“Martial Law” Declared in Arkansas Town

[black elk speaks]

Hiring more cops will reduce crime, yes.

Whether or not hiring more cops is an option is up for consideration. I wasn't actually trying to say that this issue can be easily dealt with, but merely taking beef with your statement that cops don't affect the crime-rate. I didn't really read this debate, I just chimed in on your seemingly faulty idea of how the police works. Ten more police-officers can make a world of difference.

i don't believe that i ever said that. i was referring to the number of cops seen in the image that Visaoni saw. it seemed to me that he saw a picture with lots of cops on the street at one time. he assumed that all of those cops should make a difference. thinking about what a state of martial law involved, it means that all law enforcement is on staff at one time. that is unsustainable. they need to have lives too. to replicate those numbers in a sustainable state, you would have to triple the number of your police staff.

[Snorri1234]

That more police can influence things regardless of whether actual numbers match up.

what do you mean by "regardless of whether actual numbers match up?"
are you saying that by simply hiring more cops that the crime could be reduced.

no bes, I think he's saying that the police relies on shock and awe as well as on being accepted (or at least feared), no country in the world has enough police to actually control the rest of the population. What they do is keep up an appearance of being in control, and it works because most people don't mind them. In this case they concentrate their forces to a problematic area to calm the situation down in the hopes that it will remain calm, at least for a while, after they leave.

Indeed. Cops are very much outnumbered by criminals in any city, state or country. But they rely on sort of scare-tactics to appear as if they're better at getting you than they actually are. 800 people vs 60 is in no way winnable, but the police act like they are with far more and the criminals believe them.

[black elk speaks]

That more police can influence things regardless of whether actual numbers match up.

what do you mean by "regardless of whether actual numbers match up?"
are you saying that by simply hiring more cops that the crime could be reduced.

no bes, I think he's saying that the police relies on shock and awe as well as on being accepted (or at least feared), no country in the world has enough police to actually control the rest of the population. What they do is keep up an appearance of being in control, and it works because most people don't mind them. In this case they concentrate their forces to a problematic area to calm the situation down in the hopes that it will remain calm, at least for a while, after they leave.

Indeed. Cops are very much outnumbered by criminals in any city, state or country. But they rely on sort of scare-tactics to appear as if they're better at getting you than they actually are. 800 people vs 60 is in no way winnable, but the police act like they are with far more and the criminals believe them.

i don't think that is a very fair assessment. 800 vs 600 would quickly turn into 800 vs 500 or more (i speculate at these numbers, but you get the idea). reinforcements in the form of national guard can be called in. lets not forget Rodney king.

[Snorri1234]

Hiring more cops will reduce crime, yes.

Whether or not hiring more cops is an option is up for consideration. I wasn't actually trying to say that this issue can be easily dealt with, but merely taking beef with your statement that cops don't affect the crime-rate. I didn't really read this debate, I just chimed in on your seemingly faulty idea of how the police works. Ten more police-officers can make a world of difference.

i don't believe that i ever said that. i was referring to the number of cops seen in the image that Visaoni saw. it seemed to me that he saw a picture with lots of cops on the street at one time. he assumed that all of those cops should make a difference. thinking about what a state of martial law involved, it means that all law enforcement is on staff at one time. that is unsustainable. they need to have lives too. to replicate those numbers in a sustainable state, you would have to triple the number of your police staff.

Well not exactly, I give you that, but you came pretty close to it.

sorry. i think that the same number of police on "a few streets" as you put it are futile if the streets are packed with unemployed and criminally minded people. i don't pretend to know the situation there, but if there were say 800 or 1000 people on the street at any given time then 60 or so officers over a few streets would be pretty useless, i think.

This statement proves my point because you believe it isn't the way in almost any country.
There are always far more criminally minded people on the street than there are cops. You don't see them all the time for a reason, it's because they're not there. The police rely on that voice in your head telling you that there might be cops at any moment now, while there is no way that they actually will be there. It's simple mind-games they're playing, they work because criminals aren't organized and quick to scare.


There is a reason that organized crime is so scary to the police. It's because they realised that the cops weren't as powerfull as they tell you they are. The odds of being caught for a crime aren't that big, but the PR-onslaught of the police make you think it's almost a certainty. It's why criminals rarely stop when out of jail, it's because they've figured that cops aren't that awesome.

