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.
Yes. I often have a Glock in my backpack, one of the thousands of reasons I do not travel to communist occupied zones like NYC.
So I guess you think it's unreasonable that someone might explode a backpack full of explosives in a subway car?
I think this is likely to happen with or without random searches. We could likely stop numerous vicious crimes with warrantless weekly searches of homes but we don't and we shouldn't.
Thanks.
Sorry, but that's not responsive. The searches are RANDOM. You still haven't responded to the randomness issue.
If they either searched everyone or only those fitting the description/profile of the bombers, that would be fine. Random searches are not fine, though.
My point exactly in #268.
Er, yeah.
The point I was trying to make is that it's stupid to rush & take non-sensical measures that make us no more safe because of terrorist attacks that happened in another country.
Since 9/11, there have been countless terrorist atttacks around the world. Many of them worse than what happened in London.
But let a few bombs go off in London (not trying to downplay the horror here) and suddenly we're rushing to flush the Bill of Rights down the toilet. Why not before, when there were other post-9/11 attacks *not* in London?
It's sort of like everyone thinking the one & only school shooting there's ever been was Columbine.
...unless by Salma Hayek".
What does Hillary! think of this protest?
Think about it: Most folks have no problem getting searched at a stadium, nightclub, or similar venue, mainly because they consider this part of a "voluntary" transaction of sorts -- and the government isn't really involved at all. On the other hand, a lot of us despise the idea that something as incompetent as a government would be involved in "violating" our rights simply because we have an expectation of being "free" to use something like a subway or bus with minimal interference.
The obvious solution to this dilemma is to get government out of mass transit entirely, and stop treating it as if it were a public commodity. Let a private operator take over the subway system, and let that operator figure out a way to deal with security matters.
Of course, this also requires us to treat the subway system as a fully private system and get rid of this silly notion that being "open to the public" automatically means a private business must function as if it were operating in a public space. If the subway operator wants to prohibit all packages, bags, etc., then so be it. They should also be permitted to refuse entry to anyone who "looks suspicious" or for any reason whatsoever, which means they cannot be sued just because they turned away some swarthy guy in his pajamas wearing a long beard on his face and a diaper on his head.
"Stop quoting the Bill of Rights you pinko commie!"
LOL you are crackin me up
It is.
But you can either accept it in perpetuity, or like our forefathers, try to change it.
If we followed your lead, we would be sipping tea at noon and saluting the Queen.
Things have gotten bad in this country, but it would suck if everyone gave up. Even though I think they have, I like to hope they haven't.
They could always hire a private company to run the subway system. Then let the private company set criteria for entry of a train. Then, no government entity would be involved.
AMEN, considering that without him, there would have been no organized resistance to the Stamp Act; therefore no Sons of Liberty; therefore no Committees of Correspondence; etc. Sam was a revolutionary, not a politician---that's why he sort of dropped off the map after the fighting was done.
Sorry but I take my rights and freedoms seriously. As well as the right to disagree.
Your right. "It's foooooor theeeee chiiiidreeen"
I am going to have to remember that quote - it could be very applicable at times.
I ran into a London officer at Police week here in Wash DC this May and he said until a couple years ago he was on the evening shift and one of the pub owners left him and his partner a pint on the back fence before he closed up! He was all PO'ed that his shift got changed cause he liked the free beer.
"It's really strange to read people argue that we're fighting to make people in Iraq free, when all the while we Americans are becoming less and less free. What---we have to give up what we fought for here in order to give them some?"
Hear, Hear!!!!!!!
Fighting for freedom in Iraq, while the SCOTUS rules in favor of abolition of private property!!
While I appreciate the slippery slope approach, not wearing a seat belt in Ohio is still a secondary offense, not a primary one (i.e. they still can't pull you over for it, although every single year/session some politician introduces a bill in the OGA to make it a primary one).
If they collect taxes to provide subway service then they are under obligation to provide subway service.
I live there too. I am willing to let it play out for a while before I get hot and bothered. I don't want to fault the average cop with anything...he/she didn't make the policy....what are the policy makers thinking? So let's wait and see before we catch a dose of kvetchitis.
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.