Spend $16.99 so you can wear this to your grave
Posted on 07/22/2005 11:06:07 AM PDT by BigFinn
Reacting to the NYPD's announcement Thursday afternoon that police would randomly—but routinely—search the bags of commuters, one concerned New Yorker quickly created a way for civil libertarians to make their views black-and-white. In a few outraged moments, local immigrant rights activist Tony Lu designed t-shirts bearing the text, "i do not consent to being searched." The minimalist protest-wear can be purchased here, in various styles and sizes. (Lu will not get a cut. The shirts' manufacture, sale, and shipment, will be handled by the online retailer. Lu encourages budget-conscious New Yorkers to make their own and wear them everywhere.)
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly had announced the legally obvious—that New Yorkers are free to decline a search and "turn around and leave." But Lu, who is a lawyer at Urban Justice Center, warned that even well-intentioned cops could interpret people's natural nervousness or anger as "reasonable suspicion." The possibility of unjustified interrogation and even arrest is real, Lu said.
Although police promised they would not engage in racial profiling, Lu said that, as with all street-level policing, people of color and poor immigrants would be particularly vulnerable, especially if encounters lead to arrests.
Yeah, I think the potential of a search along with more cops on the platforms, etc. will cause them to think twice.
And think of how much money they'll save. Wow!
I thought we were a free society? Turning marxist is far worse.
Oh, for crying out loud....
Use your head. What most basic of Constitutional rights is being trod upon when a policeman asks to look in my briefcase? It happens at stadiums, it happens at courthouses, it happens in airports.
Adults need to stop being such whiney babies. We're setting a bad example for the children.
I have found that 90% of people who call themselves "conservatives" are no such thing.
Liberals on the other hand pretty accurately describe themselves. I'm not sure why that is.
It's got nothing to do with that.
The terrorists hate us because we're not jihadists.
It's for the children, donchano.
What do you mean? The only way to back it up at this point in time is to be a test case that goes to the USSC. And a majority-strict-contructionist USSC at that.
If you think random searches are reasonable, please explain the reasoning.
Random searches catching bombers is more like a room of chimpanzees typing the complete works of Shakespeare, than real LE work. They might get a word or two right here and there, but that's about it. Likewise, random searches might catch a bomber here and there, but, with a huge emphasis on "might", that's about it.
Take your "sheeple" crap to the DU.
Quote: PS. Though I might feel differently if I wore a fanny pack.
Any male that wears a fanny pack needs to be jailed or deported. How can I say it best: It looks so damn gay.
"i do not consent to being searched."
buy a bike...
I agree with this. Now how do we get that into practice and what can do we do in the meantime?
Amendment IV
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.
Yeah, I get it. Terrorists blow stuff up, citizens give up their privacy for illusionary safety, and America slips into an Orwellian paradise willingly. Your privacy now means nothing to the state. Move along before we are forced to question you, good citizen.
Let me know when you ladies enlist and the least of your worries will be what's in your hanbags! LMAO
Better start screening those transit workers, too.
Not if the fare were uniform.
If the police want for you to "assume the position", they can always come up with a plausible reason for you to do so.
Yes, but that doesn't make it right. Have you given up?
And in a situation where they are armed and several and you are disarmed and solo, discretion ought to dictate that you adopt compliant behavior.
Yes, I am well aware that we are supposed to fear our government and the people cosncipted to enforce it's wishes. It still doesn't make it right.
Being smartass to police officers does not yield positive results, even in New York.
Nobody should be above the law or consitution. Armed or not.
Former USN aviator right here, tough guy.
Post after post...from conservatives. Unbelievable, no?
What if they search you and find from a joint to illegally downloaded MP3's?
If Conservative Republicans so readily are willing to give up the most cherished of Rights, we are doomed.
And most don't even get it. Maybe the Liberals are right in believing that if you scratch a Conservative you find an Authoritarian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.