[Snorri1234]

i don't think that is a very fair assessment. 800 vs 600 would quickly turn into 800 vs 500 or more (i speculate at these numbers, but you get the idea). reinforcements in the form of national guard can be called in. lets not forget Rodney king.

Only true if you think it's some sort of war, or at least if you think these were armies.

[black elk speaks]

i don't think that is a very fair assessment. 800 vs 600 would quickly turn into 800 vs 500 or more (i speculate at these numbers, but you get the idea). reinforcements in the form of national guard can be called in. lets not forget Rodney king.

Only true if you think it's some sort of war, or at least if you think these were armies.

only if it needed to be. you were the one that mentioned that law enforcement was maintaining a phony facade, no?

[black elk speaks]

Hiring more cops will reduce crime, yes.

Whether or not hiring more cops is an option is up for consideration. I wasn't actually trying to say that this issue can be easily dealt with, but merely taking beef with your statement that cops don't affect the crime-rate. I didn't really read this debate, I just chimed in on your seemingly faulty idea of how the police works. Ten more police-officers can make a world of difference.

i don't believe that i ever said that. i was referring to the number of cops seen in the image that Visaoni saw. it seemed to me that he saw a picture with lots of cops on the street at one time. he assumed that all of those cops should make a difference. thinking about what a state of martial law involved, it means that all law enforcement is on staff at one time. that is unsustainable. they need to have lives too. to replicate those numbers in a sustainable state, you would have to triple the number of your police staff.

Well not exactly, I give you that, but you came pretty close to it.

sorry. i think that the same number of police on "a few streets" as you put it are futile if the streets are packed with unemployed and criminally minded people. i don't pretend to know the situation there, but if there were say 800 or 1000 people on the street at any given time then 60 or so officers over a few streets would be pretty useless, i think.

This statement proves my point because you believe it isn't the way in almost any country.
There are always far more criminally minded people on the street than there are cops. You don't see them all the time for a reason, it's because they're not there. The police rely on that voice in your head telling you that there might be cops at any moment now, while there is no way that they actually will be there. It's simple mind-games they're playing, they work because criminals aren't organized and quick to scare.


There is a reason that organized crime is so scary to the police. It's because they realised that the cops weren't as powerfull as they tell you they are. The odds of being caught for a crime aren't that big, but the PR-onslaught of the police make you think it's almost a certainty. It's why criminals rarely stop when out of jail, it's because they've figured that cops aren't that awesome.

I can see how you misunderstood what i was saying there. my bad. as for what police rely on to keep order, i would have to say that i believe that they rely on the fact that most people are not out to commit crimes. higher concentrations of criminally minded people do require more police to control the masses, true. but where i live, there aren't droves of criminals roaming around, so i generally don't see more than 10 or 12 police officers in a given day.

[MeDeFe]

i don't think that is a very fair assessment. 800 vs 600 would quickly turn into 800 vs 500 or more (i speculate at these numbers, but you get the idea). reinforcements in the form of national guard can be called in. lets not forget Rodney king.

Only true if you think it's some sort of war, or at least if you think these were armies.

only if it needed to be. you were the one that mentioned that law enforcement was maintaining a phony facade, no?

You disagree? And anyway, the moment it turns into an actual war between law enforcement and whatever's reinforcing them on the one side, and criminals on the other the state and everyone else has already lost. Small time criminals avoid such a situation because the facade works against them, criminal syndicates avoid the situation because they need relatively stable environments to work in and from, the state avoids it because it would mean automatically losing.

i would have to say that i believe that they rely on the fact that most people are not out to commit crimes.

That's exactly what we've been saying. There are not enough police to control the population, so they put up a facade and rely on people accepting it.

[black elk speaks]

i don't think that is a very fair assessment. 800 vs 600 would quickly turn into 800 vs 500 or more (i speculate at these numbers, but you get the idea). reinforcements in the form of national guard can be called in. lets not forget Rodney king.

Only true if you think it's some sort of war, or at least if you think these were armies.

only if it needed to be. you were the one that mentioned that law enforcement was maintaining a phony facade, no?

