If things slip too much farther, people will realize that they’ll lose everything if they don’t act, and decide that–since they’re likely to lose everything regardless–they’d rather be the ones to choose the time and place.

If someone breaks into your house and claims to be a policeman but offers you no opportunity to confirm that, is the person more likely to be:

-1- A burglar or robber

-2- A cop who is breaking in legitimately

-3- A burglar or robber who’s on the government payroll

In case #1, shoot the intruder. In case #2, don’t shoot. In case #3? You’ll probably end up dead if you shoot the crook, but if you accede to the government the power to do as it likes to you without cause and without retribution, what would you have left that was worth living for?

Unfortunately, not enough people acknowledge the government burglars and robbers for what they are. Hopefully that will change before the country drifts too far toward totalitarian anarchy.

I have come to believe that one major reason we haven’t already seen major unrest over the abuse of police power in this country is that too many people believe that they have “too much to lose”. So it is very dangerous for police to ramp up the misuse of their power at the same time the economy seems to be going downhill.

Just because a policeman gives an order does not necessarily make it a lawful order. Lots of protesters and onlookers in DC are arrested for failure to “move along.” They are almost always released after a few hours and before arraignment on any charge. This is because the arrest may have been of dubious legality (although sometimes the dismissal is because of the sheer volume of arrestees, even though there may be probable cause for several of them).

And Jake – McArdle is correct. We are gradually surrendering our rights. However, we are surrendering them to both the police/state and to gangs/mobs/thugs. The country will be in for rough times no matter who is elected POTUS.

chsw

“The checkpoint will stop vehicles approaching the 1400 block of Montello Avenue NE … Police will search cars if they suspect the presence of guns or drugs, and will arrest people who do not cooperate, under a charge of failure to obey a police officer, officials said.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060402205.html

How could this possibly legal? Last I checked, probable cause is required to search a vehicle…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060402205_pf.html

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/DC_checkpoint_plan_latest_police_state_0604.html

According to the Washington Post article, the police are really planning on playing hard ball & will arrest anyone who fails to ‘cooperate’ with their demands for identification and an explanation for daring to drive along a public street:

“‘In certain areas, we need to go beyond the normal methods of policing,’ Fenty (D) said at a news conference announcing the action. ‘We’re going to go into an area and completely shut it down to prevent shootings and the sale of drugs.’

The checkpoint will stop vehicles approaching the 1400 block of Montello Avenue NE, a section of the Trinidad neighborhood that has been plagued with homicides and other violence. Police will search cars if they suspect the presence of guns or drugs, and will arrest people who do not cooperate, under a charge of failure to obey a police officer, officials said.

The enforcement will take place at random hours and last for at least five days in Trinidad, with the option of extending it five more days. Checkpoints could be set up in other neighborhoods if they are requested by patrol commanders and approved by Lanier.”

I figure if these enforcement operations aren’t challenged & squashed in their infancy, we can expect to see them in every major city across the country in five years or so.

“I hope that when the police ask for their papers, people will hand them a copy of the Bill of Rights too.”

The real question is what are freedom loving Americans going to do about it?

Nothing, because there are too few such Americans left anymore. Most Americans are happy being sheep.

So “none of your business” would apparently not be an “acceptable” response in the DC program.

The police must go through normal warrant procedures for a home search. The ACLU, therefore, may be a bit alarmist in their actions in Eckington. However, the police can legally place checkpoints and ask drivers and passengers what business they have in the Trinidad neighborhood of DC. Drivers and passengers do not have to answer, or they can respond “NOYB.” However, they cannot lie when they answer the police. The police also cannot stop the drivers and passengers from going through Trinidad without cause, although they can take down the vehicle’s plate number and do a plate check.

If the law-abiding citizenry of those rough, gang-infested neighborhoods were allowed to defend themselves with handguns, perhaps the police would not have to resort to extreme measures like those the NYPD used.

BTW, your reader is rightly concerned about being on the police’s s-list. There might be a probability that the police go back to a court for a warrant to search the home. Probable cause is up to the judge before whom the warrant application is placed.

chsw (DC native, ex-Chicagoan, NYer since mid 1980′s)

Is this Baghdad or Washington D.C.?

Somebody must put a stop to all of those damn suicide bombers and sectarian killers driving around D.C.!!!!

I would suspect that the only thing the DC government has to do to make this Constitutional, or to at least give it the blush of Constitutionality, is to declare some kind of “state of emergency” in these neighborhoods. That generally gives the police state a much greater latitude in restriction of residents’ movement.

Since I know it’s not clear from the tone of my above post, let me just say that this plan makes me sick to my stomach. I’ve long suspected we already live in a police state which has effectively hidden its iron hand in a velvet glove of “for your own safety and that of your children”. If they manage to implement this plan, that will simply be the proof of my fears.

During the late 80s, there were blocks in New York City that had similar restrictions on access. I think there were court challenges, but I don’t remember the details. A quick google search didn’t turn up anything.

A similar program was instituted in New York in the late 90s. Here’s one account from the time. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07EED71331F932A15750C0A96F958260