is in its way laudable, but since we don't have a particularly trustworthy government it has to be beyond "the existing laws aren't working" justification. What I've heard about this Arkansas town doesn't seem to rise to the level of suspending constitutional protections for entire neighborhoods, or if it does then there's a lot of other neighborhoods (some would call them slums) that will soon see the same treatment.

 

[Zebra 9]

VRWCAgent maybe you missed this

The police chief said the officers in the field carry military-style M-16 or M-4 rifles, some equipped with laser sights.

Use the courts and if it doesn't work then use the guns, it'll be less nasty.

 

[IglooDame]

VRWCAgent maybe you missed this


Use the courts and if it doesn't work then use the guns, it'll be less nasty.

Why are civilian semi-auto versions of M-16s (AR-15s) referred to as "assault weapons" whereas the actual M-16s are called "military-style rifles"?

 

[skadistic]

Why are civilian semi-auto versions of M-16s (AR-15s) referred to as "assault weapons" whereas the actual M-16s are called "military-style rifles"?

So they can be banned silly.

 

[JohnRM]

Why are civilian semi-auto versions of M-16s (AR-15s) referred to as "assault weapons" whereas the actual M-16s are called "military-style rifles"?

Because of the agendas of the people using those terms.

 

[Hygro]

I think you miswrote what I bolded up there. Not wanting to suspend safety for the sake of the law (what I assume you meant) is in its way laudable, but since we don't have a particularly trustworthy government it has to be beyond "the existing laws aren't working" justification. What I've heard about this Arkansas town doesn't seem to rise to the level of suspending constitutional protections for entire neighborhoods, or if it does then there's a lot of other neighborhoods (some would call them slums) that will soon see the same treatment.

Actually what I meant was putting aside the rule of law for the sake of safety (careful not to confuse legal authority with law!) Authorities circumventing the rule of law just because the laws don't allow them to do what they want is bad. But acting for the public good when the laws are bad is good. Both the good and the bad can coexist. I'm still in my ramble though I appreciate you working with my posts anyway

 

[JollyRoger]

Best take I have seen on this:

Yet the violence is mostly related to the illegal drug trade. So the government creates a black market that disproportionately hurts poor people, enforces its drug laws in a way that disproportionately hurts poor people, and responds to the resulting violence and disorder with police tactics that disproportionately hurt poor people. When civil libertarians object, they are dismissed as privileged pointy-heads who do not understand the problems of poor people.

http://reason.com/blog/show/128081.html

 

[Aegis]

With a town that small, chances are the sheriff's department is understaffed and too underfunded to handle this obvious problem.

If this curfew isn't the answer, then what is?

 

[JollyRoger]

If they are understaffed and underfunded, perhaps focusing on the criminals instead of everybody would be a good start.