You disagree? And anyway, the moment it turns into an actual war between law enforcement and whatever's reinforcing them on the one side, and criminals on the other the state and everyone else has already lost. Small time criminals avoid such a situation because the facade works against them, criminal syndicates avoid the situation because they need relatively stable environments to work in and from, the state avoids it because it would mean automatically losing.

i would have to say that i believe that they rely on the fact that most people are not out to commit crimes.

That's exactly what we've been saying. There are not enough police to control the population, so they put up a facade and rely on people accepting it.

i don't commit crimes not because i fear the law. i do not commit crimes because i would not want crimes to be committed against me. it seems to me that you are painting a picture that the vast majority are thinking "damn, i wish i could rape that chick and take her tv and car..." sure some think that way, but mostly people know that it is wrong. at least that is what i think.

the local police are around, not to intimidate but to protect and serve. but lets not pretend that there are not corrupt individuals even in their ranks that perpetrate crimes as well. they are human beings too. prone to moral failings as anyone. but for the most part, people want a good life for themselves and their families. they need less 'policing' than others. and so, just how many police are needed to maintain a balance of law and order. apparently more than are in some little town in AK.

[Snorri1234]

i don't commit crimes not because i fear the law.

But do you fear the law?

i do not commit crimes because i would not want crimes to be committed against me.

While that is a philosphy I can get behind, it doesn't actually work in the real world like that. You can commit crimes without anyone doing something against you, and you can be the victim of crimes when you've never committed one yourself.

it seems to me that you are painting a picture that the vast majority are thinking "damn, i wish i could rape that chick and take her tv and car..." sure some think that way, but mostly people know that it is wrong. at least that is what i think.

Rape is a little different. But stealing is something mostly not done because of the repurcussions. I think that in your place those are mostly social ones, but in the big city it's different. You can't say that you would never commit a crime if there were no negative consequences. It's a philisophical topic which has been discussed numerous times and was portrayed by I believe Plato who came up with the story of a ring which made the wearer invisible. Plenty of people would commit crimes if they could get away with it. (And get away with it for real, no falling on the social ladder, no cops, nothing. The only real difference would be that you have a new tv or car.)

the local police are around, not to intimidate but to protect and serve.

Maybe not to you, but they do intimidate. They tell people that committing crimes could land them in prison, merely by walking on the street in their uniform.

[DaGip]

We're goin' to pop dem in DaHead!

WTF?!?!?!

[black elk speaks]

i don't commit crimes not because i fear the law.

But do you fear the law?

i do not commit crimes because i would not want crimes to be committed against me.

While that is a philosphy I can get behind, it doesn't actually work in the real world like that. You can commit crimes without anyone doing something against you, and you can be the victim of crimes when you've never committed one yourself.

it seems to me that you are painting a picture that the vast majority are thinking "damn, i wish i could rape that chick and take her tv and car..." sure some think that way, but mostly people know that it is wrong. at least that is what i think.

Rape is a little different. But stealing is something mostly not done because of the repurcussions. I think that in your place those are mostly social ones, but in the big city it's different. You can't say that you would never commit a crime if there were no negative consequences. It's a philisophical topic which has been discussed numerous times and was portrayed by I believe Plato who came up with the story of a ring which made the wearer invisible. Plenty of people would commit crimes if they could get away with it. (And get away with it for real, no falling on the social ladder, no cops, nothing. The only real difference would be that you have a new tv or car.)

the local police are around, not to intimidate but to protect and serve.

Maybe not to you, but they do intimidate. They tell people that committing crimes could land them in prison, merely by walking on the street in their uniform.

i don't want to get a moving violation, i guess that keeps me in check. its not so much the police that i fear as the fine and points against my license. committing crimes can land you in jail, its true. but you are suggesting that the police are the ones that decide that. i do not believe that is true. the legal system is what executes punishment and determines what happens to you. with a good lawyer, you could get off with a warning. however, if you are continually getting pinched for a petty crime, then you are likely to be incarcerated.

but why we are talking about this, i forget. is it right for the local government of whatever AK town it was to institute a near marshal law state? i don't know. without hearing more than the aclu's out cry about how bad it is, i really don't have an opinion. the aclu after all was the org that thought that nambla should have free speech rights (personally opposed). Not every organization should be free to convene when its principals are against the law.

