Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Papieren, bitte!

In one of the most absolutely cocked-over ideas I've seen in all my born days, the City of Washington D.C. has decided to set up "Neighborhood Safety Zones" in certain areas of the District of Columbia.

Once a neighborhood is declared a "Neighborhood Safety Zone" DeeCee Police will stop all vehicles entering these zones and demand identification proving that the driver lives in the neighborhood, or provide a -- and let me be accurate here -- "legitimate reason to enter the neighborhood".

Anyone not providing papers identification or a "legitimate reason to enter the neighborhood" will be -- and I quote -- "forced to leave".

Anyone objecting to being refused entry into the "Neighborhood Safety Zone" will face arrest for failing to obey police.

This sort of bushwa is EXACTLY what you bloody well get when the sodding government is the only folks allowed to carry guns. This sort of absolute felching gradoo is EXACTLY what you get when the citizens are disarmed.

Shame on the DC Police department. Shame! You are supposed to be peace officers, not some mouth-breathing knock-off of the gods-be-damned gestapo. And that goes double for Mayor Fenty, Police Chief Cathy Lanier and Attorney General Peter Nickles. Where, in the name of all that's holy, do you think that you are, World War 2 Warsaw?

What is next? Tell me, do. What is next -- issuing various coloured triangles to undesirables?

You two-bit, four-flushing, knock-off, arrogant, el-cheapo tin-plate Mussolinis. You pack of dime-store Himmlers with delusions of adequacy.

This. Is. America. You have obviously forgotten this.

American citizens do not -- I will say again my last, slowly, for the DC City Government -- American citizens do not need to give a reason -- legitimate or otherwise -- for driving anywhere on any Freyja-be-damned tax-payer-funded public sodding street.

How dare you stop a tax-paying American citizen driving on a tax-payer funded American street and demand -- demand, by God! -- a "legitimate reason to enter the neighborhood" ... here's your "legitimate reason" -- damn your eyes -- because I want to and it's none of your penguin-squicking business!

To think it would come to this -- in the Capital City of our Nation -- a city in which is enshrined the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- that the public servants of the citizens of that city would happily indulge in the signature evil of the police state.

Tell me, truly -- are you going to train your cops to say, "Papieren, bitte" before demanding a "legitimate reason" to be about on a public road? Just to make the whole process complete?

Or will you teach them the phrase in Russian? Maybe Chinese?

Why the lot of you haven't been horse-whipped around the courthouse square for even daring to
suggest this crap is beyond me.

LawDog

67 comments:

HazMat said...

very very glad i live in texas when i read about things like this. the 'system' habitually treats me bad enough without public streets being no trespassing zones.

Don Gwinn said...

Geez, I waste enough time and aggravation backtracking and going around the DUI checkpoints (I never drink and drive, and I never go through checkpoints.) This wouldn't work out for me.

But remember, kids, there is no slippery slope. Just because you were willing to accept having people stopped for no reason on public streets by police roadblocks so their papers could be checked on the thin excuse that we've got to Save the Children from the Drunk Driver Menace, doesn't mean you were opening the door to the same kind of checkpoints done without the flimsy excuse that we've got to Save the Children from the Drunk Driver Menace.

The slippery slope is a fallacy. Right?

Anonymous said...

I am also here in Texas, thanks to God, and see this along with many other signs as to the type of government that these "individuals" -apply your own adjectives, (I'm using the one we are required to use for the residents of the MHMR facility) desire to have. Consider their proposals and each takes the country a step closer to this kind of government. It is no accident that the seat of corruption, sorry, government would be the first place for the results to be displayed. "Papers please" actually goes back to the foundation of social security. The vision has been realized.

Anonymous said...

I can't say I'm surprised. This change has been coming for a while now. The Police are no longer "Peace Officers" but have become instead an occupying army who are not subject to the same laws they enforce.

There is very little difference between an Army and Law enforcement these days. They’ve adopted a militaristic mindset, they wear militaristic uniforms or simply off the shelf military fatigues, they use military tactics and they’re awash in military equipment from grenades and tanks to aircraft. They’re also beginning to be hated just like an occupying army. Not just from the longhairs, inner city minorities and those with an aversion to tyranny but from average citizen. Some of the most venomous cop haters I know are elderly ladies who have had encounters with the police. White, church going little old ladies from very small towns and rural areas who have nothing but contempt for cops now.

