Post by: nico on June 05, 2008, 11:16:37 AM
Quote
Lanier plans to seal off rough hoods in latest effort to stop wave of violence
Jun 4, 2008 3:00 AM (1 day ago) by Michael Neibauer and Bill Myers, The Examiner
» 1 day ago: Lanier plans to seal off rough hoods in latest effort to stop wave of violence «
Map data ©2008 LeadDog Consulting, Tele Atlas - Terms of Use
Map
Satellite
Hybrid
printer friendly version Email me this story
# 1 of 7,743
Filed under: WASHINGTON , Michael Neibauer and Bill Myers , Neighborhood Safety Zones
Comment on this article
WASHINGTON (Map, News) -
D.C. police will seal off entire neighborhoods, set up checkpoints and kick out strangers under a new program that D.C. officials hope will help them rescue the city from its out-of-control violence.
Under an executive order expected to be announced today, police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate Neighborhood Safety Zones. At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesnt live there, work there or have legitimate reason to be there will be sent away or face arrest, documents obtained by The Examiner show.
Lanier has been struggling to reverse D.C.s spiraling crime rate but has been forced by public outcry to scale back several initiatives including her All Hands on Deck weekends and plans for warrantless, door-to-door searches for drugs and guns.
Under todays proposal, the no-go zones will last up to 10 days, according to internal police documents. Front-line officers are already being signed up for training on running the blue curtains.
Peter Nickles, the citys interim attorney general, said the quarantine would have a narrow focus.
This is a very targeted program that has been used in other cities, Nickles told The Examiner. Im not worried about the constitutionality of it.
Others are. Kristopher Baumann, chairman of the D.C. police union and a former lawyer, called the checkpoint proposal breathtaking.
Shelley Broderick, president of the D.C.-area American Civil Liberties Union and the dean of the University of the District of Columbias law school, said the plan was cockamamie.
I think they tried this in Russia and it failed, she said. Its just our experience in this city that we always end up targeting poor people and people of color, and we treat the kids coming home from choir practice the same as we treat those kids who are selling drugs.
The proposal has the provisional support of D.C. Councilman Harry Tommy Thomas, D-Ward 5, whose ward has become a war zone.
Theyre really going to crack down on what we believe to be a systemic problem with open-air drug markets, Thomas told The Examiner.
Thomas said, though, that he worried about D.C. moving towards a police state.
Staff Writer Scott McCabe contributed to this report.
Jun 4, 2008 3:00 AM (1 day ago) by Michael Neibauer and Bill Myers, The Examiner
» 1 day ago: Lanier plans to seal off rough hoods in latest effort to stop wave of violence «
Map data ©2008 LeadDog Consulting, Tele Atlas - Terms of Use
Map
Satellite
Hybrid
printer friendly version Email me this story
# 1 of 7,743
Filed under: WASHINGTON , Michael Neibauer and Bill Myers , Neighborhood Safety Zones
Comment on this article
WASHINGTON (Map, News) -
D.C. police will seal off entire neighborhoods, set up checkpoints and kick out strangers under a new program that D.C. officials hope will help them rescue the city from its out-of-control violence.
Under an executive order expected to be announced today, police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate Neighborhood Safety Zones. At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesnt live there, work there or have legitimate reason to be there will be sent away or face arrest, documents obtained by The Examiner show.
Lanier has been struggling to reverse D.C.s spiraling crime rate but has been forced by public outcry to scale back several initiatives including her All Hands on Deck weekends and plans for warrantless, door-to-door searches for drugs and guns.
Under todays proposal, the no-go zones will last up to 10 days, according to internal police documents. Front-line officers are already being signed up for training on running the blue curtains.
Peter Nickles, the citys interim attorney general, said the quarantine would have a narrow focus.
This is a very targeted program that has been used in other cities, Nickles told The Examiner. Im not worried about the constitutionality of it.
Others are. Kristopher Baumann, chairman of the D.C. police union and a former lawyer, called the checkpoint proposal breathtaking.
Shelley Broderick, president of the D.C.-area American Civil Liberties Union and the dean of the University of the District of Columbias law school, said the plan was cockamamie.
I think they tried this in Russia and it failed, she said. Its just our experience in this city that we always end up targeting poor people and people of color, and we treat the kids coming home from choir practice the same as we treat those kids who are selling drugs.
The proposal has the provisional support of D.C. Councilman Harry Tommy Thomas, D-Ward 5, whose ward has become a war zone.
Theyre really going to crack down on what we believe to be a systemic problem with open-air drug markets, Thomas told The Examiner.
Thomas said, though, that he worried about D.C. moving towards a police state.
Staff Writer Scott McCabe contributed to this report.
This begs the question: what happens if someone's response to the cops asking them why they're going where they're going is "because I'm an American citizen and have a right to travel throughout my country?"