[Juan_Bottom]

but why we are talking about this, i forget. is it right for the local government of whatever AK town it was to institute a near marshal law state? i don't know. without hearing more than the aclu's out cry about how bad it is, i really don't have an opinion. the aclu after all was the org that thought that nambla should have free speech rights (personally opposed). Not every organization should be free to convene when its principals are against the law

Hold up not. the ACLU is just definding rights. irreguardless of whiich ones or whos. NAMBLA has the right to speak, though everyone is opposed to them. I think its fine that the ACLU defended their right to speak. Because they weren't defending their message.

I don't think it is right for the city to put civil liberies on hold either. If I lived their I would not be tolerating. Remember, if a government official is violating your rights, then they are automatiaclly no longer an official. All the officers enforcing this are open to be arrested for impersonating an officer. This is an increadibley slippery slope...

This comunity must be poor... they don't seem to be hiring lawyers, or protesting their rights.

[black elk speaks]

first, irregardless is not a word.

second, when your message is that it is okay to circulate pamphlets about how it is okay for grown men to have sexual relations with under aged boys, then, no you do not have the right to speak and promote that agenda. it is stagetory rape.

third the community in question was under attack by gangland violence. open gun fire in the streets. it is the mayors right as the government head of the city to issue a 48 hour curfew. that is about the end of the discussion right there. it was his right to do so. he did it to bring the gunfighting between two rival gangs to an end and gain control of the streets.

what bugs me the most is how people have the tendency to get up in arms about a media slanted article and not bother to get an opposing view point on the situation to balance their understanding of the situation.

[Visaoni]

I'm not going to bother going through and get all the quotes.

Black elk, I applaud your efforts to teach gun safety to your son. If there is a gun in the house, I am in total agreement that he should know the responsibility he has whenever he is holding a firearm. I'm not so sure what I think of taking him to a shooting range at age 9, but it would be irrelevant in any case. Your training with your gun and keeping it within usable range at all times is not the average gun owner, or I least I don't think so. I'm willing to agree that your house may be safer with the gun in the house assuming you aren't a deep sleeper who might not wake up until a criminal has already grabbed your gun.

When I said that the police enforcing the curfew would be enough to handle the crime, I think you misunderstood me somehow. I realize that all of those officers were only able to be there because all of the police officers in the city were on duty for a large amount of those few days. I simply meant that rather than using those officers to enforce martial law, they could have just been there doing almost exactly the same thing, except for letting average people go on with their daily lives.

As far as my comment about increasing crime, I wasn't serious. Rises in unemployment do increase crime, but I doubt (or at least hope) that none of those people lost their jobs over a city mandated curfew. I said it was a stretch for a reason.

Anyway, enough right-left arguing, as you said.

As far as NAMBLA goes, I think almost everyone will agree that their message is sick and disgusting. While I personally disagree with their message, the ACLU did the right thing. I would understand if the ACLU had refused, but I would also think less of the ACLU. They have a mission, and they must fulfill that mission fully. They can't pick and choose or they are just as bad as what they fight against.

[Juan_Bottom]

first, irregardless is not a word.

You're not a word!

Firstly, you never capitalize anything. That is an automatic fail. It's in the Juan Rules.

You don't know me, so I'll say that I'm just zinging you.

second, when your message is that it is okay to circulate pamphlets about how it is okay for grown men to have sexual relations with under aged boys, then, no you do not have the right to speak and promote that agenda. it is stagetory rape.

How is that not a legal thing to do?

it is the mayors right as the government head of the city to issue a 48 hour curfew. that is about the end of the discussion right there.

Not really, because it violates your rights as a citizen. The Federal government, under the constitution, are the supreme law, not the mayor.
It's an interpretation.

he did it to bring the gunfighting between two rival gangs to an end and gain control of the streets.

We know why, but the city is saying that the ends justify the means. That's the arguement.

what bugs me the most is how people have the tendency to get up in arms about a media slanted article and not bother to get an opposing view point on the situation to balance their understanding of the situation.

I'm not one of those people. I'm a very political person, who has read the Decleration of Independance, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution.
I'm one of thosew people who thinks it is never ok to suspend your liberties. Unless under Martial Law(with just cauze of course).

