D.C. Seeks Consent To Search for Guns

[fightthegoodfightnow]

In today's news:

D.C. Seeks Consent To Search for Guns
By Allison Klein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 13, 2008; Page B01

D.C. police are so eager to get guns out of the city that they're offering amnesty to people who allow officers to come into their homes and get the weapons.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier announced yesterday the Safe Homes Initiative, aimed at parents and guardians who know or suspect that their children or other relatives have guns. Under the deal, police target areas hit by violence and seek adults who let them search their homes for guns, with no risk of arrest. The offer also applies to drugs that turn up during the searches, police said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/12/AR2008031202717.html
Post links are notorious for not working perhaps because you have to be registered. If it does not work, go to WashingtonPost.com and search for 'guns, search'

For the record, I think this has the possibility of abuse. Of course, so much of the gun industry on this board have so much animosity for anything I say about guns they just can't fathom I might agree with them on something. Makes me laugh.

[L1A1Rocker]

1. Finally something we can agree on.

This is DANGEROUS. Of course it wont dawn on these poor folks until sonny boy gets popped for a little dope when the "gun police" show up. The second amendment is just as important as the 5th, or the 1st, or. . . .well, you get the idea. . . .I hope.

[iverglas]

4. so you didn't even try to click the link

In fact, you didn't even read what was in the post you replied to.

You say:

Of course it wont dawn on these poor folks until sonny boy gets popped for a little dope when the "gun police" show up.

The article says:

Under the deal, police target areas hit by violence and seek adults who let them search their homes for guns, with no risk of arrest. The offer also applies to drugs that turn up during the searches, police said.

(as quoted in the post)

and

"If we come across illegal contraband, we will confiscate it," Lanier said. "But amnesty means amnesty. We're trying to get guns and drugs off the street."

(as someone who bothers to read the really quite brief news item linked to before spouting will see)


There may be reasonable objections to the plan. Yours ain't one of them.

[L1A1Rocker]

10. I think time will bear out that I am correct. We will see. . . .

[iverglas]

12. I don't get it

How could you possibly be "correct" when everything you have said is flat out incorrect?

:shrug:

[L1A1Rocker]

28. Because you are wrong.

[iverglas]

33. ah

It's that time of night, I see.

[L1A1Rocker]

35. Glad you agree.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

76. There may be no drug arrests at the time of the search

but do you think the police are going to confiscate the drugs without writing down the info? What drugs, what address, whose room (if not in a common room)? Perhaps nobody is frog-marched out in irons, but I'd bet the info will be used in the future, resulting in arrests.

I haven't smoked in quite a few years, but I'd be concerned that a search would come up with a joint or baggie that I have forgotten about.

It just seems risky.

[friendly_iconoclast]

107. No mention of amnesty for violations of FEDERAL (not DC) law...

Or any notice that the results of said sweeps will undoubtedly be shared with the Feds and the local police intelligence unit, FKA the "Red Squad".

Don't think this was merely an oversight.

I can see it now:
This one has weed/blow/heroin-
That one is a Muslim, has antiwar literature, or is a Code Pink/ANSWER/PETA member-
or anything the government doesn't like.

I'm sure the FBI, the DHS and/or the DEA might have to wait
until, say, the next business day to know everything the locals have found.

And then- "Sorry, that was amnesty for violating *local* law, the DC cops don't speak for us."

Or- "Their activities were brought to our attention by local authorities."

[iverglas]

108. you (and a lot of others) are just too smart for them, aren't you?

You've figured out their nefarious game.

They pretend to be trying to help the community reduce the level of violence and intimidation it suffers from.

They wheedle / trick / coerce their way into someone's home.

The next day, the black helicopters come and take the occupants away on charges of being tree-hugging lesbian Muslim vegetarians.

... And later that afternoon, 50 more people open their doors and invite them in. And then next day they get taken away. And 50 more people open their doors.

'Cause people -- and especially cops and politicians -- really are that stupid.

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. I'm sure Fenty and Lanier's protests to the Feds will be very strongly worded...

...if, indeed the DC cops aren't simply handing over any information found.

Fenty and Lanier may be entirely sincere, but the sticking points remain:

1. If the FBI/DHS/DEA/ICE want the results of these searches, they will get them-
even if no laws have been broken by the householders. May I point out the
reports of the NSA wildly exceeding their statutory authority that were released
earlier this week?

2. DC does not speak for the Feds. Therefore, they can't offer immunity to violators of Federal law.

3. There is a long, sad history in this country of the FBI targeting the Left. Also many, if not most big cities had or have an political intelligence unit (colloquially known as "Red Squads" in the old days). The information gathered in the proposed searches will be made available to them as well as the narcotics squads.

I can't see this going well.

[iverglas]

2. when you say "possibility of abuse"

are you referring to "consent" of the variety that might not be quite freely given? As in "consent to the search or we'll ___"?

And a question would be whether the amnesty applies to the other occupants of the house -- the householder who permits the search will be immune to charges, but will the person to whom the firearms/drugs obviously belong?

So I clicked, and it worked.


On the first question:

Officers will go door-to-door seeking permission to search homes for weapons. Police later plan to visit other areas, including sections of Columbia Heights in Northwest and Eckington in Northeast.

So if it isn't by invitation, but by request of that officer knocking on your front door, there could seem to be some pressure to issue an invitation.

On the other hand, it could be an opportunity to get a gun out of the house that a female householder, in particular, might not have otherwise, and might even welcome, even if she would not have sought it out.


On the second question:

Residents who agree to the searches will be asked to sign consent forms. If guns are found, they will be tested to determine whether they were used in crimes. If the results are positive, police will launch investigations, which could lead to charges.

That's touchy, from both perspectives. Get the gun out of the house without exposing yourself or your family member to charges relating to the possession of the gun: good. Potentially expose yourself or your family member to charges relating to the use of the gun: hmm. Possibly a deterrent to using this route to get the guns out of the house.


I might go with the regular community meetings and information campaign about the search/amnesty opportunity, myself.

And I wonder whether it might not be better to put any firearms obtained this way in the crusher, without attempting to trace them to crimes, to remove the deterrent to getting rid of them. That's a bit of a tougher one. Inviting the cops in could be a way of disposing of evidence, in that case. Although so would throwing it in the river.

Ultimately, when a jurisdiction that is trying to reduce the number of illegally held firearms does something like this, I would think it's not likely to have a huge effect. The dealers over the boundary lines, and their tame politicians, are only too happy to fill any gap created. But it could help some vulnerable individuals get tools of violence and intimidation out of their homes.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

5. I Hear You

......... but I also know how the 'game' works. I think turning families against families strengthens neither and is far more dangerous than the issue of either guns or drugs.

I think you make a compelling case, but I also think that the police have no business profiling any home simply because it's in certain neighborhoods. This is not being done city wide. It's what I would characterize as 'selective' crime prevention. I also admit the issue is complex.

I support DC's 'amnesty' for turning in guns when they have them annually. They could do the same thing with drugs. This is a far more 'intrusive' form of 'selective' crime prevention.

[iverglas]

8. you heard musings ;)

I wasn't actually trying to make any case!

I also think that the police have no business profile any home simply because it's in certain neighborhoods.

Well ... they set up roadblocks in the nightclub district after midnight to catch drunk drivers. Not a lot of point in setting them up on deserted country roads at noon.

If there's a problem in a particular neighbourhood, it's not unreasonable to look for solutions to that problem.

It's what I would characterize as 'selective' law enforcement.

Except it isn't "law enforcement". Enforcement is coercive. This is an invitation to voluntary compliance. I'm not saying it might not be a high-pressure invitation, but it is not coercion in the way that a search with a warrant is, for example. It really is important to make these distinctions.

This is a far more 'intrusive' form of 'selective' crime prevention.