ETA: if you're arrested under this BS, what can/will they charge you with? Failure to follow a lawful police order? One would think any half decent attorney would have a field day proving that such an oder is hardly lawful. The ACLU has voiced their displeasure over this, but I wonder what would happen if a dozen people got themselves arrested at one of these checkpoints in protest.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 05, 2008, 11:18:52 AM
This CAN'T be okay with the Constitution in any sense of the word.
Besides. If you seal off a "problem" neighborhood, good luck getting any business or investment in it ever again!
Post by: El Tejon on June 05, 2008, 11:20:46 AM
Post by: K Frame on June 05, 2008, 11:22:34 AM
Chances are you are NOT going to:
A) be traveling through one of those neighborhoods, and
B) WANT to travel through one of those neighborhoods.
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on June 05, 2008, 11:23:32 AM
This is a very targeted program that has been used in other cities, Nickles told The Examiner. Im not worried about the constitutionality of it.
I want to be sick.
Post by: mtnbkr on June 05, 2008, 11:24:54 AM
Chris
Post by: nico on June 05, 2008, 11:27:34 AM
Hum...
Chances are you are NOT going to:
A) be traveling through one of those neighborhoods, and
B) WANT to travel through one of those neighborhoods.
Chances are you are NOT going to:
A) be traveling through one of those neighborhoods, and
B) WANT to travel through one of those neighborhoods.
I agree, but we all know the precedent is set with the *expletive deleted*bag who had to have done something wrong; not the upstanding citizen who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
What happens if this goes smoothly/without protest and they decide it's a good idea to keep the human waste out of nice neighborhoods? Am I going to have to show my dinner reservations or platinum card to go to dinner/shopping in NW DC?
I know my title could have been better, but "papers please" seemed too generic
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 05, 2008, 11:28:06 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 05, 2008, 11:28:11 AM
Hum...
Chances are you are NOT going to:
A) be traveling through one of those neighborhoods, and
B) WANT to travel through one of those neighborhoods.
Chances are you are NOT going to:
A) be traveling through one of those neighborhoods, and
B) WANT to travel through one of those neighborhoods.
Yes, but that rules out any chance of urban renewal via gentrification. Ever. Nobody will invest in it. Nobody will open a business. All they can is hope for it all to burn down.
Post by: mtnbkr on June 05, 2008, 11:30:02 AM
Chris
Post by: K Frame on June 05, 2008, 11:36:46 AM
Jesus Christ...
They are NOT erecting Berlin walls around entire communities.
Read the article.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 05, 2008, 11:38:52 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 05, 2008, 11:39:02 AM
"Yes, but that rules out any chance of urban renewal via gentrification. Ever."
Jesus Christ...
They are NOT erecting Berlin walls around entire communities.
Read the article.
Jesus Christ...
They are NOT erecting Berlin walls around entire communities.
Read the article.
I did.
If you were an investor, would you want to invest in a neighborhood subject to periodic blocks of outside visitors? That's not exactly good for business, in a number of ways.
"I can't visit your store, the police said I'd be arrested because I couldn't prove I was going to that store!" ...they're not going to come back.
Maybe if they actually locked up criminals they catch, instead of the revolving door justice for "disadvantaged urban youths"?
I am pretty sure I know what these neighborhoods are like. In Miami, they were called Overtown and Liberty City. Today, they're smaller. Former parts of them have been gentrified into upscale business districts, and more is pushed back all the time. That's the only thing that works.
Post by: nico on June 05, 2008, 11:43:42 AM
"Yes, but that rules out any chance of urban renewal via gentrification. Ever."
Jesus Christ...
They are NOT erecting Berlin walls around entire communities.
Read the article.
Jesus Christ...
They are NOT erecting Berlin walls around entire communities.
Read the article.
They're also not stopping foot traffic, so what's the point? Do you really think this will have a positive effect on anything?
Post by: K Frame on June 05, 2008, 12:06:04 PM
The huge crime rates in those areas is one of the main reasons why no one is investing there currently.
Crime will drive potential businesses, services, etc., out of an area, and keep them out of a particular area, a LOT faster than a strong police presence ever will.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 05, 2008, 12:09:45 PM
No one is investing in those sections of the cities right now.
The huge crime rates in those areas is WHY no one is investing there.
Crime will drive potential businesses, services, etc., out of an area, and keep them out of a particular area, a LOT faster than a strong police presence.
The huge crime rates in those areas is WHY no one is investing there.
Crime will drive potential businesses, services, etc., out of an area, and keep them out of a particular area, a LOT faster than a strong police presence.
Granted. Nobody wants nightly breakins by crackheads, either, or stray rounds from gangstas coming through their window.
I just think that such restrictions on movements would be the proverbial nail in the coffin, preventing even the demolition and gentrification that's overhauling such areas elsewhere. Miami is a very good example...as real estate prices go higher and higher, development of new offices and housing is pushing further and further from the beach and downtown, and that means that
A) the warzones get bulldozed and
B) the decent people owning houses there, after decades of zero sell value, can seriously cash in on property values because the developers want it, and even
C) people who outright own a business like a landmark restaurant will have a prosperous clientele coming in without fear of venturing into a bad area. (This has happened, too! Lots of formerly inaccessible 'soul food' and Cuban cusine places are doing very well!) And thus the area is renewed.
