ACLU Strikes again
The ACLU continues it's efforts to undermine the safety of New York City subways by again going to court to fight random bag searches as an "unjustifiable erosion of the privacy rights of the American public." Excuse us, but if you pay an admission fare to ride a subway, you ought to be subject to the rules of that agency. And if those rules include emptying out your bag and submitting to a search, then shut the hell up and do it. If you don't want to, you are welcome to walk. Or better yet, add your automobile to the teeming mess that is New York City traffic.
But the truly hilarious part in this whole story by the New York Sun is the ACLU hypocrisy whereby if you enter the ACLU headquarters, there is a large sign telling you that all bags entering the building are - WAIT FOR IT! - subject to search! So what makes the lawyers of the ACLU more deserving of protection than the working citizens of New York City? Hell, you can't even sneeze without getting snot on a lawyer in most of New York - they're like a dime a dozen.
But the truly hilarious part in this whole story by the New York Sun is the ACLU hypocrisy whereby if you enter the ACLU headquarters, there is a large sign telling you that all bags entering the building are - WAIT FOR IT! - subject to search! So what makes the lawyers of the ACLU more deserving of protection than the working citizens of New York City? Hell, you can't even sneeze without getting snot on a lawyer in most of New York - they're like a dime a dozen.
posted by SCC at 2:30 PM
37 Comments:
The problem with the whole "don't want to be searched, then don't ride the train" argument is that some people have no other means of transport. So you have what is essentially a low grade form of coercion. "You don't HAVE to agree to the search sir- you only HAVE to agree if you want to get to work on time..."
People will "voluntarily" give up their 4th ammendment rights if the choice is between that and not being able to put food on the table. What we are seeing here is the creation of a new zone for the suspension of fourth ammendment rights. These zones existed before today. Don't take your gun if you are going to fly or renew your passport or go to court. The difference seems to be that those occassions are relatively infrequent for people who don't make their living at the airport/federal facility/court building- and those who do have made the choice to give up certain rights.
This is different because never before have we as a country extended this zone to an area that affects so many so often. Even if you fly a lot- lets say once a week- you fly a lot less than the average commuter uses the subway- at least twice a day five days a week...
As a police officer I see the possible security benefits to these searches, but I also think that they pose some LARGE fourth ammendment issues. The subway is part of the municipal government, and therefore the constitution extends to its use (as opposed to being subjected to search to enter a private establishment...).
The aclu has an agenda of their own....make money for less than qualified attorneys, we all know that...
So on a more important subject, I'm in the process of researching the best ballistic vest to purchase in the near future.
I'm looking for the lightest most comfortable one on the market.
Anyone know anything about or own the Second Chance featherlite?
Comments please.
Well we're seeing the suspension of our rights because the immigrants who are coming to our country do not and WILL NOT be part of our culture and value systems - they will continue to do their own thing and have, and will, start using our own laws against us. Do you know why socialized medicine works (somewhat) well in Sweden, Denmark and Norway? Because they're all Swedes! The people who use the system understand the rules, and want to maintain the integrity of their healthcare system. The same goes for Norwegians in Norway and the Danes in Denmar. When Cholo and Guadelupe roll over the border with their 3 kids in tow, do you think that they wonder, "Hmmm. I want to be an American. I wonder how I can contribute to this great nations' history, politics and land." No.
This includes hiring ACLU thugs to sue because a muslim woman doesn't want to show her face on a drivers license photo.
I don't have a problem with the ACLU as a general matter. WHile their membership and issues generally tend Democratic, they hold their lines tightly and define their positions (lines) clearly. Thus, they have defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie and I think they defended Oliver North or one of dem Iran-Contra dudes.
Just saying.
To Rue, I think Finland is the best example of a scandinavianish country that works well. There is an occasional interesting article on travels in Finland that appears in the Washington Post. See washingtonpost.com for a searchable database.
As for Hispanics, people from South of the border make good Americans for the most part. They have had trouble integrating as have almost all ethnic groups since 1800.