Crime prevention, and also voluntary adjustment of non-compliant behaviours. Think of how environmental regulations are often "enforced" now. Inspectors visit premises, and if they find non-compliance, they don't start penal proceedings, they issue instructions, solicit compliance agreements, and so on.

I'm not fond of that approach for environmental standards, myself, but it's an analogy to this situation. It's a way to have people voluntarily comply with the law -- where by "voluntarily" I am referring to the design, not the implementation or effect.

I'd be interested to see some grassroots reaction, rather than just the usual talking-head ACLU suspects. I suspect, myself, that people at the grassroots who might tend to approve of the initiative would feel some pressure not to say so.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

9. My Thoughts

You write: 'It's what I would characterize as 'selective' law enforcement. Except it isn't "law enforcement". Enforcement is coercive. This is an invitation to voluntary compliance. I'm not saying it might not be a high-pressure invitation, but it is not coercion in the way that a search with a warrant is, for example. It really is important to make these distinctions.'

Actually, I edited this to say "crime prevention'. Apologies.

As for road blocks, I have an issue with them as well, although I know the courts have ruled they are permissible under certain situations.

[MaryCeleste]

36. You are clearly ignorant of the facts on the ground

The areas in question are not known for their trust of the police, and the police in those areas are not known for being proper and polite to the populace. Coercion is SOP there, and this will be more of the same.

There are many opportunities "to get a gun out of the house that a female householder, in particular, might not have otherwise, and might even welcome, even if she would not have sought it out." Besides, women need the guns, moreso than men.

There are no illegal guns any more than there are illegal people...

[iverglas]

42. who's your imaginary friend?

There are no illegal guns any more than there are illegal people...

Gosh. I wonder whether that's why I said illegally held firearms in the post to which you have replied? And illegally possessed firearms in another.

But whoops, you got me. I did say illegal firearms in another. I am indeed a fool for thinking that people reading this sort of discussion would grasp the shorthand. I mean, when I said:

Which is why I believe that people are entitled to have police search their homes and remove firearms that other members of their households are illegally keeping there. Having illegal firearms in one's home often presents a bit of a risk to one's security of the person.

did you maybe think that illegal firearms meant something different from firearms that other members of their households are illegally keeping there? Or were you maybe just engaging in a bit of obvious and really quite ineffective equivocating?

There are many opportunities "to get a gun out of the house that a female householder, in particular, might not have otherwise, and might even welcome, even if she would not have sought it out."

Really? Name a couple? A couple that don't involve putting themselves at risk?

Besides, women need the guns, moreso than men.

Yes, it's all about you. Your opinion, the bestest and mostest important thing in the world.

[MaryCeleste]

50. The mouse in my pocket

Really? Name a couple? A couple that don't involve putting themselves at risk?
There have been any number of gun collection and buy backs in the DC area. Its a common tactic. Recently one was offering so much money for firearms in any condition, smart firearms owners were turning in low quality and broken guns and taking the proceeds to upgrade. A delicious irony.

Yes, it's all about you. Your opinion, the bestest and mostest important thing in the world.
Coming from you, that is quite humorous.

[iverglas]

55. lousy try

There have been any number of gun collection and buy backs in the DC area.

Yes, a woman taking her intimate partner's illegally possessed firearm to the firearm dumping ground would not involve putting herself at risk at all. Well thought out answer. Wouldn't have occurred to me. Of course, there could be reasons for it not occurring to me that don't involve me being stupid.


Yes, it's all about you. Your opinion, the bestest and mostest important thing in the world.
Coming from you, that is quite humorous.

Well, I'd return the compliment, except it didn't even begin to make sense, so I'm afraid I can't bring myself to.

[-Wolverine-]

3. Meh

I realize that pro-gun control folks believe that gun owners have fewer rights than them, but here's the reason why such a search should never be allowed without a warrant.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[iverglas]

6. don't you wish the plan was what you wanted it to be?

It may be reasonable to object to the plan based on the possibility that consent would be given under pressure. As a matter of public policy, it is arguably unwise.

Consent is required, however. And so no right against unreasonable search and seizure comes into it. Nice little quote, though. Whatever.

You do see that, right? If consent is given, no right is violated?

here's the reason why such a search should never be allowed without a warrant.

You do realize that people allow searches of their premises without warrants all the time, right? And you do realize that they are entirely within their rights to allow that?

[ac2007]

13. Yes but...

Yes they do. However, when you have a uniformed officer at your door, "suggesting" that you consent to a search even with reassurances of amnesty, limited scope, this can be considered to have a chilling effect under the color of authority. Many people would consent out of fear or subconscious intimidation. They can allow it, yes, but it doesn't make it right.

There is no place for this action anywhere. These reek of the tactics of a police state, not a representative democracy of free people.

[iverglas]

19. that's nice

You haven't addressed anything I said, let alone disagreed with or refuted it.

Why not read what a post says, rather than invent something you would have preferred it say?


They can allow it, yes, but it doesn't make it right.

AND I DID NOT SAY IT DID. I didn't say anything at all about whether allowing a search of one's home is "right" or wrong. I haven't even said whether I think the proposal is a good one or not, from a public policy standpoint.

What the proposal IS NOT is a violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

And THAT is the nonsense that my post was addressing.


I do wonder, though. So the fuck what if people feel pressured to volunteer?

If they have illegally possessed firearms in their home, and they consent to have the home searched and the firearms removed, for whatever reason they consent, why is this a bad thing? What harm have they or anyone else suffered?

I am still not advocating or opposing the proposal. I just think the posters here who are decrying it for the most part don't have anyone's interests but their own in mind.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

20. That's My Issue as Well

You let them in the door and they no longer need your consent if they see 'probable cause'.

[MaryCeleste]

71. Or create it

[fightthegoodfightnow]

104. True.... Indeed

.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

7. Ridiculous

You write: 'I realize that pro-gun control folks believe that gun owners have fewer rights than them,....'

My original post not withstanding. Perhaps you didn't really read it. Perhaps you missed the part where I said I support gun control and do not support this new initiative.

[catnhatnh]

11. Here's an easy way to convince the community of their intentions...

Go throught the upscale neighborhoods where the movers and shakers live first.Film the entire encounter.Show me the happy white faces at the door gladly signing consent forms and film the searching of the abodes so the "endangered" community have a good idea of how intrusive the searches will be and then-Oh, that's right, the white folks will tell them to fuck off and the more polite ones will proffer their attorney's card...

[iverglas]

15. I just don't understand ...

Are the happy rich white folks concerned about the endemic firearms violence that is killing their children and terrorizing their neighbourhoods?

I must have missed that part ...


The firearm death rate for African-American male teenagers is something like four times the firearm death rate for white male teenagers, would that be about right? Who cares?

I'll bet those happy rich white folks would turn down offers of free healthcare at a public clinic, too. I wonder whether people who can't afford healthcare would.


I just get so suspicious when I see people who have axes to grind grinding them on the backs of people they haven't bothered to consult. Maybe they really aren't speaking for those people.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

18. Not Unlike So Many Outside of DC Commenting on DC Laws

You write: ' Maybe they really aren't speaking for those people.'

Not unlike so many who think DC law was written without the participation of the citizens of DC.

[MaryCeleste]

23. When I lived in DC I was not sure the Council or Mayor knew any rank and file

citizens in DC. They were an entitled bunch, just ask them.

The assinine gun laws was one of the reasons I fled to the Virginia. Sane taxes, decent gun laws, and good schools make for a much better quality of life.

[iverglas]

25. and fuck the people

The assinine gun laws was one of the reasons I fled to the Virginia. Sane taxes, decent gun laws, and good schools make for a much better quality of life.

who are stuck in DC with that lousy "quality of life". A good bit of which derives from the violence and intimidation that comes with the illegal firearms in their communities, of course.

