Crime-ridden Arkansas town expands 24-hour curfew

Crime-ridden Arkansas town expands 24-hour curfew

news.yahoo.com

Officers armed with military rifles have been stopping and questioning passers-by in a neighborhood plagued by violence that's been under a 24-hour curfew for a week.

On Tuesday, the Helena-West Helena City Council voted 9-0 to allow police to expand that program into any area of the city, despite a warning from a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas that the police stops were unconstitutional.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Personally speaking - and I realise I may be in a minority here - this seemingly extreme measure looks to have been taken for the common good, although expanding the curfew to all parts of the city seems a little OTT.

The big question is, when does police protection and safety concerns start to infringe on civil liberties, and at what point do we stop and say NO MORE?

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

you are dealing with local law enforcement? Then "no more" happens when the mayor feels that he will not be re-elected if he doesn't stop.

they should have done this in my town when the latin kings were trying to take over the drug trade. i live in a very high traffic area of west texas, and there is a LOT of various drugs brought into/through this area.

For the good of the people, I believe a polite, respectful society is needed to combat anti social behaviour. The only solution, would be a full out police state, of which would stop violence in the home and violence out in the streets.
People will learn to be kind to each other weather they like it or not, I support this idea and hope it increase's to bring a large stamp down on individuals who feel it is ok to bring other peoples life's to a ruin.

Just how bad is the crime there?

Are they suffering from a massive gang war or what? What exactly is the nature of this huge crime rate?

My biggest problem with mandatory checkpoints, curfews, and the such is the prescedent that it sets.

Tyranny won't come with a big bang....but with incremental steps that slowly erode the right of it's citizens..."because it looks like a good idea and keeps the people safe."

If we took this idea of protecting the people from the "plague of violence," why not block off NYC, Chicago, and LA under the guise of terrorist checkpoints? Large cities have more crime.

Could we be seeing test cases? Low scale exercises?

I can see the "good of the people" argument, and don't get me wrong...people have a right to be secure in the homes and posessions..but where do people like this councilmans concerns begin, and the right of the people to move in a free society end?

"As far as I'm concerned, at 3 o'clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law," Councilman Eugene "Red" Johnson said



[edit on 13-8-2008 by cdoug1]

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


I live around 100 miles away, and while I've never been there, everything I've ever heard about the town in the past (6-8 years ago) has been fairly positive. Then again, comparing crime data from 2001 and 2004, it appears that crime has been trending upward sharply, so it may really be that bad now.

Article including West Helena Crime Rates for '01 and '04



[edit on 13-8-2008 by vor78]

this type of policy should be instituted nationally. Many workers come into their jobs late or dont show up at all. using a curfew curbs this practice and improves emplyee performance boosting their efficiency. I dont work in a corporation im a student but if I did I think contracts should include these devices to improve morale and boost my earnings in my portfolio. In a global economy I think its important to stay competitive and individuals need to take responsibility for themselves. With these measures it makes our country a stronger competitive force to compete in the global economy.

If you want to solve the problem make gun laws more lax. Start arming the normal people. Right now just the thugs have guns and this is what you get. The 2nd Amendment is there for a reason and that is to protect yourself.

The citizens of that town want the police there stopping the drugs and the crimes. And like it said in the story, who needs to be out on the streets at 3 O'clock in the morning? Unless you are heading to work or the hospital you don't need to be out that late. They arrested drug and weapon criminals by doing this and haven't arrested anybody for the curfew. About time the police do what the citizens want.

reply to post by Solarskye


So if a person doesn't NEED to be out at 3am they should be questioned/stopped?

People don't NEED to be out at any time - they can take the car to work, get groceries delivered, heck they can even get beer delivered.

So all the innocent people should stay in their homes 24/7 to make the job that the police get paid for easier for them?

mmmm'K

From the source:

"Now if somebody wants to sue us, they have an option to sue, but I'm fairly certain that a judge will see it the way the way the citizens see it here," Mayor James Valley said. "The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution."


OK, now, I'm just a little slow, but does that make any sense to anyone???

There is already a thread for this here

www.abovetopsecret.com...'