There had better be a serious change in the way LE does business and how they train new recruits and it better happen fast. It's one thing to have inner city types in crime ridden public housing hating you but when you have church going little old ladies from tiny rural towns and wives of elderly farmers hating you so much that they wish for you gruesome demise you're doing something terribly wrong and everything needs to change.

Anonymous said...

Please note that this idea comes on the heals of the previous demonstration of brilliance by the Chief of Police, getting residents to consent to "voluntary" warrantless searches of their homes by police. The city prosecutor stated that the residents would have immunity from prosecution for any unregistered guns found, later extended to immunity for anything found during the search. Luckily, the ACLU and city council jumped in and shut that idea down before it could get off the ground.

Anonymous said...

Someone needs to arrange a legal test case. As much a the Founding Fathers venerated certain rights, there must be something on the books, a legal Thou Shalt Not, regarding this sort of crap. Someone, or, ideally, several dozen someones, ought to drive up to the checkpoints, and when asked about legitimate reasons, provide a printout of the valid sections of the constitution/law books. And then refuse to be turned back on the basis of having no legitimate reason to enter.

I don't own a car, or live anywhere near D.C., or I'd go do this myself.

Beaker said...

"Pedestrians will not be affected by the new policy." and D.C. Police Chief "Lanier says as long as they stop every car it is legal."

So it's all okay. (And since this is the internet, let me be very clear.. that was sarcasm!)

At least not everyone in DC is crazy... "D.C. Councilmember Phil Mendelson calls the tactics illegal."

(I'm quoting the news story I read first about it... http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=1415665 )

Randolph said...

Ya know, this is going to play merry hell with the Congressional Aides going to 'town to buy Coke, Pot, & other recreational drugs for the Congresscritters!

DoesNotMatter said...

It's "Papiere"

"papieren" would be an action. If the word existed at all.

This programm will be stopped roughly 3 minutes after senate bozo x is stopped and searched en route to his floozy.

Anonymous said...

Times are a chaning. Reminds me of the action taken in Ross's book Unintended Consequences. Mayhaps we do need another revolution.

Just sayin.

Kelly(Mom of 6) said...

Thank you for posts like this...

It blew my mind...really blew my mind the first time I began reading a cop blog and made the realization that the biggest defenders ...and I do mean biggest defenders of our right to bear arms is you. Who ever teaches their kids THAT about policemen?

So, again...I say thank you Lawdog.

Mark said...

Sagan's Name...! I thought this was a joke when I read about it first.

That's the sort of crap we get in the UK, it's not for export!

Rorschach said...

So they deny you your second amendment rights AND your fourth amendment rights as well? What's next? First Amendment? Third? Fifth? Sixth? Eighth? 13th? 14th?

Anonymous said...

Hey, hazmat, there's a town IN TEXAS that just proposed adopting a slightly altered International Code for ordinances. This includes a provision for fining people who don't have utilities in their homes because they can't pay the bills. Now, I ask you, what kind of sense does that make? It also REQUIRES that everyone have utilities whether they want, need, or can afford them. And, it requires that everyone have a fire alarm system in the house.
Not that the latter is a bad idea, but in order for the city gestapo to know whether or not a person has a fire alarm, they would have to come into the house.
I asked what was next, restrictions of what color I can paint my living room? This was in a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. Needless to say, it wasn't printed.
So, we're not all that far behind Washington-or Moscow-or Peking-or Tehran....
LawMom

ONEUNDER said...

I have to read about this loss of freedom in a BLOG. I did not read this in a newspaper or see it on the news. A BLOG! (No offence, I am glad I saw this).

I find this outrageous. What are these people thinking? Do it for the children?

When are we going to learn? When are we going to TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK? (I am not suggesting revolt....). Makes you think, are we as a citizenry contacting our elected officials enough to tell them what WE THINK?

Law Dog thank you, I will be back to read more of your posts.

Thomas Paine said...

It's kinda sad really. The only thing sadder than the latest shenanigans from the boys in DC is that the same shenanigans were tried in New York City, in 1992. Not only that, but according to the Washington Post article, it was upheld by federal courts as legal.