We're alright, Jack. We moved to Virginia.

Oh well. You're gone, so your opinion of the proposal (whatever it is) wouldn't seem to matter any more.

Mine doesn't either, of course. Not that I've expressed one. But not that it might not be well worth considering if I did, either. So might yours be, if it at some point amounts to something other than me me me.

[MaryCeleste]

29. Ahhh, guns cause violence and intimidation...more gun grabber nonsense

The following is attributed to Ben Franklin and covers this proposal nicely:

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

The right to be secure in ones person and property is an essential liberty...its not about me, or even you, its about rights.

[iverglas]

37. ah, putting words in people's mouths they did not speak

The slimey tactic one of course expects.

The right to be secure in ones person and property is an essential liberty

Uh, yeah. I absolutely agree. Which is why I believe that people are entitled to have police search their homes and remove firearms that other members of their households are illegally keeping there. Having illegal firearms in one's home often presents a bit of a risk to one's security of the person.

its not about me, or even you, its about rights.

Actually, no, it's about people. Purporting to care about rights without caring about people is mere farce.

[MaryCeleste]

41. The were your words, any slime on them is yours as well

The entire issue of the firearms being illegal is up for review in Hiller, which if I recall correctly will be argued next week.

Guns in the home being a risk or a help is arguable on all sides.

Caring about rights is caring about people.

[iverglas]

43. my words

These were my words:

that lousy "quality of life". A good bit of which derives from the violence and intimidation that comes with the illegal firearms in their communities, of course.

These are the words that you put in my mouth:

guns cause violence and intimidation

This is your false statement:

The<y> were your words

Maybe you actually can't tell the difference. Blinded by ideology, or just not really good at reading comprehension?

Guns in the home being a risk or a help is arguable on all sides.

But whether illegally possessed guns should be in anyone's home is not debatable at all. And whether anyone should take whatever steps s/he might choose to get them out is simply none of your business.

Caring about rights is caring about people.

Quite obviously not.

[krispos42]

65. Condsensing the point

On the one hand, when you condensed "illegally held firearms" into "illegal firearms" and somebody called you on it, you suggested just how silly it was for you to expect people to follow your shortening of the phrase. On the other hand, when somebody does it to you, you're in a huff.

[iverglas]

68. well, those certainly were some other words

1. that lousy "quality of life". A good bit of which derives from the violence and intimidation that comes with the illegal firearms in their communities, of course.

2. guns cause violence and intimidation


You seem to be seriously suggesting that those two things have the same meaning.

If I say that a free litre of milk comes with a box of cereal, I guess I've said that cereal causes milk. Per you.



when you condensed "illegally held firearms" into "illegal firearms" and somebody called you on it

Nobody called me on anything, sweetheart.

Someone engaged, as I said, in the most transparent and futile equivocation in an attempt to pretend not to grasp the meaning of something I said.

Even had I not spelled out illegally possessed firearms numerous times in the course of the discussion, precisely to avoid nonsense responses like the one I eventually got, no minimally intelligent, minimally honest person would pretend not to know what was meant, or pretend to believe that a person using the shorthand expression "illegal firearms" meant something other than firearms illegally in someone's possession.


I must say I had kind of grown not to expect this sort of bullshit from you.

[krispos42]

74. A good bit of the violence and intimidation comes will illegal firearms

violence and intimdation comes will illegal firearms.

Illegal firearms bring violence and intimdation, a good bit of the total

If there were fewer illegal firearms, the total of violence and intimation would shrink.

If there were more illegal firearms, the total of violence and intimidation would grow.


I don't see how "guns cause violence and intimidation" isn't something close to a valid shortening.

Admitedly, the adjective "illegal" would have helped somewhat.

[MaryCeleste]

112. Your claim is that violence & intimidation would decrease dramatically if firearms were not present

That certainly has not been the case in the UK.

I am amazed how some people cling to the concept that an inanimate object can make people do things that they were not already more than willing to do.

[iverglas]

116. too funny

He agrees with you. I guess even that isn't good enough.

I am amazed how some people cling to the concept that an inanimate object can make people do things that they were not already more than willing to do.

Well, it's only fair that you should be amazed occasionally, even if it's at the sight of your own shadow.

Reasonable people of good will are amazed every day at how people driven by self-interest and anti-social ideology cling to the transparently dishonest tactic of pretending that other people think and say things they have never thought or said.


By the way, are you labouring under some delusion that firearms are not present in the UK? I think some of your chums here can help you with that, if you ask.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

117. And Safety is Dependent on a Gun

Oh good grief.

[L1A1Rocker]

30. You discount a persons opinion because they voted with their feet.

Sounds like a little freedom envy to me.

[MaryCeleste]

40. I did several NCA tours

it did not take long to realize that the District, unless you are quite well off, is really not a good place to live or rear children. Its a truly sorry state of affairs, but until something radical is done, the situation will continue. The presence of firearms are not part of the problem.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

150. It's a Great City

......... but each to their own.

I have no problem with you moving out.

[iverglas]

45. you eat poop for breakfast?

I dunno. As long as we're asking weird and wonderful questions ...


Sounds like a little freedom envy to me.

Oh, you're a sly boots. You're alluding to the fact that I am in Canada, where our constitution says stupid things like

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

And other dumb stuff you can read here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

And where I got closer to your Mr. Bush with a rowdy crowd of people who hate him than you'll ever be in your life. Because up here, the whole danged country is a "free speech zone". Please don't drool.



typo fixed

[L1A1Rocker]

83. Are you still beating you spouse?

As you say: "I dunno. As long as we're asking weird and wonderful questions ..."

You started this crap, how long do you want to play?

[iverglas]

87. toutes mes excuses!!

I apparently read your subject line:

You discount a persons opinion because they voted with their feet.

as a question -- asked, of course, with no evidentiary foundation.

I was wrong, it appears.

It wasn't a question, it was a statement. A false statement.

So I'll revise my response.

Not: you eat poop for breakfast?

but: you eat poop for breakfast.

Happy now?

[L1A1Rocker]

94. OK, you still beat your spouse.

You Happy now?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

149. Nah.........

She moved for the better quality of life.

Must explain why Baltimore's crime rate is higher than DC's

Assault, murder, burglary and theft rates are all higher in Baltimore.

Murder rate in Baltimore 43.3
Murder: rate in Washington 29.1

So much for having the gun option.

http://baltimore.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Baltimore&s1=MD&c2=Washington&s2=DC

[fightthegoodfightnow]

103. The Council and Mayor who are Elected by the People of DC

'The Council and Mayor are elected by the people of DC....... and you truly don't think they know 'any rank and file citizens in DC'?

Not sure how you can characterize anything as being asinine when you make pretty ridiculous and absurd statements like that.

As for your 'quality of life', each to his or her own. Mine's is great.

[krispos42]

67. Whether or not the DC law was written with the participation of the citizens of DC...

...it may or may not be Constitutional.

It also may or may not be a good idea.

These two separate ideas can and should be discussed.

[MaryCeleste]

73. I am not sure that is true unless you mean the council

DC is about as bad a US city out there when it comes to patronage and petty corruption.

[krispos42]

75. FTGFN seems think that the ban had and has the support of the residents of DC

So, being some 1,400 miles from DC, I'm going with him on that issue.

I'm assuming that the DC residents go their politicians to "do something" about crime, and guns were picked as the whipping boy, with the full consent of the citizens of DC.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

118. Thank You

........although I would not characterize guns as 'whipping boys'.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

119. Let Me Get This Right

Assuming all of that is true (and it's not), the people of the United States are not entitled to have a voice in their own government because the Bush administration is corrupt?

Ridiculous.