Your training with your gun and keeping it within usable range at all times is not the average gun owner

Yes, it's pretty normal. Most hand-guns guns are kept in the bedroom(usable range). I don't think training is all too common, but it's probably not uncommon. Safety training, however, seems more rare(from people I've talked to).

until a criminal has already grabbed your gun.

That part made me laugh for some reason. You're asleep while a bad guy rummages through all of your things, finds a gun, and decides to shoot you.
I think that if the bad guy didn't come armed, the thought of killing someone proabably makes them weak in the knees.

As far as NAMBLA goes, I think almost everyone will agree that their message is sick and disgusting. While I personally disagree with their message, the ACLU did the right thing. I would understand if the ACLU had refused, but I would also think less of the ACLU. They have a mission, and they must fulfill that mission fully. They can't pick and choose or they are just as bad as what they fight against.

Ditto.

[Nikolai]

Everything else that has been stated here is out of my scope in this thread, so I'll stick to this comment.

and no action taken by a city government, unless it infringes upon authority specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution, can be unconstitutional. The only possible exception is anything happening in Washington, D.C., where the city government is Congress.

sorry to burst your bubble on this, but take into consideration the supreme court ruling that recently overturned the ban on handguns (legally owned) in the dc area. this was deemed unconstitutional against the second amendment. local dc government was overruled and now citizens are free to carry hand guns again. thank god. now the criminals arent the only ones that are armed.

as for the declaration of martial law, i believe that is constitutional. to declare that it is not is to take away a governments ability to provide security to its citizens. if you don't like it, move

Umm...



Did you somehow miss the part where I mentioned D.C. as the sole exception to this rule, since it is managed directly by Congress - a.k.a. the federal government? "local dc government" is synonymous with Congress.

Martial law is something called extraconstitutional, being, as it is, a suspension of normal law - including the Constitution, where applicable - and application of military law. In this case, it doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't come into the question. But no, taking away the ability to declare martial law doesn't take away a government's ability to provide security to its citizens. It may reduce it, but it won't take it away. Of course, the Founding Fathers valued liberty much more highly than security, so they were less worried about removing government's ability to provide security and more worried about ensuring that government would not infringe upon certain liberties. Hence the 2nd amendment, among other things.

[Juan_Bottom]

Quick question... InYourOpinion is D.C. technically unconstitutional as it's citizens are not allowed to elect their officials?

[black elk speaks]

first, irregardless is not a word.

You're not a word!

Firstly, you never capitalize anything. That is an automatic fail. It's in the Juan Rules.

You don't know me, so I'll say that I'm just zinging you.

second, when your message is that it is okay to circulate pamphlets about how it is okay for grown men to have sexual relations with under aged boys, then, no you do not have the right to speak and promote that agenda. it is stagetory rape.

How is that not a legal thing to do?

it is the mayors right as the government head of the city to issue a 48 hour curfew. that is about the end of the discussion right there.

Not really, because it violates your rights as a citizen. The Federal government, under the constitution, are the supreme law, not the mayor.
It's an interpretation.

he did it to bring the gunfighting between two rival gangs to an end and gain control of the streets.

We know why, but the city is saying that the ends justify the means. That's the arguement.

what bugs me the most is how people have the tendency to get up in arms about a media slanted article and not bother to get an opposing view point on the situation to balance their understanding of the situation.

I'm not one of those people. I'm a very political person, who has read the Decleration of Independance, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution.
I'm one of thosew people who thinks it is never ok to suspend your liberties. Unless under Martial Law(with just cauze of course).

Your training with your gun and keeping it within usable range at all times is not the average gun owner

Yes, it's pretty normal. Most hand-guns guns are kept in the bedroom(usable range). I don't think training is all too common, but it's probably not uncommon. Safety training, however, seems more rare(from people I've talked to).

until a criminal has already grabbed your gun.

That part made me laugh for some reason. You're asleep while a bad guy rummages through all of your things, finds a gun, and decides to shoot you.
I think that if the bad guy didn't come armed, the thought of killing someone proabably makes them weak in the knees.