What is this country coming to? It used to be the land of the free, but with police setting up checkpoints, asking for papers, and refusing entry to certain public areas unless one has a 'legitmate' reason, I'm not so sure.

In fact, I believe that we have reached the textbook definition of a police state.

Anonymous said...

The "war on drugs" or the "war on terrorism" are great excuses to do anything they want. Nice and vague and they have a lot of built-in support and sympathy.

When I mentioned this to my wife she said she thought it was a good idea because it will help to stop crime. Everyone thinks that as long as it doesn't happen where I live (such as Texas) or it doesn't affect me personally its ok, until it gets bad enough that its a police state and it DOES affect you and then its too late.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" -Thomas Jefferson

Anonymous said...

If you didn't object to the war on drugs, the TSA at the airport, MADD, seatbelt laws, no-smoking laws, et, then I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Relax. This is just modern life. I just wish they would unswear those police employees from any oath they took and quit making the new ones swear in. The are hired to follow orders, legal or illegal, and enforce policy, period.

Anonymous said...

I don't suppose it has occured to the people in charge in DC that when a cop gets hurt or killed on the job none of the citizens will care. They couldn't have planned a better way to make a town full of cop haters. But, then again, the citizens of DC keep electing these people. JimB

Andrew said...

Guess that's one way to call Robert Peel a piker. Unbelievable.

HazMat said...

RE: LawMom
I know, [sigh] its sad, but even Texas isnt immune to this kind of crazyness. 2 years ago my dog restrained a trespasser inside my home and everyone involved (including the trespasser) said "good dog". A year later they started passing dog control legislation in my area. So, times are a changin' even in Texas.

If the neighborhood wants to discourage transient or casual traffic its easy enough to build a gate and have the homeowners assoc hire security to check parking permits before vehicles are admitted. I've seen several 'gated communities' where they dont allow public access in large metro areas. I don't think the police force should be used in this capacity, from all the news reports DC PD has enough on their plate already.

Now, not only do I want to throw tea into Boston harbor, I want to drive through DC on my way there. Too bad I can't afford the gas to do it.
Haz

armedandsafe said...

We knew it was coming. As I have said for many years, it is going to get a lot worse, before we stand up and make it better, again.

Pops

Eric said...

I'd like to know where the NAACP stands on this. Forget the Constitutional violations, this harkens back to Jim Crow laws and traveling passes for slaves.

Anonymous said...

This is not too much of a surprise. In the face of actual productive policing techniques, cities are resorting to tactics such as this. My first encounter with "everyone's guilty until proven innocent" actually happened in La Porte, Texas. I was driving across the country in December 1999 with my two young children. I stopped in La Porte to visit an old Navy buddy and also, the jeep was having cooling problems. My buddy hooked me up with a friend of his and we spent the entire day working on the jeep to fix the problem. We didn't finish till late at night. I took the jeep out for a test spin and everything looked OK. On my way back to my friends house, I drove through what I found out later was a "zero tolerance zone" in La Porte. In other words, if you were in this zone, you were subject to being stopped by the police for no other reason than that you were there. I was pulled over by an officer and underwent a very impromptu interrogation. "License please. Where are you heading, sir? Why were you on 3rd street? Where do you live? Can you explain why you have a Florida driver's license and Washington state tags on the vehicle?" This went on for several minutes, plus the wait while the officer called in the info and checked for wants and warrants. His departing words were to the effect of "You're free to go, but if I find out you've lied to me, I'll find you again. Understand?"

No probable cause, Not very friendly, and the parting line about lying just about drove me to say something in retort that I know I would have regretted. As much as I like my friend, I was glad to put that city behind me as soon as possible.

Ray

HokiePundit said...

Cool down for a second.

I can see why this would stand up in court: it's a restrict on means, not on movement. For the same reason you can be prohibited from driving on roads if you don't have a valid license, you can be prohibited from driving on public roads through these neighborhoods*. All that has to be determined is that it's for public safety and isn't discriminatory and they're pretty much good to go. It's also not an outright ban: if you're visiting a friend, delivering a package, that's one thing**; driving by the pick up drugs is another. If these neighborhoods are being used as drive-through pharmacies then I can see why this would be upheld.

They could probably even give residents window stickers; that's how the EZ-Pass lanes near me work and they do the same thing: enable you to get through the toll (a kind of checkpoint) without being stopped.

*Biking, too, if they felt like it.
**Not that I have any idea how they'd really find out if you're visiting someone legitimately.

Kevin said...

"The police protect the people. The military protects the State.

"When the military becomes the police, the people become the enemies of the State."

Admiral Adama, Battlestar Galactica

And now we see it come to its fruition....

Jean said...

Gods! I live in the DC suburbs, and it's not like the DC police don't have enough to do without harassing people driving through neighborhoods!

What were the brass think. . .oh. Never mind.

Orion said...

Well, we all know how SAFE DC is because of all the laws they've passed in various other attempts to improve security in the city.

I mean, since DC has become a gun-free zone, there's no gun crime. Now that they have liberty-free zones I'm sure they'll have NO crime whatsoever.

Particularly once they put up the fences and put the guard towers up.

Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Orion

WtBL said...

Amen, Lawdog.

And besides bitching about it here and other places in the blogosphere, pass on your opinions to the DC AG, Police Chief, and the Ward 5 Council Person (who supports the plan but is worried about the city becoming a police state).

I put convenient links for contacting them here on my own blog.

Deputy Polarbear said...

Pardon me while I go beat my brains out on the wall for a bit.....

This is EXACTLY the type of crap when I took the oath of a LEO that we were suppossed to be fighting AGAINST for Gods' sake!

I'm on the side of the ACLU on this one....(I know....Hell just froze over)

Anonymous said...

Uh. It's only people in CARS to break the law and are violent? Gee, I don't think anyone has told the street gangs that yet.
More nanny-government. Next we'll elect Big Brother.
LawMom

the pawnbroker said...

as you imply, a neighborhood full of armed residents would belie this lunacy...but then that would not serve the real goal here, would it? jtc

brolin_1911a1 said...

Actually, as one of those commenting pointed out in the comments on the story, there already was a test case in Indiana and the Supreme Court ruled against the practice.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES



CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al. v. EDMOND et al.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No. 99—1030. Argued October 3, 2000–Decided November 28, 2000



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Petitioner city operates vehicle checkpoints on its roads in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs. Respondents, who were each stopped at such a checkpoint, filed suit, claiming that the roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendment. The District Court denied respondents a preliminary injunction, but the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the checkpoints contravened the Fourth Amendment.



Held: Because the checkpoint program’s primary purpose is indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 3—15.



(a) The rule that a search or seizure is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment absent individualized suspicion of wrongdoing has limited exceptions. For example, this Court has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at a fixed checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, United States v. Martinez&nbhyph;Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444. The Court has also suggested that a similar roadblock to verify drivers’ licenses and registrations would be permissible to serve a highway safety interest. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663. However, the Court has never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. Pp. 3—7.



(b) The latter purpose is what principally distinguishes the checkpoints at issue from those the Court has previously approved, which were designed to serve purposes closely related to the problems of policing the border or the necessity of ensuring roadway safety. Petitioners state that the Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte checkpoints had the same ultimate purpose of arresting those suspected of committing crimes. Securing the border and apprehending drunken drivers are law enforcement activities, and authorities employ arrests and criminal prosecutions to pursue these goals. But if this case were to rest at such a high level of generality, there would be little check on the authorities’ ability to construct roadblocks for almost any conceivable law enforcement purpose. The checkpoint program is also not justified by the severe and intractable nature of the drug problem. The gravity of the threat alone cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what means law enforcement may employ to pursue a given purpose. Rather, in determining whether individualized suspicion is required, the Court must consider the nature of the interests threatened and their connection to the particular law enforcement practices at issue. Nor can the checkpoints’ purpose be rationalized in terms of a highway safety concern similar to that in Sitz, or merely likened to the antismuggling purpose in Martinez-Fuerte. Neither Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, nor Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, precludes an inquiry into the checkpoint program’s purposes. And if the program could be justified by its lawful secondary purposes of keeping impaired motorists off the road and verifying licenses and registrations, authorities would be able to establish checkpoints for virtually any purpose so long as they also included a license or sobriety check. That is why the Court must determine the primary purpose of the checkpoint program. This holding does not alter the constitutional status of the checkpoints approved in Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte, or the type of checkpoint suggested in Prouse. It also does not affect the validity of border searches or searches in airports and government buildings, where the need for such measures to ensure public safety can be particularly acute. Nor does it impair police officers’ ability to act appropriately upon information that they properly learn during a checkpoint stop justified by a lawful primary purpose. Finally, the purpose inquiry is to be conducted only at the programmatic level and is not an invitation to probe the minds of individual officers acting at the scene. Pp. 7—15.