Actually, it's sort of a return, at that. When Overtown was new, it was heavily African-American, but safe. People of all races would come there to see Count Basie, Ella Fitzgerald, Cab Calloway, Nat King Cole, Aretha Franklin and the like performing in theaters long shuttered.
Post by: K Frame on June 05, 2008, 12:12:49 PM
And the roaches scatter to a new area and bring it down.
It's been happening in the city since the 1960s when "urban redevelopment" destroyed long-established, stable, cohesive, poor communities in Washington. Combined with the general rise in drug use and crime of the 1960s, urban redevelopment by bulldozer was another one of the long litany of liberal failures.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 05, 2008, 12:17:35 PM
"And thus the area is renewed."
And the roaches scatter to a new area and bring it down.
It's been happening in the city since the 1960s when "urban redevelopment" destroyed long-established, stable, cohesive, poor communities in Washington. Combined with the general rise in drug use and crime of the 1960s, urban redevelopment by bulldozer was another one of the long litany of liberal failures.
And the roaches scatter to a new area and bring it down.
It's been happening in the city since the 1960s when "urban redevelopment" destroyed long-established, stable, cohesive, poor communities in Washington. Combined with the general rise in drug use and crime of the 1960s, urban redevelopment by bulldozer was another one of the long litany of liberal failures.
Well, agreed that when it's a liberal policy of government-run renewal, it'll fail.
I'm talking more about market-driven. The developers want to build high-rent projects, so they'll offer longtime residents VERY nice sums for their property. There's no seizure involved, just people whose house in a bullet-riddled area wasn't worth $20k for decades suddenly being offered $500k by investors looking to build a bunch of office towers and Spanish-tile-roof villas. They...uh...tend to take it.
Considering the price of real estate in Metro D.C., I'm kind of surprised that hasn't happened there, yet. What prevents that?
Post by: K Frame on June 05, 2008, 12:25:33 PM
Governments used emiminent domain laws to seize entire neighborhoods, which were bulldozed and replaced with high-rise luxury apartment buildings and high-rent office buildings. The residents were offered buyouts (in those days, quite a few of the residents of those areas DID own their own homes), and many refused to take them, just the same as the process happens today. You get some people who are willing to sell, you get others who won't sell under any circumstance.
Southwest Washington DC was, in the 1960s, almost completely transformed in this manner.
What used to be thriving communities are now soulless concrete jungles.
Southwest DC, where at the time most of the city's poor blacks lived, was specficially targeted because it was nicely sandwiched between the Federal District and all those beautiful views over the Potomac River into Virginia.
There's one other problem with your "this will keep rich people from offering a gazillion dollars to every poor schmoe who lives there" theory.
These neighborhoods are, again if I'm correct which ones are going to be targeted first, primarily rental neighborhoods. The people who live there aren't going to be getting the benefit of those vast sums of money that are going to somehow magically appear -- the property owners will. They're residents? They're not going to be Palm Beach Condos. They're only going to get eviction notices.
Then there's also the issue that these neighborhoods are generally DEEP within larger blighted zones. It's going to take years, if not decades, for any gentrification to reach them through the process of creeping in at the edges.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 05, 2008, 12:31:42 PM
Post by: freakazoid on June 05, 2008, 01:01:01 PM
Quote
Lanier has been struggling to reverse D.C.s spiraling crime rate but has been forced by public outcry to scale back several initiatives including her All Hands on Deck weekends and plans for warrantless, door-to-door searches for drugs and guns.
I find this pretty scary.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 05, 2008, 01:05:32 PM
Post by: nico on June 05, 2008, 02:26:43 PM
Crime will drive potential businesses, services, etc., out of an area, and keep them out of a particular area, a LOT faster than a strong police presence ever will.
strong police presence = good
"neighborhood safety zone" checkpoints = bad
My point is just that the police should be able (and expected) to enforce the law without subverting the Constitution. That so many police chiefs (especially this one) seem to have no problem with ignoring the Constitution is troubling, to say the least. Adequate protection for witnesses in criminal cases (ie: allowing people to testify without being afraid for their or their family's safety) would go a lot farther to reduce crime than this will.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 05, 2008, 02:30:13 PM
Post by: Balog on June 05, 2008, 02:30:38 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 05, 2008, 02:36:46 PM
Post by: nico on June 05, 2008, 04:29:15 PM
nico you live near enough to go down and challenge this abomination. in real life as opposed to a keyboard. of course that would mean you gotta travel 20 miles. and be in trinidad after dark. report back
Yup, I do. I don't, however, have the money for a lawyer or the inclination to risk having random charges thrown at me (which could get me kicked out of school). I'm also realistic enough to realize that when one person tries to challenge an unjust law/policy on their own, they usually end up screwed. Am I the only one who thinks cops saying "You can't enter this neighborhood unless we say you can" is a bad thing?