[MaryCeleste]

131. No, I said that the local Gov in DC is corupt and that

rank and file citizens have no appreciable input in civic affairs. I say that as a former resident.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

133. Who Moved

Good for you. That's fighting for your community.

The 'rank and file' citizens, as oppose to just citizens, voted for their mayor and their city council, who you seem to think means they have 'no appreciable input', unless of course, you are referring to all those people who don't live here being able to have more of a voice than we do in deciding what laws we have and don't have.

[MaryCeleste]

141. It was an easier and shorter commute as well

[L1A1Rocker]

38. You've made a huge jump

"Are the happy rich white folks concerned about the endemic firearms violence that is killing their children and terrorizing their neighbourhoods?"

"killing their children" you say. Do you have stats to back that up or are you going to use that debunked HCI report about "guns killing children".

[iverglas]

46. I tell ya what

You show me the stats that say children in DC are not killed by gunshot, and that any children who are, are white.

The only reports I need are the ones on the news.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/02/AR2008030201985.html

Monday, March 3, 2008; Page B05

Three years ago this month, 9-year-old Donte Manning was playing outside his Columbia Heights home when a bullet hit him in the head, killing him.

[L1A1Rocker]

84. YOU made the assertion so YOU back it up. Then you get to ask.

That's how civilized people debate things. So back it up. Somehow I doubt you will. You're not related to FTGF are you?

[iverglas]

89. Is reality not within your local calling area?

You said:

"killing their children" you say. Do you have stats to back that up or are you going to use that debunked HCI report about "guns killing children".

I provided you with a news report of a child in DC who died when he was shot in the head. The person who fired the shot has never been identified.

Firearms violence, killing children. I mean, if you really think that this is the only child killed by gunshot in DC in recent years, well, don't let me interfere.

But a thought has just occurred to me. You initially responded to a post in which I said:

"Are the happy rich white folks concerned about the endemic firearms violence that is killing their children and terrorizing their neighbourhoods?"

Perhaps you really, really, really thought that I was making the implied statement that firearms violence is killing the children and terorizing the neighbourhoods of the happy rich white folks in DC.

Perhaps. Do pigs fly in your neighbourhood?

[L1A1Rocker]

95. Still waithing on you to back up your assertion.

Too bad you won't.

[iverglas]

101. and I'll just keep waiting for you to type an intelligible thing.

[MaryCeleste]

14. bawahahahahaha

not without a warrant, I don't care what the reason...guns, missing puppy, lost child. It doesn't matter, no warrant no search.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

16. In Other Words

......... your choice?

Right?

[MaryCeleste]

21. Not sure what you are asking...my point is I will never consent to a seach

house, car or person, regardless of reason, no matter how PC is it.

[iverglas]

24. and that is relevant to this discussion ...

... how?

I don't think the discussion is about what you will or will not consent to.

I think it is a discussion of a proposed public policy/program, and the relative merits thereof.

Under that proposal, you would be entitled not to consent to any search. So should we infer that you are satisfied with the proposal?

[MaryCeleste]

27. If you think coercion will not be used, you have not dealt with DC police

I am also point out that no one in their right mind, regardless of societal or economic status, will authorize a search.

[iverglas]

31. your caring and compassion

shines through brightly.

I have known women who had firearms in their homes that they did not want there. If a cop had appeared at the door and "pressured" them to allow a search of their home, they would have been grateful.

I had a client once who called me from the pay phone in the women's washroom at a rough bar where she was being kept against her will by an ex-boyfriend, who planned to have her drive him around while he dropped off stolen goods. She could have caused a scene and hoped someone came to her assistance and she wouldn't get beaten up. She apparently didn't think this wise. So I called the cops and they agreed to stop the car on a hokey traffic violation. She consented to have it searched. (If the cops had searched it without consent, as they would have been entitled to do on the tip from me, it would have endangered her because the man would have known she had instigated the search.) Ex-boyfriend was arrested for possession of stolen goods. She was free.

She waived her right against unreasonable search and seizure. Damn. What a fool she was. Sez caring, compassionate you, I expect.

I know. She should have just moved to a better neighbourhood.

[MaryCeleste]

44. I have known women whose lives were saved by having firearms in their homes

while their husbands were stationed OCONUS. They defended their lives and their childrens' lives with them Of course HCI and other frauds counted the deaths of the perps as a handgun homicide. Maybe its the difference between being a competent citizen or hapless victim.

[iverglas]

47. you do realize

that you're just making yourself look ridiculous, right?

[MaryCeleste]

52. Do you realize that jousting with you on this is not even sporting?

Your bias and bile makes it easy

[iverglas]

56. I don't look at it as jousting

Don't worry.

I look at it as opening the window and letting the true colours shine through.

Ideology over humanity is what is on display, every time.

[MaryCeleste]

61. Your words belie your actions

One would think a lawyer would be more protective of rights and liberties

[iverglas]

63. one would think what's that now?

One would think a lawyer would be more protective of rights and liberties

Interesting comment. For a variety of reasons.

I've actually spent years of my life, for virtually no pay, protecting people whose rights and liberties were in jeopardy. One would think you'd like to know what the fuck you're talking about before setting your fingers in motion.

Who said I was a lawyer? Are the wires a-humming?

[MaryCeleste]

70. Your posts make that a reasonable inference

[Irreverend IX]

93. Ideology over humanity?

Your posts lead me to believe that you feel governments should act to safeguard the lives of individual citizens above and beyond any other set of principles. If this is correct, do you support the following measures?

-Universal warrantless surveillance of electronic communications and video surveillance of all highly trafficked public areas

-Electronic implants in all citizens, allowing law enforcement to track their locations, monitor their life signs and dispatch medical teams in the event of injury or sickness

-Bans on alcohol and tobacco

-Bans on swimming pools at private residences

-Involuntary confinement and therapy for anyone displaying tendencies toward aggression or self-harm

-Liability for police officers and departments for failing to protect individual citizens from harm by criminals

All the above measures would save many lives, at least in the short term. But students of history will recognize that governments are much bigger killers than individuals can ever hope to be; in the 20th century, 262 million people were killed by their own governments. In light of this fact, RKBA supporters rightly oppose government monopoly on force.

[iverglas]

100. bzzt

Your posts lead me to believe that you feel governments should act to safeguard the lives of individual citizens above and beyond any other set of principles. If this is correct, do you support the following measures?

You could have saved yourself some time, couldn't you? Just ask me whether that first part is correct, I say "no", we're done.

(And not even anything to do with the fact that I don't think that governments should have more or less regard for individuals' lives or other interests based on what their citizenship status is. I expect your government to safeguard my life when I'm in your country, and I expect my government to safeguard your life when you're in mine.)

But hey, I'll bet you had fun, so I guess everybody's happy, eh?

Of course, even if my answer to your initial question had been "yes", I could still have rejected any or all of your mainly silly set of presumably supposed inferences from that answer. The fact that you can type X doesn't make X a necessary inference from any Y.

[Irreverend IX]

105. What principles...

Do you feel supersede the government's duty to safeguard citizens' lives?

[iverglas]

106. got a context?

Always a handy thing to have. Necessary, in fact.

I've got the criteria to apply, if you've got the case in point.

[Irreverend IX]

111. I'd rather not limit the scope of this question...

By addressing a specific case. I just want to know where you draw the line between acceptable restrictions on individual freedom in the interest of public safety and unacceptable restrictions on individual freedom in the interest of public safety. Surely you can give me at least a general idea.

[iverglas]

121. a general idea

I just want to know where you draw the line between acceptable restrictions on individual freedom in the interest of public safety and unacceptable restrictions on individual freedom in the interest of public safety. Surely you can give me at least a general idea.

I go with the basic principles stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Oakes, as since refined and clarified.

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1986/1986rcs1-103/1986rcs1-103.html

I've quoted the summary of those principles many times here before. Perhaps you've managed to miss it.

Section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1984 (Canada), provides:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The summary of Oakes goes like this:

Two central criteria must be satisfied to establish that a limit is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

First, the objective to be served by the measures limiting a Charter right must be sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom. The standard must be high to ensure that trivial objectives or those discordant with the principles of a free and democratic society do not gain protection. At a minimum, an objective must relate to societal concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society before it can be characterized as sufficiently important.

Second, the party invoking s. 1 must show the means to be reasonable and demonstrably justified. This involves a form of proportionality test involving three important components.

1. The measures must be fair and not arbitrary, carefully designed to achieve the objective in question and rationally connected to that objective.

2. The means should impair the right in question as little as possible.

3. There must be a proportion­ality between the effects of the limiting measure and the objective ‑‑ the more severe the deleterious effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be.

There are similar principles of constitutional scrutiny in your system, as developed by your courts. You can read some basic material on them here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal Protection Analysis

1. STRICT SCRUTINY
(The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.):

A. Suspect Classifications:
1. Race
2. National Origin
3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis)
4. Alienage (unless the classification falls within a recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied).

B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights
1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote
2. Interstate Migration
3. Access to the Courts
4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental

<"The Court also applies strict scrutiny to classifications burdening certain fundamental rights.">

2. MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY
(The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.):
Quasi-Suspect Classifications:

1. Gender
2. Illegitimacy

3. MINIMUM (OR RATIONAL BASIS) SCRUTINY
(The govenment need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.)
Minimum scrutiny applies to all classifications other than those listed above, although some Supreme Court cases suggest a slightly closer scrutiny ("a second-order rational basis test") involving some weighing of the state's interest may be applied in cases, for example, involving classifications that disadvantage mentally retarded people, homosexuals, or innocent children of illegal aliens.

You then have specific tests for limits on certain specific rights, such as freedom of speech:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/firstaminto.htm
e.g. "clear and present danger"
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/clear&pdanger.htm


So you see, unless you DO have a context, you just don't get an answer. Not from a court, and not from me.

Here's one for free, though.

Q. Could a government in a free and democratic society that abides by the rule of law and recognizes fundamental rights and freedoms outlaw abortion -- in my opinion?

A. Hmm. Possibly, and even probably, yes. If the human species itself were suffering from depopulation to the extent that the point of no return from the road to extinction was fast approaching, then the collective interest of the human species in species survival could be regarded, by reasonable people of goodwill in such a society, as overriding the individual interest of a woman in not being pregnant. Since pregnancy involves risks to a woman's life and health, and the woman's right to life is thus in play and outlawing abortion impairs that right, I can think of no other circumstance in which abortion could legitimately be outlawed in a free and democratic society that abides by the rule of law and recognizes fundamental rights and freedoms. And I would still need to see safeguards in place that protected individual women at special risk. But I would consider the proposal seriously and would probably agree with it, if the circumstances were as suggested.

So there you would have it: a situation in which I would quite likely agree that a government should NOT act to safeguard the lives of individuals above and beyond any other set of principles. I trust you will enjoy it. Even if it wasn't quite what you were hoping for.

[MaryCeleste]

110. The government duty to safeguard is a general one

and does not apply to individuals, unless they are in government custody.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

114. You Must Have Missed the Part when He Spoke of Citizens in the Plural as in the Collective Good

.

[MaryCeleste]

123. Firearms make up for in the specific instance when Government can not or will not defend individuals

They are more important for the women and other who are weaker or outnumbered by their attackers.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

126. The Government Cannot or Will Not Defend Individuals?

They may fail to do so, but the notion that they will not attempt to protect law abiding citizens from criminals is just ....... gosh .......... silly.

I also do not think women derive their strength or power from a gun. I think most women are smarter than simply relying on a gun.

[MaryCeleste]

130. Historical actually

They may fail to do so, but the notion that they will not attempt to protect law abiding citizens from criminals is just ....... gosh .......... silly.

Gun control historical roots go back to the post civil war south. They were used to disarm blacks and the poor so they could not stand up against the KKK and other night riders. Local law enforcement refused to protect those being attacked, and then tried to take their gun away though registration and other Jim Crow schemes. There are mostly anecdotal cases today, mostly poor and minorities being told that if they won't move or turn informer that the police will not help them. The lack of action on what amounts to ethnic cleansing in Signal Hill etc. There are also a smattering of what can be called small town/personal cases.

It black letter law that the police have no responsibility to protect individuals and can not be held accountable for not doing so. Several horrific court cases on that.

I also do not think women derive their strength or power from a gun. I think most women are smarter than simply relying on a gun.

No one derives strength or power from firearms, they defend themselves againt attackers with one. A notional female is weaker physically that their notional attacker. A firearm addresses that inequality.

[iverglas]

132. "black letter law"

It black letter law that the police have no responsibility to protect individuals and can not be held accountable for not doing so. Several horrific court cases on that.

So?

So was, oh, the ownership of human being by other human beings, in the US and many other places at various times. So was the prohibition on workers forming associations to procure higher wages. So was the right of employers to pay women half what they paid men doing the same job. So was the right of business owners to bar Jews from their premises.

What's your point?

http://www.owjn.org/archive/jane.htm

Jane Doe v. Board of Commissioners of Police of Toronto

History

Jane Doe sued the Metro Toronto Police for negligence and charter violation in the investigation of her rape which took place in the Church/Wellesley area of Toronto in the summer of 1986.

Central to this civil suit is that the police chose not to alert women about the danger they faced, but instead their rationale was that they wanted to catch the rapist in the act of rape. Had the police notified citizens with information about the serial rapist operating in their neighbourhood, Jane Doe could have taken security precautions. Rather, they used Jane Doe as nothing more than bait.

POLICE FAIL RAPE VICTIM, JUDGE RULES
Toronto force ordered to pay $220,000,
called negligent for not warning Jane Doe, other women in area about predator

- Kim Honey, Globe & Mail, July 4, 1998

Did the law in the US, black letter or otherwise, arrive on stone tablets by special delivery from a cloud?

Get better governments, get better judges, get better law. Democracy and accountable government. What an idea.

[MaryCeleste]

135. You are correct, it is US law

[iverglas]

137. Well that was productive

I didn't actually need you to tell me I was correct. I know I'm correct. About that, and the rest of what was in my post: how it has been US law that human beings may own other human beings, that employers may pay women half of what they pay men, that business owners may bar Jews from their premises.

So I guess the Empress MaryCeleste's lack of a point is rather obvious to everybody watching the parade, now.

[MaryCeleste]

138. Indeed it was

It showed that you do not understand what is basic US law...that the police do not have a responsibility to protect individuals and that it is a general responsibility to the populace. The case you cited in Canada would not have gone the same way in the us.

The upshot of that is the individual has primary responsibility for their safety. Its one of the reasons that private firearms ownership for self defense is a good thing.

[iverglas]

146. first I'm "correct" ...

and now I "do not understand what is basic US law". I guess that leaves you being not correct, in any event, since you've just contradicted yourself.

basic US law...that the police do not have a responsibility to protect individuals and that it is a general responsibility to the populace.

NO FUCKING SHIT.

If you say it six more times, will it be different from something I said? I don't really think so.

Basic US law ONCE WAS that human beings could own other human beings, employers could pay women half what they paid men, and business owners could bar Jews from their premises.

Is this really too subtle for you?

The law is what it is. When the law is changed, it no longer is what it was. Duh.

The law is not engraved on stone tablets, and in actual fact seldom remains unchanged in just about any aspect for very long. Do you know of many laws today that are exactly the same as the laws about the same thing were 100 years ago? Even if there were laws about it at all? Was it illegal to dump sewage into a river 100 years ago? Did occupiers have liability to trespassers 100 years ago?


The upshot of that is the individual has primary responsibility for their safety.

No, actually, that isn't a upshot. It's meaningless burble.

If I'm responsible for my safety and I fail to take reasonable measures to ensure it, what will my punishment be? To whom will I have to account? What damages will I have to pay him/her?

I'm not responsible for my safety. I can be as unsafe as I damned well please. None of your business.



But what it all comes down to is that you're jousting with straw.

Nobody has ever said that the police are or oughta be responsible for keeping anyone safe.

Nobody is responsible for putting food on your table, either. That doesn't mean you are entitled to keep cattle in Manhattan.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

134. And Yet it is the NAACP who Supports DC in their Brief to SCOTUS

And Yet it is the NAACP who Supports DC in their Brief to SCOTUS Hhmmm.. Give that some thought and then you think about the minority population in DC who make up a majority and then you ask yourself whey they all support DC's law. I just love it when folks outside of DC know what's more important to DC citizens than DC citizens themselves.

You write: 'No one derives strength or power from firearms, they defend themselves againt attackers with one. A notional female is weaker physically that their notional attacker. A firearm addresses that inequality.'

Huh......... a robber with a gun doesn't derive his strength from a gun? You mean all he has to do is ask for the money and he'll get it? Wow. I had no idea.

And you mean to tell me that someone who has a gun against someone who is already pointing one had him/her, all that person has to do is pull their gun out of the napsack while the robber or assailant's gun is pointed at them and then that makes it an 'eqaulizer'?

[MaryCeleste]

139. self delete - misposted

[MaryCeleste]

140. THe NAACP is not an elected organization and does not speak for

all African-Americans anymore than the AARP speaks for everyone over 55.

Only someone without relevant firearms experience would suggest the scenarios you bring up. A better example might be a home invasion robbery or an violent ex. In those cases having a gun in the home could mean the difference between life and death. In DC you don't have the option. That is what Hiller is all about. Heres hoping its a blowout and DC loses big time. The lives of too many people are at stake.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

142. Regarding the NAACP: Of Course Not

Of course the NAACP doesn't speak for all African-Americans, but what gives you the right to claim to be speaking for what's in their interest better than an organization or a city that does represent hundreds of thousands.

As for the NAACP not being an 'elected' organization, the DC city council and the Mayor are elected.

I have 'relevant firearms experience' both as someone who has used a gun and someone who have been victimized by them.

The scenerios I brought up are real. My boss was killed reaching for a gun he had while a robber aiming and pointing a gun at him He was shot and killed. I was locked in the freezer with several others when the perp entered the restaurant. Happened decades ago. But it was a 'relevant firearms experience' as you say.

The lives of many people were at stake and a gun owner falsely thought his gun would save him. It didn't. I survived without a gun, he did not and I will never forget the situation or my boss.

[MaryCeleste]

144. Regarding your firearms experience

Anyone with any training knows not to draw when facing another gun. Its a losing situation. Shooting a gun is not the same as knowing how to use it properly.

I have had very different personal experience, and know more than a few people whose lives and that of their families have been saved/protected by firearms. Burglars, rapists, home invasions. That kind of thing.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

145. Losing Situation

You write: 'Anyone with any training knows not to draw when facing another gun. Its a losing situation. Shooting a gun is not the same as knowing how to use it properly.'

I agree, but evidently not 'anyone'. Not my boss. And I know there are others. It all goes to support my claim that simply having a gun gives people a false sense of security that means nothing without not only training, but good judgment, which is something that cannot be trained.

Dismissing my life experience when you clearly do not know me and characterizing it as lacking 'relevant experience' shows what you know regarding my experience with guns.

You write: 'I have had very different personal experience, and know more than a few people whose lives and that of their families have been saved/protected by firearms. Burglars, rapists, home invasions. That kind of thing."

Your glib and nonspecific response suggests otherwise.

[MaryCeleste]

147. Judgement can indeed be trained

the military does it every day and does it well. When something happens the people fall back on their training whether is bailing out of a burning aircraft or coming under fire.

Its easy to get a motorcycle and motorcycle license. However training like MSF makes a major difference in rider survival. Its a mandate in some states, especially for younger riders, but its rarely if ever required of adults. Since private firearms ownership is a right (even Obama agrees), its not legitimate to require training to exercise it (imagine needing a training certificate before exercising your 1st or 4th amendment rights). However, I strongly encourage firearms training classes, with periodic updates.

I don't normally give out incident details because its inappropriate. However to satisfy you, I will offer up this. I was on a deployment and someone tried to break into my home with my wife and daughter present. As the perp came through the back door, she shot him with a .380 (she was not able at the time to handle my 1911a). He ran and was later caught at a hospital. Turns out he had done several such robberies. He had managed to get a list of people in several units who where deployed and was using that as a guide for homes to rob. He went to jail and my wife went on to become a firearms instructor and taught chiefly other women for years.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

148. Judgment Can Be Trained.....

........ but unfortunately, it's not required and it certainly can be impaired in stressful situations with either emotion, alcohol or drugs.

I'm glad your wife and family were safe in that story. It would have been nice to hear you say the same to me without regard to the differences we have over guns.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

143. Your City

Must explain why Baltimore's crime rate is higher than DC's

Assault, murder, burglary and theft rates are all higher in Baltimore.

Murder rate in Baltimore 43.3
Murder: rate in Washington 29.1

So much for having the gun option.

http://baltimore.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Baltimore&s1=MD&c2=Washington&s2=DC

[L1A1Rocker]

32. Not relevant to the op.

Please keep you responses relevant to the OP.






















































Thank you

[fightthegoodfightnow]

102. Ok

Your choice. I got it.

[rocktivity]

17. There's a difference between "getting" guns and "searching" for them

especially when you "target neighborhoods" by going "door-too-door" and asking "parents and guardians" who "know or suspect" for "permission."

The story's headline and opening suggest that people would be able to CALL the police and REQUEST that their homes be searched for possible illegal firearms. But they're going to be doing SWEEPS? Hardly constitutional. More important, why should people in LOW-crime areas get to keep THEIR illegal gun?

:crazy:
rocknation

[iverglas]

22. back that up with something, will someone?

Does everybody at this site just skim an opening post and plonk whatever comes into their head onto the monitor? Isn't this supposed to be discussion? In a discussion, does one not listen to what is being said?


But they're going to be doing SWEEPS? Hardly constitutional.

"Sweeps?" In the sense of: knocking on doors and requesting permission to search for illegally possessed firearms? That's a "sweep" now?

Hardly constitutional? Can you offer something to back up that opinion?

Hint: try reading the few short posts already in this thread when you wrote that.

Then try to explain why it is not constitutional to request access to a home and permission to search it.

[MaryCeleste]

26. They intend to target high risk (target rich?) areas, even the cops wi\ll call that a sweep

And you are right, if its voluntary, its constitutional, though if anyone doesn't expect the cops to lean on anyone who refuses, they are delusional. Refuse a vehicle search and see how receptive the cops are (BTDT).

Fools can waive their rights to just about anything, and only fools will.

[L1A1Rocker]

34. That post reminds me of the old axiom. . .

Those that refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

[catnhatnh]

39. Yes that's a sweep....

and every bit as unconstitutional as a dui "checkpoint"....little thing about the rights of the people to be secure in their ect, etc, etc...The police stopping a line of cars or coming to a neighborhood series of doors EVEN IF THEY ASK CONSENT is an opportunity to observe your behavior WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPICION, which they can and will use to later prosecute you or apply for a warrant. In America under the constitution the police are not supposed to check anyone for any reason absent a damn good reason.