As far as NAMBLA goes, I think almost everyone will agree that their message is sick and disgusting. While I personally disagree with their message, the ACLU did the right thing. I would understand if the ACLU had refused, but I would also think less of the ACLU. They have a mission, and they must fulfill that mission fully. They can't pick and choose or they are just as bad as what they fight against.

Ditto.

"you are not a word" makes no sense.

so i don't capitalize. i don't make up words in an attempt to sound smarter than i am. were this a term paper, official document or client bound email, i might take the time.

nambla's message, that it is okay to seek sexual relationships with under age boys, is against the law because the action that it inspires and promotes is. change it around that it suggests that it is okay for middle ages men to seek our 14 year old girls and post that on a billboard. start another thread about that if you want. it really is off topic here.

the mayor has the right to govern his city. it is a right that was granted him by the city. one of the tools at his disposal is the right to enact a curfew for up to 48 hours. that may or not be the right of every mayor, i honestly do not know, but he was within his right to enact the curfew. as such, the aclu has no grounds to intervene as the local government was acting in accordance with the local statutes put in place by its own representatives. you can agrue till you are blue in the face that this somehow tramples the us constitution, but in the end, the government has and maintains the right to take action that will subdue an out of control population to protect the citizenry they are to govern. just like they have the right to quarantine people in the event of an outbreak of a contagious and infectious disease. it is for the greater good.

the justification is in the means simply because the means are not illegal and are within the rights of the governing body of the mayoral office.

how many articles did you read that didn't paint the curfew as a blatant abuse of power and the trampling of rights. you have to seek out an opposing view point in order to discern for your self the validity of the reasons that this took place. i read one from each side. the site that sited that started this thread had advertisements that touted the aclu and bashed Bush. it appeared to me to be a left wing propaganda site. this is why i sought an opposing view that was in support of the action. hold the two side by side and i learn that there were 4 days of open gun fighting in the streets in the area under curfew before the curfew was initiated. the people were already prisoners and the key to free them was to bring heavy police and security to the streets. this was made safer for the officers and the people around by eliminating people from the street and forcing people to stay in their homes. that is the way that i see it anyway and i invite you to bring other views to the table. please feel free to change my mind.

[black elk speaks]

Umm...



Did you somehow miss the part where I mentioned D.C. as the sole exception to this rule, since it is managed directly by Congress - a.k.a. the federal government? "local dc government" is synonymous with Congress.

Martial law is something called extraconstitutional, being, as it is, a suspension of normal law - including the Constitution, where applicable - and application of military law. In this case, it doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't come into the question. But no, taking away the ability to declare martial law doesn't take away a government's ability to provide security to its citizens. It may reduce it, but it won't take it away. Of course, the Founding Fathers valued liberty much more highly than security, so they were less worried about removing government's ability to provide security and more worried about ensuring that government would not infringe upon certain liberties. Hence the 2nd amendment, among other things.

yes, i suppose that i did.

they sure did value liberty more than security. but i doubt that they had much tolerance for lawlessness such as was rampant in the streets of the city in question. sure they would not have had a problem ordering people to stay in their homes long enough to give authorities the time to secure the area either, nor would those citizen of the day been so daft as to complain about the authorities taking armed gunmen off of their streets. i suppose people need something to complain about. if its not about how the police aren't doing their jobs, then surely they must complain about how they are doing their jobs.

[Nikolai]

Mebbe... I'm more inclined to think at the time of the Revolutionary War, the citizens would've just shot the dumbass who was shooting up their patch of woods and moved on. Police? 'S that a fancy name for Ol' Bessie here? Screw you and your damn curfew, I'll go fix this up myself, right now.

I guess my inclination is to think that once things get to the point of gun battles in the streets, there just isn't a good answer left. Unfortunately.

[Juan_Bottom]

"you are not a word" makes no sense.

You makes no sense.

nambla's message, that it is okay to seek sexual relationships with under age boys, is against the law because the action that it inspires and promotes is.

But talking about it isn't illegal.
Same as being a racist.
Or being an enviromentalist.
It was just a case of protecting someones freedoms of speech, which in turn, protects everyones freedom of speech.

start another thread about that if you want.

Actuaally, I had started that exact thread a while back. It was all crAzY!!!

it really is off topic here.

It's ok though, Mr. NoCaps, because I'm the OP.

the aclu has no grounds to intervene as the local government was acting in accordance with the local statutes put in place by its own representatives. you can agrue till you are blue in the face that this somehow tramples the us constitution, but in the end, the government has and maintains the right to take action that will subdue an out of control population to protect the citizenry they are to govern.

I'm argueing that the local government step over it's bounds, because the Federal Government holds power ofver local government. But really, I'm certain that they city will pay for this. They made a very public, very illegal move.

the government has and maintains the right to take action that will subdue an out of control population to protect the citizenry they are to govern.

Each level of governing has it's limits though. Otherwise this town might have it's own private army or something.

And the quarentine thing is way out in left field, by comparason.

how many articles did you read that didn't paint the curfew as a blatant abuse of power and the trampling of rights.

It is, IMO. Because, I do know my rights. That's what I was saying. It was for that same reason that I said that the Police have opened themselves up for a lawsuite because they were impersonating officers of the law. In fact, if they wrote out any tickets or anything..... you can sue their wives and everyone who helps them to spend their paycheck. Because they recieved ill-gotten gains.

hold the two side by side and i learn that there were 4 days of open gun fighting in the streets in the area under curfew before the curfew was initiated. the people were already prisoners and the key to free them was to bring heavy police and security to the streets. this was made safer for the officers and the people around by eliminating people from the street and forcing people to stay in their homes. that is the way that i see it anyway and i invite you to bring other views to the table. please feel free to change my mind.

I'm not saying that the end result wasn't positive for the community. I'm saying that the means wasn't. They broke the law to acheive their short-term goals.
In fact, It's pretty much BS because the city left the neighborhood to get that bad anyway.

Furthermore... It's not like the gangs/bad guys were removed anyway. They just put a cease-fire on the escalating violence.
Anyway, that's not my point. My point is that your liberties are untouchable.

[black elk speaks]

"you are not a word" makes no sense.

You makes no sense.

nambla's message, that it is okay to seek sexual relationships with under age boys, is against the law because the action that it inspires and promotes is.

But talking about it isn't illegal.
Same as being a racist.
Or being an enviromentalist.
It was just a case of protecting someones freedoms of speech, which in turn, protects everyones freedom of speech.

start another thread about that if you want.

Actuaally, I had started that exact thread a while back. It was all crAzY!!!

it really is off topic here.

It's ok though, Mr. NoCaps, because I'm the OP.

the aclu has no grounds to intervene as the local government was acting in accordance with the local statutes put in place by its own representatives. you can agrue till you are blue in the face that this somehow tramples the us constitution, but in the end, the government has and maintains the right to take action that will subdue an out of control population to protect the citizenry they are to govern.

I'm argueing that the local government step over it's bounds, because the Federal Government holds power ofver local government. But really, I'm certain that they city will pay for this. They made a very public, very illegal move.

the government has and maintains the right to take action that will subdue an out of control population to protect the citizenry they are to govern.

Each level of governing has it's limits though. Otherwise this town might have it's own private army or something.

And the quarentine thing is way out in left field, by comparason.

how many articles did you read that didn't paint the curfew as a blatant abuse of power and the trampling of rights.

It is, IMO. Because, I do know my rights. That's what I was saying. It was for that same reason that I said that the Police have opened themselves up for a lawsuite because they were impersonating officers of the law. In fact, if they wrote out any tickets or anything..... you can sue their wives and everyone who helps them to spend their paycheck. Because they recieved ill-gotten gains.

hold the two side by side and i learn that there were 4 days of open gun fighting in the streets in the area under curfew before the curfew was initiated. the people were already prisoners and the key to free them was to bring heavy police and security to the streets. this was made safer for the officers and the people around by eliminating people from the street and forcing people to stay in their homes. that is the way that i see it anyway and i invite you to bring other views to the table. please feel free to change my mind.

I'm not saying that the end result wasn't positive for the community. I'm saying that the means wasn't. They broke the law to acheive their short-term goals.
In fact, It's pretty much BS because the city left the neighborhood to get that bad anyway.