There was a study 2 years ago or so that indicated that overall Hispanic homicide offender/victimization rates had dropped by half or so in 20 years (since 1982 or so), and they were now basically the equivalent of whites in this country.
Not necessarily in the southwest part of the 9th district or between Cermak and 26th st. in 010, but overall in the nation as a whole.
Heck, that includes a huge part of Texas, California and the greater southwest, where hispanics have been living peacefully and integrating for 150-400 years. Some are even, gasp, prominent Republicans.
And I'm not positive, but I think they contribute disproportionately to our military manpower. I say welcome aboard. No problem with immigrants generally here.
But from the terrorist countries, I think maybe its time to rethink immigration policies. Instead of a immigration presumption that they are okay to come unless we have specific reasons not to let them, perhaps its time to only let them only if we have a specific reason to let them. Like a CIA or military official who will say they were a good overseas resource, and are now endangered as a result of helping the U.S.
Otherwise, seems like its time to ban immigrants from 30 or so mostly-Muslim countries.
Something, anything, to start vetting our immigrants from that certain ethnic/religious group better. Tis a shame that its come to this, but it has and we must face reality here. I'm not directing this at anyone in particular.
As for the New York searches, the ACLU will not get anywhere.
4:03 Are you fuckin kiddin me or what? Why would anyone buy anything from Second Chance? Save yourself some money. Go to the lockup, get a papersuit and put it on. It will stop just as many bullets as anything from Second Chance and you will save a few bucks. Do a ltlle research before you ask stupid questions.
second chance at one time made a very good product
The president of second chance has been shot more times than any living human being
He wears the vest as demonstrations when he shoots himself
Theyve saved more officers too than anyone
Lately they had problems
I hope they fix them
ACLU Defends Nazis' Right To Burn Down ACLU Headquarters:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39182
What made this country great is freedom and liberty. That what our founders faught and died creating. Why did we give back freedom because of a few mopes? We need to either lock up or kill the mopes instead.
Our failed Drug War, the war against gun rights and a small gang of Muslims has caused us to get stopped, sniffed and searched everywhere we go.
I remember when air travel was fun. I could even carry my gun on flights without any B.S.
Times in this country have NOT gotten worse, Americans have just turned into cowards.
Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give the liberty for a little security deserve neither liberty or security."
Terry vs Ohio is a reasonable standard for any search without a warrant. Warrants are given out like candy.
The gun free zones are where the mopes can kill the sitting ducks without resistance.
so
And they also knowingly sold products that could not and did not stop bullets. They then tried to cover up those shootings in which Officers were wounded or killed while wearing Second Chance body armour falsely believing that they were protected by a good product.
the whole issue of illegal search and seizure laws are about drugs.
What else can it be about? You just HAVE to have that pipe bomb on you at all time??
Legalize drugs and the population will no longer complain about S&S's. People just want to get high, leave them alone.
The whole NY issue is immediate threats to public safety: guns, explosives, and bio-chem weapons.
i love the onion!!!!!!!!!
Hey 5:48:01.
Asking questions to fellow officers is doing research you dumb fuck...
I guess that's what I should have expected from this site.
Thanks for nothing shithead.
Let's research cancer.
Anyone have a cure, how bout it pos
How about you dumbass?
I'm pretty liberal minded for a P.O.,but the ACLU is wrong on this one.In light of the dangers we as Americans face from terrorisim and insurgency here and all over the world,I don't think it's unreasonable to submit to a search in a municipal subway.If bombs and poison gas devices can be used in Moscow,Tokyo,and London,they can be used in New York,Chicago,or Washington D.C.
When our founding fathers drafted the Constitution they had no idea that people would intentionally fly airliners into occupied skyscrapers
The Constitution needs to be tweaked to bring it in line with the times
How about this shit
Calif. court: false accusations against police are protected speech
By DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO- A federal appeals court on Thursday nullified a California criminal law adopted after the Rodney King beating that made it unlawful for citizens to knowingly lodge false accusations against police officers.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law was an unconstitutional infringement of speech because false statements in support of officers were not also criminalized.
