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.
I can just see a cop trying to search a burqa wearer.
This is a common misconception. It's not our freedom that they hate. We could become the biggest, most totalitarian statet in the world and it wouldn't change their view of us. They hate us because we're not muslim. Unless you believe what they believe you are not even a human being to them. They are truely varelse. We're going to eventually have to kill every freaking one of them if we're going to survive.
Quote: There's a difference between public transportation and a private vehicle. No slippiness here.
Your wrong it's called incrementalism. In Ohio 10 years ago they had a voluntary campaign to get people to wear seatbelts. Then they came out with a law that stated you could get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt ONLY if they pulled you over for another crime like speeding etc and noticed you were not wearing a belt.
Today in Ohio the troopers can pull you over for just not wearing a belt and ticket you.
Not riding the subway does not make you housebound.
Someone might explode a backpack full of explosives in a Taxi above the subway station, which would have the same devistating effect. So people lose their privacy and the terrorists still create terror. I can play on these scenarios all day. Want to search all the taxis? Buses? Public buildings? Hell ,why stop with public buildings? Lets search cars going through the Lincoln Tunnel or over the Brooklyn Bridge. Where or when does the sense of security become fulfilled?
I am saying they are not. The searches aren't manetory. The option to leave the bag at home or walk away exists.
A peace offer trained in ascertaining reasonable suspicion or probable cause,or even a civilian when such probable cause exists that a felony has been committed or is imminent as could be articulated by a "reasonable person".
Note: Random searches do not fall under any of these catagories.
I feel the sudden urge to take a constitutional law class. I find this subject fascinating.
It will only be useful if their is a constitution left that anybody bothers to consult, which doesn't appear to be the case.
Not if the fare were uniform.
Yes it would.
Prior restraint means that in order to exercise a right [in this case, as you posit, ride the subway], you must satisfy a government-set prerequisite [paying a fare] PRIOR to exercising said right.
Uniformity doesn't have a thing to do with it.
GS: 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?
No, I choose to live and work in jurisdictions where concealed carry is legal and have made the decision to a large degree to assume responsiblity for my own safety.
The cops are more than welcome to cuff and write paper when they arrive on the scene.
(And on a personal note, I have strong disagreements with the concept of a Concealed Handgun Permit for the prior restraint reasons stated above, but my aversion to incarceration overrides my temptation to be inflexibly principled (as you seem to be) and carry without one.)
GS: 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.
It's called "exercising common sense" to not get smart if several officers ask you to do something. My subsequent comment about positive results should have sufficed.
And no, it's the other way around. The government's supposed to fear the citizenry.
And when was the last time that you got conscripted to enforce the government's wishes, as you put it?** Shades of Ivan Denosivich!
**[the large part of the year you work to pay your income taxes excepted from this rhetorical question : ^ ) ]
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.
Reality check.
I worked as a paramedic for a couple of years long ago which gave me more of a window into how cops work think and operate than anybody except for possibly cop spouses.
On the streets, the courts aren't the law, the Constitution isn't the law, and the lawyers aren't the law: the police are the embodiment of the law, whether you like it or not.
If the cops decide that you haven't broken the law, then you don't get arrested. Regardless of whether you have or not. Period. End of story.
And, just as in any other profession, there are good cops and bad cops; there are people who have no business being cops (some of them are good politicians who end up in the brass)
I think that you're bitching because the principle of law isn't always congruent with the law as it is applied In Real Life in a given situation.
And that's just life, my friend.
I think it's pretty much that way at all arenas and stadiums now.
I can imagine 2-3M a day for the subways alone in a city of 12M or so, with few cars.
LA Sheriffs detained an LA Times photographer a little while for taking pictures in the Hollywood/Highland subway station. The guy was wetting his panties and called his "lawyer" when they told him to leave. So, they detained him.
There is no photography allowed on the MTA lines, has been that way since it opened. You must have a ticket to be below ground (hope the deputies cited the guy for that, $271)
Supervisors were responding last I heard.
I thought about that. No city is under any obligation to provide public transportation to begin with.
And BTW, I like the undercover Metro cops (some of whom are remarkably scruffy looking). I think putting cops (uniformed and otherwise) in the trains makes a lot more sense than random searches.
You forgot the obligatory "for safety".
FRegards
It does if you need it to get where you are going. As does not walking on public sidewalks, or using public roads.
If we can ban people from public transit, what prevents us from banning them from any other public place, and how would this NOT make them housebound since everything outside of their residence is either private or public property?
I haven't lived in NYC for more than 20 years, but can understand how and why NYPD rank and file would have a problem with this .......... let alone the idiocy of the milk crate thing and so many other things the Bloominidiot has dumped on them since his reign began.
Did you grow up on or before September 11th?
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.