Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NYers to NYPD: 'I Do Not Consent to Being Searched'
The Village Voice ^ | July 21st, 200 | by Chisun Lee

Posted on 07/22/2005 11:06:07 AM PDT by BigFinn


Spend $16.99 so you can wear this to your grave

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; US: New York; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: baaaaa; libertarianfools; nonprofiling; nothintohidehere; nyc; nypd; sheeple; stupidliberals; tshirt; villagevoiceisarag; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640641-642 next last
To: CyberAnt

We live in strange times. I don't like the thought of being blown to bits one bit, but I'd rather be blown up than wake up one day to discover that I'm living in a police state. Don't get me wrong, I respect a police presence but if this random search stuff starts getting out of hand, I'll be the first to scream 1984. There is a fine line between the order that Locke had in mind with security by the state and the "freedom is slavery" that Orwell could foresee in war fed paranoia.


601 posted on 07/23/2005 1:26:03 AM PDT by stacytec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: Sir_Ed
What does the stadium security do when you're legally carrying?
Do you inform them, first, or do they just discover it and ask to see your CCW?

I don't have a concealed carry permit, so it's never been an issue. I'm not sure what they'd do in that situation. Hypothetically, I'd declare it. This is Seattle, after all. :-)

602 posted on 07/23/2005 5:24:46 AM PDT by Not A Snowbird (Official RKBA Landscaper and Arborist, Duchess of Green Leafy Things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: SALChamps03
You are trying to say that the city of New York owns nightclubs?????

Not at all - just that Mayor Bloominidiot doesn't understand the difference between private entities and public places.

603 posted on 07/23/2005 6:10:27 AM PDT by Gabz ((Chincoteague, VA) USSG Warning: Portable sewing machines are known to cause broken ankles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: Sir_Ed

The police, in fact, have made random searches of cars entering the Lincoln and Holland tunnels so that has already happened.
These searches did not become institutionalized. The searches were not extended to the city's streets, parks, and apartment houses.
New York is a city of people just waiting to become litigants. Everyone "knows their rights" and knows a lawyer. The picture you paint of New York City police becoming the Gestapo is not realistic. The Village Voice used that argument to oppose every move that Rudy Guiliani made for 8 years and would gladly have driven him from office if they could. New York would have been the poorer if they had.
My opinion is that, as citizens, we have both rights and responsibilities. One responsibility, in my opinion, is to cooperate with law enforcement--especially since we don't have the kind of security system that exists in London and New York is still on the terrorists' hit list.


604 posted on 07/23/2005 7:01:20 AM PDT by RedRover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: TheForceOfOne
... People cannot seem to decipher the difference between fighting for the same cause during war and a attack on civil liberties during peace time. ...

This war is not only without particular nations to fight, it is also without defined, envisioned or even expected victory.

605 posted on 07/23/2005 7:12:58 AM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Tactical
I think what has everyone panties in a bunch is plain old fashion poor choice of wording, by using the word "RANDOM".

No, it isn't a poor choice of words. It's a poor choice of tactics. And, IMO, it's a violation of the Constitution.

Random is the correct word to describe the searches, because they ARE random.

They want to help stop this stuff, but if we are just going to argue back and forth, then guess who wins? Yup the terrorists.

The terrorists will win if we don't find them and kill them. They are committed to either kill us or convert us. Random searches will not find them, other than one or two by chance here and there.

606 posted on 07/23/2005 7:54:53 AM PDT by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
The terrorists will win if we don't find them and kill them. They are committed to either kill us or convert us. Random searches will not find them, other than one or two by chance here and there.

I agree and go one step further. Every time a our way of life is changed due to "random" searches or other invasive measures. They win a small victory.

607 posted on 07/23/2005 8:03:39 AM PDT by beltfed308 (Cloth or link. Happiness is a perfect trunion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: Tactical
If I have a reasonable suspicious that a crime (terrorism) may be committed and I see someone acting suspicious in the vacinity, I can shake them down for my own safety as well as the general publics safety.

Well, if you've spotted someone who's acting suspicious, you've already established something the random search does not incorporate, and that is 'probable cause.' It's a whole different kettle of fish from just walking up to anybody in the street and requiring them to let you search their bag.

608 posted on 07/23/2005 12:01:04 PM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: beltfed308

Sorry, but how is a random search going to change my life? I don't understand.


609 posted on 07/23/2005 12:07:13 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie

It isn't going to change your life. However, some believe that they are on the barricades facing down a snarling American government that is just looking for the opportunity to limit individual rights and re-cast society into a brutal totalitarian state that would make 1984 look like a progressive summer camp for the children of rich hippie parents.


610 posted on 07/23/2005 12:12:24 PM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: stacytec

During WWII - we rationed everything (practically) - do you see anything being rationed today ..??

During WWII - we had lights out at 9 pm on the west coast - and we were required to have blackout shades on our windows - do you see that requirement in place today ..??

