24 hour curfew or near martial law?

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
It seems that the mayor has set the police loose with high power firearms and the authority to stop any and all persons traveling through this neighborhood for any and all reasons. The ability to move through your environs is a constitutionally protected right. The ACLU is all over this. I don't particularly like them but they have their moments.

http://www.wxvt.com/Global/story.asp?S=8818645&nav=menu1344_2

Ark. city neighborhood under 24-hour curfew

Associated Press - August 10, 2008 8:34 PM ET

HELENA-WEST HELENA, Ark. (AP) - Helena-West Helena Mayor James Valley says he ordered a round-the-clock curfew and heavy police patrol in a ten-block section of town because the neighborhood was "under siege with repeated gunfire, loitering, drug dealing and other general mayhem."

Valley ordered the emergency curfew Thursday, effective immediately. It was still in place today. He said it would remain in place as long as the problems persist or until the city council can come up with a long-term plan at its August 19th meeting.

Thursday night, 18 to 20 police officers carrying M-16 rifles, shotguns and night-vision scopes patrolled the "curfew zone." They arrested about eight people and confiscated drugs and loaded weapons.

Under Valley's order, officers do not tolerate loitering or "hanging out." Officers can stop and investigate all foot traffic, bicycle, horseback, mo-ped, motorcycle, riding mower, golf cart or other means of transportation.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas says the curfew is "blatantly unconstitutional" and has demanded that Valley lift the order immediately.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
so, jim, if roving bands of thugs overran your neighborhood - and assuming you ran out of ammo ummkay - would you not want a heavy police presence?
 
so, jim, if roving bands of thugs overran your neighborhood - and assuming you ran out of ammo ummkay - would you not want a heavy police presence?

Actually sounds like jim might be rational on this one, there is a diffrence between heavy police presence, and de facto martial law.
 
Actually sounds like jim might be rational on this one, there is a diffrence between heavy police presence, and de facto martial law.

maybe. i just remember a couple friends of mine that were living in cinncinatti when things really took a shit and they were utterly overjoyed to have official state hooligans around.

or in '67 when dad was going to university of detroit and the riots broke out. things really sucked until the national guard put a machine gun nest on a building by his house. then shit really calmed down.
 
Living through the gang wars in LA during the 80's, this makes sense, considering it's a small community. It's obviously not a long term solution.

Do we give our police the authority to act or do we allow mayhem to continue?
 
Living through the gang wars in LA during the 80's, this makes sense, considering it's a small community. It's obviously not a long term solution.

Yes, I was there too. Do you remember what happened when L.A. cracked down on these gangs? They moved to places like Omaha and simply took up anew on fresh turf.

Do we give our police the authority to act or do we allow mayhem to continue?

You finally allow the citizenry to take back their own streets withhout threatening them with prosecution for doing so.
 
"There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program."
- Milton Friedman

yeah, super.

only we're talking more about mobilizations that programs here jim. stick to the topic. the fate of western civilization rests on this debate. and you, in particular.

anyway, it must be really stressful to be a lone american superstar, duty bound to always maintain vigilance against the oppressive forces of police cops, gun-grabbing democrats, the FBI, the DEA, ATF, IRS, wacky blue helmets, and black helicopters.

strangely, there are no longer national guard troops in the city of detroit. or st. louis. or pullman. or flint. or matewan. or, um, should i go on? nah, no need.

sometimes, the government does some stupid shit. but not all the time, jim. not all the time. because most of the government is a bunch of working slobs, just like the rest of us, with no particular urge to systematically oppress. well, unless you count endless paperwork.
 
yeah, super.

only we're talking more about mobilizations that programs here jim. stick to the topic. the fate of western civilization rests on this debate. and you, in particular.

Quick!

Name one time where the authorities, once given power, have willingly relinquished that power.

Name one time where the authorities, once given power, have not sought to increase that power.
 
Name one time where the authorities, once given power, have willingly relinquished that power

The Posse Comitatus act?

During wartime, we have repeatedly lost liberties. They have all been, admittedly begrudgingly, returned.

This is war. If you recall the Bloods & Crips leaving a wake of blood, you know that. Ya gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette. Fortunately, one th eomlette is made, we do have the authority to return them to their shells.
 
The Posse Comitatus act?

During wartime, we have repeatedly lost liberties. They have all been, admittedly begrudgingly, returned.

This is war. If you recall the Bloods & Crips leaving a wake of blood, you know that. Ya gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette. Fortunately, one th eomlette is made, we do have the authority to return them to their shells.


I can't wait for that one to be repealed...:devious:

If you also recall, both Okinawa, the Panama Canal Zone, and the Phillippines were once US territories as well. We gave them back to the local populace. :shrug:
 
Back
Top