Comments on: Akron, Too http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/ It rankles me when somebody tries to tell somebody what to do. Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:48:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Wayne http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88474 Wayne Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:12:15 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88474 And what is a "sweep" anyway? I "sweep" my kitchen floor every Saturday morning, but I spot clean it throughout the week to remove bits of food and larger chunks of crud. So on Saturday morning, all I pick up is microscopic dust, not really anything dangerous, just annoying little specks that build up over time. Seems a law enforcement "sweep" works the same way -- they found no guns, a few pockets of illicit drugs, some deadbeat dads, some people wanted for failure to appear in court -- ooooh, I feel safer now. I'm currently arguing with a co-worker here who thinks these sweeps are good, but she doesn't understand that it's just the "circus" part of the "bread and circuses" thing. And what is a “sweep” anyway? I “sweep” my kitchen floor every Saturday morning, but I spot clean it throughout the week to remove bits of food and larger chunks of crud. So on Saturday morning, all I pick up is microscopic dust, not really anything dangerous, just annoying little specks that build up over time. Seems a law enforcement “sweep” works the same way — they found no guns, a few pockets of illicit drugs, some deadbeat dads, some people wanted for failure to appear in court — ooooh, I feel safer now. I’m currently arguing with a co-worker here who thinks these sweeps are good, but she doesn’t understand that it’s just the “circus” part of the “bread and circuses” thing.

]]> By: Lennie http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88473 Lennie Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:11:59 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88473 I'd really like to get some more information on these drug confiscations. Do they seriously just search every patron in a bar when they're conducting "alcohol inspections?" Has that been upheld in court, yet? I guess nothing should surprise me anymore, but it's just so blatantly unconstitutional. . . . The only way you can think this is still a free country is if you never leave your property. I’d really like to get some more information on these drug confiscations. Do they seriously just search every patron in a bar when they’re conducting “alcohol inspections?” Has that been upheld in court, yet? I guess nothing should surprise me anymore, but it’s just so blatantly unconstitutional. . . .

The only way you can think this is still a free country is if you never leave your property.

]]> By: Wayne http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88467 Wayne Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:24:51 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88467 I was being facetious about the helicopter. I should have continued on and said that I expect that with more/better helicopters and more/better optical equipment, purchased as military surplus of course, thereby further contributing to the militarization of the police, these sweeps can become more "effective," whatever "effective" means to those that advocate these types of things. Heck, soon we'll have facial identification from police helicopters and be able to track down those damn annoying smokers violating the "no smoking within 20 feet of door" at the entrances of public buildings. I was being facetious about the helicopter. I should have continued on and said that I expect that with more/better helicopters and more/better optical equipment, purchased as military surplus of course, thereby further contributing to the militarization of the police, these sweeps can become more “effective,” whatever “effective” means to those that advocate these types of things. Heck, soon we’ll have facial identification from police helicopters and be able to track down those damn annoying smokers violating the “no smoking within 20 feet of door” at the entrances of public buildings.

]]> By: scottp http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88421 scottp Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:14:43 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88421 <i>the helicopter is watching for people dodging or running around checkpoints. this immediately gives them justification that the person running is a criminal.</i> While it may appear suspicious, avoiding a police checkpoint is not a crime. Nor is it evidence that the person avoiding it is a criminal. the helicopter is watching for people dodging or running around checkpoints. this immediately gives them justification that the person running is a criminal.

While it may appear suspicious, avoiding a police checkpoint is not a crime. Nor is it evidence that the person avoiding it is a criminal.

]]> By: Burrow Owl http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88312 Burrow Owl Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:09:54 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88312 " Its all a matter of semantics. Replace the phrase ‘unlawful unwarranted search’ with the word ’sweep’ and it magically changes the constitutionality of investigation. " Yep. Kind of like putting lipstick on a pig. ” Its all a matter of semantics. Replace the phrase ‘unlawful unwarranted search’ with the word ’sweep’ and it magically changes the constitutionality of investigation. ”

Yep. Kind of like putting lipstick on a pig.

]]> By: MacK http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88290 MacK Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:47:52 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88290 Were these patrons of the bars smoking joints, and snorting coke off the tables? If not what would be the probable cause for a search of any patrons? Last time I checked being in a bar, at the fair, or waiting for the bus was not a probable cause for search! Were these patrons of the bars smoking joints, and snorting coke off the tables?
If not what would be the probable cause for a search of any patrons?
Last time I checked being in a bar, at the fair, or waiting for the bus was not a probable cause for search!

]]> By: Against Stupidity http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88283 Against Stupidity Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:27:21 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88283 Its all a matter of semantics. Replace the phrase 'unlawful unwarranted search' with the word 'sweep' and it magically changes the constitutionality of investigation. The media should be ashamed of using colorful or nice sounding euphemisms and more people should have the intelligence to understand the true meaning of these euphemisms. Its all a matter of semantics. Replace the phrase ‘unlawful unwarranted search’ with the word ’sweep’ and it magically changes the constitutionality of investigation.

The media should be ashamed of using colorful or nice sounding euphemisms and more people should have the intelligence to understand the true meaning of these euphemisms.

]]> By: Marty http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88276 Marty Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:09:51 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88276 the helicopter is watching for people dodging or running around checkpoints. this immediately gives them justification that the person running is a criminal. the helicopter is watching for people dodging or running around checkpoints. this immediately gives them justification that the person running is a criminal.

]]> By: Wayne http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88259 Wayne Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:02:01 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/21/akron-too/#comment-88259 No guns confiscated in the largest gun sweep in Akron history? What does that mean? I'll bet means that the focus was on law-abiding gun owners and not on criminal activity. It's way easier (and far less dangerous) to intimidate a law-abiding gun owner than it is to hunt down a gang banger. Either that or the whole thing was just a show of force and you can count on (1) the police to show up at the scene of the crime to take your weapon after you shot someone in self defense or (2) the police to show up in the ER after you have been the victim of a gun crime to fill out a report. Also, exactly how do you use a helicopter in a gun sweep? From a thousand feet in the air, it would seem that the only guns you could see would be howitzer-type weapons, which I am sure are banned in Ohio. No guns confiscated in the largest gun sweep in Akron history? What does that mean? I’ll bet means that the focus was on law-abiding gun owners and not on criminal activity. It’s way easier (and far less dangerous) to intimidate a law-abiding gun owner than it is to hunt down a gang banger. Either that or the whole thing was just a show of force and you can count on (1) the police to show up at the scene of the crime to take your weapon after you shot someone in self defense or (2) the police to show up in the ER after you have been the victim of a gun crime to fill out a report. Also, exactly how do you use a helicopter in a gun sweep? From a thousand feet in the air, it would seem that the only guns you could see would be howitzer-type weapons, which I am sure are banned in Ohio.

]]>