183 F.3d 659, affirmed.



O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined, and in which Scalia, J., joined as to Part I. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Rogue Medic said...

This made me think of that old guilty pleasure movie Escape from New York.

Joe said...

Tell me this is a joke! Tell me please, that this a joke. How can any American that has any inclination of the number of our fore fathers who died to prevent this from ever happening in this country, suggest this much less consider themselves an American? This is simply outrageous liberal fascist bull sh#$. Unbelievable that any American would stand for this.

Larry said...

I ran into this very same thing in Baldwin Florida, where I lived when I was stationed at NAS Cecil Field.
One night coming home, in my Navy uniform, I took the back roads and was stopped because I was a "suspicious car" in the neighborhood. No laws broken, I was just a "suspicious car".
When asked why I was there, I told them none of their damn business, it was a public street and I was breaking no laws. I then told them to ticket me, arrest me, or get out of the way because I was going home. I then put the car in gear and drove off, leaving them standing there beside the road. They knew full well who I was and where I lived, but I never got a ticket and never got stopped again for no good reason either.
As a side note, the Baldwin PD has since been disbanded and their duties taken over by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office.

fuzzys dad said...

Himmler would be proud and would approve.

Cybrludite said...

I'd comment on this but A) it would require language that I will not use in front of LawMom, and B) I'm on enough watch lists as it is.

fsilber said...

When a handful of police are your only source of protection then you've got to give them this kind of power -- or go unprotected.

Our system of civil liberties was based on the assumption of a God-fearing population with an individual right to keep and bear arms. Lose those characteristics (as they have in Washington, D.C.) and the civil liberties become too expensive.

Rogue Medic said...

Why God fearing?

Apparently, not a sensible criterion.

StarfuryZeta said...

Volokh is on this one.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_06_01-2008_06_07.shtml#1212701862

Spook, RN said...

District of Criminals.

Sounds about right...

doubletrouble said...

"felching gradoo"

Gotta be one of the best turn of words I've seen in a while.
It means nothing, but we all know what you mean.

Bravo!

1894C said...

"A federal appeals court upheld the legality of the New York effort, saying in a 1996 ruling that it "served an important public concern" and was "reasonably viewed as an effective mechanism to deter crime in the barricaded area."

Could someone please tell me what WOULDN'T meet such a standard?!

Hell guard towers on street corners could be "reasonably viewed as an effective mechanism to deter crime in the barricaded area."

Hell's Bells people!

Anonymous said...

Your average officer on the street is essentially doing the same thing every day just not as visibly. When one gets pulled over for a burned out headlight or license plate light what is the SOP for officers these days? "So where are you coming from today? Where are you headed? What were you doing there? Why are you out so late at night?" Decline to answer these questions and things quickly degenerate. The last time I politely declined to answer intrusive question about my past travels and my future travel plans I was threatened with arrest and rape in jail. Of course once you decline to answer any questions not related to the traffic stop out comes the guilt trip card. "you don't have any drugs or weapons in the car do you? You wouldn't mind me checking real quick just for my safety would you? Just so I feel safer?" If you don't give up your right not to be searched you're somehow endangering the officer or wishing him harm. Sorta like the shakedown telemarketing calls from police organizations who call you and attempt to intimidate people into donating. Legalized shakedowns.

My expereinces sure made an impression on me. I began assembling a very hidden and very extensive audio and video taping system in each of my vehicles. At least if the same situation or something far worse happens next time there will be evidence of it.

As was mentioned before, there is an us vs. them militaristic adversarial dynamic that is being established in the academy and in LE culture. It is cancerous. It is evil. The police are not the military. They’re suppose to be peace officers. They are civilians. When they adopt military customs and mentality they become an occupying army among the people and an instrument of tyranny.