No, you're not. That's why I started the thread.
funny how the folks in the neighborhood aren't miffed. course they might have a vested interest in an end to the shooting . it gets old. different when its your kids you fear for. kinda different when its a net thing though. aside from the dope dealers most of em aren't gonna miss the suburban traffic each day. folks forget that the "victimless" crime and its death toll can'r/won't exist without a steady stream of white folks looking to get high bringing their cash to town. stop and cops are a pretty spooky place
Who says the folks in the neighborhood aren't miffed? They interviewed a resident who thought it was a stupid idea on the news yesterday. Whether the neighbors are ok with it is irrelevant anyway. They don't have a right to declare their neighborhood a "Constitution Free Zone."
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 05, 2008, 04:34:29 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 05, 2008, 04:36:31 PM
maybe they just want the folks from the burbs to go away and take the dope dealers and the gunfire outa there hood so they can live and raise their kids. how outrageous of them
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 05, 2008, 04:39:58 PM
Post by: K Frame on June 05, 2008, 04:41:05 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 05, 2008, 04:44:50 PM
Post by: nico on June 05, 2008, 05:08:42 PM
maybe they just want the folks from the burbs to go away and take the dope dealers and the gunfire outa there hood so they can live and raise their kids. how outrageous of them
yeah, because drug dealers would straighten up and become productive members of society if all those white folks from the suburbs weren't driving there to buy drugs 
. I hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of places to buy drugs in the nicer suburbs in Montgomery, Howard, and PG counties. Most suburban kids who are so inclined have no need to drive to the ghetto to get pot/coke/heroin, etc.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 05, 2008, 05:11:18 PM
Post by: nico on June 05, 2008, 05:15:21 PM
Post by: RocketMan on June 05, 2008, 05:46:31 PM
"Peter Nickles, the citys interim attorney general, said the quarantine would have a narrow focus.
This is a very targeted program that has been used in other cities, Nickles told The Examiner.Im not worried I don't care about the constitutionality of it.
This is a very targeted program that has been used in other cities, Nickles told The Examiner.
Fixed it.
Post by: charby on June 05, 2008, 06:04:46 PM
Much, if not all, of the 1960s urban redevelopment WAS market driven.
Governments used emiminent domain laws to seize entire neighborhoods, which were bulldozed and replaced with high-rise luxury apartment buildings and high-rent office buildings. The residents were offered buyouts (in those days, quite a few of the residents of those areas DID own their own homes), and many refused to take them, just the same as the process happens today. You get some people who are willing to sell, you get others who won't sell under any circumstance.
Southwest Washington DC was, in the 1960s, almost completely transformed in this manner.
What used to be thriving communities are now soulless concrete jungles.
Southwest DC, where at the time most of the city's poor blacks lived, was specficially targeted because it was nicely sandwiched between the Federal District and all those beautiful views over the Potomac River into Virginia.
There's one other problem with your "this will keep rich people from offering a gazillion dollars to every poor schmoe who lives there" theory.
These neighborhoods are, again if I'm correct which ones are going to be targeted first, primarily rental neighborhoods. The people who live there aren't going to be getting the benefit of those vast sums of money that are going to somehow magically appear -- the property owners will. They're residents? They're not going to be Palm Beach Condos. They're only going to get eviction notices.
Then there's also the issue that these neighborhoods are generally DEEP within larger blighted zones. It's going to take years, if not decades, for any gentrification to reach them through the process of creeping in at the edges.
Governments used emiminent domain laws to seize entire neighborhoods, which were bulldozed and replaced with high-rise luxury apartment buildings and high-rent office buildings. The residents were offered buyouts (in those days, quite a few of the residents of those areas DID own their own homes), and many refused to take them, just the same as the process happens today. You get some people who are willing to sell, you get others who won't sell under any circumstance.
Southwest Washington DC was, in the 1960s, almost completely transformed in this manner.
What used to be thriving communities are now soulless concrete jungles.
Southwest DC, where at the time most of the city's poor blacks lived, was specficially targeted because it was nicely sandwiched between the Federal District and all those beautiful views over the Potomac River into Virginia.
There's one other problem with your "this will keep rich people from offering a gazillion dollars to every poor schmoe who lives there" theory.
These neighborhoods are, again if I'm correct which ones are going to be targeted first, primarily rental neighborhoods. The people who live there aren't going to be getting the benefit of those vast sums of money that are going to somehow magically appear -- the property owners will. They're residents? They're not going to be Palm Beach Condos. They're only going to get eviction notices.
Then there's also the issue that these neighborhoods are generally DEEP within larger blighted zones. It's going to take years, if not decades, for any gentrification to reach them through the process of creeping in at the edges.
When my folks lived in Tulsa, OK my dad gave me tours of neighborhoods that got bulldozed, then he showed me the relocation neighborhoods. What I saw of the bulldozer neighborhoods was streets of green grass and the sidewalks and front steps up the hill were left. I didn't know if these were left as a reminder to the former residents or what?