The decision, hailed by civil liberties groups and opposed by state prosecutors and law enforcement groups, overturns the California Supreme Court, which in 2002 ruled that free speech concerns took a back seat when it came to speech targeting police officers.
Lawmakers enacted the law after a flood of hostile complaints against officers statewide following King's 1991 taped beating. The 1995 law is punishable by up to six months in jail.
The imbalance generated by the law "turns the First Amendment on its head," Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.
Darren Chaker, 33, of Beverly Hills, challenged the law after he was convicted in San Diego County in 1999 of making a false complaint against an El Cajon police officer.
Chaker appealed to California's courts, to no avail. A federal judge had ruled against him as well, so he went to the San Francisco-based appeals court.
"It was up to the police department to determine if the speech was false," Chaker said. "I made a complaint against a police officer for twisting my wrist and was charged as a criminal."
The American Civil Liberties Union hailed the decision.
"To us, it was a clear example to cut off criticism of the government," said ACLU attorney Alan Schlosser.
Michael Schwartz, a Ventura County prosecutor who on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association urged the appellate court to uphold Chaker's conviction, said he was disappointed with the outcome.
"It's a controversial issue that people disagree about," he said. He said the statute in question is used sparingly.
San Diego County prosecutors said they were considering asking the appeals court to reconsider or asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.
11/05/2005 02:13:04 AM
get over it already
you need therapy
she dumped you, she doesn't want you.
quit trying to stir it up
get another hobby besides stalking
PSYCHO!!!!!!!!!
although off-topic some people have been discussing Second Chance- so here's what my research shows- Their vests, other than the Zylon based ones which have been pulled- are just fine and dandy. Yes they WERE a bunch of tools and weren't forthcoming when they should have been- but that doesn't matter anymore because they were bought by Armor Holdings Inc- same people who make American Body Armor and Safariland vests. Also in case anyone was wondering- according to an NIJ study- time alone does not diminish a vests stopping power:
"Age alone does not cause body armor's ballistic resistance to deteriorate.The care and maintenance of a garment--or the lack thereof--have been
shown to have a greater impact than age on the length of service life of a unit of body armor. Armor that is 10 years old and has never been issued may be perfectly acceptable for use, provided that the rated level of protection is still appropriate for the typical threats faced. Conversely, 2-
or 3-year-old armor that has been worn regularly and improperly cared for may not be serviceable.
Limited studies of the ballistic-resistant capabilities of armor used for extended periods of time were initiated in 1983 by DuPont, at which time some of the armor tested had been in service for more than 8 years. Both
the DuPont testing and a 1986 study by NIJ[22] (Ballistic Tests of Used Body Armor) found that age alone does not degrade the ballistic properties of armor. Armor manufactured in 1975 that remained in inventory without
issue exhibited ballistic-resistant properties identical to those at the time of manufacture. Both research studies included armor that had been in use for
as long as 10 years and that had ballistic properties that were
indistinguishable from those of unused armor manufactured at the same time."
...so if you WORE a vest for 5 years it may need to be replaced- but if it sat in a box for ten its fine...
To 10:07am,
Thank you, I was looking for advice on the purchase of a vest, looked into the manufacturers and dealers and got the same answers "buy ours its the best", so I figured I would go to the guys who wear them daily, and you helped me out. Thanks again.
And for the tough guy who relates questions about armor to the cure for cancer...again, go fuck yourself.
Mr. 2:12
First of all, congrats on your soon to be 29 & a day, I must suggest that your premise that the constitution needs to be tweaked, to as you say, bring it in line with the times, is wrong.
I know runon sentence, sorry.
Our constitution, despite being over 215 years old, is flexible enough to deal with issues that the members of the Constitutional Convention could not even dream of.
To address an issue that is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the courts look to the most similar issue, which is addressed in the constitution.