Anonymous said...

A few years back, the Mayor of Seattle declared the downtown core of the city to be a "no protester" zone...no martial law declaration, no state of emergency, no suspension of civil liberties...he just declared it and ordered the police to arrest anyone they thought looked like they were protesting, load them into buses, and intern them on an old military base until they could be booked for not actually committing any crime. The booking officers were also stationed at the base, but were short-staffed, so people wound up being locked into buses for 6+ hours.

Anonymous said...

doubletrouble, it does mean something, and it's one of the most obscenely vulgar phrases I've ever seen. I am shamed that my son would use it.
LawMom

Kelly(Mom of 6) said...

So..charged fooling...chafed groin log...chained frog log...haha..those make me giggle....then I had to look it up....

surely lawmom..it cannot be what I think it could be...

Lonestar Gal said...

Since when should our Government have been considered honorable or trustworthy? Certainly not since the days of the drafting of the Constitution by our forefathers.
This is just a more visible reminder that we all need to watch out for ourselves, because Big Brother is certainly watching us.
About the time someone asks me for "papers" of any kind to go anywhere in this country, is the time that I move myself off to some deserted mountain ridge somewhere.
Then again, anyone remember a little blip in personal privacy called "Ruby Ridge"?

phlegmfatale said...

I detest the circumstances which inspired it, but this rant was rather delicious.

KBCraig said...

There will come a day, sooner or later, when those who vote from the rooftops are not viewed as lone nuts like Richard Wayne Snell or Carl Drega, but instead are cheered on and inspire others to follow them.

Given how slippery this slope has become, I'm not sure whether to dread that day, or cheer it on.

I have to think that Robert Peel would be one of the first to load up if he saw what passes these days for "modern policing".

Rogue Medic said...

The problems with modern policing may be much more from the attempts of those in the management ranks to appease an ignorant public, than individual misbehavior.

Yes, power corrupts, but management is creating a catch-22 environment for the police. They are prevented from taking independent action, but are still criticized for their inability to manage the criminals. There are individual police officers, who are in the wrong job, or are on the wrong side of the bars, but that is no reason to view all police officers as the problem.

phoenixtoashes said...

"It's "Papiere"

"papieren" would be an action. If the word existed at all."

Actually, to the best of my recollection, doesnotmatter, the plural of Papiere is Papieren. Just like the plural of Katze is Katzen, and the plural of Hunde is Hunden.

Granted, my last German class was a year or two ago - but I haven't forgotten that much, yet.

"gunner" said...

well lawmom, i just had to look that up, and i sorry now that i did. even at my age there are things i'm happier not knowing.
"gunner"

Simeron Steelhammer said...

Two things come to mind here...

1) I wonder if this will stand once someone finally takes it to court?

2) How long will it be before we see this is MANY places in the US if it doesn't fall then?

I'll tell you one thing for sure...

I'm beginning to have real worries about our so called government on many, many levels. I look at the choices we have for president and shudder, I see our southern border and how the drug cartels have more or less won the war and are "mopping up" resistence then think how open we are down there and now, I see what has to be, to me (and from the tone of LD's post him) something that saying disgusts me just doesn't cover from the nation's capital.

What the hell is going on in this land of ours? Has someone started setting off stupid bombs? Or have they sufficiently cowed enough of us that they feel the "Judas Goat" can now be used on enough of the people that the rest of us won't be able to stop them?

I'm beginning to wonder if we shouldn't figure out how to arrange for the jihadists to visit DC now...en masse.

If DC was under martial law, I could see this. If DC was in a real state of emergency, sure.

But on a DAY to DAY, 24 hours a day basis? Bull.

How much you want to bet these neighborhoods will be in the "political" and "wealthy" areas (if there are any)?

*growls*

I too am glad, more and more, that I live in Texas. Maybe its time to join the "Republic of Texas" once more band...technically it would work mind you...technically.

I don't believe we could get 51% of the people in Texas to go for it though...but with gas moving past the $4.00 mark soon (if not already) and more stuff like this from the "on high" perhaps...perhaps...

SIGH

Anonymous said...