[iverglas]

48. hmmmmm

I guess there's some rule that if the police knock at your door you must open it. That would be some sort of violation of the constitution though, wouldn't it?


In America under the constitution the police are not supposed to check anyone for any reason absent a damn good reason.

AND BEING GIVEN CONSENT BY SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO BE SURE THERE ARE NO ILLEGALLY POSSESSED FIREARMS IN HER HOME IS A DAMNED GOOD REASON.

Whether you like it or not.

[catnhatnh]

51. It would be a damn good reason if someone CALLED the police

and requested it....police "sweeping" and asking permission is itself coersive.Unless of course you are of the school that supports "unless you have something to hide...." I'll bet you are the only American that plants a happy smile on their face when a cruiser shadows them for three miles and thinks "Oh Boy-I'm SO happy they're concerned about my safety..."

[Name removed]

58. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

90. really, I must

I'll bet you are the only American that plants a happy smile on their face when a cruiser shadows them for three miles and thinks "Oh Boy-I'm SO happy they're concerned about my safety..."

I must simply really respond to this ludicrous and insulting accusation.

No, sweetie, I'm not "the only American that <sic>" does anything at all.

And no, sweetie, who/whatever I am, I am not anyone who "plants a happy smile on their face when a cruiser shadows them for three miles and thinks 'Oh Boy-I'm SO happy they're concerned about my safety...'."

I am a person who, to make that long story short, tells cops to fuck off when I feel like it, which has been a couple of times that come to mind.

And I am also a person who understands perfectly that there are other people who are not in a position, or who do not feel that they are in a position, to do what I have done.

But mostly, I guess, I'm a person who finds the practice of using insult and false accusations to pursue a discussion of a public policy issue to be disgusting.

[rocktivity]

57. If you suspect want to be ensure you have no illegal firearms in our home

search for them yourself. THEN call the police.

:headbang:
rocknation

[rocktivity]

54. I consider cops knocking on every door in a neighborhood with no probable cause to be a sweep

And I consider their hoping that I'd be willing to prove I DON'T have have an illegal firearm in my home simply BECAUSE I live in a certain neighborhood to be unreasonable search and seizure. If I have an unwelcome firearm in my home and didn't want to look for it myself, I'd call the cops in a minute. And if the cops have enough reason to believe that there IS an illegal firearm in my home, then they have enough reason to get a search warrant.

:headbang:
rocknation

[iverglas]

59. you need probable cause to knock on a door??

You must have a very limited social life.

I see the pronoun "I" quite a bit in that post. Quelle surprise.

[MaryCeleste]

62. When a cop knocks on your door, there is already a low level of coercion

it got much worse after 911.

- Try telling a cop that you refuse a search of your car in Baltimore
- Try not answering the door when the cops believe you are home
- Try telling a cop he can not search your home or yard when he thinks there is something to find but does not have a warrant
- Try and complain about the coercion they will bring to bear when you lawfully refuse.
You clear lack of big city policing in US is clear. Those of us with experience in the real world know better.

I have several advantages that limit my vulnerability to such things, but have seen it and experienced it nonetheless.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

136. I Don't Disagree with Much of What You Say.....

............ but I'm curious to know what your 'several advantages that limit your vulnerability to such things' are.

Please elaborate.

[rocktivity]

64. When you're a cop, you need probable cause to knock on a door

Even if you're just looking for witnesses. Expecting me to consent to proving that I don't have an illegal firearm in my home simply because I live in a certain neighborhood ain't it. And if not my own point of view, whose--the mouse in my pocket?

:headbang:
rocknation

[Howzit]

49. What happens if someone declines permission to have their home searched?

Does this constitute "probable cause", because if they had nothing to hide they would consent to a search? If so, warrants may become obsolete in neighborhoods near you…

[iverglas]

53. warrants may become obsolete ...

Pigs may fly ...

The bogeyman may be coming to get you ...


And rationality may prevail. Some day.

[MaryCeleste]

60. Then the coercion will start

Though technically not probable cause the police will attempt to convinve the person that they have to consent or should consent. The best example is refusal to allow your car to be searched. They will try any number of lies and stalls to get you to allow the search.

The key to avoid this is to appear to be well off and white. Also most cops will not challenge a well spoken person or someone in uniform (though I have seen some seriously contrary examples of the latter). Check out the various know your rights sites http://www.dpfks.org/PDF/KNOW_YOUR_RIGHTS.pdf and http://www.flexyourrights.org are examples, there are others.

The police tend to be much more macho with those they know they can intimidate or lack the resources to fight back. They will be more reasonable with those who can push back.

[iverglas]

66. the really fun part here

is the intense desire to portray police as really very, very stupid.

Yes, this program is going to work really excellently if it goes as you all assert it will. Cops going door to door coercing and intimidating people. That's gonna go all unnoticed and unremarked.

Yeesh.

[MaryCeleste]

69. The M$M rarely exposes the low level corruption and abuse of the poor and powerless by the police

At best they wait until there is something big, and even then its not on for long. The petty transgression are rarely even noticed in those neighborhoods since they are so common.

[krispos42]

72. I bet this will be a great way to check for terrorists, too.

Looking for signs of a terror cell. "Oh, look, an Arab guy with very little furniture. Make a note, O'Malley, let's put him in our database."

I don't like his idea at all. I watch "Cops" regularly, and time and time again you see people that have something illegal hidden in their car (usually drugs) that are either intimidated into consenting for the police to search their car or think the policeman is just asking a rhetorical question.

This just smells of more authoritarian crap. The marketing of the police state, and all that wonderful stuff.

If the cops don't have a clear reason for knocking on my door, then they should be out hunting down muggers and drunk drivers and missing children.

If there's an investigation or an emergency or an escaped felon, on the other hand, BY ALL MEANS come a'knocking!

[Outraged As Usual]

77. Never trust a cop

No intelligent person ever gives consent to search to any cop at any time. Cop's lust after consent because they can later laugh at the defendant when they try and use their rights; giving away the precious rights that patriots have died for for centuries insures a conviction in court, and the average donut muncher will use intimidation, coercion and threats to get consent.

Thousands of drivers every day are pulled over after being profiled by these scummy ' task forces ' and browbeaten, or worse, to give consent so the cop can get an easy bust for some petty amount of pot or whatever, and another conviction. Easy work for the thug cop's, and most Americans are too weak to stand up to a bullying and blustering cop and say NO!! HELL NO!! NO searches without a warrant, ever. Slam the door in their face if they knock on your door. Better yet, do not even open the door. Open a window a crack and simply demand to see a valid warrant. No warrant, shut the window and call the ACLU or the news if the cop persists in violating rights.

Cop's today take the lead from the corrupt and lawless Bush cabal and no wonder they are getting out of control on the streets and homes of the People. Cop's today are a far cry from the peace officers of yesteryear; Now all we have are flak jacketed, ski masked, jack booted thugs with machine guns bullying and abusing the citizenry at will. DEA scum arresting wheelchair bound patients for using cannabis in states where the voters have approved same. Cop's on every major highway profiling and harassing drivers for a search so 1 out of 10 can give them a petty arrest so they can get their back slaps and get back to sleeping and donut control efforts.

I treat cop's as if they are lower life forms, to be suspect as possible a hazard to life unless proven otherwise. I never bow to them and say " Sir ' or ' Ma'am " or any other indication of a lesser stance. Let them earn their paychecks by protecting the Constitution instead of crapping on it at every opportunity. The average cop today is likely a serial perjurer; Norm Stamper, former Chief of the Seattle police, said that in his opinion, ' 99% of all cop's will and have perjured themselves on the stand to make a case stick, primarily drug cases".

Let's say the Chief was off by 50%; that is still a vast majority of the cop's, and as a cop for 35 years, Stamper should know. Cop's have no compunctions about lying, threatening, intimidating and using force improperly, so we must protect ourselves from them. We should consider the average cop to be far more likely to abuse us and violate our legal rights than the criminal element that the cop's are supposed to be protecting us from. Sad, and sick. If anyone suggests that any sweep of areas where minorities live for consent is a good thing, they are really out of touch with reality. Abuse of power and lying to get what they want are the hallmarks of the cop today: They CANNOT be trusted, in any way, and they cannot be believed..ever.

ONLY an attorney can be trusted...never ever a cop. Never give consent, never make any statements without an attorney present, and never allow yourself to be frightened and intimidated by the thugs...that is what they live for and thrill to..so deny them the pleasure of violating yet more rights: Just say NO to the cop's..every time.

[Indy Lurker]

78. How is this going to work

Guns aside, I thought the police needed the consent of all residents search to a home.

[Spoonman]

79. The only thing we disagree on is

the possibility of abuse.

This will lead to abuse!!!!

"If we come across illegal contraband, we will confiscate it," Lanier said. "But amnesty means amnesty. We're trying to get guns and drugs off the street."

"Residents who agree to the searches will be asked to sign consent forms. If guns are found, they will be tested to determine whether they were used in crimes. If the results are positive, police will launch investigations, which could lead to charges.

Bad cop... NO DONUT!

[rocktivity]

80. "(The)...Safe Homes Initiative (is) aimed at parents and guardians

who know or suspect that their children or other relatives have guns."

Aimed ONLY at parents and guardians? That's discrimination against kids who want to turn in their parents!

:eyes:
rocknation

[iverglas]

81. they're locking and loading

http://img227.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dcshinoku7. png

(reassemble url)

On offer now at a right-wing internet site near you.

(Google "safe homes initiative" dc and you should recognize the one at the top of the list.)

[L1A1Rocker]

85. Care to make a post that doesn't require someone to register to the link?

Or are you shilling for that site using DU as you ad. platform?

[iverglas]

86. visit reality much?

The link is to an image. I chose not to post the image directly, because it is large and ugly.

I expected that offering the url for the image would provide access to the image, if the instructions were followed: reassemble url. I expected that it would be understood that this meant "copy and paste the url and remove the spaces before and after the dot".

That's what it meant. Do give it a try. I did. No problem at all.

Of course, I did give alternate instructions that involved about a 2-second visit to google. Sorry that was too much for you.

Now, you feel free to keep asking moronic and gratuitously insulting questions like

Or are you shilling for that site using DU as you ad. platform?

based on nothing but your own inability to follow simple instructions, 'k? Doesn't bother me a bit.



typo fixed

[L1A1Rocker]

88. I guess even cut and past is too simple for you?

[iverglas]

91. listen, I could sell you a ticket to this universe, cheap

'cause I just have no idea which one you're posting from.

[L1A1Rocker]

96. Listen, I bet you don't.

[iverglas]

92. what you may have failed to grasp ...

The place where the image is found, on that google search, is a place that shall not be linked to in this place.

You know: rules. Some of us bother to know what they are, and attempt to follow them.

[L1A1Rocker]

97. So you don't link directly to it just try to get around the rules.

Why not try to follow the rules rather that find a way around them?

[iverglas]

99. so you do eat poop for breakfast

 
I had no interest in linking directly to the site in question.

My interest was in the image. The image happened to be readily
available at that site. It is also readily available by
putting the fucking url for it into your browser go-to line
and going to.

I could not provide you with the unadulterated url for the
image without the image itself becoming embedded in my post.
Because of the size of the image (and then there's always
copyright), I chose not to do that.

You really oughta try it. You'd like it. You would then have
to thank me for providing you with such a wonderful thing.

Hey, here you go. I can give you the unadulterated url if I
remove html formatting from this post. It won't be clickable
though. I don't know whether you can handle that, but here's
your chance.

http://img227.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dcshinoku7.png

[fightthegoodfightnow]

115. Stop Feeding the Birds

L1A1Rocker doesn't want to engage in an intelligent conversation or debate to support his/her posiiton.

It feels good to banter with him/her on the gun issue but after a while, it just gets boring and you find yourself saying things like you did: "so you do eat poop for breakfast'.

Of course, this is the level of discourse he/she can relate to........... but alas, there I go.........spank me............ :spank:

I find there are many people on this and other boards who support L1A1Rocker positions but who are far more engaging and intellectually stimulating even if I disagree with them.

It's my attempt to elevate the conversation, although I readily admit I often fail. L1A1Rocker is an easy one to simply skip.

[iverglas]

122. sibling, forgive me ;)

I have been away, you know.

And you may be unfamiliar with the long and honourable history of poop as a subject of debate in this place. ;)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

128. No Need to Apologize

Keep an eye on me and snap me out of it if I respond to his/her posts. :)

[slackmaster]

82. No word on whether the police will provide free K-Y Jelly

I'd feel sorry for parents who have lost control of their kids to the extent they would consider inviting the police in to their homes to go on a fishing expedition.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

113. True...

.......... but then I feel sorry for folks who have to bring a gun into church to worship God.

At least from my point of view, it shows a lot about their faith.

It also says a lot about society in general when teachers have to worry about guns in their classroom not unlike parents worrying about guns in their homes.

[iverglas]

124. you forget!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praise_the_Lord_and_Pass_the_Ammunition

"Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" is a patriotic song written by Frank Loesser and published as sheet music in 1942 by Famous Music Corp. The song was a response to the Attack on Pearl Harbor that marked United States involvement in World War II. ... In modern times, the phrase has been used often in a more satirical tone, condemning war justified by religious doctrine.

According to the article, Exodus and the Dixie Chicks are among modern thinkers who have used the phrase that way. And of course those Officers of the Order of Canada -- Rush.


"The Way The Wind Blows"

Now it's come to this
It's like we're back in the Dark Ages
From the Middle East to the Middle West
It's a world of superstition

Now it's come to this
Wide-eyed armies of the faithful
From the Middle East to the Middle West
Pray, and pass the ammunition

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rush/thewaythewindblows.html



:P

[fightthegoodfightnow]

125. Not My Idea of Praise or Patriotism

...... but that's just me.

[iverglas]

127. well, I would suspect

you can tell it isn't generally my idea of patriotism or praise either (especially given that I don't praise any sky faeries myself, and don't generally get involved in critiquing how other people praise theirs).

"Praise the lord and pass the ammunition" certainly has a long history in popular culture in the US, though, and seemed rather an apt reference in this instance.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

129. True...

...... but this country is f*cked up in so many ways starting with our President who no doubt thinks soldiers are offerings to his notion of God and country (not necessarily in that order).

But alas, I guess that puts me in the camp of criticizing the faith of others, although I agree it's best to refrain from that and live life based on our beliefs.

Mine of course are perfect. :)

[Boomer 50]

98. I agree with the possibility of abuse

You let a cop in your home for guns, and you will have amnesty for guns and drugs.... but what if they spot something else that may or may not be illegal but they feel that it's "probable cause" to broaden the search? Not only that, but the fact that they are coming in and searching puts you on a list for future attention.

Only stupid people would let a warrantless search occur.

[GrandmaJones7]

120. Possibility? Try PROBABILITY

Look at the history of MPD: this is the department that former Mayor Marion Barry built and its rate corruption is bested only by departments in New Orleans and Los Angeles.

How corrupt? More than 30 sworn members of MPD were ARRESTED and charged with crimes last year. During Barry's time, confiscated guns were stolen from evidence and re-sold on the street. Some officers regularly shook down dealers and re-sold the crack they confiscated. Recently, an off duty officer went looking for a teen who had stolen a mini-bik and upon finding him, the officer executed him (the topic of an investigation and civil suit).

Are these the police we should trust?

I think not.