During WWII - my dad was an air raid warden; his job was to stop any vehicle which was driving around during the air raid. He worked the street where we lived and an adjoining street. He was a citizen volunteer - do you see any of that in place today ..??

And .. nobody thought their civil liberties were being violated - while we were trying to protect ourselves against an attack.


611 posted on 07/23/2005 12:59:53 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
The terrorists will win if we don't find them and kill them.

They also win if they change our society from one of freedom-loving to one of a police state. The majority of countries these terrorists either come from, or are funded or controlled from, are some form of dictatorship (whether it's dressed up as royalty or whatever).

Freedom and democracy are two of the biggest threats the terrorists and their masters in the Middle East face. That is why they are doing everything they can to undermine the democratic process in Iraq, whether it be killing Iraqis going to vote, or who are officials, elected or otherwise.

Unfortunately, in the United States they have plenty of accidental allies who would love to see a police state take over.

I'm not just talking about the Hillary Clintons pushing for more cameras all over the place, as she's done this week, because there are plenty of people on the right who want a police state as well (not just the ones happy that the PATRIOT Act is now permanent either). As a matter of fact, there were some in our government pushing such extreme measures after 9/11, that if they were proposed by Bill Clinton during his time as President, Republicans would have been going absolutely nuts, but because they were proposed under a Republican President, Republicans actually considered them.
612 posted on 07/23/2005 5:35:16 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: beltfed308
I agree and go one step further. Every time a our way of life is changed due to "random" searches or other invasive measures. They win a small victory.

I should have read a few posts further, you said in two sentences what it took me a paragraph and several more to say.
613 posted on 07/23/2005 5:36:34 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: durasell
It isn't going to change your life. However, some believe that they are on the barricades facing down a snarling American government that is just looking for the opportunity to limit individual rights and re-cast society into a brutal totalitarian state that would make 1984 look like a progressive summer camp for the children of rich hippie parents.

None of us here speaking out against more government powers, more searches, etc., think we are "on the barricades facing down a snarling American government".

I can't speak for the others, but I'm speaking out against these kinds of things for my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

You see, I have 20-40 years left to live theoretically. All of these incremental changes, they are just that, incremental. I won't notice them that much.

But a descendent of mine, 80 years from now, if they could experience life in America of the 1980s or 1990s, compared to life in America in 2080, they are going to wonder "why'd you let us down, why'd you let the statists get control of this country, why'd you let them take our freedom and our privacy?".
614 posted on 07/23/2005 5:46:33 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr

Everything changes and always had. I once sat on a plane next to an old woman who thought the loss of silverware and linen napkins on cross country flights was a tragedy.

Not to compare the trivial with the important, but everything really does change, always.


615 posted on 07/23/2005 7:10:38 PM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr

I agree with you 100%.


616 posted on 07/23/2005 7:29:32 PM PDT by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

That was a world war against global powers. There was the very real possibility that the United States would have been invaded. People didn't mind sacrificing and there was an expectation that at some point things would end and society would return to normal. The current enemy is a tiny, unseen force who's primary weapon is fear through attacks on the populace. How can the government ever claim that this enemy has been defeated if it can't even be seen? At what point do security measures get relaxed? In my opinion, the war against terror will be never ending. It's up to the citizens to make sure that government doesn't overstep the constitution in it's quest to protect the public.


617 posted on 07/23/2005 8:49:47 PM PDT by stacytec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: stacytec

And the WOT is a "world war against global powers". The fact they don't wear a military uniform, but the uniform of a religion.

"The current enemy is a tiny, unseen force" .. I don't agree with your assessment that the terrorists are "tiny" or "unseen". These people are in 70 nations - that's not "tiny". And .. everywhere they go DEATH follows .. that's not "unseen".

While the WOT will not have an ending as in the past - where there is surrender - it will be neutered to the point that people will begin to realize this is NOT a major issue anymore. I believe it can reach this point. How long it will take .. I don't have that answer .. but you're right .. we - the citizens - have to make sure that we are protected but not denied our Constitutional rights.


618 posted on 07/23/2005 9:45:27 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: stacytec
In my opinion, the war against terror will be never ending. It's up to the citizens to make sure that government doesn't overstep the constitution in it's quest to protect the public.

Because this war will never end, the biggest danger to the USA, is in fact, us.

The terrorists can kill 3,000 or 3,000,000 Americans, and it won't destroy the USA.

Americans, on the other hand, can allow the government to remove more and more of our freedom and privacy (to "protect" us), and that will destroy the USA.
619 posted on 07/24/2005 8:13:11 AM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: microgood
My fear here is that if this creates huge lines, the terrorists can just wait until they are in the middle of the line and detonate right there, if they are truly suicide bombers.
I unfortunately had the same thought. Other than being completely disgusting on constitutional grounds, these new rules offer a new target also.
620 posted on 07/24/2005 8:32:37 AM PDT by freedom moose (has de cultivar el que sembres)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640641-642 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson