Police Chief Deploys Officers With Assault Rifles To Stop & ID Everyone; Says Local Crime Stats Give Him Probable Cause
from the your-police-chief-needs-to-talk-less-and-listen-more dept
It's been frequently posited that the US is slowly becoming a police state, what with the near-constant surveillance of citizens, the "Constitution-free" zone surrounding our borders, the endless hassles of attempting to board a plane, NYC's controversial "stop-and-frisk" program, and the many security agencies that either were created or greatly expanded post-9/11.Apparently, "slowly becoming" a police state isn't fast enough for the police department of Paragould, Arkansas. In response to an increase in crime, the Paragould PD will be deploying armed officers into high crime areas, clad in SWAT gear, to check IDs on any residents they happen to encounter.
[Police Chief] Stovall told the group of almost 40 residents that beginning in 2013, the department would deploy a new street crimes unit to high crime areas on foot to take back the streets.You know who else doesn't like to be talked to by police armed with AR-15 assault rifles and dressed in tactical gear? Damn near everybody. Since it is written exactly nowhere that US citizens are required to carry identification at all times, this sort of "papers, please" activity is going to please no one and do very little to make anyone feel any "safer." (And Stovall, your jurisdiction doesn't really cover things like determining what should or shouldn't offend constituents.)
"[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."
Stovall said while some people may be offended by the actions of his department, they should not be.
"We're going to do it to everybody," he said. "Criminals don't like being talked to."
Despite the obvious issues with this plan, the mayor is fully onboard and ready to start violating some rights!
Gaskill backed Stovall's proposed actions during Thursday's town hall.Fantastic. Now pets will need some ID as well, not to mention be willing to sign a statement in your defense, should the need arise. Despite the dubious aspects of this plan (of which there are several), Chief Stovall has convinced himself that not only is this necessary, but fully justified.
"They may not be doing anything but walking their dog," he said. "But they're going to have to prove it."
Normally, police would not stop individuals for simply walking on the street, but Stovall said the level of crime in certain areas and concerns from residents gave his officers the right to institute the actions announced at the town hall event.I'm sorry, but crime statistics in aggregate do not automatically convert citizens into "suspects." I'm completely baffled that someone would actually say, out loud, that crime statistics equal "reasonable suspicion." That's some messed up police work right there. And it gets worse. Here's some more statements from Stovall, which range from "flabbergasting" to "you DO realize you're still on the record?"
"This fear is what's given us the reason to do this. Once I have stats and people saying they're scared, we can do this," he said. "It allows us to do what we're fixing to do."
Stovall further elaborated on the stop-and-ID policy Friday morning, claiming the city's crime statistics alone met the threshold of reasonable suspicion required to lawfully accost a citizen.
"To ask you for your ID, I have to have a reason," he said. "Well, I've got statistical reasons that say I've got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you're doing out. Then when I add that people are scared...then that gives us even more [reason] to ask why are you here and what are you doing in this area."
Individuals who do not produce identification when asked could be charged with obstructing a governmental operation, according to Stovall... "I'm hoping we don't run across [any] of that," Stovall said. "Will there be people who buck us? There may be. But we have a right to be doing what we're doing. We have a zero-tolerance. We are prepared to throw your hind-end in jail, OK? We're not going to take a lot of flack..."
Stovall said he did not consult an attorney before announcing his plans to combat crime. He even remained undaunted when comparing his proposed tactics with martial law, explaining that "I don't know that there's ever been a difference" between his proposals and martial law.Note that Stovall did not consult an attorney. If he had, he might not be as breezily confident about his "Police State of Paragould, Arkansas" plan. Here's what City Attorney Allen Warmath had to say, which attempts to walk back a some of Stovall's claims.
Warmath said while he had not directly spoken to Stovall, he understood that the street crimes unit would actually be less confrontational than Stovall let on...Stovall himself has taken to the Paragould PD website to walk back a few of his claims as well, perhaps prompted by the heat he's received for his earlier statements.
As for having IDs, he said citizens wouldn't have to worry about that, either. He said the police would not arrest residents solely for failing to produce identification when asked.
Most often, this identification process will be nothing more than making contact with a subject, handing them a business card, and asking if they live in the area and if there's anything we can do for them. During hours in which crime seems to be more prevalent (i.e. between the hours of 11pm and 5 am), our process will become more stringent. We will be asking for picture identification. We will be ascertaining where the subject lives and what they are doing in the area.Well, that is very different from the "zero tolerance" toss-your-non-ID-having ass in jail portrait he painted before the criticism began rolling in. Suddenly, it looks like an actual police operation that might fall within the limitations imposed on it by the Constitution. Stovall also clarifies the SWAT team look he was playing up earlier.
To give a little background information, several of our patrol officers already carry AR-15 rifles in their patrol vehicles. The AR-15 and police work is nothing new. Our Street Crimes Unit will not be wearing them constantly. That would be impractical. As we have stated in our meetings, our main purpose of mentioning this was to prepare our residents in the event that they saw an officer armed with one. When our officers deploy into areas where there is the potential for contacting several subjects in a high-crime area, that is when the potential deployment of AR-15's will occur.Stovall states the new patrols are not out to "violate anyone's rights" but it's hard to square this intention with the thought process that turns aggregate crime statistics into a "reasonable suspicion" blank check. Finally, he bemoans the lack of attendance at town hall meetings held by the police department regarding its new anti-crime street patrol (fewer than 100 people attended the first two meetings)... and then cancels the remaining town hall meetings because they might be "unproductive" (and full of angry citizens).
In the interest of public safety, we have elected to cancel the remaining Town Hall Meetings.Wow. I can't imagine why people might be angry... or why Chief Stovall might want to dodge the backlash. This is the fundamental disconnect infects so many of those who create and enforce laws. Chief Stovall feels these tactics are completely justified and doesn't even flinch when they're compared to martial law. This is the person calling the shots, someone who institutes something that skirts the very edge of Constitutionality without even consulting an attorney. The message being sent is that the police will play by their own rules, with the citizens expected to be helpful, grateful, cooperative and, at all times, in possession of an ID, a clean criminal record and full justification for any suspicious "walking around" they might be doing.
We have corresponded with numerous residents and non-residents today alone who were both supportive and against our Street Crimes Unit and Town Hall Meetings. Some of the correspondance has caused us great pause in whether or not the meetings should remain as scheduled.
As the police department, it is our duty to protect ALL residents and non-residents from harm. We feel that with the strong feelings on both sides of the Street Crimes Unit issue, a safe and productive meeting would not be the probable outcome.
And when the backlash hits, Stovall first tries walking his statements back before turning around completely and running away from the issue. So much for listening to "suggestions" and "feedback." Say hello to armed patrols and "papers, please."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: arkansas, id, paragould, privacy, probable cause
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, We in the North still have issues with these Southern Bible Bashing States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They already do a lie detector test and psychological screening, but yet from what I've heard from friends applying there is no apparent effort to screen out racists/mysogynists or people who get sexually aroused at the prospect of martial law. But if you smoked a joint in the last 12 months? Can't be a cop. Those are some good priorities right there. I guess the CONSTITUTION doesn't rank as high as pot for police departments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But lie detector tests are worthless, and psychological screening has a very large margin of error.
Prescreening can only get you a small part of the way there. You also have to have a policy of immediately firing officers who misbehave and not hiring officers who've been fired from other police forces for misbehavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The courts are making life difficult for the people, so I'm cancelling judicial authority."
"Everyone is protesting, and it's unproductive, so I'm going to cancel protests."
"We can't ensure safety at the polls, so we just going to cancel elections. No biggie. Don't worry I can still be your leader for the next 3 to 4 decades."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so fast there, citizen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so fast there, citizen...
Not an exceptionally large step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not so fast there, citizen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On a wholly unrelated note, the Paragould PD website is proud to announce that "In 2002 statistics were gathered and declared in 2003 that Paragould was recorded as the Safest City in Arkansas with a population of 20,000 plus."
http://paragouldpolice.org/index.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That just means your brother wasn't your father, and you were, most likely, safe around your relatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The actions of one state in this union cannot possibly represent the actions of an entire nation as a whole. New York, New York's police state is baffling even to us who live in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(On a side note, Wally, I noticed someone left a very interesting two final comments on the "Live by the patent" article. Regarding a few things you stated about a device you claim to own. Namely that you were completely wrong about something you claim to own and information regarding it. Any chance we could get a followup on that? Namely, do you make shit up regularly? Or only when it suits you to try and prove some kind of non-point? The given example above being a perfect one. You're either completely lying or just grossly misinformed and using said misinformation to prove a point that couldn't be more wrong, unless you really tried.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
New York is the quintessential nanny/police state. New York City is the poster child of that image as it's more pervasive there than anywhere else in New York.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Having said that, having the state dictate how much soda you can have in your cup is pretty fucked up.
So, "quintessential"? No. "Nanny-state"? Yeah, pretty much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. I'm not asking you to comment about what was previously stated. I was pointing out that someone left two comments calling your credibility into question on said article.
2. Don't bust out the "it would only be proper to continue that debate there" card. Lest I be forced to point out the numerous times you've brought up Apple in non-Apple articles. Or lest I be forced to point out the time you had your breakdown (or better said multiple times) regarding your Ars banning. All of which was posted on Techdirt. What was it again, Ars and the weather changing? Yeah, you're definitely one to tell others what's proper or not, shrink.
3. I'm not acting like OotB. Stop with the "Everyone who questions me is a troll!!!" bit. It's old and says quite a bit about you. Mostly that you are incapable of handling criticism. Interesting given your area of study and career field. One who likes to study and analyze others but who doesn't like it when the tables are turned.
4. "It will bring you nothing but grief." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wally, I've seen you "be mean" to others. Please. Spare me. And by that I mean your idea of bringing grief is so pathetic, it'd be a waste of both our time for you to even try. You couldn't cause me any grief even if you tried and even if I gave you ammo to use, but I could push your buttons to no end with nary an effort. And have. ;)
5. You failed to answer the main point raised above. Namely, the one asking whether or not you are full of shit (as pertains to what you stated about 2-liter sodas above, and which was flat out said to be completely false by the person who replied to you and who I replied to) and just make things up to seem smart and in the know? Or do you just misstate things to try and make a point, which is a non-point, because of how blatantly false what it is you say is? There is a difference between the two questions. One is basically you lie because you want to seem smart, the other is you are clueless and embellish because you're trying to make a point. Both are pretty bad. This is me calling your credibility into question.
6. That comment over on the "Live by the patent" article wasn't left by me, fyi. It was someone else entirely. Obviously someone who had more time than I to fact check and call you out on your bullshit. But hey, they're entirely correct about what they said (I checked after the fact). I salute that person. And you can't label them "troll" like you usually do because they clearly aren't.
So bring it, Wally. Respond to my points above. I dare you. At the end of the day, I will bring you grief and you will bring nothing to the table beyond excuses for why you are the way you are (I was dropped on my head, that's why I flip out on trolls). Really?! This is me playing the world's saddest song just for you. Funny how select that injury is. Trolls cause insanity. Mhm. CoughBULLSHITcough. But yeah, you should definitely be psychoanalzying others. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The state is the central governess of local parishes or counties who are represented in districts of said counties and parishes. The county seat is the local representing body of the towns and cities of a county..which is broken up into townships.
I have a firm grasp on the meaning of statehood and representation in my country.
A police state means that a governing body is using law enforcement in excess of its normal duties and powers (which is to protect and serve the public)...which is New York, New York.
The TSA and DHS are run at a federal level but employ through state agencies. This is why the incidents we see involving those two organizations are so isolated to certain states known for bigotry (Texas...towards the disabled), or excessive force (California, Oregon, Washington (state), and New York).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The FBI is a federal agency, but it's various branches are run by the bylaws applicable to each state branch.
Sort of hard to explain plainly. But the DHS hires in state workers and agents to manage things.
Now as far as "police state" is concerned, the word "state" is used as in the same way as "state of being". It's an adjunctive description to a noun which places the noun as being something.
Secretary of State is a diplomatic position given to our head representative to other nations...Hilary Clinton ranked above all US ambassadors in her position of Secretary of State....they are third in line for presidency in case the president and VP somehow die.
You missed the following:
"A police state means that a governing body is using law enforcement in excess of its normal duties and powers (which is to protect and serve the public)...which is New York, New York."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"A police state is a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population."
"A state is an organized community living under a unified political system, the government. States may be sovereign. The denomination state is also employed to federated states that are members of a federal union, which is the sovereign state."
- Wikipedia
The use of the word "state" in the term "police state" isn't about a state of being, it's a reference to the polity that has instituted a strong police presence in everyday life.
Your references to your mother and the FBI and a description of the Secretary of State's role in the federal government have nothing to do with and don't support your assertions.
What does your mother working for DHS have to do with anything? Is that an appeal to authority?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the keystone in the art of communication, without it communication fails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"A police state means that a governing body is using law enforcement in excess of its normal duties and powers (which is to protect and serve the public)...which is New York, New York."
Your statement:
"The use of the word "state" in the term "police state" isn't about a state of being, it's a reference to the polity that has instituted a strong police presence in everyday life."
Tell me, what in my statement describes a strong police presence to control the populace??? Look up the word excessive some time.
If your country is in a state in which a policy was instituted allowing strong police powers with a pervasive presence in daily life... the state of being is in fact...a police state. Stop while you're ahead or or send my wife in to give you a US 2nd grade English lesson...
Maybe I was trying to give an example as to how federal agencies have branches at the state level in an attempt to clarify that certain states' actions do not reflect on a nation as a whole. That the issues are clearly localized.
ie....the ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources...EPA), or better yet...your local DMV...or still better, your state branch of the department of transportation (ODOT in my case).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep defining the term "police state" your own way and in a way that others do not mean when they use the term. You can feel free to define it however you like, but you can't change the meaning to argue against another person's perspective and expect others to go along with your new meaning. You're trying to tell Tim that his usage of the term was wrong because it didn't match your (uncommon) usage.
Tim used the term "police state" in reference to the whole nation (since the phenomena he cited don't occur only in one state) and he used the term consistently with the way it is used and understood by others.
The reference to the whole nation as turning into a police state can include, but not be limited to, actions of several individual states, counties, municipalities, or federal agencies. It's the collective pattern of actions taken by various government and law enforcement groups that makes the nation as a whole closer to being a police state. New York is not the only state where the police are used in excess of their regular duties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You clearly missed the point I was making where the actions of a few cities and states within a nation do not constitute an entire nation being a "police state". Anyone who would have pulled that stunt in the article in any city in Ohio, would immediately be fired without pension. You know who set up that rule???? The police union...it holds themselves accountable.
There are states that have laws defining specifically what probable cause is, and the State of New York isn't one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tim didn't say the US is a police state, but that many people have said that it is becoming a police state. That would indicate that not everywhere in the country resembles a police state at this moment. He cited examples (many of which weren't located in New York) to illustrate the claim.
"what is a governing body??? Do not avoid that question...."
"A governing body" is a term that can refer to any number of organizations, governmental, educational, religious, and otherwise, that administrate something. It's a very general term. I still don't see what the relevance of your use of that term is in the greater discussion. You might as well be asking what a poptart is as far as it is relevant to whether or not the federal government, several individual states other than New York, counties, and municipalities enact police state-like policies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So no, you cannot clearly differentiate between the definitions of nation and state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sign up now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sign up now
And btw, where the hell is the justice dept, you know ... those people whose job it is to stop this type of BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sign up now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Must be a government experiment that got away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Jeffrey Nonken on Dec 21st, 2012 @ 8:15am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We should detain all pregnant women.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here are my dog's papers officer....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LAPD's CRASH pt 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prove it
No, actually. There's this little thing called innocent until proven guilty. YOU have to prove that I'm committing a crime, not the other way around.
"Well, I've got statistical reasons that say I've got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you're doing out"
Unless those statistics say that over half the citizens are committing a crime at any particular time, that is not "probable" cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prove it
I don't object to the police ASKING people for ID, but saying you'll be arrested for not having it goes way too far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prove it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prove it
I do think the cops should be required to specify the nature of the the interaction they're initiating: is it a casual chat? Are they detaining you? Arresting you? These distinctions are critically important. You have the right to (and absolutely should) ask the officer what the status of the interaction is, but talking with the police is scary and intimidating for most people and they're too afraid to ask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prove it
And the police use that known fear to get people to give up their rights without a fight. Unless they've have reasonable suspicion of you doing something, they can't even require you to give them your name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prove it
This is not entirely true, but close enough. However, cops can ask you for your name without any reason whatsoever -- just the same as I or any other person can do. The question is whether or not you are legally obligated to give it to them. That is the bit that should be made explicit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prove it
Unless they tell you that you can't leave...you are not obligated to tell them anything (and shouldn't, unless you want to just say "hi" and keep walking.) They must tell you if you are not allowed to leave, and at that point they must have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime, are in the process of committing a crime, or are planning to commit one in the immediate future. That suspicion must be based on things other than the skin color, age, etc., and in this case, looking down the barrel of a gun while walking your dog (which would not normally be suspicious, except the looking down a barrel of a gun part.) Anything else is unlawful detention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prove it
A police officer stopping to say "Hi, How are things going?" is a lot different to "What the f*ck are you doing here?" In the former, I would just say "fine, thanks for asking" and keep walking. Cops are humans too, and most cops like talking with people just to get a feel of the land. If a police officer said the later, I'd be really concerned about calling my lawyer before answering that question. The former should be legal, the later is obviously a violation of your civil rights and there should be at a minimum reasonable suspicion that you are up to no good (and not just because your skin is darker or you have a different surname than most of the folks in the neighborhood.)
I do think the cops should be required to specify the nature of the the interaction they're initiating: is it a casual chat? Are they detaining you? Arresting you? These distinctions are critically important. You have the right to (and absolutely should) ask the officer what the status of the interaction is, but talking with the police is scary and intimidating for most people and they're too afraid to ask.
Above all, you should know that it is your right to not talk to a police officer at all if you don't need to. At least in California, they must tell you if you are being detained or arrested before doing so. If you don't respond and start walking away from them, they better have reasonable suspicion or probable cause before detaining or arresting you, and it can't just be because you choose not to talk to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prove it
Well, there's the nice theory—and then there's what actually happens in California when someone walks away from a deputy.
“Family says son with Down syndrome struck, pepper-sprayed by deputy”, 10 News, Dec 20, 2012
(Emphasis added.)
‘Not knowing’ is like not being able to articulate a reasonable suspicion, isn't it? I mean, it's sorta like ‘not knowing’.
According to Sheriff's Department Captain Joe Rodi, when a deputy doesn't know whether someone is involved in something, that “suspect” had better not try to walk away. Otherwise the “suspect” is liable to beaten with a baton, kicked, pepper-sprayed and put in the hospital.
People who don't have Down's syndrome, of course, just know better than to try to walk away.
While the family has contacted an attorney, how many people want to bet that a jury is going to blame the retard for getting beaten up. Not too bright to try to walk away from a deputy. Retarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prove it
It isn't a theory, it is the law, and I suspect Mr. Martinez will be a lot richer walking away with a portion of our tax money when this is over.
Do police officers make mistakes? Yes. Doesn't make it right. However, in the story above, unlike this situation where a deputy in question made a mistake which will likely get him fired or put on probation, the Police Chief is actually saying that he will break a few constitutional amendments and likely overstep his legal bounds in the name of keeping people safe. Totally different situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prove it
Papers please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prove it
its very much guilty till proven innocent in this country, I have seen it and dealt with it enough myself, the cops enlarge in this country just wana get an arrest and conviction they dont give a flying fuck about the truth as long as they get an arrest and conviction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See: http://paragouldpolice.org/press_view.php?id=83&PHPSESSID=b1a6322b0bc46589ec3674f1044e5cb8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"it always helps to read local propaganda to ascertain what is actually going to happen."
FTFY
Must be a cop.
"these encounters, however, will be done within the bounds of the Constitution."
Contradicts:
"They may not be doing anything but walking their dog," he said. "But they're going to have to prove it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven Seagal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
time to vote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even with the Onion stories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even with the Onion stories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Even with the Onion stories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The crime here is so low that police get bored. There may be certain "high crime" areas, but the "high crime" areas in this town are better than the "low crime" areas of Memphis, TN. I know the area he's talking about. It's not that bad. You're not going to get shot. You might get solicited for meth, but you're not getting shot.
I haven't seen a single AR15-armed officer, so I'll believe it when I see it.
The local politics here are stupid. The judges are stupid (well, one that I'm familiar with)... the local cable/electric/utility muni-owned company is stupid... This is a town where if you vote against tax increases, then you hate children. I've never run into cops, but I've heard they're not bright either.
Sounds like this idiot has already backed down on his plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You just watch. Next thing you know... zombie infection. Either that or an alien invasion. Time to clean that shotgun and stock up on shells!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, according what I heard on the History Channel, the end-of-the-world happens this evening at 6pm, along time-zones. So I expect the guys in New Zealand already had the zombie infection outbreak and it is working its way here now as we speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> tax increases, then you hate children.
There's an entire state where they say about you if you vote against tax increases. It's called California.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Submission
Fear
Control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was thinking Castle Wolfenstein.... All you have to do is kill the Police (SS Stormtroopers) loot their uniform, then use it to fool all the other police into trusting you while you kill them from behind...
"Kommen Sie!" and show me your papers....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really, all this plan will do is push the crime into areas that aren't being patrolled this way--'cause the cops can't be everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From United States v. Cortez:
Courts have used a variety of terms to capture the elusive concept of what cause is sufficient to authorize police to stop a person. Terms like "articulable reasons" and "founded suspicion" are not self-defining; they fall short of providing clear guidance dispositive of the myriad factual situations that arise. But the essence of all that has been written is that the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture—must be taken into account. Based upon that whole picture the detaining officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. (emphasis mine)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You go Taxpayers!! W00t!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For real?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For real?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For real?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG, really?
I mean seriously ... don't people just go for a walk without having a reason? What happens when your reason isn't good enough to be "out walking" ... holy crap.
Even worse: what happens if your a visitor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As news gets out, i dont think they will have to worry about that. No one would want to go there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
"Actually, I heard there was a high crime rate around here, so I left my wallet at home"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You also know what criminals don't like? Walking! If the police are going to accost pedestrians, criminals are just going to drive everywhere...as they already do, because even halfwits know criminals are lazy. Oh wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fact Check
They resemble an assault rifle, but it's just cosmetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fact Check
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fact Check
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004, defined an assault weapon as thus:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
The current discussion Federally is to introduce the law again, using California's definition, which is a rifle with one of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches [762 mm].
Depending on the AR-15 model and the definition, they may very well fall into the definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fact Check
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fact Check
It won't. John is dead on...it isn't how the gun looks, it is its purpose, and that is where any ban falls short. If I buy a receiver for an AR-15, and deck it out to the point it looks like an evil-black-rifle, and don't fit within the stupid definitions above, I am good. The law only cares about how it looks.
The Grand-Poster said that an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. I was just pointing out that an AR-15 could be, given the legal definition of an assault rifle. If I have an AR-15 with a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine with more than 10 bullets, it is an assault rifle in California, even though it may not be elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fact Check
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to Craft a Better Assault Rifle Ban.
There are some rounds which are ballistically similar to the 5.56 round, the so-called "varmit" rounds, such as the .220 Swift. These are designed for killing a small animal which you do not want to eat, eg. a rabbit or woodchuck which might be raiding your garden. However, these are somewhat limited in application. For one thing, there are rules about how close to an occupied dwelling you can discharge a firearm. I believe that in West Virginia, the distance is five hundred feet. In practice, most of the reasonable places to put a garden are under the ban. There is a small population of large commercial vegetable farmers, who are a different story. In any case, a varmit rifle is typically bolt-action for greater accuracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to Craft a Better Assault Rifle Ban.
There are some rounds which are ballistically similar to the 5.56 round, the so-called "varmit" rounds, such as the .220 Swift. These are designed for killing a small animal which you do not want to eat, eg. a rabbit or woodchuck which might be raiding your garden. However, these are somewhat limited in application. For one thing, there are rules about how close to an occupied dwelling you can discharge a firearm. I believe that in West Virginia, the distance is five hundred feet. In practice, most of the reasonable places to put a garden are under the ban. There is a small population of large commercial vegetable farmers, who are a different story. In any case, a varmit rifle is typically bolt-action for greater accuracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fact Check
"Assault weapon" is a legal term, which was chosen to be similar to assault rifle for political positioning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fact Check
There are aftermarket devices that bypass the restriction of semi-automatic fire to provide burst/full auto mode with one pull of the trigger. Isn't that by definition against the law unless you have the appropriate licenses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or hating copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
LOL
You walk around with a 'kick me' sign on your back, don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You never made it past the second grade, didn't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally!
They want to do it, they can do it, and their opponents have never responded with anything more than mass complaints and peaceful protests, neither of which can stand against armed soldiers ready and willing to shoot to kill at the first sign of opposition.
Rule of law is dead. It's well past time for the tyranny behind the scenes to take center stage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Picture Identification
But they'll still be asking for picture identification.
In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the US Supreme Court made it a point that Nevada law did not require a person detained to present picture identification but only to provide his or her name. Had the law required detainees to present picture identification, the outcome could have been different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Picture Identification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would /so/ get you 'detained' but...
Heck, sell enough of them and you could also use some of the proceeds to help pay the legal fees for the lawsuits that will come about if this crazy plan goes ahead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
96% of all criminal convictions come from what you say to an officer in the first 5 minutes of an encounter. Remember, remain calm, breathe, keep your hands where the officer(s) can see them.
Never participate in casual conversations with Police. If you are stopped on the street by a cop, ask "Am I Being Detained?" If cops must engage in casual conversation with you, they don't have enough information to bust you...yet. Don't answer their questions. If you aren't being detained, then WALK AWAY. If you are being detained, ask why and remember the officers name.
"I do not consent to a search. I'm going to remain silent. I want to speak with my lawyer"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? Really? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jeez
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: jeez
would make crazy fucks think twice, kinda like the loose carry laws in KC where gun crime is VERY low....criminals and nuts think twice when theres a good chance they will be the ones getting shot....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Predicted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pedestrian
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bizarre
> more prevalent (i.e. between the hours of
> 11pm and 5 am), our process will become
> more stringent. We will be asking for
> picture identification. We will be ascertaining
> where the subject lives and what they are
> doing in the area.
He still doesn't say what, if anything, he'll do if during those more stringent times someone says, "Sorry, I was just out for a walk and didn't bring any ID with me." Or refuses to explain why they're in a particular part of town-- which citizens are under no legal obligation to do.
> This is the person calling the shots,
> someone who institutes something that skirts
> the very edge of Constitutionality without
> even consulting an attorney.
You're being far too generous here. This doesn't just skirt the edge of constitutionality, it launches itself clear over the border and deep into enemy territory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's get 50,000 American Citizens walking their streets with no ID!
By the People, FOR the People mr. police chief. You want totalitarianism, get your behind someplace else where that's the system - NOT in the U.S.A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's get 50,000 American Citizens walking their streets with no ID!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Police cheif is asking for problems!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
idiocy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From where I sit (Australia), I think you're already there.
Your country is seeming more and more fascist all the time, and my fear is only how much you're going to able to push that agenda on the rest of us, in the rest of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Police state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ACLU challenge detected...
Time to dump these clowns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All wrong
http://www.kait8.com/story/20389250/ppd-clears-up-martial-law-speculation
http://live.huf fingtonpost.com/r/segment/town-in-arkansas/50d090ba78c90a45c600028f
Please get the TRUE version of this story out and STOP spreading the sensationalized bogus story that was first reported.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Town hall low attendance indicates less fear than claimed.
If the townspeople were truly widely terrified of being the victims of robberies or violent crimes, wouldn't there have been high attendance at any widely-announced event that claimed to be about what to do about the crime wave?
The low actual attendance suggests to me that the claims of "widespread fear" were a tad overblown ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UAV Drones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was the Police chief..
Himmler and Beria would be proud of the chief.
This program should do wonders for tourism in Arkansas. Not
It would be interesting to see a high profile civil rights attorney take a walk down the street and get arrested and then sue the crap out of the town.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem Solved
Oh my gosh, didn't TSA do that for VIP travelers. I knew I heard this before, thats right it was done in 1939!
The police state is not coming guys its here. You just have to look for it. But when this city gets sued and it will the chief will be replaced and a P.R. program of we only meant to protect you, by taking away your liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]