Comments on: Your papers, please

By: Peregrinus

Peregrinus — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:58:06 +0000

Chris Plant (the morning 630 AM host who replaced Chris Core) did an entire show on this Friday, after Thursday one of the callers said they would be taking a microtape recorder to the checkpoints to record the cops and see if they were screwing up.

My first reaction to this entire story is that it is rather… overly strict, and I think it’s probably unConstitutional, but then again, I think a lot of things that are common are unConstitutional.

By: Caleb

Caleb — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:01:59 +0000

Timmeee, shooting the cops is stupid. You fight stuff like this, and you fight infringement on the 2nd Amendment in the courts, not with bullets. As long as we have a functioning court system we don’t start shooting people.

I’m copying this bit in from a comment on the “Don’t shoot cops” thread.

His argument was compelling that the founders only considered that right as available when there was no representation. As long as there are freely elected representatives and working courts, political action, not armed revolt, is how you bring about change.

That’s 100% correct, and quite accurately makes my point. Advocating armed resistance against the government and police is never going to win our fight for us; while there may come a time that armed resistance becomes our only recourse, it most certainly is not now.

By: Timmeee

Timmeee — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:17:07 +0000

Ya, right, then you post this? :

http://www.nrahab.com/2008/06/06/hay-guyz-lets-shoot-some-cops/

If you let the “Staatspolizei ” infringe on the second in any way, this crap is to be expected, and people like you are to blame.

By: Nate

Nate — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:33:09 +0000

Some quote about freedom for safety comes to mind…oh never mind

By: Kalium

Kalium — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:56:39 +0000

And according to the article, this procedure, as employed in the 90s in NYC, passed constitutional muster in federal court.

That doesn’t make it any less suspicious.

By: Boyd

Boyd — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:49:28 +0000

And according to the article, this procedure, as employed in the 90s in NYC, passed constitutional muster in federal court.

By: Boyd

Boyd — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:00:28 +0000

A much more informative article can be found at the WaPo.

By: Caleb

Caleb — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:58:54 +0000

Yeah, they don’t get a pass for violating my rights just because there have been a lot of drive by shootings. Being in a crappy neighborhood isn’t probable cause for a stop and search, and it drives me absolutely fucking nuts that they would even consider this to be legal.

By: Boyd

Boyd — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:55:23 +0000

This is not intended in any way to defend this anti-civil rights behavior, but I wanted to share with you what I’ve heard about this action.

First, while the authority may be blanket, it is currently planned to be used only in one particular neighborhood where there have been a larger-than-normal number of drive by shootings lately.

Next, the police will only be stopping cars, not pedestrians. Since you have to have a driver’s license to be driving, you have to have an ID.

It almost tempts me to drive down there, offer them my driver’s license, but refuse to answer their questions about anything else. Not quite, though, because those aren’t neighborhoods I’d want to frequent to begin with, and certainly not unarmed.