The relocation neighborhoods were layered deep with repeats of smaller versions of crapshap houses that we are accustomed to in the newer urban neighborhoods. Saw the same type of folks you would see in poor parts of town just living in newer houses.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 05, 2008, 08:07:40 PM
reallity in trinidad
Gentrification turns to fear in crime-riddled neighborhood
David C. Lipscomb and Benjamin Newell THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Friday, June 6, 2008
Comment
Listen
Font Size Share
Ask a Question
You Report
The Trinidad neighborhood for the past several years has been one of the last opportunities in the city for families and others to buy affordable homes in an up-and-coming neighborhood.
However, a surge in violent crime in the Northeast neighborhood has residents wondering whether their big move was a big mistake, also a predicament in other major cities.
"After 8:30 at night, we have to be inside," said Ricky Boyd, 26, who two years ago moved to Staples Street Northeast with his wife and toddler.
Residents in the neighborhood of mostly row houses on quiet, tree-lined streets said they have become so rattled by the violence - including two weekend killing sprees since late April - that some monitor police Web sites and immediately move indoors upon hearing a loud noise.
Of the 41 homicides in the city since April, seven of them have been in Trinidad. Reports show 24 assaults with a deadly weapon since that time.
The neighborhood is part of the large 5th Police District, where 14 homicides have occurred since April and 22 since January. The number of homicides in the District this year is 73, the same as this time last year.
After an especially violent two weeks in April in which 10 people were killed, Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier doubled and tripled patrols in the district.
Mr. Boyd and other residents also are concerned about the violence resulting in a decrease in property value.
Photographs by Astrid Riecken/The Washington Times Clarence Jones, 68, who owns a house on the 1700 block of Holbrook Street, said he fears that the area's real estate value will be affected by recent violence.
"I thought I was making an investment," Mr. Boyd said. "But all these shootings are turning it sour."
Home pricesin Ward 5have almost tripled over the past 10 years, according to a study by the District and the Urban Institute. Those in the Trinidad area have stagnated over the past 18 months, at about $260,000 according to the Metropolitan Regional Information Systems.
Residents (from right) Michael Brooks, 2, Tiffany Brooks, 24, Tamakia Johnson, 20, and Donnie Walker talk with D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Charles Marshall about their plight.
I was looking to buy a place with a nice yard in a nice neighborhood," said Danielle Bays, 38, who lives on Morse Street. "It's concerning."
Miss Bays also said Wednesday that she remains disturbed by a homicide that occurred a few days before she moved into her home in April but has no intentions of leaving.
Claude Labbe, a real estate agent, said the lack of growth in the market has been noticeable.
"Over the last six months, we've seen appreciation in almost all areas except Trinidad," he said. "People just aren't as interested in the area, so it has not increased in value."
Developers have tried to attract new residents with retail shopping and entertainment.
The long-standing Hechinger Mall at Benning Road and Maryland Avenue, east of Trinidad, now has a Safeway, a Radio Shack and a Pizza Hut.
Just south of Trinidad is the H Street corridor, a popular hangout for young professionals recently revived from the 1968 riots with such spots as the Atlas Theater, the H Street Playhouse and live music venues such as the Rock & Roll Hotel.
"I'm not concerned," said Fritz Wood, the hotel's owner and general manager. "I still walk these streets. People are still moving here. The police presence is good."
Council member Harry Thomas, Ward 5 Democrat, thinks the area will continue to grow but said new homeowners should be prepared for growing pains.
"People sometimes when they move into these neighborhoods of transition, they have to understand the plight of the people," he said.
Post by: Balog on June 06, 2008, 06:05:28 AM
but still ridiculous. A lot of bad parents letting their kids run wild then whining that the state needs to deal with it. I like the "mom" who's 13 y/o is starting to work as a lookout for drug deals. Hey bitch, you ever think about, I don't know, being a PARENT and keeping your kid from selling drugs? Oh but that's right, poor people in bad neighborhoods can't be expected to have any measure of control on their kids.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 06, 2008, 07:54:49 AM
Bear with me, it's my first post, but has anyone noticed that all this is going down in a disarmed victims zone? Just before the DC v. Heller Supreme Court rulin
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 06, 2008, 08:10:25 AM
Bear with me, it's my first post, but has anyone noticed that all this is going down in a disarmed victims zone? Just before the DC v. Heller Supreme Court rulin
What you think it was planned that way. DC officials aren't that smart or cunning.
But it could prove real interesting. Warrantless searches. Wish they would try that crap in Tulsa.
Post by: Nick1911 on June 06, 2008, 08:55:00 AM
Bear with me, it's my first post, but has anyone noticed that all this is going down in a disarmed victims zone? Just before the DC v. Heller Supreme Court rulin
What you think it was planned that way. DC officials aren't that smart or cunning.
But it could prove real interesting. Warrantless searches. Wish they would try that crap in Tulsa.
Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it!
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 06, 2008, 09:02:54 AM
Wait...what?!
This CAN'T be okay with the Constitution in any sense of the word.
This CAN'T be okay with the Constitution in any sense of the word.
Remember, you are not being oppressed.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 06, 2008, 09:06:08 AM
just a reallity check here. the prime group to be excluded is the white suburban libertarian kids coming down to buy booze. the turf wars the dealer conduct as well as the stickup action are a nuisance to all. whiles its good to hear the outrage perhaps those far away could beseech their local kin to cop at home. sadly the carnage is often teens. you haven't lived till you u hear a mom talk about losing 2 sons to the "victimless" crime and her concern that the next time she hears shots it will be her 13 yearold this time who just started working as a look out
Fixed it for you to a pre-Repeal mindset.
Post by: nico on June 06, 2008, 11:50:41 AM
just a reallity check here. the prime group to be excluded is the white suburban libertarian kids coming down to buy booze. the turf wars the dealer conduct as well as the stickup action are a nuisance to all. whiles its good to hear the outrage perhaps those far away could beseech their local kin to cop at home. sadly the carnage is often teens. you haven't lived till you u hear a mom talk about losing 2 sons to the "victimless" crime and her concern that the next time she hears shots it will be her 13 yearold this time who just started working as a look out
Fixed it for you to a pre-Repeal mindset.
I was trying to ignore his attempts to change the topic from a basic infringement of freedom to a discussion about the war on drugs, but you're completely right.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 06, 2008, 12:04:34 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 06, 2008, 12:08:38 PM
Post by: cordex on June 06, 2008, 12:13:13 PM
lets see on the one hand we have folks who live in a neighborhood want to not worry about their kids getting capped. they are silly enough to want that freedom. on nthe other hand we have the internet warriors. many of whom live far away , with one who wouldn't drive through that neighborhood after dark scared about how their freedom to drive through a neighborhood they couldn't last a nite in . i'll never get a black hoodie cause i think the folks that live in trinidad winover electronic heroes of the revolution. what kinda commando won't drive 30 miles to stand up for a principle he TALKS so loud about. not as important as his possibly getting tossed from school? no wonder the revolution dies aborning
It is frankly irrelevant how gnarsty and crime-ridden the neighborhood is. The problem (and yes, it is a problem) is the acceptance of these types of non-emergency roadblocks, ID checks, searches and denial of entry because you can't satisfy an arbitrary standard of "legitimate reason" as an appropriate measure. The presence of crime in a city or neighborhood should not mean that police can chuck the Bill of Rights into the woodchipper. But what the hell, if they want to shred the Constitution, they'll have to fish it out of our legislator's toilets first.And CSD we all know you've got mad street cred. You've lived out on the hard streets and are a tough thug. We've got it, okay?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 06, 2008, 12:15:17 PM
you do notice that so far a guy 10k miles away is only one to TALK about going to trinidad. and i do hope hes not going to be deterred by the police
Post by: nico on June 06, 2008, 12:17:39 PM
lets see on the one hand we have folks who live in a neighborhood want to not worry about their kids getting capped. they are silly enough to want that freedom. on nthe other hand we have the internet warriors. many of whom live far away , with one who wouldn't drive through that neighborhood after dark scared about how their freedom to drive through a neighborhood they couldn't last a nite in . i'll never get a black hoodie cause i think the folks that live in trinidad winover electronic heroes of the revolution. what kinda commando won't drive 30 miles to stand up for a principle he TALKS so loud about. not as important as his possibly getting tossed from school? no wonder the revolution dies aborning
you sound like a brady. They have the "freedom" to not "worry" about their kids getting shot? So you're ok with the DC gun ban? After all, it makes some people feel better, and (according to you and the brady bunch) they have the right not to worry about their kids getting shot.
and WTF is this BS about a revolution? Not wanting to get arrested under an unjust law/policy doesn't make the law/policy just. I won't drive through that neighborhood after dark any more than you would, because it's a dangerous piece of crap neighborhood, thanks in large part to the people who live there. Do you think anyone who disagrees with NFA and restrictive carry laws is a hypocrite if they don't walk down the street carrying a full auto Uzi too?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 06, 2008, 12:18:33 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 06, 2008, 12:23:46 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 06, 2008, 12:27:44 PM
Remind me if I forget.
Now, let us return to the issue at stake: How does someone not wanting to travel to these neighborhoods make his opinion illegitimate?
I consider the ban on marijuana to be immoral and oppressive. In your view, my opinion is invalidated by me being unwilling to smoke it?
I consider Israel's gun laws to be immoral and oppressive. Do you believe my opinion is invalidated by being unwilling to purchase, and keep in my house, an M2?
I consider a variety of other laws immoral and oppressive, so what, my opinion is invalidated because I'm not running around and violating them?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 06, 2008, 12:38:34 PM
i don't get high either and i think the laws are asinine. and i annoy various judges and politicians about that when i can. i don't believe in getting high but advocate making all drugs legal.that would be the easy way to stop a lotta nonsense. but i realizre its not gonna happen in my life.
since all these folks are so sure its a bad law and that it'll be struck down some one will sue get rich etc you'd hope one of em would have [horribly mis-spelled anatomical reference deleted] enough to put up
Post by: Gewehr98 on June 06, 2008, 12:39:20 PM
One street in a particularly tough and run-down section of Citrus Heights is called Sayonara Drive. It's been a blight for many years, and I'm really surprised it hasn't burnt down to the ground yet.
The city has gated all but one access street leading into Sayonara Drive, and it's been that way since at least the mid-1990s.
When I lived a few blocks away from there, the Sacramento County sheriff's helicopters were constantly over that neighborhood, damned near every night, searchlights combing the ground.
I've walked through that neighborhood, but I also was deployed to Baghdad's Green Zone. I'd take a dare to walk through the neighborhood of interest in this thread in a New York Minute, no problem. Been there, done that.
Funny thing is with respect to Sayonara Drive, there was no mention of the War on (some) Drugs, nor was there much outcry about the constitutionality of walling off a community. My gut feeling was that the populations of Citrus Heights, Roseville, Carmichael, Sacramento, and Orangevale probably felt it was a good way to force the targeted neighborhood to wither and die off, while keeping the kudzu effect localized and in check. So it's really nothing new. Not necessarily right, morally or ethically, but it's what the community decided to do, so vote early and often if you want to see that change.
I'm going to ignore CaSD's posturing for now. He's already admitted (online, no less!) that he likes to annoy folks, and I see he's good at it. However, for the sake of a publically-visible Armed Polite Society, let's keep this discussion rational, without the double-dog-dare bravado and thread veer, ok?
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 06, 2008, 12:43:11 PM
Society in the West [of which America is just one, but wonderful subset] is screwed-up by oppressive government and the various cultural problems associated with it. This can be fixed either by an event of revolutionary magnitude, or by decades and decades of political activism. Not gonna be over within my lifetime.
But that doesn't mean it's not oppressive.
Yes, damn it, we ARE being oppressed.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 06, 2008, 12:56:26 PM
walking through that hood can be done kids do it all the time my point is none of those so outraged feel stongly enough to take drive to make a stand.also that those folks who live there get their frreedom to live back in real life as opposed to someones imaginary denial of their right to cruise a hood. i say imaginary cause until they get it up to go there and get denied it hasn't happened and is just a fantasy on the net
Post by: Treo on June 06, 2008, 03:14:36 PM
Post by: doc2rn on June 06, 2008, 03:49:04 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 06, 2008, 04:44:32 PM
you think this is a new deal? been going on for decades and in other areas besides this. mthey had some area on cops years ago that did this
Post by: doc2rn on June 06, 2008, 05:03:49 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 06, 2008, 05:10:27 PM
Post by: De Selby on June 06, 2008, 05:20:54 PM
Maybe I should put my roommates in the car. One is Brazilian, one Korean, one Japanese, and one from Africa. I think we could keep their heads spinning by speaking different languages. I also speak French and sign so it could be real fun.
Word to the wise-do not intentionally mess with the Metro PD, especially not if you are young and not a billionaire scion.
It will end badly.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 06, 2008, 05:25:28 PM
Post by: De Selby on June 06, 2008, 05:28:27 PM
some of the boys in trinidad are worse than cops
No question
Oh yeah, and doc2rn....do eat at Marjan on the corner of Prospect and Wisconsin! And have a smoke after dinner
Post by: GigaBuist on June 06, 2008, 07:36:11 PM
and at the same time none of us white folk from the suburbans would dare venture in there too dangerous for us but white suburban kids do it all the time
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 07, 2008, 05:31:44 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 07, 2008, 05:34:54 AM
We have a war on drugs just like you guys. And our equivalent of rich white kids buy weed too.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 07, 2008, 05:40:42 AM
Explain this to me, then. Why is it I don't know of anybody's kids sleeping in bath-tubs in Israel?
We have a war on drugs just like you guys. And our equivalent of rich white kids buy weed too.
We have a war on drugs just like you guys. And our equivalent of rich white kids buy weed too.
they do shootem ups where they call the innocent victims "mushrooms"
the sad reallity is that if they shut down trinidad the trade will move somewhere else but the folks in trinidad get a chance to live
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 07, 2008, 05:44:20 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 07, 2008, 05:50:46 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 07, 2008, 05:52:36 AM
So explain to me, why is it that the war on drugs is everywhere, but only some places are crapholes?
It's not the drugs, it's the tribes. Yes, there's sometimes retribution for a ripoff, but the driveby spraying is due to gang warfare. As far as I know, you don't have MS-13, Latin Kings, Crips, Bloods, and the like waging urban warfare there.