For example, while abortion is not mentioned in the constitution, the Supreme Court determined that the right to privacy, is a constitutional right, drawn from the fourth amendment, and used that as the basis for Roe v. Wade.
Furthermore, did you know that our constitution is the oldest constitution in the world, and that approximately 60% of all nations have based their constitutions on ours?
Now if we could get good judges, thats a different matter.
I am a LAWYER, My goal in life is to get rich fucking up this country as much as I can. Freedom of speach is dead. The right to bare arms is dead. The right to you privacy is dead. America as we knew it is dead...
Now the good news, I just bought my own corp. jet...
"speach" and "..(t)he right to bare arms...", counselor?
Did you go directly from 8th grade spelling to law school?
Mr 4:53 is wrong. The Constitution is not "flexible". If a right to "privacy" can be applied to abortion, why not drug use, suicide, gay marrige, poligamy, etc. The Constitution is not flexible, but can be amended throught the process laid out in article 5 of the Constitution. Look it up. The right to amend the constitution does not belong to the courts.
Everytime the courts pervert the Constitution to fit their personal opinions, democracy in our republic is eroded away.
TO - 11/05/2005 04:53:00 PM
Please do NOT emanate into the penumbra.
The "right to privacy" is a myth perpetuated by leftist trolls and judicial activists to stick the government into all sorts of crap they have no right to be in.
To 05:32
I have a staff to correct my
type-Os.
Why is it yu never post anything in regards to or in debate of the topic??? Ten times a day you post the same thing. Hey, you mis-spelled a word. What are you in 8th grade?
How about a response to the subject at hand.
Take your RED pen and stick it up your ASS.
Let me know if this post is not up to your standards.
Because an over educated diot liberal yuppy can only do that, spell correctly. Put it ( and I mean a liberal yuppy ) into a situation that requires a split second decision such as Police work and that liberal yuppy goes right to peices. ( Oh Im sorry, I before E except after C) Thats why all the over educated idiots are making a mess out of this department. They make all these over educated decisions from behind a desk without ever consulting with their best source of information, The Front Line Police Officer. Fuck you and your egos.
I misspelled idiot in 1st sentence. Im in front lean and rest for the day.
As opposed to rear lean and rest --
Just an Academy joke!
Laughing...good 1
Actually its "leaning rest."
The guy that says he worked in a law office did actually work there
he just was the Xerox man
making copies
Hey 10:08-
Overeducated is one word.
Thank god 70-80% of promotions are based on test scores.
signed,
Overeducated Copper
Hey overeducated, I would take a high school diploma over any one of you educated goofs anyday.
Just because a word is misspelled means nothing. 70 to 80% of those you talked about are 99% sure to coward out of a tense situation. Ive seen it a thousand times in the last ten years. Big deal...we didnt use spell check.
Your all a bunch a csi wanna be's. Learn the job as you go along and forget the educated yuppy crap. The problem with you educated mopes is your all individuals. There's no I team.
Here's an interesting case the
ACLU sponsered holding that the requirement for a sworn affidavit for a complaint against a police officer is unconstitutional.
California case, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Chaker v. Crogan, 03-56885
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CFA461FFB98287D4882570AE000E1261/$file/0356885.pdf?openelement
"Lighten up Francis."
The mispelling call was a joke. But if you honestly think that having some cops with education is a BAD thing- you're nuts. We need all sorts of skills on this department. I'm glad we have former military, and I'm glad we have computer guys too, you just can't let civilians run all the specialized jobs in this department, it won't work. I personally like the "school or military" choice- both have lots to offer...
-Overeducated Copper (I didn't really want to turn that into some form of user name but I guess I'm stuck with it for this series of posts...)
To 02:53-
If you read the case, it won't affect our complaint process here. The reason the false complaint law was struck down there is that it only had a penalty for a false COMPLAINT. It had no penalty for any other type of statement about police. Our system uses the affidavits on complaints but our law relates to sworn statements period. It does not matter what the subject of the statement is.
<< Home