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.
Thanks for that list.
It's a must-read/study by every American as we are being transformed from a European extended nation to a third world nation somewhere between a Haiti and a Mexico.
Time to prepare our families.
That compilation also proofs what I have always said: Legal immigration is a much bigger problem than illegal immigration.
My guess is that these are people who were born here, moved abroad and then renounced or otherwise lost their U.S. citizenship. Should such a person then move back to the USA, they would have to get an immigrant visa, and would thus show up in the stats as US-born.
Also a very few people (children of foreign diplomats) born here are not US citizens, and would thus need an immigrant visa (or lax US government) in order to live here.
I agree but we both know that grannies and yuppies will end up being the ones searched. I also imagine that this will be used as an excuse to search those who fit a profile of a recreational drug user.
You are confused.
You target the enemy -- whom should not be here in the first place -- not grannies and drug users.
Good for the cops. I don't CARE what happens to the Times or any of their so called reporters. We all know what he's going to do with those pics.
I don't want to live in a police state because of Radical Islam or any other idiotic reason. If Islam is the problem then deal with Islam not the entire Global Population.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
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.
Diversity is tyranny.
Demographics is destiny.
No, I think you misunderstood my post. I am saying that grannies and drug users SHOULD be targeted for random searches - I'm saying that is what WILL be done.
Well, that may be true, but by all accounts the guy that discovered aspirin was a real asshole. This doesn't make everyone who takes aspirin an asshole.
Supposed someone else made the shirt ... would it be okay to wear it then?
Not consenting to something is not "defiance". Especially when they say you can walk away. That is simply ... not consenting. "Defiance" would be struggling to take your bag away from police after they declared that their dog smelled explosives and they had reasonable suspicion to look in it. Defiance would be slapping the cop in the face. Defiance is not refusing consent. Consent, by it's nature, is voluntary - and one cannot be defiant for refusing it.
The neighborhood kid asked if I would give him $10 to mow my lawn. I did not consent. He didn't mow my lawn. Did I "defy" him? No. I simply declined to have it done. And in return, I didn't get my lawn mowed. At this point, it sounds like if you don't consent to inspetion in the subway, you don't get to enter that particular turnstile. You have to walk to the other entrance, or maybe to the next stop. But that's not "defience". It's making a choice.
Everyone is free to consent or not consent. They may check the bag without your consent, but not granting your consent is not defiance. It is doing what you think is right. And we should all do what we think is right. And not abiding by a law that violates the Bill of Rights is actually an OBLIGATION that all patriotic Americans have. Yes, I realize that it is impractical, and "not the way things work" ... but it's presicely our passivity to the deterioration of the Consitution that has gotten us to this point. Now since we've made 4/5th of the journey to totalitarianism people just say "we might as well go the rest of the way", but I don't begrudge the small number of people who try to preserve what the military is fighting for. Freedom.
Oops, I meant to write that I am NOT saying that grannies and drug users SHOULD be targeted. I left out the word "not" in my previous post and that completely screwed up the meaning of my post.
BTW: Better an Indian doctor or Colombian banker (I know many) than the white trash shanty Irish/Russian welfare cases that I lived around in Brooklyn. White people aint all that, I'm afraid, just certain types of White people.
The US is NOT and has NEVER been an extension of "Europe." You are thinking of Argentina.
The guy said "I would do anything be safer".
Most post was in response to this claim. This WOULD make him safer. It's a fact. An irrefutable fact.
If he doesn't implement this, then he lied. He would not, indeed, do anything to be safer.
Is it absurd? Yes. That was the point.
"I am saying that grannies and drug users SHOULD be targeted for random searches - I'm saying that is what WILL be done."
SHOULD, or you mean SHOULD NOT?
From the prior posts, I think you meant to say they shouldn't.
Got it. :)
My father also thinks we should allow immigrants other than Europeans (with some exceptions), but I also disagree with him. He's a minority of one. LOL! The Catholic prelate may not be such a small minority, but still a minority it is.
Smile. God loves you too.
It may well be futile but I doubt you'll find many courts agreeing that it is unconstitutional. The 4th Amendment is one of thos amendments that lends itself to "interpretation". One mans reasonable is another mans "unreasonable search".
A city that requires bags to be searched as a condition for using public transportation during times of war would almost certainly win their case in court. A city that requires every homeowner to allow police to search theri property would almost certainly lose their case in court.
Reasonable vs unreasonable is all very subjective.
;-) Say hi to Tom Fleming for me.
I am not an open borders person.
I was just using that as an analogy - suppose we had no immigration issue with mexico - no one was coming here from mexico. then what would border security be for? national security. what are the odds of stopping a small terrorist team from crossing, short of building the Berlin wall across 1000s of miles? very low odds. so does that mean we should have no border security, because the odds of catching a bad guy is low? of course not.
LOL!
Does he too have his name carved on the stair stones facing the field? You know what I mean?
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.