Furthermore... It's not like the gangs/bad guys were removed anyway. They just put a cease-fire on the escalating violence.
Anyway, that's not my point. My point is that your liberties are untouchable.

you're just being antagonistic. you should consider not being that way. it really debases your arguments. i suggested that something that you wrote makes no sense. surely there are others here that can make sense of what i am saying, even if they don't entirely agree. they are simply better at civil dialog that you are.

talking about something is not illegal. this is true. even if that thing is man boy love sex... whatever. providing a manual for how to get away with grooming and having sex with under age boys is. "The Rape and Escape Manual" was allegedly posted on the nambla site at one time and was allegedly serving as how to guide to rape. this kind of publication is attractive to pedophiles and is not legal printing. think of the anarchist hand book here. you aren't allowed to read it. perhaps you are right though when you say "which in turn, protects everyones freedom of speech." i will concede that.

as to local government overstepping its bounds. local government is given the authority to do things like curfew's. if it were only available to the federal government, how long would it take to get one? the mayor was within his rights because the local laws afforded to him gave him the right. if the law says that he can do it, it isn't illegal.

seriously don't you know that militias exist today? the states have their own 'military' so to speak.

you didn't answer the question about how many articles you read. you offered your opinion, i think, based on one leftist article.

the removal of the 'bad guys' remains to be seen. if i had to speculate, it sounds to me as if there was a lot of violence that exploded in a small area and there was not time to form a strategy to quell it. i would say give it time and see if the area doesn't improve.

and i don't think that your liberties are untouchable. i just think you are to complacent in what a real challenge to those liberties would look like. so you can't write a book about how to skirt the law when you sodomize a ten year old. if you want to read that, you should be castrated, IMHO (look at that, some caps for you. guess you cam't call me Mr NoCaps anymore.)

but i digress.

[Juan_Bottom]

you're just being antagonistic. you should consider not being that way. it really debases your arguments. i suggested that something that you wrote makes no sense. surely there are others here that can make sense of what i am saying, even if they don't entirely agree. they are simply better at civil dialog that you are.

Oh yeah? Well "They are simply better at civil dialog that you are" makes no sense. HAHAA!!!!

Also, why so serious? This is the web... You can inbed humor into your posts, that is ok. The humor here being how serious you are, on the web.

if it were only available to the federal government, how long would it take to get one?

It is only availiable during Martial Law. That is why we have Martial Law. That is the point. Local governments cannot have the right to impose curfew because federal supercedes local law. See every Supreme Court deciosioon in the 250+ years.

local laws afforded to him gave him the right.

By denying your rights as an American Citizens. If you actually commit a crime, then you yourself are giving up your rights(most of them).
This is illegal, on th Federal level. That's the point. On what level do you disagree with that exactly?

you didn't answer the question about how many articles you read. you offered your opinion, i think, based on one leftist article.

1 artical. I implyed 1 artical. I don't need to read two, because it is a fact that they imposed a curfew. Which is illegal. The "leftist" view doesn't enter into it. However, my own knowledge of the fact that that was a clear violation of their rights was.
I implyed all of this... I thought...

seriously don't you know that militias exist today? the states have their own 'military' so to speak.

None of them are actually affiliated with their home state. They are just a group of like-minded citizens. And I applauad them(except the racist ones). But they are not given training or anything by the state.

you can't write a book about how to skirt the law when you sodomize a ten year old.

But it is still legal to do so.
The Feds can't touch the man/woman who rights it......
But if some citizens want to lynch the guy who wrights that, well..... My mouth is shut, over a smile....

IMHO (look at that, some caps for you. guess you cam't call me Mr NoCaps anymore.)

See now you're getting it... wait till you discover smileys!

[MeDeFe]

talking about something is not illegal. this is true. even if that thing is man boy love sex... whatever. providing a manual for how to get away with grooming and having sex with under age boys is. "The Rape and Escape Manual" was allegedly posted on the nambla site at one time and was allegedly serving as how to guide to rape. this kind of publication is attractive to pedophiles and is not legal printing. think of the anarchist hand book here. you aren't allowed to read it. perhaps you are right though when you say "which in turn, protects everyones freedom of speech." i will concede that.

Sorry, bes, but that's not something anyone can tell me, you can forbid producing and distributing the work, but you cannot make it illegal for people to read it. What would you base such an action on?