It's like a slightly less violent version of Shi'a vs. Sunni fights, since they're not using full-auto and bombs. Yet. Though MS-13 in Latin America regularly decapitates people who oppose them, so who knows.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 07, 2008, 06:22:15 AM
Explain this to me, then. Why is it I don't know of anybody's kids sleeping in bath-tubs in Israel?
We have a war on drugs just like you guys. And our equivalent of rich white kids buy weed too.
We have a war on drugs just like you guys. And our equivalent of rich white kids buy weed too.
they do shootem ups where they call the innocent victims "mushrooms"
the sad reallity is that if they shut down trinidad the trade will move somewhere else but the folks in trinidad get a chance to live
"Mushrooms?" I do know that in some areas they don't do fireworks on the fourth of july; they do firearms, and people keep low in their houses to avoid being "collateral casualties"...
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 07, 2008, 06:30:33 AM
So explain to me, why is it that the war on drugs is everywhere, but only some places are crapholes?
Yes, there's sometimes retribution for a ripoff, but the driveby spraying is due to gang warfare. As far as I know, you don't have MS-13, Latin Kings, Crips, Bloods, and the like waging urban warfare there. We do have gangs. We have Beduin and Druze clans, and Jewish crime families, who take out each other's members on a routine basis, using everything up to and including LAW launchers.
But I've never heard of a neighborhood where you need to sleep in a bath-tub.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 07, 2008, 06:55:08 AM
So explain to me, why is it that the war on drugs is everywhere, but only some places are crapholes?
Yes, there's sometimes retribution for a ripoff, but the driveby spraying is due to gang warfare. As far as I know, you don't have MS-13, Latin Kings, Crips, Bloods, and the like waging urban warfare there. We do have gangs. We have Beduin and Druze clans, and Jewish crime families, who take out each other's members on a routine basis, using everything up to and including LAW launchers.
But I've never heard of a neighborhood where you need to sleep in a bath-tub.
Woodframe construction with drywall will not stop even an errant 9mm, is why.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 07, 2008, 06:57:55 AM
So explain to me, why is it that the war on drugs is everywhere, but only some places are crapholes?
Yes, there's sometimes retribution for a ripoff, but the driveby spraying is due to gang warfare. As far as I know, you don't have MS-13, Latin Kings, Crips, Bloods, and the like waging urban warfare there. We do have gangs. We have Beduin and Druze clans, and Jewish crime families, who take out each other's members on a routine basis, using everything up to and including LAW launchers.
But I've never heard of a neighborhood where you need to sleep in a bath-tub.
Woodframe construction with drywall will not stop even an errant 9mm, is why.
That's not my point. I've lived in neighborhoods where you couldn't drive a nail into a wall because you would bring it down when you hung stuff on the nail.
My point is, gang shoot-outs are just not frequent enough here to reqiure sleeping in bathubs.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 07, 2008, 07:05:00 AM
So explain to me, why is it that the war on drugs is everywhere, but only some places are crapholes?
Yes, there's sometimes retribution for a ripoff, but the driveby spraying is due to gang warfare. As far as I know, you don't have MS-13, Latin Kings, Crips, Bloods, and the like waging urban warfare there. We do have gangs. We have Beduin and Druze clans, and Jewish crime families, who take out each other's members on a routine basis, using everything up to and including LAW launchers.
But I've never heard of a neighborhood where you need to sleep in a bath-tub.
Woodframe construction with drywall will not stop even an errant 9mm, is why.
That's not my point. I've lived in neighborhoods where you couldn't drive a nail into a wall because you would bring it down when you hung stuff on the nail.
My point is, gang shoot-outs are just not frequent enough here to reqiure sleeping in bathubs.
But they are here in certain neighborhoods. If you stand in guns-banned Roxbury, a suburb of Boston, you can quite literally hear strings of 9mm pops on hot summer nights.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 07, 2008, 07:05:47 AM
Post by: De Selby on June 07, 2008, 12:44:52 PM
So explain to me, why is it that the war on drugs is everywhere, but only some places are crapholes?
Yes, there's sometimes retribution for a ripoff, but the driveby spraying is due to gang warfare. As far as I know, you don't have MS-13, Latin Kings, Crips, Bloods, and the like waging urban warfare there. We do have gangs. We have Beduin and Druze clans, and Jewish crime families, who take out each other's members on a routine basis, using everything up to and including LAW launchers.
But I've never heard of a neighborhood where you need to sleep in a bath-tub.
Woodframe construction with drywall will not stop even an errant 9mm, is why.
That's not my point. I've lived in neighborhoods where you couldn't drive a nail into a wall because you would bring it down when you hung stuff on the nail.
My point is, gang shoot-outs are just not frequent enough here to reqiure sleeping in bathubs.
They're not frequent enough to require it here in the states either-it's just that we have a "preparedeness" type mindset that sometimes leads people to over-do the precautions.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 07, 2008, 12:46:50 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 07, 2008, 01:08:24 PM
if i hear shots putting the kids in the tub works especially after a few mushrooms get hit in the neighborhood
And that's separate from deliberately sleeping in tubs every night, like you seem to imply.