It is the fault of the Republicans!!
Those fascists who run DC!
This could NEVER happen if DC were run by peace loving rainbow hugging Democrats!
And that Police Chief in Chicago a few years back who wanted to force everybody walking down a street to go through metal detectors- I'm SURE he must have been a Republican too!
Just remember folks, if a Republican does this sort of thing, it is police state tyranny. If a Democrat does it, it is for the good of- Yes, you guessed it, the CHILDREN!! And little puppy dogs!

Dad29 said...

Interesting to note that in the Indiana case, the "conservative" SCOTUS members apparently would have made such a zone Constitutional.

It was the Lefties who tossed it.

Anonymous said...

mom of 6-suffice it to say that no gentleman would ever say such a thing, regardless of the provocation.
Danke shoen, phoenixtoashe; Altheissen uber alles!
Lawmom

Rogue Medic said...

Dad 29,

The conservatives view it as a law and order measure and take a positive view of things presented that way. The liberals view it as an infringement of civil liberties.

Neither group is really consistent in their approach. The main difference seems to be the second amendment, where conservatives take the civil liberties side of the argument, while liberals take the law and order side.

If only there were a more balanced, more consistent approach to civil liberties/law and order issues. :-)

ben said...

welcome to england, thank you dc for following uk rules, no guns no fredom random stops etc.

Whens the knife ban?

ben said...

Lawdog? where did you learn that language?

yours depraved in doncaster

Beaker said...

Update to the story...

http://www.nbc4.com/news/16559230/detail.html

:(

Rick R. said...

The NY case that people reference, stating that similar checkpoints were upheld is interesting, but irrelevant.

You see, Maxwell v. City of New York, 102 F.3d 664 (2d Cir. 1996) was a CIRCUIT COURT case.

Four years after this decision, SCOTUS actually chimed in with City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).

Noit only is this a later case, but it is a ruling from the Supremes -- thus trumping any lower court case.

BTW, the reason teh conservatives on SCOTUS probably ruled the way they did in Edmond is that they saw it as indistinguishable from drunk driver checkpoints -- in Edmond, the cops staked out ceratin thouroughfares leading into teh city (just like they do in drunk driver checkpoints), but they DIDN'T completely shut off the city to automotive traffic to do so.

The DC case, on teh other hand, completely shuts off automotive access to designated public areas (unlike a gated community, where the roads are PRIVATELY owned). So the DC case is even more egregious than Edmonds.

Of course, DC claims that this is necessary because they face a "crime emergency" (Cathy Lanier's favorite phrase for "Mandatory Overtime Week", a program she implements on a regular basis, regardless of actual crime stats.) But, according to the DC officials, Dc has been in a "crime emergency" nearly continuously for YEARS. So the Edmonds "emergency" exception.

(That exception is laid out as follows:

"For example, as the Court of Appeals noted, the Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack or to catch a dangerous criminal who is likely to flee by way of a particular route. The exigencies created by these scenarios are far removed from the circumstances under which authorities might simply stop cars as a matter of course to see if there just happens to be a felon leaving the jurisdiction. While we do not limit the purposes that may justify a checkpoint program to any rigid set of categories, we decline to approve a program whose primary purpose is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control.")

Rogue Medic said...

I used to live near Sing Sing prison. Every now and then one of the prisoners would "escape."

Not a Hollywood breakout. They would be working out side of the prison with "supervision" and would just walk away while nobody was looking. Ooopsy.

For the next few days, almost all of the roads would be blocked. After a week, only the main roads. After a month, or two, nothing.

The fugitive would eventually turn up. Surprisingly, they seem to be devoted to a life of crime and get caught, again.

Of course, these road blocks were to keep somebody, just one person, IN.

In DC, they are doing the reverse. Not anything new for DC to be a bit backwards.

Christina LMT said...

Phoenix to Ashes, Hund is singular, Hunde is plural.

Das Papier is singular, die Papiere would be plural, but I really couldn't care less, since I feel it's very tacky to comment on someone's blog just to correct their grammar or spelling (or German, etc.)

So LawDog, please disregard all the numbnuts correcting you, and continue with your regularly scheduled blog. Thank you.

Beaker said...

Group Files Lawsuit Against D.C. Vehicle Checkpoints

http://www.nbc4.com/news/16666773/detail.html

Anonymous said...

zzggggeee